|
Post by hemlock on Jun 18, 2007 20:05:24 GMT -6
This is amongst the most difficult issues in coaching high school football. What a H.C. may expect I really believe depends on the region of the country in which he coaches. I have coached in New Jersey, the Midwest, and the Deep South and all places value the sport of football differently. New Jersey, albeit a gold mine of talent, I believe is a horrible place to coach. Although people like football, it is not a real part of their CULTURE. Consequently, what you could expect in terms of administrative support and dedication on the part of your coaches was never great. Most the assistants that I worked with, and I was a coordinator and coached at a few significant college programs earlier, were good people, but they were essentially doing it to have fun and contribute to the community. Few really new anything about football. This itself is not the end of the world so long as such individuals are willing to learn, but most found my policy of having two offensive staff meetings a month from January to June to review the system, exchange ideas, discuss personnel, and review game films from the previous year to be an anathema and flat out refused to do it. My H.C., who supported me, basically told that I was not coaching in South anymore and that this is what I could expect. It continued on into the summer because most of the assistants who taught in the school took the whole vacation thing a little too seriously. They failed to understand that in reality our season on June 15 had just begun and that they needed to be there and that it was in essence b---ls to the wall until December regardless of how good the team was going to be. The upshot of this is that in communities in which football is not ingrained into the culture's deep grammar a coach has to alter his expectations. Needless to say, I resigned after two years to pursue a career in academia and have vowed that if I coach H.S. football again it will only be in a part of the country, which really values the sport.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 22, 2008 7:13:13 GMT -6
In terms of building a "PROGRAM" I think that it is critical that the MS and Youth leagues run a simplified version of what the HS runs. The MS is probably the easiest to get on board since they are affiliated with your district; youth leagues are bit trickier, so if you get them on board that's great. But MS should run your system, albeit significantly scaled down.
The problem, as noted above, is that a lot of the MS coaches want to run their own show. This is always a problem; as the HC of a program when you take the job you should try to get put into your deal a provision that gives you full control over your district's football programs. Although its nice if the kids win, the most important thing is for them to learn the fundamentals of your system. MS guys that are not completely on board all think that they the next Bear Bryant; they need to understand that their role is primarily teaching, that they are laying the foundation for the varsity. Ideally, when a kid metriculates up to the varsity, the varsity coaches should not have to teach him the program's terminology, language, etc.
The big problem with MS guys is that if you run a spread offense and they are not successful right away with it they will try to alter it or switch to something that they know will work at that level much more easily. Those are guys you don't want on your staff. Regardless of what the score is, they need to work the system and convince the kids and their parents that in the end this will all payoff.
|
|
|
Favre
Oct 30, 2007 15:52:42 GMT -6
Post by hemlock on Oct 30, 2007 15:52:42 GMT -6
Although I respect Favre I will stop short of proclaiming him the next best thing since sliced bread.
People love the "gunslinger" mentality, but he is a coach's nightmare to work with. McCarthy has reigned him in, but this is not a guy that devours film and is a great student of the game. Remember the three years prior to this one. His groupies that call the games would say that he was being daring by trying to wedge the ball into triple coverage or that he was trying to simply make a play on a team with no playmakers. I'm sorry, but his refusal to work within the confines of the system helped get Mike Sherman fired. I'm not a Sherman fan either, he failed as an HC because his QB did not respect him. Holmgren got the most out of Favre because he scared the living daylights out of him. No that's fine, but not desirable. To his credit he has listened to McCarthy, I think because he has finally realized that protecting the ball and submitting to the system is the only way for him to go out on a good note.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 13, 2007 20:32:24 GMT -6
I've coached at both ends of the pole - DI and High School. Don't ask how that happened, but let's just say that I knew the right people, and unfortunately, that is really what's it about at DI.
That said, I'm pretty flexible. High School is fine, but I need to be in a community where football is valued. I don't mind adapting my system to fit my kids, that's part of the fun. That's why to a certain degree HS coaches really are the best; however, I need to be on a staff with other guys who are football people and not just guys wanting to help out, get a few bucks, and some free gear. I'd need to coach with guys who understand that football is a year round job; they would need to understand that the team is your family (coaches, like Tony in the Sopranos, have two families - this must be understood).
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Nov 5, 2007 21:20:26 GMT -6
I coached a long time and am now in academia and have never been able to figure this out, which really means that I'm not that smart. Why is it so hard to find athletes that are smart? What I mean is, why is it so hard to find kids who really excel intellectually and athletically. I coached at 3 fairly major college programs before I got out and the place I enjoyed coaching at the most was the one with the most rigorous academic standards. The kids were great. It was a joy to coach them. The two years I was there we were 5-6 and 4-7, but when I left I always felt that these were the types of kids upon which the backbone of a country is built.
I know that I'm asking for it, but I've never been able to understand the need to hit in practice all the time. Frankly, I've always preferred the pro mentality in this one regard. It's progressive. Yes, people believe that it makes you tough, but at the same time it also beats you down. I coached with a Woody Hayes desciple and we hit relentlessly throughout August and well into the season and I could never understand the rationale.
Regarding Weis, he will turn the ship around. He is simply too good of a coach. It just might not be pretty for a year or two, which in today's college game delusional fans and alumns must recognize is a part of the game. Patience is the key. Let's withold judgement until the end of year 5.
By the way, look at the job the Sly Croom is doing with MSU. Another fine example of an AD and University President recognizing that there is a right and wrong way to do things.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Nov 5, 2007 18:08:40 GMT -6
Let's first remember that a couple of years ago everybody was praising Weis. He is an outstanding coach.
I agree with a couple of the posters above. Notre Dame has been trending towards this for some time. They still have not addressed all of the academic issues, which I think given ND's brand name should not really be that much of a problem. This has been overplayed for some time.
People talk about the QB play of ND; yes, its been horrid, but I don't think that by any stretch of the imagination that Claussen was ready to play - either physically or emotionally.
Also, as people have note, ND has suffered from a "grab-bag" approach. I think that Weis pretty much ran his offense with Brady Quinn, but outfoxed after he left. He should have just scaled things back and build from his base principles.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 25, 2007 15:57:52 GMT -6
As a coach you need to do what you believe in. If you are really good spread coach who has a good toolbox you will be able to emphasize certain aspects of your offense one year and others in other years
The problem with the spread if you have chicken s--t and know that its going to take some time to turn it into chicken salad is that there is no where to hide. When you are great, you are great, but when things go wrong it looks horrid, which is something you need to take into consideration with fans and parents (not that they should really matter). Compressed, power football conceals within the scrum of the play all the things that did not go well. When you run a spread, the same things might not have gone well, but they are exposed and naked for everybody to see, which from a PR perspective is a difficult thing to stomach.
|
|