|
Post by warrior53 on Mar 4, 2007 8:20:22 GMT -6
I always like this discussion - How many of you subscribe to the old adage it is not the X's and the O's it is the Jimmies and the Joes? How many of you disagree? Let's hear it.
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Mar 4, 2007 9:04:38 GMT -6
Well if anyone has the X and O solution that makes up for a considerable difference in the Jimmy and the Joes I want to hear that. There's a reason no Donkey is ever going to win the triple crown- no matter how hard he works, who the jockey is or what strategy they employ.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2007 9:10:38 GMT -6
I agree and like the horse racing analogy, but to go along that line, there've been plenty of great horses that didn't win the Derby because the jockey ran a poor race, the trainer had it planned wrong, etc.
In other words, coaches are Jimmies and Joes too.
|
|
|
Post by jackedup on Mar 4, 2007 10:58:10 GMT -6
I agree with ajreaper. No matter the offense you have, there is at least one position that is required to be substantially better than the others. For example, if you run the Air Raid or RnS, you better have a good QB. And I'm sure it can go for other offenses.
|
|
wccoach
Sophomore Member
Posts: 159
|
Post by wccoach on Mar 4, 2007 11:05:34 GMT -6
I like to view this issue with the old question, "Would you rather have great coaching or great players?" Great teams usually have both. Every situation has its exceptions, but I always felt that great coaching had a slight edge over great players. Just my opinion, but in HS, you don't get to chose your players each year and my experience has been the programs with great coaching seem to keep the winning going. Our areas most successful team the last couple of years has had one D1 signing in two years but has been state champion and state runner up in those years. Last year a local team had 7 players sign D1 letters of intent but got knocked off early in the playoffs by a team with no D1 players. But, like I said, every situation has its exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by knight9299 on Mar 4, 2007 11:16:33 GMT -6
I like to view this issue with the old question, "Would you rather have great coaching or great players?" Great teams usually have both. Every situation has its exceptions, but I always felt that great coaching had a slight edge over great players. Just my opinion, but in HS, you don't get to chose your players each year and my experience has been the programs with great coaching seem to keep the winning going. Our areas most successful team the last couple of years has had one D1 signing in two years but has been state champion and state runner up in those years. Last year a local team had 7 players sign D1 letters of intent but got knocked off early in the playoffs by a team with no D1 players. But, like I said, every situation has its exceptions. I'm with ya. A sound system can make Jimmie & Joe's a whole lot more competitive. Sure against a stacked team there's no room for error, but to simply sit back and say we don't have the Jimmies & joes so we had no chance is a load.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Mar 4, 2007 11:16:52 GMT -6
I always like this discussion - How many of you subscribe to the old adage it is not the X's and the O's it is the Jimmies and the Joes? How many of you disagree? Let's hear it. I faintly disagree... Only to the extent, that yes you have to have talent... but we've seen it time and time again... when certain coaches, go to a place, that supposedly don't have athletes, yet, upon his arrival... they all of sudden get better... Similar to what Irish said... coaches are jimmies and joes also... Maybe more so than the players... because in all honesty... every team has that fast guy... the other kid that's some what of a leader, and then that final kid that's a reall hard nose... The differene lies in what a coach does with the non-descript kids... how well does he coach them up. Finally... when you start talking about programs... you are talking about a coaches ability to develop talent... taking non-descript 8th graders and making them into workout warriors... men of discipline and character... Some do it better than others... and its obvious... I just wish they would
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Mar 4, 2007 11:16:53 GMT -6
You need Jimmies and Joes to win but the other guys have Jimmies and Joes, too. Generally, the talent gap between 1st and 4th isn't that big. You need talent to win but you see talented teams lose all the time. I think what I think is that players win and coaches lose. The Jimmies and Joes give you a chance to win but the coaches keep them from losing.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 4, 2007 12:39:09 GMT -6
If everyone a) managed their time the same b) ran the exact same systems c) called the same plays for the same reasons d) had the same luck with injuries d) had the same coaching ability all thru their staff and their feeder program....then maybe, just maybe, itd come down to talent and nothing more.
coaching matters, the schemes and systems matter and technique matters! To me, the "its the jimmies and joes" is the cop out most often sung by the losing coach who cant accept responsibilty or, in stark contrast, by the winning coach who does not want anyone to give him credit, preferring to give it to his players. Coaching matters, systems matter, schemes matter. Otherwise, no one would go to clinics and visit websites like this one.
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Mar 4, 2007 13:07:49 GMT -6
On occasion, there will be a "talent gap" that prevents you from winning, but, more times than not, wins in close games come down to coaching, not athletes.
