|
Post by lochness on Jan 8, 2008 7:32:57 GMT -6
We went 8-10:15 for the AM session,
4:00-4:45 for a classroom session,
then 5:00-7:15 for the PM session.
We alternated O and D every day...so it would go something like this:
Mon 8am offense 5pm defense
Tue 8am defense 5pm offense
etc. etc.
That way, if you were a non-teacher, you could either make at least half of your sessions. BUT, most (if not all) of us that were non-teachers would take vacation anyway.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Apr 2, 2008 5:52:25 GMT -6
Al Davis just vomited in his own mouth Well, at least he didn't vomit in somebody else's mouth...
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jan 7, 2006 10:21:47 GMT -6
God almighty, you can ask this question and get 100 different answers every time. All anyone is ever going to tell you is what works for THEM. You have to run what works for YOU. It's just that simple coach.
I could post out here and say, "what should I run if I have 5 300 lb linemen, a nasty 220 lb FB and the state's best HB...but I have no WR's" and I swear there would be people who would tell me to go with a spread offense. Conversely I could say, "I have no backs and a smaller quicker line, but I have tons of WR's and a phenom QB" and STILL someone would say "run the straight T."
If you are lacking in skill, size, or talent, always take what you know and believe in the most and refine the complexity of it accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jan 17, 2008 19:32:21 GMT -6
Where can I find out about the Zone Read play out of the shotgun spread offense?
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Dec 5, 2006 15:42:23 GMT -6
In my opinion, you can never have enough stuff in a playbook. It's a resource. It has not just all of our "plays", but our philosophy, rules, language, formation possibilities, etc. Plus, we have all of our coaching points for backfield steps, route releases and adjustments, blocking calls and rules. It's primarily for the coaching staff. From there, they can make smaller position manuals for everyone. They also copy pages for themselves and put them in plastic along with their practice plans so they have them for installation and for answering more complicated questions the kids might have.
I know our offense book which I put together has about everything you would want or need in it. And to me, that is DEFINITELY not a waste of time!
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Mar 19, 2008 7:21:29 GMT -6
Well that all depends...have you heard of the 'Lower Case L' offense?
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Nov 29, 2007 11:53:51 GMT -6
I wrote about it in another thread so maybe can track that down. It's more of a RB path/blocking scheme issue. If you run the triple from say, splitback veer or the Nebraska I or the wishbone you have your OL block down to get the double teams and, for your dive back you read the DE. Then if you pull you look for that second back on the pitch. If you give it to the dive-back because of alignment and the guy you are reading you are essentially ensuring about 4 yards. In other words, the reason the triple works so well is that you overpower everyone else with the combos and you do not block the most dangerous man (the DE) and instead read him to "block" him by making him always wrong. What this does is immediately give you a numbers advantage (many double teams) and, with proper reading, ensures a perfect block. Both the dive back and the QB should have very clean lanes with the OL crushing the playside guys and your QB making the DE wrong every time. Then you put in the pitch man and you have even more success. Conversely on the gun-option all you're reading is the pursuit guy. It's more of a safety net issue than it is giving you a true playside advantage. By reading the backside DE on the zone, you're just making sure there's no backside pursuit. In other words, this isn't an "option" per se, it's just an improved bootleg where you take the guesswork out of whether the backside pursuit is going to crash. Does that make sense? So my point is that the gun option, including the gun-triple, is really just a playside run with a souped up bootleg action to make sure the backside pursuit stays at home. If you hand it off to the zone runner there's no such guarantee that the guy who stays to watch your QB was even going to be the biggest threat on the play, and it's not certain either whether the zone-read/gun-triple gives you more playside double teams are not. The one advantage with the pistol is that you can more easily have the dive back go to the playside so you can get these same advantages. So I'm not saying the gun-triple is unsound, but I am saying that it is not structurally set up in a way that I see it as a "if we execute, we will always be successful" type offense in the same way that, say, the Academies have done with their option games. It's good but it's not that good. In terms of the pistol I just don't think it's an "offense," it's just a particular formation. Anyway, these are just my thoughts. There are plenty out there who would disagree with me I'm sure. (Like those who run the gun-triple I guess! ) Great post, coach.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Nov 25, 2007 9:11:26 GMT -6
To clarify: I don't dislike the "spread" (although I too find it boring, but I'm the type of guy who will just spotlight-watch the FB on an "I" team lead block on people for an entire game). What I dislike are coaches who blindly switch over to an offense when they have no idea WHY they are switching other than it "looks cool" on TV and they heard some guy in a clinic say "it gives teams with less talent an advantage." I think I heard that same guy talk in a Veer Option clinic, a DW clinic, a Wing T clinic...
