|
Post by lochness on Jan 7, 2007 10:41:12 GMT -6
My sophomore year, we were playing a JV game against a bitter rival. An alumni coach who had played a couple years in the NFL (GREAT GUY, by the way, who is now coaching professionally) was the Varsity DL coach, but also called plays on JV and helped coach on game days. Anyway, we're losing like 13-3 or something like that.
We go in at halftime, and this huge guy in his deep thundering voice yells "OFFESNIVE LINE, OVER HERE ON THE BENCH!!" Anyway, at this point, I'm eternally greatfull that I am an offensive back, so I wander over and pick my nose while the backfield coach talks about something or other. But nobody is paying attention because we're all listening to this other coach and want to hear what he has to say to the OL.
Anyway, he's got the whole group of them sitting side-by-side on the bench. He puts his forefingers and thumbs together, with the wrists facing the OL and the fingers pointed down, thumbs pointed up. He yells, "THIS IS YOU RIGHT HERE. BIG F****** C**TS WITH NO F****** HAIR!" He looks at our starting RT and yells, "PARRY, YOU'RE A P****!", picks up his clipboard, and walks out.
That was the absolute best and worst halftime speech I have ever heard, all rolled into one.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Mar 24, 2008 14:57:04 GMT -6
What about when you play a team that going into it you know they have a well coached, fundamentally sound team that is far superior to yours athletically? Do you run more gadgets and take more risks or do you try to play your best high percentage but less risky plays to give yourself a chance? Totally depends upon your philosophy. In a game where you are "far outmatched and outcoached"...are you really going to win or even the odds on gadget plays? Probably not in MOST situations. We played a game a couple of years ago against a vastly superior opponent, and we ran some tomfoolery (reverse pass, special teams stuff, etc.) which was actually successful. We still got obliterated because it's not sustainable (not from a scheme standpoint OR an emotional standpoint). There was no Boisie State miracle that day. But, in the end, it's a philosophy question. There's no "right or wrong" answer.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Mar 24, 2008 9:46:07 GMT -6
I was reading the 5 wide thread on the passing section and it got into taking chances so I thought I would start the discussion here. What are you thoughts on: 1. Surprise on side kicks 2. Going for it on 4th down in situations that don't normally call for it. 3. Going for 2 when the chart says not to. 4. Using gadget plays. We surprised on-side kicked 4 times this year and got 3 of them. Looking back we should have done it more because our kicker wasn't good and we were lucky to hold them to the 35 yd line anyway. We didn't have even 1 attempt at a 2pt conversion all year (has to be a record for me) Didn't realize it until after the season. Didn't run any gadgets at all this year & I love 'em Faked 4 punts. 2 went for TD on 4th & more than 10. I think a great deal of this has to do with game situations, the "feel" for how your team is performing and what they may need, and for your estimation of how your execution will be. 1. Surprise Onside Kicks- I love this idea in theory, but it's a pretty low-percentage gamble. Huge momentum swing if it works, though. We'd likely use this if we felt our defense was having one heck of a night. 2. Going for it on 4th Down-This is the one we're most likely to do on your list. We have traditionally had a very good offensive line, and a good short-yardage run game. We'll take a risk here, as long as it wouldn't leave our opponent in great field position. 3. Going for 2- Lots of variables on this one. Depends on the reliability of my kicker. Sometimes you have a better chance of getting the 2 points, depending upon what kind of night your kicker / holder / snapper is having! 4. Gadget Plays- Not necessarily a big risk, because you have the ability to call them on your own terms (ex: 2nd and short). However, they can be an embarassment and/or momentum killer if they fail miserably. We're more likely to take risks on special teams than anywhere else. We'll run a lateral kickoff return, fake FG, etc.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on May 22, 2006 10:16:15 GMT -6
Seems to me like this kind of practice completely defeats what HS football is all about...
How can any kind of success that comes to a coach that does these types of things even MEAN anything??
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jun 26, 2006 9:41:26 GMT -6
I think great coaches create situations where they build great teammates.
So, I would say "great coaches"...because the great coach fosters the brotherhood environment, and you ultimately get both.
Conversely, playing for "not-so-great" coaches will sometimes divide a team or at least cause morale issues.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Oct 26, 2006 4:38:35 GMT -6
One of my favorite expressions is "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink"
We've had very good teams and mediocre teams and bad teams over the last 13 years. We coach just as hard every day, and hold people accountable for their performance. If you have no talent and/or a fractured group with a bad attidude, doesn't necessarily mean you're "coaching it or allowing it." I've seen a lot of very good coaching staffs have tough years every now and then. We never lose respect for them, however, thinking that they're "coaching or allowing" laziness and lack of aggression.
Horsecrap.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Mar 16, 2006 5:40:27 GMT -6
I hate when the defense has better football players than my offense.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jul 12, 2007 20:12:53 GMT -6
Our favorite play is Double Dive Belly.