Couple years ago, we had the most talented team in the state of Illinois. We had an all-State QB (now D-IAA QB), an all-State RB, about 7 all-Area players, and 5 kids who went on to play college football. We were loaded. Anyway, ran up against a team in the quarterfinals that didn't have the athletes we had, but did have a first-class coaching staff who put together an excellent gameplan that completely shut our offense down (we had been averaging 400+ yards and 40 points a game) and forced us to commit 8 turnovers.
Stud athletes are great to have and you will win LOTS of games with them. However, when you get into those big games where you simply can't tell your guys in the locker room before the game, "OK, fellas...this is what we are going to do. We are going to score 40 points and win the game", you are going to need to be able to coach.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 4, 2007 14:23:34 GMT -6
You need Jimmies and Joes to win but the other guys have Jimmies and Joes, too. Generally, the talent gap between 1st and 4th isn't that big. You need talent to win but you see talented teams lose all the time.
Every team will have a few studs... some might have more than others. The 5th-22nd (and beyond) best guys depend a lot on whether or not they are in a position to achieve success.. and that is Coach Jimmie or Coach Joe. There are times where you will severely out-athlete... or be severally out-athleted, and then the value of coaching is neutralized for that game. But those are fringe situations (top 1-2 or bottom 1-2 teams). There is a reason that some programs, year in and year out, are at the top of the conference/district. There is also a reason some are not. To win a state championship I'll agree you need the players, but perennial winning programs have a lot more than just a favorable gene-pool.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Mar 4, 2007 15:23:18 GMT -6
We've all seen crap coaching destroy a talented team.
We've all seen good coaching turn a mediocre team into play-off contenders.
It's great to have both great athletes and coaching, but I'll take good coaching every single time.
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on Mar 4, 2007 15:23:30 GMT -6
In other words, coaches are Jimmies and Joes too. well said
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on Mar 4, 2007 15:38:47 GMT -6
Best example Stephenson High School in Atlanta GA, averages 6 D-IA players every year, 2 years ago, they sent one to FSU, 2 to LSU, 2 to Florida, 1 to UCF and got blasted in the state seminfinals 40-7.
It is about Jimme's and Joes, but coaches can put there team in every game, we did this year, 2-8 with a team a team that had 2 wins in 3 years, and lost 5 games by 6 or less.
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Mar 4, 2007 15:44:19 GMT -6
Saw a really good program on Discovery Channel yesterday called "The Science of Superhuman Strength". In the show, they were interviewing a sports scientist who works for the US Olympic agency. He made the comment that in most Olympic events, the difference between 1st place and 4th place is less than 1 percent.
So, according to this scientist, that is what coaching is all about...finding a way to make up that 1%.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 4, 2007 18:55:08 GMT -6
Can we "define" what we consider great jimmies and joes in this discussion? It must be recognized that there are plenty of great high school football players who are not going to play college football (especially here in Louisiana, where the culture dictates that it isn't football below the 1AA level.) However, these are the kids that win the state title, and not the kids who will be playing on Sat afternoons. THESE are the jimmies and joes that matter
|
|
|
Post by tvt50 on Mar 4, 2007 19:44:17 GMT -6
"The BEST PLAYERS don't always make the best team, but the BEST TEAM always wins"
Look at the teams that win state championships and none of their players sign DI, look at the teams that have 9 DI players and lose in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Mar 4, 2007 20:03:38 GMT -6
The best teams have both.
The best coaches maximize the Jimmies and Joes they have been dealt.
But even the best coaches, even those guys who maximize all the talent they do have, can't win with nothing.
There really are many factors. We like to think winning is simple, but it is more like nuclear physics than we think.
It takes a coach and a staff who knows what they are doing. Not only that, they need experience in one way or another so they know how to adjust on the fly. Then you have to have coaches who nt only know thier stuff but know how to teach it and relate to the players (kids). Then you have to have the Jimmies and Joes. Not only does thier need to be some talent on hand but they need to have some kind of drive. Yes, coaches motivate (the relate to kids factor) but his style of motivation needs to match the kids style of what motivates them. For example if you have a coach who believes a great deal in being self motivated and is not a yeller and screamer coaching kids who need to be yelled and screamed at thier is going to be a blockage of some kind. Then, let's not forget the off season too. The coach needs to be organized and knowledgable (or someone on staff does) in the area of athletic development, and be able to get kids into the wt room.
I am sorry for the long winded response. But I think we can all agree it comes down to many, many factors. Some of which is controlled by the coach, some is not.
