|
Post by 19delta on Jun 9, 2010 19:24:45 GMT -6
so, from what i'm reading is the reason we all seem to have lesser athletes than our opponents is because the kids just won't come to the weight room during the offseason ... I think that is a big part of it. There is no excuse to be weaker and slower than your competition.
|
|
|
Post by mattharris75 on Jun 9, 2010 19:58:58 GMT -6
This is where the fact that coaching is more than just X's and O's really comes into play. It's the job of the coaches to facilitate building and developing these players through the weight room. There's always going to be extenuating circumstances. Things like socioeconomic backgrounds, administration, tradition, player personalities/leadership, etc, etc. It goes on and on. Some places are just more conducive to making this happen than others. But ultimately it comes down to 'coaching'. It's just not the coaching that occurs on Friday nights in the fall.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jun 9, 2010 20:21:57 GMT -6
It's very simple.
To most coaches, the X's and O's is more attractive, more fun, more easy and more ego-serving than developing strength, speed, technique, attitude, leadership, and character.
So, coaches focus on making up for their lack of attention to the latter by over-emphasizing the former.
"We have $#!+ personnel, so we have to run the spread /double wing / veer / wing-t / 3-3 superblitzer / 46 Bear / A-11." That way the coach can slap himself on the back about how good his scheme is and how brilliant a mastermind he is, because he turned his fat, weak, slow, small kids into competitive football players with his brilliant scheme. When you have good, strong, fast, motivated kids, you can run the same 4 plays over and over again, and WIN...but not look as much genius.
It's an excuse. HS personnel changes year after year...but anybody that has "$#!+ personnel" every single year needs to look at themselves and the structure of their program rather than trying to make it about the school population, culture, racial make-up, etc.
Coaching matters. The HC sets the tone. The football program is year-round. Athletes will play for a well-structured program that is fun, competitive, organized, and develops people. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by coachwood on Jun 9, 2010 22:51:40 GMT -6
What a slap in the face for losing programs. According to many in this thread, it is because they are not coaching them up. Some of the best coaches I know are from losing programs. They coach their butts off and I can only hope to be at their level one day.
|
|
|
Post by coachsky on Jun 9, 2010 23:26:28 GMT -6
Success is peace of mind which is a direct result of self-satisfaction in knowing you did your best to become the best you are capable of becoming. Coach Wooden.
I guess I have always been a little cautious. I've never coached a group of kids I didn't think could win eventually. I can also say that one of my most satisfying years was coaching a group of kids that finished one game over .500. I have also had some years where we have won a ton of games and have not felt we did as well as we could have.
I know some really fine coaches who have taken jobs with struggling programs hoping they could coach up the kids, get them in the weight room and turn a program around and failed. They're with new teams and winning lots of games now.
So are they bad coaches? Were they good, then bad, and now they got better? Could personnel and all the other contributing factors have anything to do with it?
Some of the comments in this thread come from guys who sound like they think they can turn any programs and win with any group of kids. My experience tells me those claims don't hold water.
