Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2013 17:50:11 GMT -6
What I'm asking is, when the cupboard is bare and you have little to no talent, what do you find yourself doing? Do you try to outscheme your opponents to hide your weaknesses, or do you keep it simple in order to help your players play faster by not having as much to remember? Or, do you simply do nothing at all and grin and bare it?!
Duece
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Jan 2, 2013 18:06:38 GMT -6
Interview!
|
|
|
Post by zherteltherrien on Jan 2, 2013 18:17:13 GMT -6
Build monsters.
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on Jan 2, 2013 18:17:31 GMT -6
Honestly, I said reduce the scheme. If we're going to be lousy, let's be master some bare basics and be less-lousy at those.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Jan 2, 2013 18:34:05 GMT -6
recruit
|
|
|
Post by kylem56 on Jan 2, 2013 18:37:26 GMT -6
I have been in this situation 4 times during my short career (8 years so far). Will all of this help you win a state title with lesser talent? Probaly not but these are some things we have done to "make the journey easier". X & O's -Have a systematic offense in place (i.e. Wing-T) **we usually run LESS plays but just as much or more formations **along these lines, RUN THE FOOTBALL ! teach your QB to watch for the backjudge's hand to go up at 5 seconds left on the playclock to run as much time as possible -Keep it simple on defense (focus on being great at tackling and practice creating turnovers every day) **We have 1 zone coverage (Cover 3) and man coverage. Thats it and we play in the highest level of HS football in Ohio. The less your kids think the better. Especially with lack of talent - Be aggressive on special teams (alot of squib kicks, suprise onsides etc. play like nothing to lose) outside of X & O's:- Your Strength & Conditioning program becomes that much more important. Make sure you have a system in place that has clear goals, objectives, and ways of measuring progress - Schedule as many cupcakes as you can. forget about your pride, your player's confidence is -more important -Along that notes, if you are allowed to have pre-season scrimmages or 7-on-7's with other schools, schedule them with bad football teams. Sometimes confidence is everything especially in a program with a history of losing. - create or have a highlight film made of the previous season (no matter how short it may be to show at your banquet and at the jr. high banquet - do the right thing and set the right examples. It may take time but eventually your philosopies will become a trademark of the program -Do whatever you can to field a Freshmen and/or JV team. - continue to focus on getting kids out for football in your building (high school age) and within your district (in the middle and elementary schools) ***we had a free elementary youth football camp every Thursday night during the season for an hour . Get them excited to play football ***Speak to your Jr. High team's before a game, at their banquet. Send each kid a birthday card from the program. - Set an example of mental toughness for your staff. They will follow your lead if they are worth having on your staff. MISC.:- Develop a staff that understands that developing successful young men off the field is more important than wins and losses - Continue to work on building relationships with your current & future student-athletes, fellow coaches, administrators, parents, community members, etc. - Never stop learning. The best never rest. - Never stop evaluating what you do. - Visit with other coaches who have had success rebuilding programs, your not the 1st guy to fix a broken program - do the right thing guys I hope this helps. I have been there and sometimes it is a matter of survival. I have pages worth of notes from my experiences and others if I can be anymore help.
|
|
|
Post by coachjd on Jan 2, 2013 19:05:01 GMT -6
We went flexbone for 4 years knowing we had to shorten the game and keep things simple. Kept us in most ball games, won some we should not have.
|
|
|
Post by newt21 on Jan 2, 2013 19:25:06 GMT -6
I said decrease because if they have trouble executing the base plays, what will happen with the complimentary plays?
|
|
|
Post by fballcoachg on Jan 2, 2013 19:47:10 GMT -6
I would say keep it the same to decrease HOWEVER I would be more likely to throw in some trick plays, worth the risk
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 2, 2013 19:47:33 GMT -6
Duece, it is an interesting question, because if you ask the polar opposite question : "What do you do when you are loaded" I bet most would say you decrease your scheme and just let the players outplay the opposition.