I am not trying to absolve bad coaches. They are out there. Sometimes I even think I am guilty of being a "bad" coach at times based on the strategy or lack thereof I attemped to use to defeat an opponent or an motivational speech that bombed. Am I a bad coach? NO. I don't think so. Most people I know don't think so either. But one time I walked into a school that basically was the wrong fit for me. I failed there, partially b/c I was not ready in all aspects, and partially b/c the Jimmies and Joes were not good enough compared to what we were going against. Does that make me a bad coach? Remember Bill Bellichek failed in Cleveland before writing his ticket to the Hall of Fame with the Patriots. Or did Tom Brady write it for him?
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Mar 4, 2007 20:47:50 GMT -6
I think we are not all talking about the same thing... If we are talking about being good... then yes, forget the Jimmy and Joes... it's the coaching and the x's and o's... Good coaches make good teams... forget about the talent... they will win with what they have. They won't win it all. Won't be the best in the state, but they will win... be good, and compete for the playoffs. However, if we are talking about being the best... then its all about the Jimmy and Joes... No non talented ever wins state... they may not have the best player... but they always have a lot of good players. Sure, other teams may have 1 or 2 D1 athletes... but the state champions have that 1 kid... plus 23 others that eat sleep and breath football. You see it every year... a team comes out of nowhere... historically butt ugly... same coaching staff, but all of sudden, they are world beaters... it was that 8th grade class that everyone knew, if they stayed together, they'd be awesome. That program in which, all the kids grew 7 inches and 70 lbs of muscle. And if we are being real honest... you barely run into 2 to 3 good teams a season... most of them are just average, or poor... I've been a poor to average coach my entire life... that's why I spend so much time on this board... trying to get over the hump... All of a sudden... I think I've shared entirely too much!
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 4, 2007 21:33:52 GMT -6
Khalfie, you hit the nail on the head. It is the Jimmy and Joes who breath,eat and sleep football that win the games. I guess an argument could be made that it is coaches who make those kids...I dont know.
|
|
|
Post by los on Mar 4, 2007 21:44:36 GMT -6
I agree phantom, thats the way I've felt about it as well and probably why we take each loss to heart, so much? Players win, coaches keep them from losing thru motivation, preparation and experience!
|
|
|
Post by playfast on Mar 5, 2007 8:03:26 GMT -6
Coaching and direction are what make great players. Sure coaches can't teach pure athletic ability but we can teach how the game is played. I've seen coaches have great years with less talent because they are able to use the strengths of their players and put them in position to be successful.
I am in a situation where I have excellent athletes that don't have a clue on how to play the game. D 1 coaches come in all the time and they really are not interested in their football knowledge but their overall athletic ability. I have had guys that are great great players not go D1 but a guy who has great size and speed and not football savvy still get the D1 scholarship.
Coaching and direction are more inportant than your Jimmies and Joes.
|
|
kdcoach
Sophomore Member
Posts: 194
|
Post by kdcoach on Mar 5, 2007 10:46:07 GMT -6
Not sure that the coaches can "make" kids eat, breathe, sleep and live for football. I think that's kind of in there or it isn't at the high school level especially. I think in most programs you will have a few kids that absolutely live for football, but the majority like football or play because their friends play. I have had two different coaches (both of whom had over 200 career wins) at two different times tell me that you very rarely will have kids play for you at the high school level that love football as much as you do as a coach. When it happens you will find a special bond with that kid. This has played out for me personally only 3 or 4 times in the last five years that I have been a Head Coach. I really believe that khalfie & cd5085 hit it about right when you get a team full of kids that love football and can't wait to play and spend time together that's when you have something special. My experience is that the kids that are like that usually are better than the others because they love to play and are willing to commit the time and energy to it to become better than everyone else. I guess you could make the argument that one of the reasons they love it so much is because they are better at it than others....I don't know, chicken and the egg I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by coachroberts99 on Mar 5, 2007 10:55:23 GMT -6
I am 100% all about the J+Js not the X and O's. One of the problems in the UK is too many X and O coaches.... and it's so great when guys talk about this play or that play and how great it is until they realise that my DT won't be trapped, my end cant be blocked and my MLB don't miss ! However I tend to include talent in the Jimmy and Joe debate.... without a doubt athletes win games, and I say to guys thats how footballs play basketball, are track stars, baseball.... pretty much anything, as they are gifted athletes. You then throw good coaching in the mix and you're going to hurt teams. However without coaching it will count for nothing, coaching is about making the most of what you have and letting them be as good as they can be.... when you have good raw materials thats a higher ceiling than when you have poor players to work with. So in short, to be the best you need the J+Js, but without coaching it won't amount to anything, but if you have great coaching and bad players you will always struggle, because as they say.... You can't clean a turd.