I have a feeling that "good coaches", guys who know how to coach their kids up, do all the right stuff off the turf, build a great program tend to migrate to schools and communities where they can use their great skill sets to "develop" average kids into superior talent and win some games. Just a hunch.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 10, 2010 5:07:20 GMT -6
Some of the best coaches I know are from losing programs. I don't think this is necessarily the point of the thread. This thread specifically addresses those coaches who constantly poor-mouth their programs and are perpetually making excuses for why their teams are not competitive. Those coaches whom you reference would certainly not fit that description.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 10, 2010 6:06:53 GMT -6
There is no excuse to be weaker and slower than your competition. C'mon, 19 - that's coachspeak. Every kid has a genetic ceiling. I don't care how much you train a donkey, he ain't gonna win The Derby.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jun 10, 2010 6:18:25 GMT -6
"We have $#!+ personnel, so we have to run the spread /double wing / veer / wing-t / 3-3 superblitzer / 46 Bear / A-11." That way the coach can slap himself on the back about how good his scheme is and how brilliant a mastermind he is, because he turned his fat, weak, slow, small kids into competitive football players with his brilliant scheme. When you have good, strong, fast, motivated kids, you can run the same 4 plays over and over again, and WIN...but not look as much genius. I think we have missed the "point" of this thread. CoachD was simply saying "hey, how can EVERYONE have slower, less athletic kids?" because it does appear that in almost every thread we coaches are lamenting about how the 'other' guy has better looking kids yet we still managed to win/compete. So, there was this thread - tongue in cheek - asking, how is that so? It wasn't meant to stomp on coaches or any of the such. Yet, the direction immediately went to "well, if they would just coach them they wouldn't suck." ... yet this thread wasn't talking about coaching, it was asking "why do almost all coaches say their kids are lesser athletes than their competition"? I could be wrong here, but I don't think coachd seriously intended to delve into the particulars of how to get your athletes better ... but, it was simply poking fun at ourselves as we always seem to be the 'lesser' team but manage to do more with less, blah, blah. hence, my sarcastic post, and thus, loch followed with his post. again, correct me if i'm wrong but I took this as "hey, quit thinking the grass is always greener, you ain't got it no worse, really, than the next guy.... at least not every game." lol
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Jun 10, 2010 6:41:43 GMT -6
It's because good coaches are always looking to get better and are never satisifed with where their players are at from a football perspective. I was just thinking of this the other night watching film from last year. I was getting PO'ed sitting there watching. Just really nit picking and thinking how bad we looked and how we weren't doing this and people must kill us when they watch our film and good Lord we are bad. Then I realize we went 10-0 and averaged like 38 ppg. So I think we sit there and say our kids stink our personnel is this and that because we are always looking to get better and always think we could do something just that much better.
|
|
|
Post by coachwood on Jun 10, 2010 7:13:21 GMT -6
The beginning of this this thread may have started out poking fun. However, it started making a turn and was more of a bash towards the middle and end.
I have seen some good men lose their jobs due to not winning.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Jun 10, 2010 7:21:14 GMT -6
More than likely, the lambasting of our own team (slow, dumb, and weak) results from our fear of failure.
Setting the bar low is a good way to feel "accomplished" in your mediocrity.
The other, less negative side of this is: "Hey, I gotta sell this scheme to my kids, and if they can feel it levels the playing field, then we have a shot to make it work".
Really, the only PURE advantage scheme gives you is if you are running a unique scheme to your area/conference.
In the land of Wing-t, flexbone, and pro-style offenses, our spread is unique.
For Loch, his 21/22 personnel stuff is unique to his region.
Reality versus perception is all it boils down to........
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 10, 2010 7:22:41 GMT -6
"We have $#!+ personnel, so we have to run the spread /double wing / veer / wing-t / 3-3 superblitzer / 46 Bear / A-11." That way the coach can slap himself on the back about how good his scheme is and how brilliant a mastermind he is, because he turned his fat, weak, slow, small kids into competitive football players with his brilliant scheme. When you have good, strong, fast, motivated kids, you can run the same 4 plays over and over again, and WIN...but not look as much genius. I think we have missed the "point" of this thread. CoachD was simply saying "hey, how can EVERYONE have slower, less athletic kids?" because it does appear that in almost every thread we coaches are lamenting about how the 'other' guy has better looking kids yet we still managed to win/compete. So, there was this thread - tongue in cheek - asking, how is that so? It wasn't meant to stomp on coaches or any of the such. Yet, the direction immediately went to "well, if they would just coach them they wouldn't suck." ... yet this thread wasn't talking about coaching, it was asking "why do almost all coaches say their kids are lesser athletes than their competition"? I could be wrong here, but I don't think coachd seriously intended to delve into the particulars of how to get your athletes better ... but, it was simply poking fun at ourselves as we always seem to be the 'lesser' team but manage to do more with less, blah, blah. hence, my sarcastic post, and thus, loch followed with his post. again, correct me if i'm wrong but I took this as "hey, quit thinking the grass is always greener, you ain't got it no worse, really, than the next guy.... at least not every game." lol That was pretty much the idea Coach. If everyone (tongue in cheek) is switching to the 3-3-5 and the spread gun because they compete with "the other guy", it stands to reason at some point, one of the guys switching IS "THE OTHER GUY" with all of those great athletes...
