|
|
Post by airraider on Jun 3, 2008 11:34:31 GMT -6
I guess some people are speaking on this subject differently than others.. I personally am not saying I want to control every aspect of the defense.. I dont want to call the game on Fridays.. I dont want to sub.. I dont want to run the defensive practices.. I dont want to implement the drills.. but.. I will decide the scheme we will run as a team. I will decide who plays where I will decide what we should focus on week in and week out I will have final say on Friday nights if its 4th and goal with a minute left from the 4 and we are up by 4. Because ALL of those are game/program management decisions. And I will not allow those to fall out of my hands. If you do not agree with any of that, then please never apply at Woodlawn High School in Shreveport LA as long as I am the HC. So many "I's" Again, in your situation this year, coming into a staff that you haven't worked with, and that hasn't really shown you they are much more than guys with whistles...I would agree. There are things you can do though to make it a whole lot less "I-centric" If you don't have anyone you feel competent about, good call. Now you need to entrust that person who you have decided to be a DC to go research that subject and continually be in constant contact with you as HE develops HIS new defense. Constantly whiteboarding hiim for adjustments (should be easy, you are an offensive guy-- "What if I do this..What if I do that..." Tell him "Ok, we are going to meet this friday, and I want to see what answers you have come up with against this, this and this...and what drills you think the position coaches need to do to accomplish that, that and that..... If you are one platooning, I would agree. Two platooning... I think you should first QUESTION why certain players are places, and let the coaches explain their rationale. No rationale...then you explain that in a successful program, there needs to be reasons for EVERYTHIGN. What I read here is "I am on a staff of bozos. None of them have any clue of anything." If this is the case, then yes, I would proceed as outlined earlier...through guiding questions. Yes, this is definitely your call..HOWEVER this is one of the TOP REASONS why experienced coaches who have developed staffs get out of the coordinator business. To be completely impartial in situations like these. To manage a game rather than a unit. Again, your situation is vastly different (according to your words, and the thread starters words) than the original question. Original question was "I have a really qualified guy, who disagrees with me. Is it common for the HC to allow the subordinate coaches idea to stand" Which is clearly a YES. Now, I would say that if in 2 years, you haven't developed coaches who are capable of doing the things you said YOU should do this year...I would say you didnt do your job. Great post.. with great responses.. well taken.. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jun 3, 2008 11:36:10 GMT -6
I guess some people are speaking on this subject differently than others.. I personally am not saying I want to control every aspect of the defense.. I dont want to call the game on Fridays.. I dont want to sub.. I dont want to run the defensive practices.. I dont want to implement the drills.. but.. I will decide the scheme we will run as a team. I will decide who plays where I will decide what we should focus on week in and week out I will have final say on Friday nights if its 4th and goal with a minute left from the 4 and we are up by 4. Because ALL of those are game/program management decisions. And I will not allow those to fall out of my hands. If you do not agree with any of that, then please never apply at Woodlawn High School in Shreveport LA as long as I am the HC. So many "I's" Again, in your situation this year, coming into a staff that you haven't worked with, and that hasn't really shown you they are much more than guys with whistles...I would agree. There are things you can do though to make it a whole lot less "I-centric" If you don't have anyone you feel competent about, good call. Now you need to entrust that person who you have decided to be a DC to go research that subject and continually be in constant contact with you as HE develops HIS new defense. Constantly whiteboarding hiim for adjustments (should be easy, you are an offensive guy-- "What if I do this..What if I do that..." Tell him "Ok, we are going to meet this friday, and I want to see what answers you have come up with against this, this and this...and what drills you think the position coaches need to do to accomplish that, that and that..... If you are one platooning, I would agree. Two platooning... I think you should first QUESTION why certain players are places, and let the coaches explain their rationale. No rationale...then you explain that in a successful program, there needs to be reasons for EVERYTHIGN. What I read here is "I am on a staff of bozos. None of them have any clue of anything." If this is the case, then yes, I would proceed as outlined earlier...through guiding questions. Yes, this is definitely your call..HOWEVER this is one of the TOP REASONS why experienced coaches who have developed staffs get out of the coordinator business. To be completely impartial in situations like these. To manage a game rather than a unit. Again, your situation is vastly different (according to your words, and the thread starters words) than the original question. Original question was "I have a really qualified guy, who disagrees with me. Is it common for the HC to allow the subordinate coaches idea to stand" Which is clearly a YES. Now, I would say that if in 2 years, you haven't developed coaches who are capable of doing the things you said YOU should do this year...I would say you didnt do your job. Clearly, the HC should treat a questionable staff differently than he would a qualified, experienced one. |
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Jun 3, 2008 12:36:46 GMT -6
My take for what's it's worth- Did you hire or promote the guy to the job or inherit him? If you gave him the job then let him do it- in my case I am pretty much completely hands off the defense. My DC knows defense far better then I that's why he's the DC- let him coach and take ownership of the defense. If you are coming in as a new HC- you open the job up and interview and find who you want doing the job. If the old DC is worth a damn he'll not have a problem with that at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by tye2021 on Jun 3, 2008 13:57:09 GMT -6
<b>Just my .02</b>
There have been plenty of coaches w/success and/or failures where the HC hired an OC/DC to run the HC's offense/defense (Tony Dungee Tampa-2 / WCO disciples- though most call their own plays now).