So either way, it seems the MOST effective tactic is to do as LITTLE as you need to in order to do it as well as you can.
|
|
|
Post by indian1 on Jan 2, 2013 20:07:57 GMT -6
Great point
|
|
|
Post by joboo59 on Jan 2, 2013 20:46:03 GMT -6
I agree. The last thing I want my players doing is thinking about their jobs. Get good at a few things, throw in a counter or three and try to control the ball and dictate the tempo of the game.
Multiple times I have had my offense hold the ball for entire periods, we lost those games but had chances to win when we had no business being there. Pick up first downs and tackle well, if you can do those two things, I believe you can hang in most games. Obviously sometimes you will just get destroyed by the top tier teams you face, but they would have been tough to beat anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2013 6:32:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jan 3, 2013 7:51:07 GMT -6
I'm paraphrasing here but Bo said underdogs should do more, take more chances, while the more talented team should be more conservative.
Which I thought counter-intuitive.
|
|
|
Post by calkayne on Jan 3, 2013 9:33:23 GMT -6
When I was very naive and inexperienced I would grin and bear it. Hey I didnt have a clue what I was doing, so the players didnt either...
Then I was less naive and a little experienced so I became dangerous and schemed like mad.
Now I am not so naive and a little more experience and feel that I can get players to cover up my mistakes, so I just keep it simple and they make me look better than I am.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jan 3, 2013 9:49:32 GMT -6
We pulled back to two base series (Buck and Belly) and ran them out of a ton of formations, personnel groupings and backfield actions. We looked like a hodge podge of Wing-T, Single-Wing, and run heavy gun.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 3, 2013 9:56:31 GMT -6
I'm paraphrasing here but Bo said underdogs should do more, take more chances, while the more talented team should be more conservative. Which I thought counter-intuitive. I don't see why it's counter-intuitive. The more talented team has to make mistakes for the lesser team to have a chance to win the game.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jan 3, 2013 10:04:54 GMT -6
Counter-intuitive because a team with more talent, more skills, more physical ability should therefore be able to do more and at a high level.
By definition a team with less talent can't do as much or as well so by trying to do more only exacerbates their limitations, i.e. they're attempting to do more things they can't execute.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 3, 2013 10:08:22 GMT -6
Counter-intuitive because a team with more talent, more skills, more physical ability should therefore be able to do more and at a high level. By definition a team with less talent can't do as much or as well so by trying to do more only exacerbates their limitations, i.e. they're attempting to do more things they can't execute. The more talented team doesn't need to do more things to win, though.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jan 3, 2013 10:21:38 GMT -6
The more talented team doesn't need to do more things to win, though. Perhaps but by not using all their "weapons" they limit themselves, in effect helping the lesser talented team - doing their job for them. Isn't that the definition of "playing to not lose," which can be disastrous?
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jan 3, 2013 10:31:14 GMT -6
I don't think it's possible to scale down our playbook any more than we already do, so I put just keep things the same.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 3, 2013 10:31:38 GMT -6
The more talented team doesn't need to do more things to win, though. Perhaps but by not using all their "weapons" they limit themselves, in effect helping the lesser talented team - doing their job for them. Isn't that the definition of "playing to not lose," which can be disastrous? Actually, if you have overwhelmingly superior personnel playing not to lose is exactly what you're doing.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jan 3, 2013 10:35:33 GMT -6
I think that can be faulty strategy though.
It can allow an inferior team to "hang around" and then bad things can happen.
And if you don't use all the tools at your disposal until you meet a team of equal or more ability - how can you suddenly expect to execute them well?
|
|
|
Post by Coach Bennett on Jan 3, 2013 10:44:10 GMT -6
I'm interested to hear what the turbo-no-huddle guys would do in the scenario.
3 and out is the kiss of death with that style, so would you stick with the up tempo scheme and count on it to get you plays you might not otherwise? Or, as others have mentioned, is it time to put it on the shelf for a clock-chewing offensive scheme?