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 10, 2010 7:29:14 GMT -6
There is no excuse to be weaker and slower than your competition. C'mon, 19 - that's coachspeak. Every kid has a genetic ceiling. I don't care how much you train a donkey, he ain't gonna win The Derby. But the point is that many coaches claim that all they ever get is donkeys...are you saying that is a legitimate argument? Sorry...I don't buy it. The way some coaches talk about the kids in their program compared to the kids in the next town over, you would think that this is going on:
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 10, 2010 7:44:42 GMT -6
C'mon, 19 - that's coachspeak. Every kid has a genetic ceiling. I don't care how much you train a donkey, he ain't gonna win The Derby. But the point is that many coaches claim that all they ever get is donkeys...are you saying that is a legitimate argument? Sorry...I don't buy it. The way some coaches talk about the kids in their program compared to the kids in the next town over, you would think that this is going on: No but the kids you get year-to-year in a given school can be as disparate as those in your cute graphic. In 2005 our offensive line AVERAGED 6-2, 235. Last year we didn't have one kid that big - in fact our starting Guards were both 5-10, 180. That has nothing to do with how much they're in the weight room in the off-season.
|
|
|
Post by outlawjoseywales on Jun 10, 2010 7:46:12 GMT -6
5085, found this interesting reading. LOL, got the sarcasm, but as we all know "tone of voice" doesn't make it in writing-nice try though. We've all been misunderstood through the infamous "tone of voice" thing. It wasn't "why does YOUR (my) personnel suck?" I know about that. It wasn't even "why did YOUR team suck THIS year?" Man, I could write a lot about that. I was tempted to complain again. It was closer to "why does EVERYONE say their personnel sucks EVERY YEAR?" (and feel they have to change their scheme) But man, that would be one long Subject line. Just a little fun on a summer's day. OJW
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 10, 2010 7:57:08 GMT -6
C'mon, 19 - that's coachspeak. Every kid has a genetic ceiling. I don't care how much you train a donkey, he ain't gonna win The Derby. But the point is that many coaches claim that all they ever get is donkeys...are you saying that is a legitimate argument? Sorry...I don't buy it. The way some coaches talk about the kids in their program compared to the kids in the next town over, you would think that this is going on: This was sort of the other point. I was a bit shocked by the amt of coaches--coaches who make valid points other places on the board, and seem to "get it"-- who said they run certain things because "they don't have the ______" (size, strength, speed, athletes...whatever) It confuses me when I read things that make it seem as if certain schools seem to be located near some chemical waste spill...allowing for perpetual influx of 6'3 260 lb animals on a yearly basis...and the rest of us have normal H.S. kids. Some coaches seem to think that their entire population is Devitos...and their entire schedule is Schwarzenegers (sp?)