I've heard a lot of Wing-T coaches and ex-players refer to the Waggle Pass as the best play in football. There's probably an argument there too...
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Dec 12, 2007 8:09:40 GMT -6
LOCHNESS AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT (a few of many, I'm sure):
I can be overly sarcastic sometimes
I can (wrongly) lose respect for methods of football that I don't agree with (i.e. I believe that part of what makes football "special" is TE's, FB's, and in-your-face play, so I have a very human tendancy to dislike spread attacks, etc.) I forget that football is football.
I will blast, without mercy, coaches in our meetings who make off-the-cuff suggestions that do not fit in with our philosophy or system if those coaches are not hard working and well-versed in the game (example- the coach who came on last year when his son became a freshman, and now wants our zone based read-and-attack defense to "run man coverage and blitz more!!")
Because I used to coach at the same school I played at, I would take everything very personally and it was very unhealthy for me and sometimes unfair to the kids.
I automatically assume that any parent is my enemy and is backstabbing myself, every other coach, ane the entire program. I assume that all they care about is little perfect Johnny and how he should be going to USC if only he had good HS coaching. I hate parents and have no time for them.
Sometimes I am more reactive than proactive in my playcalling.
I like the Smokehouse Burger at Ruby Tuesday's...with a tall Budweiser.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Apr 28, 2006 4:33:56 GMT -6
All good stuff.
We tell kids that we will not accept a "quit" decision immediately. We tell them that they have great friends and people that care about them on the team, and that we want them to be a part of thigs. We tell them (especially if they are troubled) that we think football is a good thing for them, and we can see that they are benefiting from being involved. We tell them that they don't want to make a decision they may later regret, and that they should think about it over the next few days and return with a decision.
This is a tough question to answer because it really depends on the situation.
We've actually gotten a good deal of kids change their minds, because they have time to put it and everything you've told them into perspective.
Can't save 'em all, but you can certainly try.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Feb 25, 2006 10:41:12 GMT -6
The best athlete who can deliver the ball to our other athletes. If he's not a good runner, but he's still a good passer and a respected leader (THE most important trait) then he is our QB. I don't care if we can't run him all the time like most teams nowadays try to do.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Feb 9, 2006 7:47:19 GMT -6
Agreed!
Don't get me wrong...I fully advocate making appropriate adjustments based on personnel and opponent base. I am just amazed at the amount of people who seem interested in making a whole-sale change.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Feb 9, 2006 6:24:19 GMT -6
Coaches,
I have a question I've been curious about for a long time? How many of you have "stuck to" your systems throughout the years?
I ask this because being active on the internet gives me the impression that coaches seem very willing and eager to install offenses and defenses that are "the latest rage" rather than staying with a philosophy and a system they believe in. Is this a true perception, or is it just the nature of the internet beast?
I for one have run the same system for over a decade. Prior to that I played in it. We evolve our system every year, and we add / take away / emphasize differently depending upon our personnel and so forth. We may change some formaitons or modify a base blocking scheme, but I don't go from "DW" to "pro I" to "gun spread option" in the course of 3 or 4 years.
Has anyone out here been running the same system their whole careers (I emphasize SYSTEM, not plays or formations...but general rules, terminology, philosophy)?
Same is true of defense. I've seen so many teams in our state (usually the weaker ones) change their defense year in and year out. You know the guys "YEAH...let's try that 30 stack! That's the key to getting a winning season this year! It's hot right now!"
I think the greatest compliment our coaching staff ever received was when the HC of our rival said of us in the paper, "they're not going to be an easy first-round out. Their coaches work very hard and they have stuck to their systems." I just wonder whether anyone else places value on having some consistency, or if people are really just running with the tides...
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Apr 2, 2008 5:48:25 GMT -6
Just beat him like you would any other opponent. Hopefully, this means that when the score is out of reach, you have your back-ups in and you leave them in.
At the end of the game, you might make a comment like "Coach, I COULD have...but I NEVER would...not even to YOU."
That would frost his garden pretty well, and you still come out showing more class then he deserves.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on May 18, 2006 4:32:54 GMT -6
Best 2-point run:
3 TE, with the 3rd in a "sniffer" alignment directly behind the playside OT. Run "Belly" (double dive) to the second back with the sniffer acting as a lead blocker. On these types of plays, with a great fake to the first back, the defense can't help but focus on the dive by the first back. Even though this is our most commonly run play, we've had the 2nd back walk in untouched on some occasions.
Best 2-point pass play:
As simple as it may sound, we come out in the same alignment (3 TE with one in the playside sniffer) and fake either iso or belly "double dive" to that side. The 2 TE's on the line of scrimmage stay in, the sniffer fakes a block for a long 001 count, then angles into the flats across the goal line. Because the 2 TE's stay in, the backs have no blocking responsibilities per se, and they sell out like madmen on the playaction fake. The QB makes a great fake, then rolls in that direction, using a run / pass threat. Usually the sniffer is all by himself for an easy TD. The combination of the ability to make an all-out fake in the backfield and / or the delay by the sniffer really make this play work.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Feb 11, 2008 14:26:44 GMT -6
In 2006, I called our defense a "leaking watery bag of warm dung."