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Mar 5, 2007 11:32:30 GMT -6
I don't know so much if it's guys that "love" football and cannot wait to play but rather guys who love to compete and really dislike losing. When you get a kid who's absolutely going to battle each and every play no matter what you got yourself a player- if you have a bunch of those type kids you got yourself a team that's hard to beat. A kid like that will do all right in any high school sport he chooses to participate in. Kids can "love" football, love playing football but not be great competitors- not be kids who hate losing and they'll not be as committed to off season work, they'll not work as hard in the weight room or do the little things that seperate guys who play football from FOOTBALL PLAYERS. And there is a difference IMO.
|
|
|
Post by mnpasso on Mar 5, 2007 12:42:48 GMT -6
Please allow to be wish-washy, and the levels might be a factor in this.
I've heard it said in the NFL, with the exception of a few real difference makers at their respective positions, such as Peyton Manning at QB or LaDanian Tomlinson at RB, the talent level is more or less the same from team to team. At that level it comes down to coaching.
In contrast, one area that I strongly feel is it about Jimmies and Joes is "run defense"! There are a lot of good schemes out there, but when you are getting knocked off the LOS, the scheme doesn't matter. I don't know of any ways to play run defense with smoke and mirrors.
I realize there are some saying, play 9 or 10 in the box, etc. Ask the CB's locked up on man all game what they think of that. Besides, if that great CB was playing on a bad defensive team, he'd probably need to play closer to the ball.
I know you can play Offense, and even somewhat run the ball using smoke and mirrors (spread them out, formations, motions, shifts, 3 step, and on), but again I think the defense, especially against the inside run has a lot to do the Jimmies and Joes. Just my wish-washy thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Mar 5, 2007 13:49:29 GMT -6
At some point it comes down to man vs man. If your Xs can consistantly kick the crap out of my Os...then I will have a problem.
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Mar 5, 2007 15:06:04 GMT -6
Please allow to be wish-washy, and the levels might be a factor in this. I've heard it said in the NFL, with the exception of a few real difference makers at their respective positions, such as Peyton Manning at QB or LaDanian Tomlinson at RB, the talent level is more or less the same from team to team. At that level it comes down to coaching. In contrast, one area that I strongly feel is it about Jimmies and Joes is "run defense"! There are a lot of good schemes out there, but when you are getting knocked off the LOS, the scheme doesn't matter. I don't know of any ways to play run defense with smoke and mirrors. I realize there are some saying, play 9 or 10 in the box, etc. Ask the CB's locked up on man all game what they think of that. Besides, if that great CB was playing on a bad defensive team, he'd probably need to play closer to the ball. I know you can play Offense, and even somewhat run the ball using smoke and mirrors (spread them out, formations, motions, shifts, 3 step, and on), but again I think the defense, especially against the inside run has a lot to do the Jimmies and Joes. Just my wish-washy thoughts. I totally agree with your thoughts on defense. I can hide one or two weak ones on offense and still move the ball and score against most teams. However, there is no where to hide a weak Jimmy or Joe on defense. The opposition will find them very quickly. Offense is execution, and a lesser athlete can learn to execute with proper coaching. Defense is desire, and no amount of coaching can create that desire.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 5, 2007 16:31:14 GMT -6
To make the argument one of players OR schemes (coaching) is a bit of an oversimplification; certainly it is at the high school level.
But I think we can all agree it comes down to many, many factors. Some of which is controlled by the coach, some is not.
This is a great point, and one which most of us realize, but tend to overlook (at least I do at times). There are several factors beyond players/coaching: administrative support, a good booster club (active and supportive but non-intrusive), athletic weight training classes or athletic periods (especially when some rival schools do not have this at all), a good sized and functional weight room, good community/fan support, enough money to get what is needed... there are a lot of factors. I guess I am still of the belief that while you need players to make the big run, you can get by with less athleticism IF you have a lot of other factors going your way.
|
|
|
Post by warrior53 on Mar 5, 2007 19:44:20 GMT -6
Wow! I am impressed with the answers given. I am surrounded by people who love to say that phrase. I always have felt it was an excuse for them not having been able to get the job at their respective schools. I am no guru by any stretch, but to say that it is all about the players you have is insane to me...if that were true, then why are we here? What purpose do we have, what role do we play as coaches? I also know you need talented players to win, but it is the coaches who win the close ones, not the players.
|
|