|
Post by brophy on Mar 25, 2007 16:12:15 GMT -6
I think the key is to use ENOUGH BALANCE , not necessarily total balance, ...enough? well, thats the battle within...how much is too much? Great post - I agree completely with what you're saying. I think for THIS THREAD it is a chicken-before-the-egg logic that we are fighting. Guys don't throw because it's not their "philosophy". It's not in their philosophy because they don't fully understand / are not comfortable in quarterback development. There's nothing wrong with 'ground-pounding', but we're looking at rationales behind some folk's security blanket of the run game.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Mar 25, 2007 17:25:41 GMT -6
We are a youth team. We pound the ball on the ground because that has been very successful for us in the past. I would say we are around 70-30, but we don't keep actual stats.
We have a former HS QB on staff that works with the QBs and does a great job. We throw a lot in practice and I guess the reason we don't throw more is because we ran early in the game and it worked. It is hard for us to go away from what works. I always say we will pass the ball more, but then it sometimes doesn't happen.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Mar 25, 2007 17:36:41 GMT -6
I don't think it always takes a stud QB to throw the ball. You can get by with an average thrower who is pretty smart. You do need someone who can make quick, accurate decisions, but he doesn't have to have a cannon. Look at the Texas Tech QBs and why they never make it in the NFL. I don't think people would call Josh Heupel from Oklahoma a stud QB or Jason White. Both had average QB skills, but made quick accurate decisions. Now if your whole team is dumb, nonathletic, and can't throw a spiral, maybe passing isn't for you.
It would be like me saying you can't run a running based offense without a stud RB.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 25, 2007 18:16:40 GMT -6
Hey there is nothing wrong with being a young head coach. Hell I am 25 and have been the head coach for 2 years now here in Kansas. My first year we ran flexbone/wishbone went 6-4 with 2 returning starters..
Obviously, you were/are ready. I was not... all I meant to say.
The bottom line in all of this is we run the ball 90% of the time, because it is what I believe in... more importantly, it is what our players believe in (therefore we have to sell it... and must believe in it to do so).
To be honest, I think a lot of "scheme talk"/"philosophy talk" is overrated anyway (but good for arguing... but your stuff and my stuff might be complete opposites, and both work... so the winner is he who last has the chalk).
I want (and think I have) a system that is the best for me to never be in a positon where I really have to "outcoach" anyone. In 17 years there is only one guy I've proved I can outcoach and outsmart... myself.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Mar 25, 2007 19:04:14 GMT -6
Most of the run based attacks run by the guys on these boards are not 1 stud back offesnes, they are 3-4 average or even less than offenses. My offense is not based on one guy carrying the team, our numbers are really spread out. My guess is the Texas Tech QBs were considered studs in youth ball and HS. Same for Josh H. and Jason White. Again the High Schools have so much more practice time than us. The high schools can sendn= their duds down to JV and freshman ball I dont have that luxury. The High schools around here suit up 100 kids on game day we suit up 22-25. Apples and not even oranges, apples and rocks LOL. We dont tryout or cut like some orgs do, so pickins are slim. Hard to argue with your success, so it seems that what you do with your players work. All I am saying is that usually on a team of 25 players you are likely to have at least 2 kids with the ability to to throw the ball and 5-10 kids with the ability to catch the ball. If you would watch a pickup game with no coaches around the kids are throwing the ball and catching the ball. When kids go out and play with the football not too many of them work handoffs with their friends. So they have the ability as coaches we just need to focus that ability. Again, what works for you is obviously working well based on your relatively well known success. Like you said a good coach chooses systems based on parameters he is given.
|
|
|
Post by los on Mar 25, 2007 19:17:22 GMT -6
Good post coachj, that was about par for the course here every season in youth ball, a few could pass,about half could catch, about 25% were what I'd consider "speedy" for their age. In keeping with Brophy's original post, you can effectively pass the ball without the drop back schemes and more advanced protections but must usually "set it up" and call the pass play when you "don't" have to pass (3rd and long would be terrible),(the final minutes of a game when you're trailing and noone in the secondary is buying your run fake, nearly impossible, lol) or you can learn/teach the more advanced passing concepts and protections and be able to call a pass play whenever the heck you want! But, by not passing the ball, you've taken away one of the ways to score in football. If you don't have a good kicker, you won't pass for whatever reason, your special teams and defense don't score for you, whats left? Run inside or run outside! Tough to run vs 11 guys playing the run!
