|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 24, 2008 21:24:04 GMT -6
Something was mentioned in the thread about taking over a program late in the year that got me thinking.
"How does a new HC best start to establish his program, WITHOUT really throwing the seniors under the bus?"
I realize it isn't always the case, but the coach brought up his experience where he felt the new Header "tanked" his senior season for the sake of the future. Just looking for some opinions on that.
I know that my program was a shambles. We had 4 coaches in 4 years, and my jr. and sr seasons 8 of the 10 teams we played made the Louisiana state playoffs in their respective classification. We were abomination to football, so the new coach didn't really throw my sr class under the bus. But I wonder about other situations...
|
|
|
Post by liberalhater on Jul 24, 2008 21:42:18 GMT -6
99 times out of a 100, you cannot make a program any worse. One of the reason you are hired is because the program is in shambles. Those like it or not are reason the old coach is the old coach. You draw your own conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jul 24, 2008 22:17:20 GMT -6
99 times out of a 100, you cannot make a program any worse. One of the reason you are hired is because the program is in shambles. Those like it or not are reason the old coach is the old coach. You draw your own conclusions. Well.. that would assume that the coach leaving was not on his terms.. several times a coach leaves just because he got a better offer.. and you may or may not find someone as good as the guy who left.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jul 24, 2008 22:24:32 GMT -6
Something was mentioned in the thread about taking over a program late in the year that got me thinking. "How does a new HC best start to establish his program, WITHOUT really throwing the seniors under the bus?" I realize it isn't always the case, but the coach brought up his experience where he felt the new Header "tanked" his senior season for the sake of the future. Just looking for some opinions on that. I know that my program was a shambles. We had 4 coaches in 4 years, and my jr. and sr seasons 8 of the 10 teams we played made the Louisiana state playoffs in their respective classification. We were abomination to football, so the new coach didn't really throw my sr class under the bus. But I wonder about other situations... Good question... I think the answer is that you give the seniors an opportunity to "get on board"...some of them will, some of them will resist a new coach who comes in with high expectations. Those kid need to be written off but, for the seniors who stand by you and embrace your vision, I think you have to find a place for those kids. I think you put the ball in the seniors' court...give those kids every opportunity to be a part of your vision and, if they do, let them contribute. However, if they resist and risk spreading cancer, you have to play for the future.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 24, 2008 22:51:42 GMT -6
After thinking about it some, I realized that I was actually a PART of this type of endeavor coaching my first college gig. Old head coach left a 6-4 team to take a job elsewhere. They were a bunch of wide load, drive blocking types operating out of a multiple offensive system. We came in, installed the R&S with 3 foot splits...and went a solid 1 and 9 watching those root hogs operate in that type of space. But...it was the OC's system. He "coached what he knew"...
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jul 25, 2008 14:59:12 GMT -6
I know a guy who through the seniors under the bus. there was a large to do about it. it was a small school of 300 students. he promoted all the jr and sophs to varsity. he only had like 5 srs and non had really played much.
those sophs took a beating on varisty but by the time they were seniors they were state champs. totaly turned the direction of the schools football program around.
|
|
|
Post by wonderingcoach on Jul 25, 2008 15:10:44 GMT -6
You have to do what you have to do Coach. You are comendable for wanting to be fair. If its a High School, then it is hard to say to kids who really have no choice as to who the Coach is, that they have to change what they are doing. I think you just have to be respectful and patient. Remember its not really about you or "us" in this case. A High School Coach owes something more to his kids than they do to him. You don't want to just write off a bunch of "kids" who haven't done anything wrong. I would make a big todoo about this being a teachable moment, a lifelesson. You have to be able to deal with change to survive in this world. But I am a believer that systems aren't what makes a program. Traditions and attitudes make a program. Keep the same nomenclature if you can. I think that helps. Kids sometimes don't get concept. But if every pass route was numbered odd out and even in and you just don't like it and change it, you better be able to explain why. Just remember you are the adult, not them. You don't need to coddle them, also I don't think you earn a good rep by being a tool when you come in. Remember those Seniors will have brothers and cousins and may still be in a community where your rep is important. I Coached a team in a small town where I did not respect the effect of community... My car still shows the evidence of that.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 25, 2008 15:20:46 GMT -6
I think that one of the worst things a new HC can do is throw his seniors under the bus that first year. As coaches, we have to be as consistent as possible; in every way possible. Plus, what kind of message are you sending to your program in that first year if you ditch the seniors? You're telling the kids that you don't have any faith in them; bad, bad deal for a coach.