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Nov 25, 2007 9:10:27 GMT -6
To clarify: I don't dislike the "spread" (although I too find it boring, but I'm the type of guy who will just spotlight-watch the FB on an "I" team lead block on people for an entire game). What I dislike are coaches who blindly switch over to an offense when they have no idea WHY they are switching other than it "looks cool" on TV and they heard some guy in a clinic say "it gives teams with less talent an advantage." I think I heard that same guy talk in a Veer Option clinic, a DW clinic, a Wing T clinic...
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Nov 25, 2007 8:57:21 GMT -6
It's just like anything else, "take away what they do best"...
In our state, a spread team and a 2 TE Wing-T team played for the championship. They had also played each other last game of the regular season. The spread team won 30-6. The Wing-T team's coach (who had won the previous 2 titles) said in the paper after that loss that they "couldn't figure out the spread" and that they had been "run all over" because of the running space that the offensive formations create.
Well, when they met in the Championship game, the Wing-T team played a pure 5-2 defense. They played C4 behind the 2x2 sets and rolled C3 to the 3x1 sets. They totally sold out on stopping the run, which is what a lot of "spread" teams still want to do (run).
The result was, they held the QB and RB (both 1000 yard rushers) to a combined 55 yards total rushing. They gave up a few big pass plays, but they never got away from their philosophy of stopping the run first. The only real sustained offense the spread team had was hitting short routes and outlets, and it looked as though the Wing-T team had practiced long and hard on pursuit / swarming this stuff under, and they usually held it to minimal-to-moderate gains. The result was the Wing-T team won 14-2.
Earlier in the playoffs, in a different division, I watched a spread team and a wishbone team go at it. The spread team was vastly superior on offense and defense. The wishbone team simply walked their safeties up to about 7 yards and, again, played run-first defense, and dared the spread team to throw deep. The spread team won 10-0, but the regular season game was much more of a blow out (29-7).
Of course, this philosophy wouldn't work if the spread team had 2 very good receivers and a very good QB, but in that case it doesn't matter if you are running pro I, wing T, or whatever.
The bottom line is, an offense is an offense. Most offenses are designed to put defenders in conflict. Wing T, Option, etc. do this very well. The spread does it by formation rather than by play series or whatever. If you don't defend it properly, they're going to wreck you. It's just like the Double Wing. If you blitz it and send your DE's rushing upfield and try to key motion, they're going to obliterate you. In the spread, if they are primarily a running team, and you run with 5 or 6 in the box because you're too busy trying to take away combo routes, bubble screens, etc. etc., then they are going to kill you.
That's where most offenses have an advantage at the High School level...it's in the defenses not knowing how to properly defend the offense and/or being able to commit to taking away what they do best.
The "spread" (that term is becoming as generic and irritating as "West Coast Offense") is no better or worse than any other scheme. The question is, do the defensive coaches truly understand how to stop it?