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jun 10, 2010 7:57:45 GMT -6
"We have $#!+ personnel, so we have to run the spread /double wing / veer / wing-t / 3-3 superblitzer / 46 Bear / A-11." That way the coach can slap himself on the back about how good his scheme is and how brilliant a mastermind he is, because he turned his fat, weak, slow, small kids into competitive football players with his brilliant scheme. When you have good, strong, fast, motivated kids, you can run the same 4 plays over and over again, and WIN...but not look as much genius. I think we have missed the "point" of this thread. CoachD was simply saying "hey, how can EVERYONE have slower, less athletic kids?" because it does appear that in almost every thread we coaches are lamenting about how the 'other' guy has better looking kids yet we still managed to win/compete. So, there was this thread - tongue in cheek - asking, how is that so? It wasn't meant to stomp on coaches or any of the such. Yet, the direction immediately went to "well, if they would just coach them they wouldn't suck." ... yet this thread wasn't talking about coaching, it was asking "why do almost all coaches say their kids are lesser athletes than their competition"? I could be wrong here, but I don't think coachd seriously intended to delve into the particulars of how to get your athletes better ... but, it was simply poking fun at ourselves as we always seem to be the 'lesser' team but manage to do more with less, blah, blah. hence, my sarcastic post, and thus, loch followed with his post. again, correct me if i'm wrong but I took this as "hey, quit thinking the grass is always greener, you ain't got it no worse, really, than the next guy.... at least not every game." lol My point was no different than this. If it came off differently, then I failed to communicate. I was also trying to emphasize how it is EASY to say you have $#!+ personnel, because then you're a genius if you end up winning and you've lost nothing if you lose because, hey, you have $#!+ personnel! It wasn't about our "inability" to coach kids up. It's about insecurity. Like it or not, it's a built-in excuse to say you have weaker personnel than every other school you play. That takes the responsibility (supposedly) off of the coach and puts it ON the athletes, which is wrong. I'm just saying that if you REALLY have $#!+ personnel, then you have to start asking "WHY are they always so $#!+?" and try not to make the answer be about all the things you can't control, because that's just another excuse. I took that further by saying that if you CONSTANTLY lose, there is something consistent there that needs to be looked at in terms of the structure of the program, and it needs to be corrected. To me, that's about your overall management of your program (strength, recruiting, developing, leadership stuff, character stuff, weight room stuff, etc) NOT about your brilliant Zone Read Bubble schemes that will get all the athletes hiding in the hallways out and/or "level the playing field" against the teams that supposedly outweigh you by 100 lbs per man and run 3.7 40-yard dashes. I'm sorry if I struck a nerve with anyone. That was not my intention. I've lost as much as I've won, and I'm a better person and a better coach for the losses. But, I don't hide behind "we have slow, fat, weak personnel" and "everyone else we play has studs" when we have a tough season. I put the blame where it belongs, squarely on my shoulders for failing to do what we needed to be competitive. And believe me, when I look back at gamefilm from tough seasons even 10 years ago...I see where losses were MY fault, not my kids fault, not because we had DeVito playing RT tackle while they had Arnold playing DE...but because I (we) didn't do what was necessary to prepare the kids. That's a reality I have to live with, becuase it's the truth...but I'd rather live with the truth than hide behind rhetoric and excuses.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 10, 2010 8:00:55 GMT -6
No but the kids you get year-to-year in a given school can be as disparate as those in your cute graphic. In 2005 our offensive line AVERAGED 6-2, 235. Last year we didn't have one kid that big - in fact our starting Guards were both 5-10, 180. That has nothing to do with how much they're in the weight room in the off-season. Right. And I would imagine that what you described at your school is pretty typical. Every year can bring different kinds of kids with varying levels of athletic ability. The point is that many coaches, including guys I have worked for, consistently make the claim that they never get any big or fast kids...that for some unknown reason (sunspots? ufos? agricultural runoff?) all the big, fast, and strong kids seem to magically appear 20 miles down the road while all that is ever born in their town is small, slow, weak, retarded cripples. All I'm saying is that if those coaches would spend more time developing the kids they do have instead of complaining about the kids they don't have, they might be more successful. What did Frosty Westering say? "Make the big time where you are" or something like that?
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jun 10, 2010 8:45:02 GMT -6
Here's my breakdown of the whole deal. Successful teams find a scheme that fits their philosophy, they find ways to get plug their personnel in, and they coach them up. COACHING MATTERS! THERE IS NO MAGIC SYSTEM THAT CURES EVERYONE'S PROBLEMS.
If you buy into the 'we need to fit our system to our guys', you're going to be changing your offense every other year. You're never going to get the same exact types of guys, year in and year out. If you are bouncing around between schemes every friggin year, you've just wasted an entire season of practice time. But, here's some things that I have learned over the years:
Offense: -You need a simple scheme with enough tools/wrinkles to extenuate what you have each year.
--For example, when I coached in a Veer program, there were years when we had a MONSTER FB/diveback and a smaller TB/pitch back. Now, we were still effective when lining up in a splitback set, but we tossed in a staggered I formation to help up get the FB the ball more on dives and the TB the ball on pitches. It was a simple solution; the mesh point between the QB and FB didn't change and we could still run ISV and OSV where we needed to. We had two easy plays off of the Veer action and away from the FB that worked well.
