|
|
Post by wildcat on Jul 20, 2007 5:18:40 GMT -6
Example why faster=space, slower=compressed When doing open field tackling or open field blocking drills, do slower, weaker, less athletic kids excell or usually fail in big spaces? They usually do quite poorly. Now if you put 2 Dummmies 1 yard apart and ask the same unathletic player to do a close quarters blocking or tackling drill, agains the very same player, how is he going to do? At least in this situation he at least has a chance and may get a piece of the kid. I think your basic premise is faulty...in the game of football, you can roughly divide kids into two groups - 2-pt players and 3-point players. In other words, kids are (generally speaking) either linemen or non-linemen. There is an old saying about putting a good kid in a bad position...in your scenario described above, that sounds EXACTLY like what happened. Would you also say that faster, more athletic kids usually fail at close quarter blocking drills while slower, weaker kids often do well at them? Again, sounds like you are putting a good kid in a bad position... But it is just wrong to state that the only reason that offenses that put athletes "in space" work is because the kids are fast and athletic...there is just as much (if not MORE) coaching that goes into proper stances, releases, route running, attacking technique of defenders, etc, etc than there is for for offenses that compress the field and have a smashmouth philosophy. |
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jul 20, 2007 7:28:29 GMT -6
Wildcat... That is spot on... The entire space vs compressed formations is so subjective... Just as is the "good" vs "bad" player. There is nothing universal about players... it is completely subjective... your bad player, becomes pretty good on my team!  However, if we are speaking on players that are better than our opponents players... then where do you want him... 1 on 1 in an open area.... or 9 vs 10 in a compressed area? I think the real conversation boils down to... my 1 or 3 individual studs vs 1 to 3 of your studs.... OR my best 9 vs your best 9. Or as Double Wingers set it up... my best 9 vs your best 6? Football is a question of matchups... Spread formation folks enjoy the individual matchup opportunities... whereas the power folks look to the group matchups, numbers advantages at the point of attack. Neither is right or wrong, but they both want good to great athletes. Compressed formations are great for fast kids... start everyone out bunched up, seal the end, and have your fast guy out run everyone... |
|
|
|
Post by touchdowng on Jul 21, 2007 20:12:17 GMT -6
Seems that the WingT AND Bone & Veer Option take the least amount of talent - No offense to those who run these.
In the wing - you succeed with middirections and blocking angles - Discipline and toughness are the key
Easy to coach as three backfield actions (Belly, Buck, Down) can all built into three to four different plays
In Option - you succeed with reading the defense - Precision and toughness come into play.
Very few plays to teach but you can succeed in this attack
In 25 years of coaching, I have seen coaches do more with less talent with these attacks.
The Offense requiring the most talent (pure athleticism) would be multiple 1 and 2 back attacks. Teams that succeed with these usually have a couple (or more) of marquee players whereas the Wing and Option teams can get it done with average players.
|
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jul 23, 2007 8:19:43 GMT -6
When outmanned when my linemen are smaller and slower than the other teams average linemen and my skill position players run 4.9s to the oppositions 4.6s and 4.7s Im not going to get great matchups, no mattter what I do. Playing my kids "in space" gives them little chance of succeeding If Im in this situation.
I'm not talking about putting a kid in the wrong position as to getting beat. Talent is relative, if the best you have on your team is the best for that position relative to the other kids on your team that year, he is in the best position for the team regardless of how he stacks up against the talent of opposing teams. You have to play with the hand that's dealt no matter how bad it may be.
When playng a very fast team, do you try and run wide and create space or do you try and take away some of those advantages by running right at people?
|
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Jul 23, 2007 9:05:34 GMT -6
When playng a very fast team, do you try and run wide and create space or do you try and take away some of those advantages by running right at people? So are you saying that you are going to change your offense week-to-week based on the relative speed of your opposition? How do your know that the other team is faster than your team? IMO, speed is pretty hard to gauge on film...are you going to ask the other coach to send over a list of his player's 40 times? Also, why is it that some coaches who post on this board never seem to have any good athletes...it is ALWAYS the other teams athat have the better athletes. The way some coaches here talk about their players, you would think that Jerry Lewis or the Muscular Distrophy Society was sponsoring the league...  |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 23, 2007 9:25:53 GMT -6
"fast" or "slow", or perceived athletic flaws are all subjective.
Though, I think the crux of the argument is "How do I give MY players a strategic edge"?
4.4 athletes on defense can become 5.0 players when they hesitate, are confused, find themselves out of position.
Conversely, a 5.0 can play like a 4.7 player when he is sure of himself and his assignment and his responsibilities are within his athletic capabilities.
I have to believe most offenses are trying to gain a strategic edge....to keep the defense out of rhythm. Otherwise, defensive players jobs are relatively easy, and they will get aggressive, and tee off and come after you.