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Dec 21, 2007 14:35:43 GMT -6
Defenses are all trying to get into schemes that allow more OLB/SS/DB types on the field because they are "outweighed across the board and can't line up against better teams." breathe.......stop and think WHY. 20 years ago....if you were 100lbs heavier than everyone else, you DOMINATED. Nowadays, if you are 100lbs heavier than anyone else.....you are just not that athletic. Size really doesn't mean diddly poo. With the IMAGE-CONSCIOUS society we are becoming, kids that are ATHLETES are steering clear of becoming large and in-charge. They are all going for washboard abs and getting ripped. In the social climate of the country isn't embracing large kids as "athletes". If the game is evolving with more speed and power...where does that monster huge kid fit? Because he is only good for about a 1 square yard.....before he gets "out-athleted". I think my whole point was in asking "why," brophy. I was breathing just fine when I wrote that. I think that is certainly a truth. I also think that toughness and team play are not things that are valued or emphasized today. It's weird, becaue I used to view football as a supplemental part of education, where those values of toughness and teamwork COULD be taught. Now, it seems like lots of us (coaches in general) have given up and are just adapting philosophies to fit the times rather than trying to teach new and different values. Again, just trying to generate discussion. Nobody should feel like I just whized on your wonder bread.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Dec 21, 2007 14:19:54 GMT -6
In terms of evolution, from reading this board, it seems like size and toughness in football are things of the past. Defenses are all trying to get into schemes that allow more OLB/SS/DB types on the field because they are "outweighed across the board and can't line up against better teams." Offenses seem to be forgetting about TE's and FB's. It's becoming more like basketball where the team is built around one player (in this case, usually a spread offense QB) who can win or lose the game for you, rather than around the efforts of 11 guys doing a job to accomplish a common goal.
It's funny though, to read a lot of coach's comments out here, it seems like everyone is undersized, outmanned, and out-athleted in every game every year. Everyone is looking to install offenses and defenses that work when 'you just don't have the horses.' Has anyone taken a look around and wondered "where have all the horses gone?" Why are there less TE and FB's available to coaches? Where are they going?
It's bizarre!
In summary, you never see this question EVER:
Hi, my name is coach Illposthereonce. Next season I have a problem, and I don't know what kind of offense to run please help:
I have 3 or 4 big powerful linemen. I have a couple of FB-types as my backs. I have like 2 or 3 TE types too. I don't have a fantastic athlete at QB and I don't have any WR types that are worth getting the ball to. What should I do? I get kids that are tough and fairly big but only average athletes.
I mean, maybe it's just the board, but does anyone here have big good kids? You'd think by reading a lot of the posts that they don't exist any longer. I for one never see schools anywhere that consistently are outweighed by 100 lbs across the line and that only get 20 kids out for the program, and I don't exactly coach in a state that's considered a football hotbed.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Dec 9, 2007 19:18:28 GMT -6
Lochness, That is New Hampshire? I champions: Pinkerton (Derry, NH) II champions: Exeter (NH) (this team has gone 32-4 over the last three years and has played in the championship game three straight times and the third time was the charm. Funny thing is that of those four losses , three are from Bishop Guertin. Yes sir! Class programs and class coaching staffs for both programs. Championships don't happen by accident. Where are you from (if you don't mind my asking)?
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Dec 9, 2007 10:12:17 GMT -6
In the two top divisions in my state:
D1: Double TE Wing-T team vs Shotgun Spread team with QB and RB both 1,000 yard rushers (Double TE Wing-T team won 14-2)
D2: Straight-T team vs. Veer Option team (Straight-T team won 14-13)
Both champions meet the description of what you are looking for (I count the 2 TE Wing-T team as "fullhouse" because both HB' are in position to carry the ball). They each ran about 5 or 6 different rushing plays.
Wing-T team: Power Belly Trap Buck Sweep Double Dive
Straight T team: FB trap HB Power QB Keeper FB Toss FB Belly G
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Apr 21, 2006 9:47:52 GMT -6
Our staff is quite the opposite.
The HC is also the Special Teams Coordinator. He coaches the TE's on offense, ILB's on defense, and kicking specialists (punter, place kicker, etc.)
I am the OC. I coach RB's, split the QB responsibilities with a position coach, and DB's on defense. I coach returners and "protectors" on special teams.
The DC is our Offensive and Defensive Line coach. He coaches the lines on special teams as well.
We then have position coach #1 who is the JV head coach. He coaches the scout offense during practice. He is the QB coach and assists me with DB's. He calls the offense on JV game days and is on the head phones with me for varsity games.