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 25, 2007 19:34:57 GMT -6
thanks, los
the point is not "Run Game, bad".
The premise is, do some guys willingly HANDICAP their team by a stubborn one-dimensional attitude towards that which they don't know about (QB development / coverage recognition / route packaging / protection rationale /etc). This stubborness retards the growth of their players to offer them other weapons on game night. Frustration ensues because our desired results from the passing game are never realized, MAINLY because we just have never believed in it to begin with and/or never coached that player(s) up to be successful
That was the original question, based on my personal observations with the staffs I've been on.
YOUTH BALL ASIDE (I'm not sure anyone expects 12 year olds to be running up against multiple coverages /etc) - we're talking about player development in the program.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 25, 2007 19:41:21 GMT -6
If you would watch a pickup game with no coaches around the kids are throwing the ball and catching the ball. When kids go out and play with the football not too many of them work handoffs with their friends. So they have the ability as coaches we just need to focus that ability
OK... this is just a commentary... not trying to make anyone mad with this...
A few years ago I spoke at a clinic and followed a coach who really had a good passing offense. He said the same thing: he watched recess and the kids were out throwing the ball around, so he concluded he should work on enhancing those skills". Now I followed him with my talk on OL run blocking drills and said "I did the same thing as coach X, but I guess our school is a bit different... All I saw was a a fat kid trying to run over a bunch of other fat kids who were all trying to pound the heck out of eachother... so we are working on enhancing those skills".
Anyway... I guess I have always been of the belief that of the following: Power Running Misdirection Option Short Controlled passing game Screen/Draw game Deep Passing game
To be efficient in high school you had to do two of those very well, to be successful you had to do two well and at least competent at one or two others.
1996 taught me that we can not win throughout the playoffs without being competent at any phase of the passing game. Still, I have been guilty of the scenario that ignorantrookie described... in fact, 3rd + 8 we will probably run. 2nd/6... we might just throw... deep.
I guess for us the passing game is like the run-n-gun team that throws and throws and throws... then runs a draw. When we throw, a lot of times we are looking for the home run play... I always say our goal for the passing game is 1-1-0 50 yds. 1 TD. This is in my perfect world (and it has happened... but anything will happen over 170+ games).
Off season I learn as much as I can about the more intricate components of the passing game (mostly on how to defend it), and we incorporate what we can... but in a lot of cases to incorporate a radical change from what we are doing now, and I am just not willing to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Mar 25, 2007 19:48:31 GMT -6
Last year we didnt have a single player that could consistently catch.... We dropped at least 10 sure TDs and scored just 3 on the pass.... Are you blaming the kids or the coaches?
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Mar 25, 2007 20:06:24 GMT -6
Well I guess we have always had at least 10 players on our team that have been able to catch a pass. I have only coached 5 years though, so maybe those days are coming. Most years we only have 4 or 5 players that are hopeless to catch the ball, but invariably they are lineman types anyway. Now not all of them are athletic or fast, but they could catch. We alway figured if we threw a 5 yard pass and the kid caught it, even if he went straight out of bounds or was tackled where he caught it, we gained 5 yards.
We work throwing and catching the ball for at least 10-15 minutes every day and we encourage our kids to do it as a warm up activity before practice officially starts. Granted, I do not coach the WR's, so I can't tell you what drills we do to get them to catch the ball. I also have no idea how many TD passes we have thrown or who caught how many passes.
All of that being said, we do run a lot more than we pass. Like I said, I would GUESS around 70% run or more.
I do think that O-line is a position of great importance although I haven't coached them personally since I was a college (assistant/lacky) coach about 6-7 years ago. I do try to help work with the O-line when our O-line coach needs to miss a day or two, but the O-line coach we have does an amazing job working with the kids.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 25, 2007 20:07:41 GMT -6
I think that Brophy brings up a great point..
I know down here in Louisiana I have seen several teams get to the quarters and even the semi's in the top classes on a year in year out basis. However, these teams haven't been able to get to the Dome (Championship games are played in the superdome) because they could not PASS when they HAD TO.
