|
Post by gdn56 on Oct 25, 2010 12:32:00 GMT -6
Reading some of the other threads, especially about heart, really made me want to start a new topic about teams that struggle. I currently coach on a pretty poor football team. We are very slow, don't give much effort, and have poor numbers. However, Our lack of organization from the top down, IMO in practice and really throughout the program, does not help this problem at all. So, I am wondering, in all of your opinions, what makes a BAD team/program bad?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Oct 25, 2010 12:50:29 GMT -6
Consistently poor teams have fail in these areas
No clear Direction/purpose, that leads to poor Organization. Because they aren't organized they don't value Fundamentals, which causes inefficiency in performance and a lot of Wasted time
You can generally tell the true state of a program by what it looks like in February
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Oct 25, 2010 17:15:48 GMT -6
I've coached in a lot of BAD programs. These are some of the issues I have seen in perpetually losing programs: - Offseason strength and conditioning program is nonexistent or fundamentally flawed (lots of bench press, curls, and quarter squats; no Oly lifts)
- Offense is a mish-mosh grab-bag of plays and formations.
- Defense is flavor-of-the-week. There is no "base" defense
- Special teams are awful. Lip service is paid to special teams and when there are special teams breakdowns on Friday, the kids get blamed for it.
- Practices are 3+ hours long but nothing really gets done. There is no consistent methodology for teaching blocking and tackling
- Expectations/standards for player discipline, academics, and attendance are unknown, unenforced, or nonexistent, especially in regards to "star" players
- Coaches never take responsibility for poor performances. Perpetual losing seasons are blamed on the competition always having more and better athletes.
- Good assistant coaches won't stay for more than a year or so because the program is such a clusterf*ck.
- Assistant coaches who stay are either sychophants or really don't know anything about football and stay basically because they don't know any better.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Oct 25, 2010 17:23:41 GMT -6
Constant Coaching turnover be it head coach or assistants
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Oct 25, 2010 17:39:11 GMT -6
Think a bit more about this....it won't be a couple of things (bad scheme / bad weights) that you can spot; it will be one big thing that snowballs throughout....
If 'the program' is just about winning football games (and little else) as the be-all-end-all, it usually translates to a singular focus that leads to the inefficiency of slapping stuff together. The good programs are about developing the kids as leaders. The stuff on Friday night becomes almost an afterthought (kids compete because of all they invested in the off-season / coaches don't need to 'coach' because they put all the time during the off-season). Bad programs are a triage environment where game night is a desperate swing in the dark hoping the kids 'make something happen'.
|
|
|
Post by outlawjoseywales on Oct 25, 2010 17:43:00 GMT -6
Great post Brophy, as usual. Football is about people, always has been. Outside of a couple of coaches that I know, who could beat you with the cafeteria staff, most of us have to have better people than the other guy. I recently watched a bad team. Just like 19delta said, a real mish-mash of plays that looked like they got their ideas from watching TV. Fundamentals ARE important guys. That, and having a basic idea about how the passing game works.
|
|
|
Post by TMGPG on Oct 25, 2010 18:56:00 GMT -6
I agree that you have to have the jimmy's and joe's but it the coaches can have a big impact in terms of the enthusiasm of the program and help the kids have fun with football. Like someone once told me, "the work and sweat is not always fun, but winning sure it!"
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Oct 25, 2010 19:18:26 GMT -6
The stuff on Friday night becomes almost an afterthought (kids compete because of all they invested in the off-season / coaches don't need to 'coach' because they put all the time during the off-season). Yup. I have a buddy who coaches at one of top programs in the state. He says they NEVER talk about winning there...winning is not the "goal" of successful programs. Rather, winning is the result of doing things the "right" way.
|
|
|
Post by gdn56 on Oct 25, 2010 19:46:44 GMT -6
I've coached in a lot of BAD programs. These are some of the issues I have seen in perpetually losing programs: - Offseason strength and conditioning program is nonexistent or fundamentally flawed (lots of bench press, curls, and quarter squats; no Oly lifts)
- Offense is a mish-mosh grab-bag of plays and formations.
- Defense is flavor-of-the-week. There is no "base" defense
- Special teams are awful. Lip service is paid to special teams and when there are special teams breakdowns on Friday, the kids get blamed for it.
- Practices are 3+ hours long but nothing really gets done. There is no consistent methodology for teaching blocking and tackling
- Expectations/standards for player discipline, academics, and attendance are unknown, unenforced, or nonexistent, especially in regards to "star" players
- Coaches never take responsibility for poor performances. Perpetual losing seasons are blamed on the competition always having more and better athletes.