If the juniors and underclassmen are the best players in their position, then that's the way it is. But, if it's close between a senior and a junior or underclassmen, then that senior should get the starting nod.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jul 25, 2008 15:27:56 GMT -6
I think that one of the worst things a new HC can do is throw his seniors under the bus that first year. As coaches, we have to be as consistent as possible; in every way possible. Plus, what kind of message are you sending to your program in that first year if you ditch the seniors? You're telling the kids that you don't have any faith in them; bad, bad deal for a coach. If the juniors and underclassmen are the best players in their position, then that's the way it is. But, if it's close between a senior and a junior or underclassmen, then that senior should get the starting nod. I disagree. If is it close the job goes to the kid who has the most time left in the program. I do not believe seniors should get a free pass just because they are seniors. now if they clearly are the best at their position then yes they get to start. however if it is close, I have got to go with the younger guy.
|
|
|
Post by touchdowng on Jul 25, 2008 15:28:57 GMT -6
"How does a new HC best start to establish his program, WITHOUT really throwing the seniors under the bus?"
Don't play into this - there has to be some strengths about the present senior class that you can highlight along the way. I had a very weak senior class (my first season of my present job) and always made sure that I spoke about the fact that the seniors knew how to treat the underclassmen and used this as their "stamp" on leadership. Many were experiencing a drop in playing time as the season grew longer but there were no quitters. This wasn't a cheap way to get their minds off of diminished playing time but a way to honor what they did contribute during my first season with them.
As a matter of fact the "leader" of this first senior groups stood up in the lockerroom after our last game that season and enthusiastically addressed the underclassmen about how they needed to buy in 100% (and work harder during the off-season, etc.) because his senior class didn't. It was very powerful. He started by saying that he didn't trust the coaches at the beginning of the season but he now sees that what we were doing was the best way and he wished he could start over.
We found a way to honor our departing seniors during the season and they got the last word in by leaving a message of "don't screw up an opportunity like we did."
You just have to find a way to not show the youngins that the ones before them will be honored in some fashion. Now I have seniors talking about the legacy their group will known for.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 25, 2008 15:54:16 GMT -6
Something was mentioned in the thread about taking over a program late in the year that got me thinking. "How does a new HC best start to establish his program, WITHOUT really throwing the seniors under the bus?" I realize it isn't always the case, but the coach brought up his experience where he felt the new Header "tanked" his senior season for the sake of the future. Just looking for some opinions on that. I know that my program was a shambles. We had 4 coaches in 4 years, and my jr. and sr seasons 8 of the 10 teams we played made the Louisiana state playoffs in their respective classification. We were abomination to football, so the new coach didn't really throw my sr class under the bus. But I wonder about other situations... What better message for future players than "The best players play."? When in doubt you can go with the guy who worked hardest in the offseason but the best players play. If you want them to compete then you have to compete.