---Having enough simple tools allows you to respond to what a defense is doing to you. I coach OL in a program where the HC/OC was h-ll bent on lining up in the I formation and pounding away with Iso, Power, and Counter. However, we saw 9 guys in the box every week and they were always bringing 6+.. We couldn't account for one guy, no matter what we did. We still picked up a few yards off of the plays, but he spent the entire season p-ssed that we couldn't run those plays every down. We were successful because he finally got fed up, we had a simple 3 step and screen game in and he used it. We scored 30 points a game; our QB would go like 14-15 for 200+ yards and 3 TDs. When DCs finally backed off, we were able to move the ball on the ground. I convinced him to work in the opposite manner; run the 3 step, screen, and PA games to start things off and see how the DC reacted. When he didn't back off, we score ALOT of points through the air. When he did, we could be more balanced.
---The only offensive personnel that you're really dependent on is your OL. You will only be as good as your OL; PERIOD. If you average 250lbs across the front and their coached up, you'll have the ability to move the ball between the tackles more effectively. In the scenario I described above, our OL barely averaged 200lbs and weren't very strong. But, they were FAST and athletic. They struggled with Power, Counter and Iso because they're struggled to get a push on their combo blocks. However, they were great in the perimeter and we were very good at our Belly series out of the I formation; we picked up a lot of mileage out of those plays. That's not to say we COULDN'T run our Power, Iso, and Counter; they just couldn't be a staple of the offense. We limited the blocking schemes and had easy rules, so we could pick up yardage with them here and there. But, we weren't going to be able to line up in 21 and 22 personnel and expect to pick up four yards every down with these plays.
Defense:
--Again, keep the scheme simple so that the kids can read, react and play fast football. You may have some kids that you consider 'slow', but they'll play at a higher GAME SPEED, if things are easy for them. I have seen every defensive scheme work as long as it was kept simple and the kids knew how to shed, tackle, and cover.
---Just like offense; have enough simple tools to counter what an offense is doing. I like zone blitzing in this aspect; easy blitz schemes that can be used to get the match ups you want up front. If we know that we're going to see a big OL that can pass protect, we'll zone blitz games with them inside in order to get a pass rush.
--The only prerequisite for a good defender is aggression. The kids need to be nasty kids that want to beat on people every down. I have seen defenders of all shapes, sizes strengths, and speeds that excel on defense simply because they have a motor on them.
--You do need to be careful with your secondary; offenses will loom for 1-1 match ups and if your DBs are a step slow you can pay for it. BUT, that does change week to week; against come offenses, our DBs match up well, so we play more C4 with people locked up. If we don't have good match ups, we plays more base C2 and C3. But, in all honesty, I really don't like locking people up on defense. I prefer zone coverage so that we can keep things in front of us.
So, there ARE situations where you are 'personnel dependent', but you have simple solutions for it. You don't change your scheme every year to compensate for it. You only have a limited amount of practice time; wasting an entire season's worth of it because you feel that you need to change things every year isn't sound.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jun 10, 2010 8:56:58 GMT -6
Bottom line: if you walk into every game thinking that you're over matched, that their guys are better, or that your guys suck, you are hamstringing yourself as a coach.
Now, you may be out matched, so TAKE IT AS A CHALLENGE!! Coach the kids up, motivate them, know that what your are running is simple and sound, and know that you have a chance to win.
Or, you can sit back and b-tch about it every week, develop a bad, lazy attitude and watch it spread into your program like wildfire. Because, with this attitude, you have basically quit on yourself, your program and your kids.
A guy took over the worst program in our conference several years ago. They are the smallest school in our conference and had won 3 games in 4 years. Every year, they got better and better; they've made the playoffs two years running after sitting at the bottom of the pile for over a decade. Yup, I just bet that they sat back, every week, for five years, saying we suck, we won't win..