- Good assistant coaches won't stay for more than a year or so because the program is such a clusterf*ck.
- Assistant coaches who stay are either sychophants or really don't know anything about football and stay basically because they don't know any better.
You just described us to the T...and I am one of those assistant coaches who knows better and is trying to get the HECK OUT!
|
|
|
Post by coachguy83 on Oct 25, 2010 21:08:57 GMT -6
I played for a really bad program and looking back I can think of a lot of factors that lead to our being horrible and it started at the very top.
In the four years I was in school we had three different head coaches and two of them lasted only one season. I feel that the school board and administation hiring the wrong people started all of the problems. Two of the coaches I still have some contact with and they are very good men, but they were not the right fit for the job.
The program was a coop of two small schools, but the schools were never on an even footing. The colors, nickname and facilities belonged only to one school. Which gave players from the other school little ownership in the program. The coaching staff my final two seasons were either out of building staff or all from the other building. In many cases this meant that players were not fairly treated. The two schools even had different elgibility rules meaning that players from one school could be inelgible one schools standard but still playing. I feel this built animosity between players.
My senior year we were looking for a new HC and a member of the coaching staff applied for the job. He ran all of the offseason workouts and we managed to get some work done that summer. Then two weeks before the start of two a days the school board decided to hire another coach from outside of the staff with zero high school coaching experience. The decision did not set well for many players and the coach that was over looked spent most of the season sabotaging the program, at least that is what the HC felt. This further built tension within the program.
Weight room attendence was also a joke and there was very little in organized offseason work. This meant that the team did very little to improve between seasons, but it was a result of the problem not a symptom of the problem.
Offensive systems changed from year to year and in my four years we were a pro I team, a wishbone team, a wing t team and I believe we also ran a little spread my senior year. This inconsistency meant that players weren't really sure what the hell was going on from week to week, let alone season to season. My senior year we might as well been running the can can offense except we turned the ball over far more than we punted. Again I see this as being a result of the problem and not a symptom of the problem.
I guess in summary I feel that bad programs consistently have poor leadership at the top, whether it be from HCs or higher up. This will then manifest itself in many of the ways other coaches have said.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Oct 26, 2010 5:49:49 GMT -6
I've coached in a lot of BAD programs. These are some of the issues I have seen in perpetually losing programs: - Offseason strength and conditioning program is nonexistent or fundamentally flawed (lots of bench press, curls, and quarter squats; no Oly lifts)
- Offense is a mish-mosh grab-bag of plays and formations.
- Defense is flavor-of-the-week. There is no "base" defense
- Special teams are awful. Lip service is paid to special teams and when there are special teams breakdowns on Friday, the kids get blamed for it.
- Practices are 3+ hours long but nothing really gets done. There is no consistent methodology for teaching blocking and tackling
- Expectations/standards for player discipline, academics, and attendance are unknown, unenforced, or nonexistent, especially in regards to "star" players
- Coaches never take responsibility for poor performances. Perpetual losing seasons are blamed on the competition always having more and better athletes.
- Good assistant coaches won't stay for more than a year or so because the program is such a clusterf*ck.
- Assistant coaches who stay are either sychophants or really don't know anything about football and stay basically because they don't know any better.
Translation: "bad coaching" Every element you just described is the responsibility of the coach, in my opinion.
|
|
flingt
Junior Member
"We don't care how big or strong our opponents are as long as they're human.?
Posts: 311
|
Post by flingt on Oct 26, 2010 6:20:58 GMT -6
I coach at a program that most would consider to be "struggling", but only by our record. The coaching staff has a plan, off season attendance is very high, and the players seem to believe in the direction we are going. Most of the things listed that describe a bad program does not apply to us. We all work very hard at what we do, and the players still have the belief of turning things around.