|
|
kr7263
Sophomore Member
Posts: 228
|
Post by kr7263 on Jul 26, 2008 10:01:02 GMT -6
I agree with the above. Why do you have to tank anything by installing your stuff. Are these kids and coaches so feeble minded that they cant change or are they too stubborn and lazy to change. Change is a major issue in life, things are always changing (look at our economy right now) if you can't improvise, adapt and overcome you will never be successful. I say jump in with both feet. Sell your stuff to the staff right now - if they don't like it, cant do it , wont do it your way - find a way to get them to invest. Sell your stuff to the senior (see above). It is your program, your offense, your defense. If you compromise now - you will be forever compromised. You were hired because you are the expert or the best person for the job. Its not a "its my way or the highway" deal its a "Here is my stuff and here is why it is great stuff" Don't go into it negative - go into it positive - This is a great opportunity for the seniors to begin the "Coach ---- Era" - "You will always be the first group who started this" whatever. YOU MUST GET EVERYONE ON THE SAME PAGE FIRST - If you don't have time - run a basic fundamentals practice for 3 days and meet after practice to teach your stuff. Slowly add new stuff each day - Have an organize install plan and pick the basic offense you need to win the first game. You must decide where you want to be next year - 5 years and 10 years from now. Have a vision of what you want YOUR offense & defense to look like.
|
|
|
Post by spartan74 on Jul 26, 2008 10:15:06 GMT -6
I was hired late my first year which was two seasons ago. I think the key to to rely on the seniors. I tried to establish trust and get them to buy into things. I asked their input, and put a lot of responsibility on them at the same time implement my own plans. SO they felt like it was their team, which worked rather well we finished the first year 8-2
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jul 26, 2008 10:22:17 GMT -6
be a coach ... it's not black and white ... it's shades of gray. depending on when you take over, determines how much and what that first year. you want to be successful from the start but you must be smart at how you go about achieving it... i.e. be a coach. scrap everything with 1 month to go? try to install it all with 3 weeks to go? completely new offense/defense on the first day of fall camp? are any of those feasible and practical? why not, say, we have a month before the season -- won't see our kids except during 7on7 so need to establish a few base plays. we will try to install this portion of our package for now, we can adapt that portion of "old" system to fit and get better mileage than completely starting from scratch. now, we are gonna change the NAMES of some of those plays - helps us out in future years when implementing our entire package - but we are not going to get bogged down with trying to put in everything since we lack time. W.I.N. - what's important now """"we will do this the first year because it takes time, need to put the total program in place and don't have time to do it all up front so will use increments--- find what current team can do WITHIN the new while not trying to overwhelm or overload. the second year - starting in offseason - we will do this as we add the whole thing or a large percentage of our system... now that time is on our side we can better evaluate and establish our procedures. """" however, if i call the smash route "nevada" but the old coach called it "china" ... and i deem the smash a vital part of our offense, guess what the smash route is going to be called that first day? nevada... why? because in the long run it helps me, and how freakin hard is it to remember that? we didn't change the play, we just changed the name. and, in year 2, or week 8 of year 1, having the play called nevada allows us to go to the second portion of the offense or do some other things within our no huddle -- i.e. the language lends itself to us continuing to grow the offense.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 26, 2008 11:52:46 GMT -6
I think that one of the worst things a new HC can do is throw his seniors under the bus that first year. As coaches, we have to be as consistent as possible; in every way possible. Plus, what kind of message are you sending to your program in that first year if you ditch the seniors? You're telling the kids that you don't have any faith in them; bad, bad deal for a coach. If the juniors and underclassmen are the best players in their position, then that's the way it is. But, if it's close between a senior and a junior or underclassmen, then that senior should get the starting nod. I disagree. If is it close the job goes to the kid who has the most time left in the program. I do not believe seniors should get a free pass just because they are seniors. now if they clearly are the best at their position then yes they get to start. however if it is close, I have got to go with the younger guy. Yeah, you're right; they do have more time left in the program. BUT, how can you compare time left in the program with time and hard work already spent?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 26, 2008 12:24:18 GMT -6
I am with coachcb on this one..especially if you are talking about "program". While airman's strategy is the most logical "on paper", I believe it discounts some human nature aspects. I have seen this particular action nearly implode a very solid program because those involved are not robots, but humans. TEENS at that. I believe you run into two main issues when you go with the "more time in the program" approach :
1. The potential to cut into underclassmen support/numbers. While some underclassmen might be ready to compete, I would say that generally, they are "waiting for their time". High School football is a special time in a young persons life, and at quality programs many young men/women put in 3 years of blood,sweat,tears, and time for 1 year of "glory". If the coach gets a reputation for dumping on the seniors--valid or not--I don't see as many people putting in those 3 for the 1.