Does that count?
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Feb 10, 2008 10:16:14 GMT -6
We call our defense "Defense"
We figure with all the stupid nicknames and bada$$ sayings out there, we'd try to be original.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Nov 20, 2007 14:04:06 GMT -6
Is Troy a gun spread team? I don't think I've ever seen them.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jun 26, 2007 6:20:20 GMT -6
Oh, yeah. That show is weak.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jun 26, 2007 4:09:50 GMT -6
What?
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Mar 19, 2007 15:31:36 GMT -6
Coach J,
I think you will find that sentiment true of a great number of coaches who are passionate about their systems, however.
As an experiement, look around the board for posts with questions like:
"Hey, what is the best offense for me to run?" and you'll invariably see a multitude of answers:
Spread Gun Single Back with an H-back Double Wing Wing-T Veer Option etc etc
The bottom line is that ANY offense is a good offense, or otherwise it would not exist. The key is picking the offense YOU think is best for YOU. That usually has a lot to do with your own personal philosophies, your coaching strengths, and your personnel types.
I think the thing that I absolutely can't understand is the number of coaches who come on the board and ask that very question: "Hey...what offense should I run?" Don't any coaches have their own set philosophies any more? Isn't there anyone who is just comfortable running in THEIR system (NOT something they liked at a clinic, and NOT something that Urban Myer did on TV) anymore? It seems like everyone is always scrambling around for a magic offense or defense. Unfortunately, no such thing exists, guys. I mean...really...it doesn't.
Find a system that you understand, believe in, and can sit in for the long-haul with minimal adjustments each year. Learn everything you can about it and the base plays within it. Build the rules and terminology so that it is flexible enough to make adjustments to (the key here is MAKE ADJUSTMENTS, not CHANGE THE OFFENSE to whatever is hot), so that you can adapt it to your personnel as needed.
Sometimes I feel like not too many people think this way any more. I personally think there is a tremendous amount of pride and history that goes into a long-standing offensive or defensive system. It represents years of refinement, blending, adaptation, and evolution. It is something that you, your staff, and your entire program can be proud of. BUT you have to give it a chance, men! Don't read something out here on a message board or listen to Coach Bob Zero at a clinic and think "EUREKA!!" because none of us have the 100% total answer.
My best advice is to take IDEAS of the coaches you communicate with and make decisions in the off-season as to whether or not these things are good for you. Always ask yourself:
1. Does it fit with our system? 2. Does it tie to my philosophy (come to think of it...do I HAVE a philosophy)? 3. Is it good for my program (feeder, sub-varsity, varsity, etc.) all the way through? 4. Why do I really want to do this (did someone "sell me" on it, or do I really want to run this)? 5. Is this something I can sit in for years to come, or is it the offense of the week?
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Mar 19, 2007 4:46:25 GMT -6
So,
Final answer: it's the execution of a proper scheme that matters most.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jan 22, 2007 11:37:06 GMT -6
That's pretty much it, dude. It's like the difference between the:
3-4 and the 5-2 Are they DE's or OLB's?
4-4 and 4-2 Are they safeties or OLB's?
It's really just another way of making things more complicated than they need to be.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Mar 9, 2007 21:46:32 GMT -6
The day is mine, Trebek! I'll take "the rapists" for 200.
That's "threapists," Mr. Connery, not "the rapists!"
William Peterson (Gill Grissom on CSI) went to Idaho State on a football scholarship. I believe he was a strong safety.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jun 22, 2006 4:23:38 GMT -6
I really think it takes a few years of consistenly working the same program and showing improvements in overall performance. Also, doing some leadership "mentoring" with your seniors or your captains is also very benificial. Train them how to be winners and great leaders in your own mold.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Dec 21, 2006 13:13:57 GMT -6
Someone might need to flag ME for some "excessive celebration" this weekend, know what I mean???
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Sept 13, 2007 15:12:07 GMT -6
I'd start with finding 22 athletes.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jan 30, 2006 5:11:44 GMT -6
"Together We Can...Together We Will"
"Maintain the Tradition"
"We Come to Play"
"What Will YOU Do With the Time Left?"
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Apr 2, 2007 15:58:18 GMT -6
Wow,
That is very interesting.
Groundchuck, if you are listening, whaddya think in terms of Belly Series??
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Sept 21, 2007 7:52:27 GMT -6
Nice! Guy sounds like the model of professionalism and clearly holds himself personally accountable for the performance of the team. ICEBERG...RIGHT AHEAD!! Abandon ship, lad...the day after your last game.
|
|