There is hope.
|
|
trojan
Junior Member
[F4:wingtcoach.com] [F4:wingtcoachdon]
Posts: 494
|
Post by trojan on Oct 26, 2010 7:06:34 GMT -6
I coach at a program that most would consider to be "struggling", but only by our record. The coaching staff has a plan, off season attendance is very high, and the players seem to believe in the direction we are going. Most of the things listed that describe a bad program does not apply to us. We all work very hard at what we do, and the players still have the belief of turning things around. There is hope. Then you aren't part of a "Really Bad Team." You have reason to see that there is hope. Our varsity has won 4 of the 9 games that they've played, but you would not know it by looking at the attitude of the coaches, how practice is designed, the offseason program, etc. They don't blame the players when they lose, but still have not won as many as they've lost lately. (BTW, the 2009 D2 state champs are in our league, and the 2007 D2 champs are also in the league. Just sayin'.) A great bunch of guys to be around, whether you are talking about the kids or the coaches.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Oct 26, 2010 7:17:19 GMT -6
I coach at a program that most would consider to be "struggling", but only by our record. The coaching staff has a plan, off season attendance is very high, and the players seem to believe in the direction we are going. Most of the things listed that describe a bad program does not apply to us. We all work very hard at what we do, and the players still have the belief of turning things around. There is hope. Then you aren't part of a "Really Bad Team." You have reason to see that there is hope. Our varsity has won 4 of the 9 games that they've played, but you would not know it by looking at the attitude of the coaches, how practice is designed, the offseason program, etc. They don't blame the players when they lose, but still have not won as many as they've lost lately. (BTW, the 2009 D2 state champs are in our league, and the 2007 D2 champs are also in the league. Just sayin'.) A great bunch of guys to be around, whether you are talking about the kids or the coaches. Aw, man. You've gotta raise (or lower) your standards for describing a team as bad. To me "bad" isn't winning 4 out of 9 games. "Bad" is winning 4 games in 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by amikell on Oct 26, 2010 7:25:12 GMT -6
trust 4-9 is not bad. 1-8, 0-9, 2-7, 1-8. now, that's bad.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Oct 26, 2010 7:28:02 GMT -6
Let`s see what we had this year... (You`ll see, I`ve been waiting to get this one off my chest) I was a new DL coach this year and I tried to manoeuvre myself for a better position next year.
Kids who didn't "look the part" got ignored until they quit, even though I knew some of them were short, but fast, and had great hands.
Kids who "looked the part" were stuck in positions but not coached.
The hockey coach banned his kids from playing other sports (no conflict, except for egos) and nobody fought him on it
Coaches were mostly well-meaning ex-players, but with no idea of making the youth to HS transition (some of them, oddly, coached quite good youth teams)
Offense is a mish-mosh grab bag of the varsity offense, mostly coached by yelling :'Inside Zone Step!" as though the kids were born knowing what it meant. Also, all the teaching was done against our own look, and the scout D was not allowed to show a look other than our own defense, which no one else played.
Defense had a fundamental schematic flaw, if the other team went trips, our weakside contain player would move over to man cover, and that left just a C gap DE on that side. Apparently, the varsity playbook has an adjustment for this, but it was never taught.
Defense also looked like it was just an American 4-3 front glued to a Canadian secondary, so there were a lot of little flaws if the offense didn't line up just how you expected them to.
After coaching up my four defensive linemen to a tolerable level (though I still think they just gave me the kids who weren't good enough to play elsewhere), they give me a new player an hour before game time. This repeated itself each of the first three games.
My one "special" player I was forced to continue playing every week, and I couldn't pull him without "approval," even though he wouldstand up out of his stance, turn around, and back into the guard.
Effort was not demanded at practice, but expected at games.
We did very little tackling, and of what we did, we had a fit-and-freeze (great teaching tool, but not the beginning and end of it) a drill conducted in about 3 yard square, and a 3-on-1 arrow drill. Nothing in space, nothing at angles, nothing 1-on-1. You can imagine what this led to.
Overall failure to teach basics, such as our QB, who would give up 25 yards before rounding the corner on a bootleg
A passing game that consists of randomly assigning receivers to run outs (which the QB doesn't have the arm for) and gos (same)
In an attempt to have the very chic "high-tempo practice" coaches run around changing things a lot, but since the kids don't have a grasp of it, we just dabble in tons of drills, often doing new drills just once or twice all season.
No matter how poorly we play, the other coaches are absurdly optimistic about how good we are (I have actually wondered if I'm looking at the wrong thing)
The team actually runs on one outstanding player, but noone else seems to recognize it, so we don't do anything to either ride him as far as he takes us, or diversify a little more.
Special teams are a disaster. I've mentioned elsewhere we once punted for -1 yards, with no return. Which is not much worse than our average, when the line holds them (spread punt super-splits formation, but we didn't teach kids how to handle teams shooting the gaps)
Our KO's only go ~20 yards, but we don't kick onside ever.
Other teams KO's only go ~45 yds, but we line up our returners 65 yards away. we never worked punt return, but since we never forced a punt...