2. Team chemistry can suffer. If, as you said, the players are equal...the REST of your seniors are going to back their classmate. The attitudes this can create cause headaches that waste the Header's time and energy.
Typing this up made me think of something else..which I will just throw out there. We often hear (and I often say) it is a "program" not a team. Just curious if this is somewhat of a myopic and selfish statement...because we as coaches get to preside over "the program" indefinitely, but the lifeblood of the program, the players, only enjoy a few teams.
|
|
|
Post by schultbear74 on Jul 26, 2008 12:24:29 GMT -6
was with a team last year with a first year HC. His seniors were not leaders, not hard workers and there were only a few who could play. One was a cancer. He should've thrown him under the bus IMO, but did not. By the end of the season the Jrs and Sophs had stepped up, but the cancer remained. He may have been right to have not haved tanked a senior, the younger guys saw how they did not wish to be. By the way, the HC would not recomend this kid to any coach citing his shortcomings if asked.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jul 26, 2008 12:36:46 GMT -6
I am with coachcb on this one..especially if you are talking about "program". While airman's strategy is the most logical "on paper", I believe it discounts some human nature aspects. I have seen this particular action nearly implode a very solid program because those involved are not robots, but humans. TEENS at that. I believe you run into two main issues when you go with the "more time in the program" approach : 1. The potential to cut into underclassmen support/numbers. While some underclassmen might be ready to compete, I would say that generally, they are "waiting for their time". High School football is a special time in a young persons life, and at quality programs many young men/women put in 3 years of blood,sweat,tears, and time for 1 year of "glory". If the coach gets a reputation for dumping on the seniors--valid or not--I don't see as many people putting in those 3 for the 1. 2. Team chemistry can suffer. If, as you said, the players are equal...the REST of your seniors are going to back their classmate. The attitudes this can create cause headaches that waste the Header's time and energy. Typing this up made me think of something else..which I will just throw out there. We often hear (and I often say) it is a "program" not a team. Just curious if this is somewhat of a myopic and selfish statement...because we as coaches get to preside over "the program" indefinitely, but the lifeblood of the program, the players, only enjoy a few teams. is it 3 years of blood swear and tears or 3 years of showing up. when lou holtz took over notre dame he go them up at 6 am in the off season and ran them to death. this seperated the pretenders for the contendors. ND had become a college where people thought just showing up was good enough. most high school coaches take over losing programs and try to set them in a new direction. the seniors typically are guys who just showed up and are now too late to catch the train unless they are say a tim brown who played on a losing team. the best kids play is my motto. if a freshman is the best qb then he plays. I guess I care little what people think of me cause I know winning is what chages people attitudes. every one wants to be part of a winner. like it or not we are charged with winning games. now do we play people who are seniors to make them feell good or do we start those who are going to give you the most return on your investment. If I were in charge of this program depending on the state rules I would condition the heck out of them in the offseason and during camp. camp would be tough, 4 two hour practices every day. this would take care of most of my problems. the seniors who really wanted to play would make it. I remember mark speckman talking about his first year coaching high school ball he cut 32 seniors becasue they had failed to meet the standards of the off season plan. it caused great problems but they survived.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 26, 2008 12:48:04 GMT -6