And there have been plenty of coaches w/success and/or failures where the HC hired an OC/DC to run their system.
Joe Gibbs won Super bowls running HIS offensive scheme. (not sure if he had an OC calling the plays or if he did himself but it was HIS system.) When he got back into coaching after a few years of mediocre success with his system he hired Sanders to come in and implement his offense. Though it was a new system it was someone with similar beliefs, that was able to adapt the offense to include coach Gibb's running game.
On the other side of that is Bill Parcels. He believes in the 3-4 defense. He also dictates what STYLE of Offense that is going to be used and he hired a OC to run the STYLE of offense he wanted. He too has won superbowls running his system. When he first started at Dallas they were a 4-3 defense. He left in the 4-3 and allowed the DC to run his defense. At the end of the year he wasn't happy with the 4-3 so he went back to the 3-4 defense that he knows and trusts and brought in a DC that understands how to run the 3-4 the way Coach Parcels wants it to be run.
Then there is Tony Dungy who has a DC that runs his Tampa 2 but he has an offense that was in place before he got there and he allows the OC to run it his way. He was also recruited by the guy so he was comfortable with him running the show.
Jon Gruden runs his offense in Tampa but allows The DC to run the Defense.
There are also coaches out there that hire OC's and DC's and allows them to implement their systems.
I know these aren't highschool coaches but there are coaches out there that will fit into the category of one of these examples.
If you are a HC hire someone that fits into what you as a HC need or want and who buys into your philosophy. DO NOT hire a OC/DC under the guise of them running their system only to change your mind after he has accepted the job. Its not fair to him and its not very professional of you!
If you want someone thats going to run YOUR system hire someone that is ok with that. And if you are going to call the plays yourself hire position coaches and not coordinators.
If you as an OC/DC want to call the offense/defense and run your system make it known during the interview and only accept jobs that will allow you to do so.
Regardles of whose sytem is being run there should be communication throughout the staff. If you as a header cannot accept input or criticism from your staff it <b>IS an EGO trip</b> and you could be setting your program up to fail. This also goes for coordinators and even position coaches.
As far as the second discussion that has seemed to pop up about who is responsible for teaching our kids morals, ethics, and values. Its like what dcohio said.... <b>you cannot hide who you are</b>. If you live your life a certain way the kids you coach will pick up on it REGARDLESS of whether or not you are trying to teach them morals, ethics, or values.
You don't have to be actively teaching your morals, values and ethics to your players they will notice it in the way you carry yourself and most will emulate your actions. At the same time if you are disrespectful towards others some of those same kids would emulate those actions as well. So wether you believe you are there to just coach or not those kids are learning more that just football from you.
|
|
|
|
Post by veerman on Jun 3, 2008 16:47:04 GMT -6
I think each situation is different. Sometimes you might be in a situation where your asst. coaches are just teachers who help out who do not know a how lot about the game, and you "teach" them your system. I am an assistant coach, but have goals of one day being a head coach, when that day comes I will want to find assistants who have the same philosophies as me and they can coordinate, but until my staff is filled I will teach them what I want. Got a question for you OC/DC guys who have a big problem with head coaches running their system. If you are the OC/DC and you are wanting to run a particular system, and a position coach wants to teach a different type of technique to his kids that he knows, but is not the way you want. Do you let him teach the tech he knows or tell him the technique you want and thats it. What's entirely different because now you're not being sound. Yeah it's still sound Ex: You like your ILB to read backs but he like to read Guards. Do you let him read Gaurds or tell him to read backs? |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 3, 2008 16:59:18 GMT -6
veerman--not to get off the topic, but reads and techniques are two different things. Reads interlace will all facets of the defense. Reads are part of a defenses infrastructure, best when unified throughout the scheme with purpose.