I'm sure I missed a few, but I feel much better now
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Oct 26, 2010 8:42:44 GMT -6
I have actually honestly seen teams where there just isnt any talent...
I almost took a DC job at a school near here, and a very close friend is on the staff as the OC currently, so i know a lot about their program, and they just cant compete with who they play with. Their school is half closed down due to this massive remodeling project so the enrollment has dropped from 1400 to 700 students, and they go up against schools like Berkeley high, who has over 3,000 students. They cant get kids out because there are few athletes to begin with, and most of the ones they do have want to be drug dealers. Its just a bad situation right now, and i honestly believe that right now, NO ONE could come in and turn that program around... luckily for them in 2 years they get moved to a different league, and playoff division which will help them immensely with competition. They will be playing schools of a more similar size and the current HC will have some time to build from the ground up.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Oct 26, 2010 10:31:19 GMT -6
Bad athletes. We were 0 and 8 last year and are 7 and 1 this year (so far). The only thing that has changed is the players.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Oct 26, 2010 10:37:29 GMT -6
Bad athletes. We were 0 and 8 last year and are 7 and 1 this year (so far). The only thing that has changed is the players. A bad year is not the same as a bad program or bad teams year in and year out.
|
|
red
Freshmen Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by red on Oct 26, 2010 11:48:39 GMT -6
Good programs are "good men" using football as a vehicle to be "good examples" for young people. Winning is the by- product created by this.
Bad programs are men who are still trying to be the "cool kid" in high school, trying to use kids to build their own dreams.
And just cause you win games doesn't mean you are a good program, just as losing doesn't mean its bad. Obviously you need to win some so you can have a platform to be a positive example. You can win alot of games and in the process of having the "experience" never really get the "meaning". People get so fixated on winning and trying to find the perfect scheme, the great programs I have been around are fixated on the players having the greatest experience in their life, and teach fundamentals with very simple schemes.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Oct 26, 2010 19:53:51 GMT -6
That alone is sufficient. When it's not clear who's in charge or what the facts are, the players stop listening to the coaches, the coaches stop listening to the players, and the coaches stop listening to each other -- because people stop trusting and believing people.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Oct 26, 2010 19:59:00 GMT -6
Good programs are "good men" using football as a vehicle to be "good examples" for young people. Winning is the by- product created by this. Not true. Football is a game. You don't have to be a good person in most senses of the word to be good at a game, and being a good person doesn't make you good at games. About the closest that is to true is that you need to be cooperative to be good at team sports. But you can be cooperative and quite evil, as in organized crime.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Oct 26, 2010 22:25:17 GMT -6
Bad athletes. We were 0 and 8 last year and are 7 and 1 this year (so far). The only thing that has changed is the players. A bad year is not the same as a bad program or bad teams year in and year out. What if it is a demographics issue? Then it will happen year in and year out.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Oct 26, 2010 22:26:24 GMT -6
I've coached in a lot of BAD programs. These are some of the issues I have seen in perpetually losing programs: - Offseason strength and conditioning program is nonexistent or fundamentally flawed (lots of bench press, curls, and quarter squats; no Oly lifts)
- Offense is a mish-mosh grab-bag of plays and formations.
- Defense is flavor-of-the-week. There is no "base" defense
- Special teams are awful. Lip service is paid to special teams and when there are special teams breakdowns on Friday, the kids get blamed for it.
- Practices are 3+ hours long but nothing really gets done. There is no consistent methodology for teaching blocking and tackling
- Expectations/standards for player discipline, academics, and attendance are unknown, unenforced, or nonexistent, especially in regards to "star" players
- Coaches never take responsibility for poor performances. Perpetual losing seasons are blamed on the competition always having more and better athletes.
- Good assistant coaches won't stay for more than a year or so because the program is such a clusterf*ck.
- Assistant coaches who stay are either sychophants or really don't know anything about football and stay basically because they don't know any better.
Tris for the guys; curls for the girls. Great Post Delta!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2010 23:10:54 GMT -6
One thing I've noticed is that they always have very poor coverage, in terms of both execution and defensive structure. Some of it may be because the kids aren't very good athletes, but a lot of times it looks like its at least partially a coaching problem.
This year I watched a team that's won 4 games over the past 3 years stay in Cov. 0 and blitz on every down against a very good, balanced spread option team. The QB had about 350 running and throwing and 5 TDs by halftime without breaking a sweat (he's a good, but not especially gifted HS player), but they never once got out of it. This team has given up at least 4 TDs in every game since 2007, IIRC.