This past season, one school even had a qb with over 1200 yards passing, but they were a 80-20 mix run to pass. Those 1200 yards were all garbage yards against teams that they didn't NEED to pass against. When the chips were down in the Semi's, it was obvious that this team was a run till we need to pass team, and just couldnt get it done.
One thing that KILLS me at the HS level is when the starting qb spends 20-30 minutes a day handing off to backs or during the inside drill. I just see that as SUCH a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 25, 2007 20:13:46 GMT -6
. With the run game its money at the youth level if taught right . I guess THAT'S the point......IF TAUGHT RIGHT....so could the passing game....but (the point of the thread) is that the passing game isn't taught right because (by theory) it is AVOIDED by most coaches. Hey, look at that, I responded to a post and didn't have to name-drop or include chest-puffing resume excerpts. Brilliant.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Mar 25, 2007 20:16:19 GMT -6
If you would watch a pickup game with no coaches around the kids are throwing the ball and catching the ball. When kids go out and play with the football not too many of them work handoffs with their friends. So they have the ability as coaches we just need to focus that abilityOK... this is just a commentary... not trying to make anyone mad with this... A few years ago I spoke at a clinic and followed a coach who really had a good passing offense. He said the same thing: he watched recess and the kids were out throwing the ball around, so he concluded he should work on enhancing those skills". Now I followed him with my talk on OL run blocking drills and said "I did the same thing as coach X, but I guess our school is a bit different... All I saw was a a fat kid trying to run over a bunch of other fat kids who were all trying to pound the heck out of eachother... so we are working on enhancing those skills". Anyway... I guess I have always been of the belief that of the following: Power Running Misdirection Option Short Controlled passing game Screen/Draw game Deep Passing game To be efficient in high school you had to do two of those very well, to be successful you had to do two well and at least competent at one or two others. 1996 taught me that we can not win throughout the playoffs without being competent at any phase of the passing game. Still, I have been guilty of the scenario that ignorantrookie described... in fact, 3rd + 8 we will probably run. 2nd/6... we might just throw... deep. I guess for us the passing game is like the run-n-gun team that throws and throws and throws... then runs a draw. When we throw, a lot of times we are looking for the home run play... I always say our goal for the passing game is 1-1-0 50 yds. 1 TD. This is in my perfect world (and it has happened... but anything will happen over 170+ games). Off season I learn as much as I can about the more intricate components of the passing game (mostly on how to defend it), and we incorporate what we can... but in a lot of cases to incorporate a radical change from what we are doing now, and I am just not willing to do that. Senator, I think your post makes excellent sense. I take the point of view that kids can do so much more than we think they can. Every year we have kids make catches they shouldn't or you never thought they could in a practice/game. If every team ran double tight power football it would be boring and if every team threw the ball all the time it would be boring. What makes football so great is the strategy we all use. It is the passion we have for our system and the passion we have to teach the game to our kids that makes this fun.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Mar 25, 2007 20:24:02 GMT -6
...Just facts. It isnt avoidd here, its just even when taught properly we didnt have the kids for it, ... So you're blaming the kids?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 25, 2007 20:24:54 GMT -6
so lemme get this straight.
When the passing game blows - it's the kids When the run game rocks - it's the coaching
I didn't miss anything did I?
|
|
dcwar
Sophomore Member
Posts: 102
|
Post by dcwar on Mar 25, 2007 20:35:57 GMT -6
Being a former QB, I am quite troubled by the choice of profession comments made by Brophy. Being Irish, the porn star job was never a possibility, and my propensity for not shading the truth rules out a political career. I have coached the QB's in college(spread offense) and have chosen not to coach it at the HS level for several reasons. First and foremost is the time factor. i am at a small school and must share athletes with many programs. Two, we do not get year in and year out the necessary moving parts to make a passing based attack successful. Some of our players must play both ways we cannot two platoon, again practice time. Believe me I would love to throw it all over the lot, but it just would not be wise in my situation.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 25, 2007 20:40:17 GMT -6
Brophy...yes, I think you and Coach Huey are missing the fact that the manipulative and tracking skills necessary to throw and catch a football at a consistent successful level do not necessarily exist in ages 6-8 when combined with the greater number of moving parts and "what if's" involved in the passing game. PLUS the fact that Dave is running an entire league of over 400 kids means that that for the organizations success it is probably best to emphasize something different.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 25, 2007 20:41:41 GMT -6
hey, lets not turn this into a youth football thread....... it is a basic philosophy question heck, 1st - 8th grade kids in DFW are running arena football leagues www.psafootball.org/so teaching the passing game IS possible.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Mar 25, 2007 20:42:48 GMT -6
I'm not missing a point. I merely asked if the blame was being placed on the players or the coaches. At what point do kids "learn" to catch? Who teaches them? Will these kids that "just can't catch" ever learn? Can they ever be taught? When? by who?