Position coach #2 is the JV DC. He is the assistant offensive and defensive line coach. He runs the scout defense during practice.
Position coach #3 is our DE/OLB coach and our WR coach on offense. He is in charge of quality control / film database management.
We have 3-4 Freshmen coaches as well. The HC of the freshman team is also in charge of our strength program. The freshman assistants will help scout and break film down.
So, the wealth on our staff is spread pretty well, I think. Our head coach lets every one coach for the most part, because we all know our roles and the techniques / schemes we are supposed to be teaching. I think with a newer or less experienced staff, the HC will tend to try to control more until guys are up to speed.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Mar 6, 2007 17:20:19 GMT -6
That's so funny...
"Circle of life drill"....just another fine example of calling some ancient football concept by a different name and making it look like it's something new someone invented.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jan 30, 2007 8:39:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jan 29, 2007 15:37:26 GMT -6
whitemike52, We all contribute in our own ways!
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jan 29, 2007 9:58:25 GMT -6
Coach,
There's tons of different things you can TRY, but each group is different.
The first order of business is to go right back to fundamentals. Aggressiveness often is a direct result of confidence, and confidence comes from knowing your assignments and techniques inside and out. Get right back to teaching man blocking progressions, 1-on-1 drills, sled, chutes, etc.
The second thing is to really coach up the assignment aspect of things. We get with our OL every spare moment we can and go over assignments with them. If we are doing Kickoff and Kick Return period, for example, our OL coach will take our linemen who are not involved (which is usually pretty much all of them, unless we have some crazy guards) and take them aside and get extra instructional time in. Have some whiteboard or film sessions. Whatever it takes to get it to "click" with them.
Most importantly, make the OL the most important position on the team! We do all kinds of stuff for our OL. We give out the "golden spatula" every week, for a lineman who had the best pancake block. We talk to our linemen about how they feel about blocking schemes against various fronts we are going to see. We REALLY emphasize line play when we are breaking film down. It's nice to be able to consistently point out the efforts of the OL in a positive way in front of the whole team. Be really enthusiastic about success, and corrective about missed opportunities. Make sure the OL knows that they are an instrument of the team's attitude, even more so than the defense.
Otherwise, coach...you can't polish a turd. If you have kids that are not mentally or physically tough...there's not a whole lot you can do. Coach 'em up! The only other thing I could say is maybe you play some FB / TE types that are nasty on the interior, and move some of your big boys out of the way. A lot of times at the HS level, size is not as important as athleticism and aggressiveness.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Apr 27, 2006 5:21:00 GMT -6
1. Play everyone.
2. Emphasize the basic plays, formations and schemes the varsity is built around on offense, defense, and special teams.
3. Take time to INSTRUCT between series and at halftime. JV should be even more focused on getting input from the kids and explaining adjustments based on that than varsity may be.
4. If you're going to be creative and put a play or two of your own in, check with the HC and coordinator first. I've seen too many JV coaches trying to run something stupid trying to prove what a great coach they are, when they are still having trouble executing a simple iso.
5. Make sure they have fun, but also make sure they get used to pressure.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Sept 18, 2007 5:13:42 GMT -6
Unfortunately, it's situations like this that exist in every state that drive good, qualified coaches away from the game.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jun 14, 2006 4:48:42 GMT -6
Give him a swift kung-fu chop to the genitals twice. That will fix his wagon.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jan 23, 2006 6:06:34 GMT -6
We use the back number and hole number system, but we also have series names based on the action of our 3 or 4 base run plays. So, we can identify all of the important info in one playcall.
These are our series and corresponding plays:
BELLY SERIES: Belly Belly Keeper Belly Counter Belly Option Belly Handback
LEAD SERIES: Lead Lead Draw Lead Counter Lead Option Lead Cross
SWEEP SERIES: Sweep Sweep Bootleg Sweep Counter
ZONE SERIES: Zone Zone Stretch Zone Toss
So, now we can call the back number (so there's no confusion or misunderstanding about who is carrying and who is not), the hole number (helps us identify where the blocking scheme is directed, who we're isoing, kicking out, trapping, reading in a zone scheme, etc.)