A better example would be..say, the backpedal vs the shuffle for a defensive back.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jun 3, 2008 18:59:37 GMT -6
I guess some people are speaking on this subject differently than others.. I personally am not saying I want to control every aspect of the defense.. I dont want to call the game on Fridays.. I dont want to sub.. I dont want to run the defensive practices.. I dont want to implement the drills.. but.. I will decide the scheme we will run as a team. I will decide who plays where I will decide what we should focus on week in and week out I will have final say on Friday nights if its 4th and goal with a minute left from the 4 and we are up by 4. Because ALL of those are game/program management decisions. And I will not allow those to fall out of my hands. If you do not agree with any of that, then please never apply at Woodlawn High School in Shreveport LA as long as I am the HC. Several people on here have said that they understand your attitude because you have staff issues. That makes sense. Presumably you'll be trying to upgrade the staff. Given the attitude stated above what incentive does a qualified coach have to come to your school? |
|
nannother
Sophomore Member
GREATEST RB EVER
Posts: 122
|
Post by nannother on Jun 3, 2008 19:34:31 GMT -6
I guess some people are speaking on this subject differently than others.. I personally am not saying I want to control every aspect of the defense.. I dont want to call the game on Fridays.. I dont want to sub.. I dont want to run the defensive practices.. I dont want to implement the drills.. but.. I will decide the scheme we will run as a team. I will decide who plays where I will decide what we should focus on week in and week out I will have final say on Friday nights if its 4th and goal with a minute left from the 4 and we are up by 4. Because ALL of those are game/program management decisions. And I will not allow those to fall out of my hands. If you do not agree with any of that, then please never apply at Woodlawn High School in Shreveport LA as long as I am the HC. Several people on here have said that they understand your attitude because you have staff issues. That makes sense. Presumably you'll be trying to upgrade the staff. Given the attitude stated above what incentive does a qualified coach have to come to your school? IMO he already answered that question. If a qualified coach comes to his area and doesn't run the same scheme that he wants the OC/DC they can keep looking. In his words "Well since scheme is just X's and O's.. then he can learn my scheme if he wants the job.. if not.. good luck to him in his future endeavors.." It's pretty amazing that in H.S. football you could turn away qualified help because of a difference in "X" and "O". Replies with college and pro comparisons are completely different. The level of talent, coaching experience, time and money make their search for qualified candidates, sharing their same philosophy, a bit easier. At that level the HC, OC/DC have to depend on their assistants because they don't have time to babysit. If you're lacking they'll have no problem filling your spot. |
|
|
|
Post by veerman on Jun 3, 2008 21:04:42 GMT -6
veerman--not to get off the topic, but reads and techniques are two different things. Reads interlace will all facets of the defense. Reads are part of a defenses infrastructure, best when unified throughout the scheme with purpose. A better example would be..say, the backpedal vs the shuffle for a defensive back. My main point was if you are a cord. then you will probally want to tell the position coaches how you want things done, so why wouldn't a head coach want to tell the "program" how things will be done. |
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jun 3, 2008 21:11:48 GMT -6
Several people on here have said that they understand your attitude because you have staff issues. That makes sense. Presumably you'll be trying to upgrade the staff. Given the attitude stated above what incentive does a qualified coach have to come to your school? IMO he already answered that question. If a qualified coach comes to his area and doesn't run the same scheme that he wants the OC/DC they can keep looking. In his words "Well since scheme is just X's and O's.. then he can learn my scheme if he wants the job.. if not.. good luck to him in his future endeavors.." It's pretty amazing that in H.S. football you could turn away qualified help because of a difference in "X" and "O". Replies with college and pro comparisons are completely different. The level of talent, coaching experience, time and money make their search for qualified candidates, sharing their same philosophy, a bit easier. At that level the HC, OC/DC have to depend on their assistants because they don't have time to babysit. If you're lacking they'll have no problem filling your spot. It is obvious that at that point.. it would be the person looking for the job that turn himself away.. If a guy likes a certain scheme or system, I will not turn him away.. but if he wants to be apart of my staff.. then he will have to buy into what we are doing on that staff.. |
|