I am with coachcb on this one..especially if you are talking about "program". While airman's strategy is the most logical "on paper", I believe it discounts some human nature aspects. I have seen this particular action nearly implode a very solid program because those involved are not robots, but humans. TEENS at that. I believe you run into two main issues when you go with the "more time in the program" approach : 1. The potential to cut into underclassmen support/numbers. While some underclassmen might be ready to compete, I would say that generally, they are "waiting for their time". High School football is a special time in a young persons life, and at quality programs many young men/women put in 3 years of blood,sweat,tears, and time for 1 year of "glory". If the coach gets a reputation for dumping on the seniors--valid or not--I don't see as many people putting in those 3 for the 1. 2. Team chemistry can suffer. If, as you said, the players are equal...the REST of your seniors are going to back their classmate. The attitudes this can create cause headaches that waste the Header's time and energy. Typing this up made me think of something else..which I will just throw out there. We often hear (and I often say) it is a "program" not a team. Just curious if this is somewhat of a myopic and selfish statement...because we as coaches get to preside over "the program" indefinitely, but the lifeblood of the program, the players, only enjoy a few teams. is it 3 years of blood swear and tears or 3 years of showing up. when lou holtz took over notre dame he go them up at 6 am in the off season and ran them to death. this seperated the pretenders for the contendors. ND had become a college where people thought just showing up was good enough. most high school coaches take over losing programs and try to set them in a new direction. the seniors typically are guys who just showed up and are now too late to catch the train unless they are say a tim brown who played on a losing team. the best kids play is my motto. if a freshman is the best qb then he plays. I guess I care little what people think of me cause I know winning is what chages people attitudes. every one wants to be part of a winner. like it or not we are charged with winning games. now do we play people who are seniors to make them feell good or do we start those who are going to give you the most return on your investment. If I were in charge of this program depending on the state rules I would condition the heck out of them in the offseason and during camp. camp would be tough, 4 two hour practices every day. this would take care of most of my problems. the seniors who really wanted to play would make it. I remember mark speckman talking about his first year coaching high school ball he cut 32 seniors becasue they had failed to meet the standards of the off season plan. it caused great problems but they survived. I think we are discussing two different things. I agree 100% with your thoughts on coming into a new program, and how to handle situations. But there is a difference between between saying "the best players play" (which I agree with) and saying "if they are close/equal..the younger player plays, because he will be with me longer" (which I don't agree with)
|
|
|
Post by tvt50 on Jul 26, 2008 16:05:26 GMT -6
good thread have enjoyed reading it thanks
|
|
|
Post by outlawjoseywales on Jul 26, 2008 16:42:55 GMT -6
The worst "person" I know who coaches, has thrown his Seniors under the bus every single year. I don't know how he has kept his job over the years. I know alot about the situation having relatives that played for the guy.
Every year, after about 1/2 way through the season and they've won 1 or 2 games, he starts promotion the younger kids and reducing playing time for his Seniors. Has never had a winning season, has never won more than 3-4 game a season and has been there for a while.
The guy even tells the families in public meetings that if any parent talks to him about playing time of their kids, that he will bench the kid. He is really disliked by the families but no one can seem to dislodge this guy. If any family complaines to the school, their kid finds a way of losing playing time.
I have never seen or heard of any coach who is worse than this guy, except for 1 guy I knew who molested kids. He was the worst. This particular guy refuses to even help any of his kids get into college, if they want to advance they have to do it themselves.
Needless to say, he hasn't put anyone in college for a while.