I'm not debating what someone should run at any level. But, when someone posts how they just tried to coach 'em but the kids dropped passes, I would like to know if they are blaming the kids or the coaches.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 25, 2007 20:44:41 GMT -6
Again, I would argue that it is dependant on age. The tracking and manipulative skills are simply not going to be there for a majority of kids 7-9 or10. I would blame the creator for making kids so slow to develop.
As stated in an earlier thread though, I totally agree that the teams that are "power" run teams are often competitive, but run into situations that they can't power themselves out of...and lose.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Mar 25, 2007 20:56:54 GMT -6
Well if we have a guy that coached a Texas 5A team to multiple national passing records, I doubt if he is teaching poor cathing mechanics. Amazing at this age they could run the ball to an average of 40 ppg but could only manage a handfull of catches and we spent a minimum of 20 minutes a day on it after week 3 of practice not to mention pre practice set warmups of 10-15 minutes for those that come early. Rarely were our pass routes not WIDE OPEN anyone that has our DVDs can attest to this. Our best passer was quite good last year, poor the previous year ( same exact coach). In 2003 we had a good thrower and one good reciver so we did get 11 TDs that year, ( led the league) and we didnt get a chance to throw much since we scored so early and often ( championship game up 46-0 in third) Thanks. So it's the kids. Probably did try to do too much at that level. Looks like you made the right decision in the playcalling, though.
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on Mar 25, 2007 21:46:07 GMT -6
So, does any one else have theories as to the ground pound philosophy?
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 25, 2007 22:43:19 GMT -6
So, does any one else have theories as to the ground pound philosophy?
Probably pretty well (over) stated by this point...
OK anyway, I did want to address something said earlier:
One thing that KILLS me at the HS level is when the starting qb spends 20-30 minutes a day handing off to backs or during the inside drill. I just see that as SUCH a waste of time.
True...but there are cases where it is not a waste. Option teams, Belly/Double dive teams, Single Wing teams, etc. Some run offenses require intricate ball handling/footwork... that, like the passing game takes time. For us, timing and footwork is a big issue... it just doesn't "happen"... much like the passing game just doesn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 26, 2007 5:56:04 GMT -6
Senator, I agree with you on the option teams, and that some schemes do require some footwork and timing issues, but I still don't think you are better off if the starter isn't simply handing off 80% of the practice.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Mar 26, 2007 6:03:49 GMT -6
Why not spend 20 minutes with the intricate ball-handling and 20 minutes with the timing and mechanics of the passing game? That's balance, right?
We spend an equal amount of time on the passing game as the running game. We just prefer to run between 70-75% of the time. We CAN pass quite effectively (varies with talent obviously), and we are sure to demonstrate that so everyone can see it. That helps the run game even more.
Don't get me wrong, our "ground pound" offense does NOT work without a good playaction and 3-step passing attack. But it's a necessary evil in my mind. It's a way to control the box and the coverages. If we can't do that, defenses are going to load up on us and make the going that much tougher.
To me, this isn't necessarily about (and forgive me if I allowed myself to be misinterperted this way) the manliness of the run game vs. the lilly-sniffing of the passing game or something as closed-minded as that. It's simply about philosophy. A lot of proponents of the spread and of pass-heavy offenses have talked about how "fun" it is and how all the receiver-type athletes want to play football because of it. I'm sure that's true and that's FINE. But, understand that the philosophy simply perpetuates itself. In our school, we want Offensive Linemen types to come out for football. Offensive Linemen (at least the kind we breed) think it's "fun" to knock people off the ball, double team people, and pull, etc. So, since we value our offensive linemen above everyone else, we're catering to THAT group of athletes by keeping THEM happy with stuff they consider "fun" (and we consider fun as well!).