How some coaches acheive a strategic advantage is through
1) misdirection
2) alignment / leverage
3) athletic mismatch
4) tempo change
any way you can go about any of those 4 is 'game'.
putting a gangly 5.0 receiver type in the slot can "work" if the defender responsible for him also has to worry about inside run, outside run, screen, pick/rubs, etc........now does that defender "see what he THINKS he sees.......?"
( see Looming Effect )
The bottom line is get the ball snapped and into the hands of SOMEONE to gain yards. If you can threaten more real estate on any given down, the more the defense has to defend, I would imagine.
|
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jul 23, 2007 9:57:16 GMT -6
I think most of us know if we have a fast and athletic team or not. For those teams that struggle with numbers or are builidng a program from a losing tradition, many times they just dont have the talent pool others do.
Im a youth coach and the talent varies, hence we need something that will work when we have talent and when we dont.
My personal teams often play "select" teams that choose from 150-250 kids whereas I have just the 24 that sign up, no cuts, no try outs etc. We do real well, but as you may guess when faced with programs that have 5 to 10 times the number of kids to choose from and have no weak players, it creates a unique challenge. Im playng all my kids no matter how bad they are and we want to be able to compete as well.
If we are slow (relative to the other team) and the other team is loaded with athletes as they often are, space is our enemy. The more room we give them to make a play, the less successful we are. We have been successful using very tight misdirection (everything wide gets killed) and overwhelming at the POA with numbers. If we spread it out with these kinds of teams we get blown out, INTS for TDs, lots of negative yardage plays, turnovers etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by wingman on Jul 23, 2007 13:09:59 GMT -6
Brophy said I heard a very succesful coach say
"you are never without quality talent when you coach your players up"
I also heard the best Wing T coach I ever seen ( many section titles ) say that he thought you could win big with any kind of talent coached well enough in high school. Then he came to a new school in a very big, very well coached league in Socal and went 2 - 8. He's still a great coach but when everybody you play is also well coached, you can only do so much. He left. If he would have stayed, I'm sure they would have become a power, but I think you get my point.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 23, 2007 13:12:50 GMT -6
Brophy said I heard a very succesful coach say "you are never without quality talent when you coach your players up" I also heard the best Wing T coach I ever seen ( many section titles ) say that he thought you could win big with any kind of talent coached well enough in high school. Then he came to a new school in a very big, very well coached league in Socal and went 2 - 8. He's still a great coach but when everybody you play is also well coached, you can only do so much. He left. If he would have stayed, I'm sure they would have become a power, but I think you get my point.
isn't that why we coach, though?
I mean, we are there to teach the players how to be successful athletes, right......and we believe that by WHAT we teach them, they will perform better.
I mean, we don't look at schools and say, "I could coach THAT team,[studs] but I couldn't coach that team [duds]".
The guy that said that (quality depth with coaching) was referring to the Quarterback position. Which, in a lot of respects, most people look at a kid that can sling the ball = quarterback. Seeing how that is how most of us view the passing game ("just throw it to that guy", without really showing him how and why he should throw it to that guy) or HOW to play the quarterback position.
Same can be said about any other position. I can teach you an assignment as an OLineman, but can I teach you HOW TO BE an offensive lineman?
Not so, the guy that said that (former Evangel coach) was referring to developing players in your program for the 3-4 year process. If it could happen overnight, it really wouldn't be "coaching", it would be letting the kids make it happen on their own, and I get to stand on the sidelines with a hat.
Now, I'm not arrogant enough to suggest you can take the turd program and whip the state champs year-in-and-year-out, but I DO believe you can become competitive and make a better product (coaching)....because afterall, it isn't ALL about the W/L column. I mean, WINS isn't the sole reason we are in this profession.[/font] |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 23, 2007 13:20:06 GMT -6
is "talent" only relegated to ATHLETIC ability?
|
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Jul 23, 2007 13:46:49 GMT -6
Once again, I think this question turns into "This is why I run (or like) MY offense." As a coach, I KNOW the spread system better than I know the Wing T/DW and their like. I also FEEL/BELIEVE the spread allows my kids - some gifted, most not - to be more successful than if I put them in the DW and asked them to slug it out with the Giants we have to play against.