This guy did the same thing again this past year, sat the Seniors down and promoted younger players for next year. Just nuts. OJW
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 26, 2008 17:17:18 GMT -6
I am with coachcb on this one..especially if you are talking about "program". While airman's strategy is the most logical "on paper", I believe it discounts some human nature aspects. I have seen this particular action nearly implode a very solid program because those involved are not robots, but humans. TEENS at that. I believe you run into two main issues when you go with the "more time in the program" approach : 1. The potential to cut into underclassmen support/numbers. While some underclassmen might be ready to compete, I would say that generally, they are "waiting for their time". High School football is a special time in a young persons life, and at quality programs many young men/women put in 3 years of blood,sweat,tears, and time for 1 year of "glory". If the coach gets a reputation for dumping on the seniors--valid or not--I don't see as many people putting in those 3 for the 1. 2. Team chemistry can suffer. If, as you said, the players are equal...the REST of your seniors are going to back their classmate. The attitudes this can create cause headaches that waste the Header's time and energy. Typing this up made me think of something else..which I will just throw out there. We often hear (and I often say) it is a "program" not a team. Just curious if this is somewhat of a myopic and selfish statement...because we as coaches get to preside over "the program" indefinitely, but the lifeblood of the program, the players, only enjoy a few teams. is it 3 years of blood swear and tears or 3 years of showing up. when lou holtz took over notre dame he go them up at 6 am in the off season and ran them to death. this seperated the pretenders for the contendors. ND had become a college where people thought just showing up was good enough. most high school coaches take over losing programs and try to set them in a new direction. the seniors typically are guys who just showed up and are now too late to catch the train unless they are say a tim brown who played on a losing team. the best kids play is my motto. if a freshman is the best qb then he plays. I guess I care little what people think of me cause I know winning is what chages people attitudes. every one wants to be part of a winner. like it or not we are charged with winning games. now do we play people who are seniors to make them feell good or do we start those who are going to give you the most return on your investment. If I were in charge of this program depending on the state rules I would condition the heck out of them in the offseason and during camp. camp would be tough, 4 two hour practices every day. this would take care of most of my problems. the seniors who really wanted to play would make it. I remember mark speckman talking about his first year coaching high school ball he cut 32 seniors becasue they had failed to meet the standards of the off season plan. it caused great problems but they survived. But, given that the senior and the junior/underclassmen are equal at their position; you're still looking at the same performance at the position. What happens next year when that junior is now a senior and now he has a couple underclassmen that are his equal? Still not creating a 2-3 year starter, you're still getting a 1 year starter each year. There's no way that you can justify it with that senior either. How is he supposed to buy into the greater good after working hard for 3 years, earning his spot and then riding the bench? How are any of your kids going to buy into it if that's the case? Having pride in your program, trust in your coach and a love of the game is the foundation of winning programs. Playing favorites with the juniors and underclassmen isn't going to foster that in any way.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 27, 2008 9:02:32 GMT -6
I think if the seniors are true seniors then fine. But if they are being out worked in the weight room (attendance) and are equal on the field, I play the underclassmen. I've got not problem playing seniors, but I've also got no problem playing underclassmen. I play who I trust, if you're constantly screwing around, missing summer stuff, etc. Then I don't trust you and it doesn't matter what grade you're in...or whether you are a player or COACH!! I don't just catagorically replace seniors but get it straight, I have a vision for what is and is not acceptable and it is clearly communicated in point blank black and white english and there is not a single kid in our locker room who is unaware of my expectations. I don't black ball the seniors but at the same time, they are going to be the way I want, just like every other kid. I do play favorites, who ever is doing what is asked are my favorites. This year we are projecting 6 seniors to start defensively, apparently they believe me since 4 seniors paid the price last year, these 6 seniors rarely miss weights, they are the hardest workers, they are leaders, THEY ARE WHAT A SENIOR SHOULD BE, are they all the most talented? No. Will I bench them when their underclassmen backups are ready to go? No, not catagorically, but those underclassmen are going to get some PT when they are ready. I agree with using weight room time to weed players out- seniors or other wise. In this respect, I contradict my original philosophy. If a junior and a senior are equal across the board, but that junior (or underclassmen) has made a significantly more wt training sessions, I'd give the playing time to the junior. As I said, this goes against my original philosophy in some ways, but it still revolves around rewarding the kids who work. Also, it's tough to motivate the kids in the weight room if you're giving playing time to players who don't pay their dues in the off season. Right now, we're having a pretty easy time with this; the kids are weeding themselves out. We have a few upper classmen who skipped out on morning workouts all summer. Most of them are so far behind the rest of the team, they're really going to have to do something spectacular to keep their jobs.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 27, 2008 9:08:38 GMT -6