We've always had very good backs, so we perpetuate that as well by having a 3-RB system (FB, HB, and WB/flanker hybrid) and running plays that they find "fun" with good mix of misdirection, power, and outside stuff.
So, in the end, I think you get what you emphasize. And, ultimately, that comes back to your own philosophy. The program will get the kind of kids out that you want, whether you want to believe it or not. I've heard a lot of coaches say "well, we don't get any of the big kids in our little school out for football because of this that or the other..." In our school, we don't have any problem getting big kids out for football. This is probably because we treat our linemen like gods, we coach them up, and we build a very tight and meaningful bond between those guys. Kids hear this and they want to come out and play. I suppose if I wanted to run a spread offense where we threw the ball 50% or more, I'd get much less of that and I'd get a lot more receiver-type kids out.
Your philosophy determines the make-up of your program. We DO get some decent kids out as receivers, but they're almost always converted from FB (to TE) or RB (to WR). And, we do TRULY practice almost 50/50 on run vs. pass.
Another point: some of the coaches out here have said that lack of utilizing the passing game usually indicates a coaching staff that is afraid to throw because they are incompetent in coaching QB's. That is not true in many cases. We have an excellent QB development program in my opinion. We have a dedicated QB coach who knows his stuff and works constantly with these kids. I mean, when we are doing special teams, he is pulling the QB's aside and working something with them during that 15 minutes if they are not invloved in the team. We work all kinds of pass periods:
1. pre-practice strictly on timing of quick routes like slant, hitch, etc. (10 min) 2. individual skills period on throwing mechanics and receiving drills with WR's (15 min) 3. pass skelleton 7-on-7 (15 min) 4. team pass drill (usually 15 min on Mondays in shirts and helmets, full 11-on-11) 5. 3rd and long drill (5-10 min 11-on-11 during team period) ...not to mention the passing we do in our "base" offense period or on the goal line or anywhere else.
In addiiton to this, we do summer passing leagues and work with QB's and receivers in the gym all winter.
It's great, but if we can run the ball, we'll run it every single time. It's helped us tremendously as a program, because it's what's right for US. It's right for our climate (Northeast), our talent, and our coaches.
You have to do whatever is right for you. No disrespect, no "who's is bigger" ego games...
I just believe in TE's and FB's and QB's under center as much as calande believes in DW football. To me, those are the types of players that makes football special. It's a personal preference. It's a philosophy. It's what I find exciting.
Do whatever blows your hair back, men!
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Mar 26, 2007 7:50:12 GMT -6
One reason that I prefer a running philosophy is that the DW is just like playing defense as we are looking to deliver blows all the time. Whenever kids come into our program and I ask them what position they want to play, they tell me, "I don't care as long as I get to play defense." Well, we sell them on playing defense (in their minds that means run and hit someone) on both sides of the ball. Now they can't wait to beat up on our opponents on both offense and defense.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 26, 2007 7:55:54 GMT -6
Its just less risky in my opinion. Fewer turnovers, fewer long yardage situations and less dependent on one player.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 26, 2007 10:01:42 GMT -6
We CAN pass quite effectively (varies with talent obviously), Does your running game vary with talent as well?
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 26, 2007 10:15:02 GMT -6
Does your running game vary with talent as well?
I know this was for lochness... but for us- Yes. I prefer to have equal distribution among the backs. However, this past year, we had a stud RB who gained 2400 yds. A lot of this was due to inexperience around him, QB injuries, etc. We ran our usual stuff- mostly from an I (or a TB oriented offense anyway). Teams claimed that it was easier to read/stop... and I agree. He still averaged almost 9 yds. a carry and we ended up 9-2 with a team that I didn't think would be very good... so I still think it was our best approach. Our best years are when 3 guys have around 1000 yds, but we don't always get that kind of talent distribution. I would imagine the same goes for the passing guys... better to "spread it around" than have 1 go-to guy. Still, if your go-to guy is superior, and proves he can get it done... well, you don't keep a thoroughbred in the stable.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Mar 26, 2007 10:30:19 GMT -6
We CAN pass quite effectively (varies with talent obviously), Does your running game vary with talent as well? Yes, of course. To much lesser degrees because of the structure of the program.
|
|