Maybe a better question would be how many coaches have actually gone ahead and made a radical change of system? As a young kid I watched Vince Lombardi's Packers chew up the opposition with the power sweep and a little bit of passing from Bart Starr. Why? Because that's what his players did best! When Lombardi went to Washington, he didn't have the "talent" to run the Packer Sweeps so he had Sonny Jurgensen throw more than any other year in his Redskin career except one. He put his players in a position to be successful. Thats what a good coach is supposed to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 23, 2007 13:51:40 GMT -6
Maybe a better question would be how many coaches have actually gone ahead and made a radical change of system? Put his players in a position to be successful. Thats what a good coach is supposed to do. that would be a better question |
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Jul 23, 2007 14:15:38 GMT -6
Also, why is it that some coaches who post on this board never seem to have any good athletes...it is ALWAYS the other teams athat have the better athletes. The way some coaches here talk about their players, you would think that Jerry Lewis or the Muscular Distrophy Society was sponsoring the league... This is the easiest question of all. If I have lesser talented, weaker, and smaller players and yet still manage to win, imagine how good of a coach I must be. Nobody admits to having talent because that would somehow take away from their perceived ability as a coach. We can't have that because respect is gained by who is the best. To quote Toby Keith: "It's all about me, its all about I, it all about #1." Ultimately at the end of the day, no matter how much we like to admit it, players win games, not coaches. Does that mean players could win without coaching? No, absolutely not. Players ultimately have to execute the directions of the coach. That is why they are the single most important factor on football field. As a coach we can prepare them and put them in situations to be successful, but they have to do it. The perfect play call can be crushed by a player mistake. Even the best coaches in the world lose games. |
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jul 23, 2007 14:17:54 GMT -6
Brophy makes a great point, I once heard a championship coach from Texas say "Confidence breeds quickness." That is very true of our offense and defense. Our kids know where to go and how to get there and even though they may time slow they are able to play fast.
In my opinion all offenses require talent, defense, and special teams too for that matter. I have heard coaches say the option requires less talent. That is only true (to some extent) on the line. The QB has to have a special set of skills...talents. The wing-t also requires talent. Wing-T teams we beat are slow plodding teams. Wing-T teams who beat us are lightning fast and have good qgile linemen.
Every offense requires talent, they just require a different set of talents.
|
|
|
|
Post by knight9299 on Jul 23, 2007 14:28:42 GMT -6
Maybe a better question would be how many coaches have actually gone ahead and made a radical change of system? Put his players in a position to be successful. Thats what a good coach is supposed to do. that would be a better question Give me about 15 weeks and I'll have an answer for you. Our former head coach always ragged about not having the horses to be successful. I always maintained we didn't have the RIGHT horses for the system he wanted run. We changed our defensive philosophy last season. All levels decreased yards allowed by 40%! That's without an offense. With the same kids. Like I said, in 15 weeks I'll have an answer! |
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Aug 3, 2007 7:20:12 GMT -6
#1 any offense that relys on 2-3 players those players must be talented #2 usally the most talented teams not neccisarily the most athletic teams use many different formations and plays since they have player that can do many things and no weak players I'll vote the other way. THe more talented your team the less you HAVE to do. The 3 seasons we won state we lined up the power I and bone and beat the heck out of teams. Period. Last year we went 6-4 and ran quite a few sets and more "trickeration" b/c we were trying to fool our opponents more. We still used most of the base offense but tweaked things to fit our talent base. |
|
|
|
Post by coachjaz on Aug 3, 2007 18:36:37 GMT -6
I'll give you this as a for instance. Last season I coached at a school that was one back zone. We were in ace maybe 60-65 percent of the time and in a twins look the rest of the time. We played a team that had 5 of their back 7 receive college scholarships. Of the other two I believe one received a college scholarship, and the other walked on D1
We couldnt pass the ball a yard. The only playmaker we had was our TE and they would jam him at the line and sit a D1 safety over the top.
Great talent with bad coaching is vulernable
Great talent with mediocre coaching will be good
Great talent with great coaching will be unstoppable
Average talent with bad coaching will be bad
Average talent with mediocre coaching will be just average
Average talent with great coaching will be good
Poor talent with bad coaching will be a train wreck every week
Poor talent with mediocre coaching will be in trouble
Poor talent with great coaching will have a fighting chance.
Great coaches put their kids in winning situations. Average coaches are hit or miss and poor coaches dont have a clue or {censored} about how bad it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Aug 3, 2007 21:36:37 GMT -6
is "talent" only relegated to ATHLETIC ability?
No.
Talent in my mind is athletic ability (size, speed, strength), but also may include: toughness, football smarts, players who understand their role, players who are coachable, players who understand the team dynamic... and players who simply refuse to lose among other things.
If I have guys who like to hit (or can learn to like it) and can learn who to block- I have a talented OL/DL. (Right now our OL is very "untalented")
If I have guys who run hard, hit the hole, make 1 cut and live with it full speed- I have talented backs.
If I have guys who can read backfields- I have talented LBs.
etc.
Talent is subjective. Given where I am (small school) and given that true studs are few and far between (though we have been very fortunate to have as many as we've had), I view talent as : works hard in the weight room, conditions hard, knows and appreciates his job and can react without thinking, is not prone to mental mistakes and will not do anything to beat us. If he can run, knock over four guys, throw 60 yds., etc. it is a bonus.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Aug 5, 2007 17:12:52 GMT -6
Im with you, an olineman with "division I potential" who doesnt want to play oline has no talent. Ill take the skinny kid with the "trieshard heart"....just me.
|
|