CB...I don't think it goes against your original philosophy, because HARD WORK (in my eyes) is part of being a player. So if you believe the ON field abilities are equal, and the underclassmen definitively outworks the upperclassmen, the players are NOT equal, and the nod goes to the younger kid.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 27, 2008 9:51:15 GMT -6
CB...I don't think it goes against your original philosophy, because HARD WORK (in my eyes) is part of being a player. So if you believe the ON field abilities are equal, and the underclassmen definitively outworks the upperclassmen, the players are NOT equal, and the nod goes to the younger kid. Absolutely. The offseason is definitely a big part of the evaluation process.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jul 28, 2008 12:52:29 GMT -6
is it 3 years of blood swear and tears or 3 years of showing up. when lou holtz took over notre dame he go them up at 6 am in the off season and ran them to death. this seperated the pretenders for the contendors. ND had become a college where people thought just showing up was good enough. most high school coaches take over losing programs and try to set them in a new direction. the seniors typically are guys who just showed up and are now too late to catch the train unless they are say a tim brown who played on a losing team. the best kids play is my motto. if a freshman is the best qb then he plays. I guess I care little what people think of me cause I know winning is what chages people attitudes. every one wants to be part of a winner. like it or not we are charged with winning games. now do we play people who are seniors to make them feell good or do we start those who are going to give you the most return on your investment. If I were in charge of this program depending on the state rules I would condition the heck out of them in the offseason and during camp. camp would be tough, 4 two hour practices every day. this would take care of most of my problems. the seniors who really wanted to play would make it. I remember mark speckman talking about his first year coaching high school ball he cut 32 seniors becasue they had failed to meet the standards of the off season plan. it caused great problems but they survived. I think we are discussing two different things. I agree 100% with your thoughts on coming into a new program, and how to handle situations. But there is a difference between between saying "the best players play" (which I agree with) and saying "if they are close/equal..the younger player plays, because he will be with me longer" (which I don't agree with) to me if a jr and a sr are equal, the jr is going to start and get the most reps. The sr had his chance to win the starting job. one has to remember we are building for the future in this example. If you are a winning program you most likely can afford the senior to play.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 28, 2008 13:24:59 GMT -6
I think we are discussing two different things. I agree 100% with your thoughts on coming into a new program, and how to handle situations. But there is a difference between between saying "the best players play" (which I agree with) and saying "if they are close/equal..the younger player plays, because he will be with me longer" (which I don't agree with) to me if a jr and a sr are equal, the jr is going to start and get the most reps. The sr had his chance to win the starting job. one has to remember we are building for the future in this example. If you are a winning program you most likely can afford the senior to play. Coach, we will have to agree to disagree here. I think saying "the sr had his chance to win the starting job" is a bit short-sighted. I can think of countless examples in my playing/coaching career where a kid was a good player, but just not better than the guy in front, and had to wait till that SR year until they got to play. The fact that the Jr. behind him is "equal" (which we must realize, is a completely subjective term iin this case) is irrelevant. As someone else mentioned, what happens when you play that Jr. in front..and then the NEXT year, as a Sr, he is only as good as the Jr. behind him? Now we are creating an environment where we are "crapping" on our Seniors right? Another thing I disagree with is the thought process that you are "building for the future" in ANY H.S program, at the expense of a current kid. We as coaches have the luxury of "next year". The kids don't. However, I can understand how you can feel this way based on your previous statements that you are not a "life lessons coach" but rather someone who believes the H.S. coaches job is to win football games.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jul 28, 2008 15:40:10 GMT -6