I also saw this same team in action in another game. Their opponents kept completing fades against their version of Cov. 3 because the kids were always out of position or tried to go for INTs.
I watched another team, which has only won 5 games over the past 5 years, play twice this year. In each one, they never played anything but "Cov. 1." The problem was that they never had anyone assigned to cover anyone except the outside WRs after the snap. The S would line up over the slot receivers, then drop to the deep hash no matter where those WRs went. One QB lit them up on Smash, while another should have but couldn't hit water from a boat.
I also saw a lot of instances where it didn't look like the coverage was designed in such a way as to consider force/contain responsibilities, or it was incongruent with the front, etc. This was all on teams that give up 40-50 a game.
These defenses were also really bad in other fundamental areas, too. LBs were passive, DL were always rushing upfield after the QB, etc. Basically the defense looked like one big Chinese firedrill.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2010 23:43:53 GMT -6
To add on to what I just wrote, in addition to lousy coverage/defensive fundamentals, the big elephant in the room:
MONEY!
A couple of weeks ago I looked up salary schedules for teachers and coaches from the state website. If you look at the really lousy programs in our part of the state, the HCs make less than the assistants at the good ones. Sometimes it's $5k+ a year less to do more work. Sure, you can find an ambitious guy to accept less money to be a HC, but good luck keeping decent assistants around with economics like that!
There are tons of other things you'll see at the crap programs, many of which have already been listed, but this is a big one and it shouldn't be overlooked. It's no coincidence that many of the nation's best programs are at elite private schools or in well-off suburban districts.
|
|
|
Post by gdn56 on Oct 27, 2010 10:24:25 GMT -6
I think also that kicking game is a pretty good measure of a really bad team. Like I said, we are pretty bad and our kicking game is AWFUL. We have really poor specialists, our long snapper is awful, kicker and punter are awful, we routinely mishandle kickoffs, rarely field a punt correctly, barely block anyone on Kickoff return, and should probably not even have a punt block/return team because its almost just comedic. We were in a position where we were trying the onside a few weeks ago and it was TERRIBLE! Again, alot of this is that we dont have great talent, but we knew we lost all of our specialists last year, yet did not address the issue until the first week of practice. We didn't encourage them to go to camps, no one was ALLOWED to stay and work with them...its a joke really. I truly coach at a place where the HC has no initiative and will not support someone else taking the initiative to get things done. Also, our coverage is really bad too...partly because we are starting a ton of sophomores and 1st year Juniors in the back 7 who we did not help grow into their roles by allowing them to compete in 7 on 7 this summer. We are allowed 10 days of competition, we did zero....yet we wonder why we can't cover anyone? Its amazing really.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Oct 27, 2010 11:07:19 GMT -6
To add on to what I just wrote, in addition to lousy coverage/defensive fundamentals, the big elephant in the room: MONEY! A couple of weeks ago I looked up salary schedules for teachers and coaches from the state website. If you look at the really lousy programs in our part of the state, the HCs make less than the assistants at the good ones. Sometimes it's $5k+ a year less to do more work. Sure, you can find an ambitious guy to accept less money to be a HC, but good luck keeping decent assistants around with economics like that! There are tons of other things you'll see at the crap programs, many of which have already been listed, but this is a big one and it shouldn't be overlooked. It's no coincidence that many of the nation's best programs are at elite private schools or in well-off suburban districts. But not all good programs are in wealthy schools or districts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2010 17:52:57 GMT -6
To add on to what I just wrote, in addition to lousy coverage/defensive fundamentals, the big elephant in the room: MONEY! A couple of weeks ago I looked up salary schedules for teachers and coaches from the state website. If you look at the really lousy programs in our part of the state, the HCs make less than the assistants at the good ones. Sometimes it's $5k+ a year less to do more work. Sure, you can find an ambitious guy to accept less money to be a HC, but good luck keeping decent assistants around with economics like that! There are tons of other things you'll see at the crap programs, many of which have already been listed, but this is a big one and it shouldn't be overlooked. It's no coincidence that many of the nation's best programs are at elite private schools or in well-off suburban districts. But not all good programs are in wealthy schools or districts. That's true, and not all wealthy schools have good programs--the second highest paying one in our area has mostly been mediocre throughout its history. But on average it turned out that low pay for teachers/coaches=bad program, but higher pay for coaches (especially assistant coaches) meant the programs tended to be better. The middle of the pack teams had middle of the pack money. I was stunned by how strong the correlation was.
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Oct 28, 2010 5:24:56 GMT -6
|
|