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jun 10, 2010 9:15:54 GMT -6
Bottom line: if you walk into every game thinking that you're over matched, that their guys are better, or that your guys suck, you are hamstringing yourself as a coach. Now, you may be out matched, so TAKE IT AS A CHALLENGE!! Coach the kids up, motivate them, know that what your are running is simple and sound, and know that you have a chance to win. Or, you can sit back and b-tch about it every week, develop a bad, lazy attitude and watch it spread into your program like wildfire. Because, with this attitude, you have basically quit on yourself, your program and your kids. A guy took over the worst program in our conference several years ago. They are the smallest school in our conference and had won 3 games in 4 years. Every year, they got better and better; they've made the playoffs two years running after sitting at the bottom of the pile for over a decade. Yup, I just bet that they sat back, every week, for five years, saying we suck, we won't win.. Right! I mean, as a coach, we would NEVER accept our kids making excuses and undercutting themselves to rationalize why they don't have to be emotionally bought-in and/or responsible...but we see it from coaches all the time with the "we can't compete with the BIG BOYS in our league" syndrome. Why is THAT okay?
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jun 10, 2010 9:26:22 GMT -6
It's very simple. To most coaches, the X's and O's is more attractive, more fun, more easy and more ego-serving than developing strength, speed, technique, attitude, leadership, and character. All time quote of the century right here!
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jun 10, 2010 9:40:01 GMT -6
I am taking over a program this next fall that has struggled to the point where the school board wants to shut down football (small school). Everyone keeps telling me that it's going to be a terrible situation, that we're going to lose, and that it is going to be frustrating.
Bottom line; WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FUN. We're going to do everything we can to get the kids to LOVE football again.
I am going to be coaching the same way, from Day 1 to the last game of the year. I'm going to coach my a-- off, continually bombard the kids with positive reinforcement, and do everything I can to get the team competitive.
No matter how bad things may get, I will not quit on the kids or the program by allowing myself the LUXURY of saying that our kids suck, that they can't compete, blah, blah, blah. This is a LUXURY because it allows me to cop out of the situation; I no longer have to take responsibility over my job as a coach. Because 'we just suck'.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jun 10, 2010 9:46:32 GMT -6
Last season we went 0-8 and the season before we were 3-5. This Spring we tried a new deal where we took some 8th graders (who will be playing for me next year) and played in a 9 game Spring league. We went 2-7. Now, it would have been easy to state the fact that we were missing a few of the linemen who we will have next year, we were the only team who had to play under a new coach and in a new system (all of the other teams were playing under their youth coach and system they had been playing with for the last three years) etc. etc.
I didn't put too much stock into that, other than patronizing the idea we would be better with more linemen. So on an occaision or two one of the dad coaches (great guy) was going through the excuses and I was kind of going along with him and then I finally said "No". "The kids are different but the results are the same, I think the blame goes squarely on the coach's shoulders (mine), which means I have to do a better job of getting these kids ready to play."
"If we lose it's because I didn't prepare you to win. If we win, it's because the players worked hard, played well and came together to execute a victory."
Conversely, I have been working as the oline coach for our all-area All-Star game this week. It is a lot different experience working with seasoned players who are physically superior and who are aggressive. (and it's nice to coach the oline in a non-blitzing situation).
|
|
|
Post by coachzola on Jun 10, 2010 10:21:06 GMT -6
I remember when I was in HS, the HC that was very successful who I admire and lead me to want to become a coach had a saying, I might not hit it right on the button but it was along the lines of... "10-80-10."
10% of your team are great players, committed, and willing to do whatever it takes to win, 10% of your team are not great athletes, might lack the committment to get better etc. 80% of your team is in the middle. Its up to the coaching staff and your upper 10% to take that 80% and make them into winners in the weight room, class room and on the field and not have them fall to the bottom 10%.
|
|
|
Post by indian1 on Jun 10, 2010 12:46:23 GMT -6
This is sort of a safe approach to coaching, and I don't mean that in a negative way.
Start with the assumption that you can't just out-athlete the other teams because sometimes you will be able to and sometimes you won't. So what is the safe bet? Plan, practice and execute like you absolutely HAVE to every time to be successful.