to me if a jr and a sr are equal, the jr is going to start and get the most reps. The sr had his chance to win the starting job. one has to remember we are building for the future in this example. If you are a winning program you most likely can afford the senior to play. Coach, we will have to agree to disagree here. I think saying "the sr had his chance to win the starting job" is a bit short-sighted. I can think of countless examples in my playing/coaching career where a kid was a good player, but just not better than the guy in front, and had to wait till that SR year until they got to play. The fact that the Jr. behind him is "equal" (which we must realize, is a completely subjective term iin this case) is irrelevant. As someone else mentioned, what happens when you play that Jr. in front..and then the NEXT year, as a Sr, he is only as good as the Jr. behind him? Now we are creating an environment where we are "crapping" on our Seniors right? Another thing I disagree with is the thought process that you are "building for the future" in ANY H.S program, at the expense of a current kid. We as coaches have the luxury of "next year". The kids don't. However, I can understand how you can feel this way based on your previous statements that you are not a "life lessons coach" but rather someone who believes the H.S. coaches job is to win football games. you make an interesting point. we as coaches have next year and the kids do not. I think way too many coaches have the wait until next you to win mentality. They get it into their heads they will ride out this season and next year when we have better talent we will win. to me the future is now, not next year. why are seniors so special? I realize you want seniors to play. actually you want jrs who played and now are seniors. but either way you want you upper classman(jr and sr.) to be the dominate force on your team. It works best this way and will continue. however if you are at a school with a losing tradition, what is the benefit of playing the seniors who have been part of this losing tradition? If one can right the ship by changing the mentality through bringing up the sophs to play varsity I see no problem with this. the reason I like sports is it truely is free market capitalism at work. The best play regardless of class. It seems many are arguing that a protectionist scheme should be in place for the seniors because they have put in years of service. Seems to me this is the teacher mentality to be honest. We reward those based on service of years instead of meritt. I live in a free market world. i believe those who can be the most productive for the longest period are the ones who will play. I also believe that no one is special regardless of age or service and I believe no one is irreplaceable.
|
|
|
Post by tye2021 on Aug 1, 2008 15:07:09 GMT -6
Not all programs are losing programs because the Sr's are lounging around during weight training and practice. Sometimes its because they had/have POOR leadership at the coaching positions!!
Everyone saying bench the seniors if they don't get inline with "MY" Program. Maybe they have bad attitudes because the coaches were inept! And all they wanted to begin with is someone to come in and teach them how to be winners.
No one wants to be apart of a losing program. Especially your Sr. year in HS. If you could come in and show these kids what it takes to be winners most if not all will follow. I'm not naive I know the potential of bad seeds are a possiblility in a program. But alot of you guys, NOT ALL, are talking as if know the failing program are the current players on the roster. That may not be the case. Attitudes don't change with the underclassmen. It changes with the PLAYERS that WANT to Play. And those are the players you build around.
Just my opinion!
As far as the argument about who to start out of a Sr and Jr that are equal. It really doesn't matter because a smart coach will figure out how to utilize them both. I understand that some positions, like QBs, this is harder to do. But if it benefits the team.......you'll find a way.
AGAIN, Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Aug 1, 2008 15:22:15 GMT -6
Not all programs are losing programs because the Sr's are lounging around during weight training and practice. Sometimes its because they had/have POOR leadership at the coaching positions!! Everyone saying bench the seniors if they don't get inline with "MY" Program. Maybe they have bad attitudes because the coaches were inept! And all they wanted to begin with is someone to come in and teach them how to be winners. No one wants to be apart of a losing program. Especially your Sr. year in HS. If you could come in and show these kids what it takes to be winners most if not all will follow. I'm not naive I know the potential of bad seeds are a possiblility in a program. But alot of you guys, NOT ALL, are talking as if know the failing program are the current players on the roster. That may not be the case. Attitudes don't change with the underclassmen. It changes with the PLAYERS that WANT to Play. And those are the players you build around. Just my opinion! As far as the argument about who to start out of a Sr and Jr that are equal. It really doesn't matter because a smart coach will figure out how to utilize them both. I understand that some positions, like QBs, this is harder to do. But if it benefits the team.......you'll find a way. AGAIN, Just my opinion. Tye - I think you make some great points. I completely agree with you that no kid wants to be a part of a bad program. I also believe that the single most important factor in good programs is great coaching. So, I think what often happens in "bad" programs is that the kids simply don't know how to work hard, how to carry themselves, how to be a winner because no one has ever shown them how. I think that a head coach who takes over a program where losing has been institutionalized should give the players he inherits an opportunity to be a part of the new regime. However, if some of those kids are resistant and become cancers, they have to be cut out.
|
|