You can get this all across in one communication like: "36 Lead Counter" 3 back 6 hole Lead Series action Counter blocking scheme and steps for backfield
I've seen a lot of coaches argue that the hole numbers are not useful and only force the back into running a set track. I disagree. We use our hole numbers to indicate more to the OL about the play than anything else. Now, we don't need to have different play names to designate an inside counter from an outside counter. If we want to trap the DT in a 5-2 defense, we call "34 Lead Counter"...if we want to trap the DE we call "36 Lead Counter".
The other benefit of organizing your run game like this is that it ensures that you are installing a play that fits into your offense, and not just running a mess of plays. If we want to put a counter or reverse or something new in, we have to put it in as a compliment to one of our existing plays so that it fits in a series.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jul 11, 2007 18:06:08 GMT -6
Our OL coach in HS was Walt Housman, Jr. and his son Walt Housman III was our DL coach (now the DC / Associate HC for Chicago Rush).
Awesome name for a line coach.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jul 18, 2006 4:24:40 GMT -6
Why not make the "gut check" days unannounced?
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Feb 14, 2006 11:03:22 GMT -6
mncoach72,
I really like that idea. How did you practice this specifically? We don't have playclocks on our scoreboards, so was it managed from the sideline or was it more of a "feel" thing based on lots of time practicing it?
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Oct 22, 2007 11:20:19 GMT -6
Coach,
Particularly when you are going to a new school and a new program...COACH WHAT YOU KNOW BEST!!
The last thing you want to do as a new coach with a new program is try to implement something you don't know inside and out.
Maybe take what you know best and whittle it down to basics for the first year to really establish the system, then build from there.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Mar 3, 2008 10:50:50 GMT -6
You got it, brother!
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Mar 25, 2008 17:32:43 GMT -6
I had a work schedule change last year that took me away from a 13-year high school career. I hooked on with a semi-pro football team in the area and ran the offense for them. It was....interesting, to say the least.
There were positives and minuses. SOme people here have said that it is "bush league" and that it is "very poorly coached." That was not my experience, to be honest. The games were pretty competitive. We had some good athletes on our team, and faced a lot of good athletes on our opponent's teams. Some of the teams we played against were fairly well coached, all things considered. There were a few staffs that were comprised primarily of guys like me, who had extensive HS coaching experience, and just couldn't fit the schedule any longer. I found it to be pretty well-organized and fairly well attended. Our team was also very involved in community stuff, so we were generally a positive influence.
However, there is a lot of bad to go with those positives. First and foremost, is that there is NO unifying force or authority. In all other forms of football, you're playing for something...be it your town, high school, college, etc. Here, there's nothing to play for. That makes team unity a very difficult thing to build. There's no clear authority of coaches over players. The players don't give a crap about the coach's authority, because they don't have to. End of story. You have a lot of guys that are out for the wrong reasons. You have a lot of guys that think they are freaking Desmond Howard, when they could barely be as athletic as Desmond Child. Egos are nearly impossible to contain. Everyone has an angle.
There are a lot of guys who think they know what you need to be running and how you should be coaching. That can get really frustrating. There's a LOT of "me, me, me" stuff.
Overall, I didn't enjoy it. I found out that what attracts me to football coaching is working with and being a role model for young athletes. It's not calling plays or designing schemes. So, the fact that I discovered that for certain about myself made the experience somewhat worth while. However, if you want to get something out of it like what I'm talking about...you're in the wrong business.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Apr 6, 2006 15:30:51 GMT -6
(I'll limit this only to coaches who are still alive)
Belichick- Would love to understand his personnel evaluation philosophy and would love to break film down and analyze opponents with him.
Carroll- I think it would be fun to have him around at practice, and he's a great defensive mind
Gruden- I read his book, and I just like the way the guy thinks.
Paterno- The guy's coached football for longer than some of us have been alive. Nuff said.
Walsh- The architect of so much...
|
|