I think a lot of good coaches have the mindset of "oh jee wiz, with the guys we have we are going to have to teach our butts off, with the kids we have we are going to have to make sure we play harder than the other teams, we are going to have to execute better" and on and on.
Now in many cases this assumption of having inferior talent is incorrect but the approach is perfect. Why just assume your guys are better? Would it be better coaching to say "we're so damn much better than the other team that it doesn't even matter if we play hard or execute or have a sound scheme"? What coach in his right mind does that?
The funny thing is, in terms of scheme, I've heard it both ways. A 3-3, blitz heavy defensive coach says "we just don't have the guys to play a basic 4-3 with quarters, we have to come after people", and a 4-3 quarters coach will say "we'd blitz more but we just don't have the guys to lock up and play man". An I formation coach says we don't have the athletes to run a spread and spread coaches say they don't have the horses to run the I.
They are just starting with a good (if incorrect) assumption that they can not rely solely on the talent of their team to be successful. There are way too many other parts of the puzzle that they MUST control, so they create this weird mindset that we HAVE to do all of these things well because we can't rely on just having the Jimmies and Joes.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jun 10, 2010 15:53:28 GMT -6
This is sort of a safe approach to coaching, and I don't mean that in a negative way. Start with the assumption that you can't just out-athlete the other teams because sometimes you will be able to and sometimes you won't. So what is the safe bet? Plan, practice and execute like you absolutely HAVE to every time to be successful. I think a lot of good coaches have the mindset of "oh jee wiz, with the guys we have we are going to have to teach our butts off, with the kids we have we are going to have to make sure we play harder than the other teams, we are going to have to execute better" and on and on. Now in many cases this assumption of having inferior talent is incorrect but the approach is perfect. Why just assume your guys are better? Would it be better coaching to say "we're so {censored} much better than the other team that it doesn't even matter if we play hard or execute or have a sound scheme"? What coach in his right mind does that? The funny thing is, in terms of scheme, I've heard it both ways. A 3-3, blitz heavy defensive coach says "we just don't have the guys to play a basic 4-3 with quarters, we have to come after people", and a 4-3 quarters coach will say "we'd blitz more but we just don't have the guys to lock up and play man". An I formation coach says we don't have the athletes to run a spread and spread coaches say they don't have the horses to run the I. They are just starting with a good (if incorrect) assumption that they can not rely solely on the talent of their team to be successful. There are way too many other parts of the puzzle that they MUST control, so they create this weird mindset that we HAVE to do all of these things well because we can't rely on just having the Jimmies and Joes. Should no one ever run a power-based offense since there's no guarantee that you can overwhelm an opponent?
|
|
de58
Freshmen Member
Posts: 67
|
Post by de58 on Jun 10, 2010 16:35:47 GMT -6
It all starts with the feeder programs. If a school system as pee-wee football, grade school football, and middle school football, and they are all ran successfully, then more than likely, the high school team is going to be successful.
My school system doesn't have organized football until 6th grade, and the two local high schools are pathetic. However, they have basketball from 3 years old and up, and one of the high schools won a state championship not too long ago.
I encourage every high school coach to get more involved in the community and start building a football program within the area.
|
|
|
Post by mahonz on Jun 10, 2010 16:46:00 GMT -6
We all need to take the wait and see attitude to see how it all plays out on Friday Night Lights. ;D
Cocah Mike
|
|
|
Post by indian1 on Jun 10, 2010 16:58:55 GMT -6
phantom, that's not what I meant to imply. My point is that a lot of guys just run what they know, and then always justify it with "we'll this fits our kids so.... or this is what we have to do to compete in our league..."
I think a lot of guys use the personnel thing as a cop out, but I know guys who win all the time, who have the teams that others point to and say "boy if we could have those athletes", and even the coaches of THOSE teams act this way. They don't view themselves as having the best personnel. I don't think very many coaches do, and that can actually be a healthy thing.
I'm probably not being clear or saying this the way I want to.
|
|