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jan 3, 2013 10:44:22 GMT -6
I will say, I think it can go both ways as long as you're staying simple and sound.
With less talented teams, we've had to spread the ball around a lot more. We had a team several years back where two players accounted for 80% of our yardage.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 3, 2013 10:53:16 GMT -6
I think that can be faulty strategy though. It can allow an inferior team to "hang around" and then bad things can happen. And if you don't use all the tools at your disposal until you meet a team of equal or more ability - how can you suddenly expect to execute them well? That's what practice is for. I'm not saying that you don't have a comprehensive game plan but that doesn't mean that you have to use everything. In 2008 we had a great defense. Every starter got a scholarship. By nature I'm an aggressive DC who loves to bring heat but not that year. I called "Base, Cover 2" a LOT. It was kind of boring but the idea was to win and we knew that the best chance for the other guys would be to hit a couple of big plays. That risk was minimized by playing Base. That doesn't mean that we didn't include pressure in our game plans or practice them but we didn't use them in games unless we needed them.
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Jan 3, 2013 11:18:01 GMT -6
Offensively, I think it depends on where they stand intellectually. If they're not that talented but are smart enough and can handle it, I don't believe a slight increase in scheme is a bad thing.
The reason I say this is because we had a scheme that we didn't use this year at my new school which had more talent overall. We were able to go with less and get it done. So we didn't utilize that scheme.
I just knew at my old school that there would be ways that teams would line up that it would be favorable for us to have this scheme in our back pocket. Mostly because I knew there would be times that our base would be there but we couldn't execute it against superior opponents.
So rather than openly limit what we were doing, or forget expanding because we'd get beat anyway, we opted for just a couple more possibilities scheme wise to potentially take advantage of something that was there. I mean isn't a basic defensive principle to force an offense to do what they don't normally do?
If that was the case, I felt that we really needed to have a couple more wrinkles. When you have closer to the same amount of talent as your opponent, it becomes a "we're going to run this, see if you can stop it" type situation.
I will say, I was back in the same boat in the first round of the post season this year. We played a team that ended up advancing to the semifinals and getting beat by the eventual state champ by 1 point. The same plays that we were trying to execute during the season were not going.
We were getting to our assignments but getting physically manhandled at a couple positions. The weight room was the obvious answer following film review but that solution wasn't going to do anything for us in the game.
I have wondered if there could have been any additional scheme we could have run to give us a better chance in that football game against a superior opponent? I haven't put much thought into it. But I believe there is.
We just didn't need any throughout the regular season so we weren't in a situation where I'm accustomed to being with some in our back pocket that we've been repping throughout the year. Maybe that's on me?
But, like I said, I didn't anticipate early on or throughout the season that we needed an additional scheme. So we mastered a number of looks that we knew we'd see and used many more formations than I had been accustomed to in the past. JMO.
|
|
jasober
Probationary Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by jasober on Jan 3, 2013 11:19:10 GMT -6
Read Mike Leach's book "Swing Your Sword". I feel you have to master your scheme but also think outside the box and be unpredictable. At the same time that will make it fun and exciting for the kids. You have to create a different brand of football within the program.
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Jan 3, 2013 13:32:44 GMT -6
I'm paraphrasing here but Bo said underdogs should do more, take more chances, while the more talented team should be more conservative. Was he just saying that the less talented teams need to do more to take the game while the more talented teams just need not give it away?
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Jan 3, 2013 13:38:02 GMT -6
Perhaps but by not using all their "weapons" they limit themselves, in effect helping the lesser talented team - doing their job for them. Isn't that the definition of "playing to not lose," which can be disastrous? But can't more talented teams over think it sometimes and get too cute during a game against a less talented opponent? They attempt to do more than is necessary in an effort to "use all of their weapons." In doing so, they increase the likelihood of mistakes because those plays are quite a ways removed from their bread and butter. Do they all of sudden become a less talented team because they can't "use all of their weapons?" I don't believe so. They are simply over thinking things.
|
|