|
Post by mtsooner on Oct 2, 2007 10:33:29 GMT -6
Hello coaches.
I've been a member of this board for about a year now, but generally I just read what you guys say and don't interject too much (that's my way of learning).
I do have two things, though, I'd really enjoy seeing some opinions on and why you feel the way you do.
First to preface this, I'm obviously from Oklahoma and those of you that watch college ball no doubt saw the OU meltdown this weekend vs. Colorado. Not only that game, but so many "ranked" top teams had major meltdowns.
Is it my failing memory, or did these kinds of meltdowns rarely happen 20+ years ago to the top teams? Are these games the products of the type of young men our culture is full of these days? Is it the schemes the major college teams run?
Now, I do know many great young men, but it seems there's becoming a shift in the majority where the youth today are semi-lazy and very self-centered. This seems to be even more prevalent among many of the most highly recruited guys. A lot of these guys seem to believe much more in the "me" instead of the "we". If this is the case, why wouldn't you be more selective with your recruiting efforts and take a young man, that might not be the top tier athlete (maybe second tier instead), but has a HUGE work ethic, impeccable character, and believes in team first? Are major college coaches recruiting in a political way instead of an intelligent one?
This "attitude" just seemed to be less pervasive when many of us played football 20 years ago, or maybe I'm remembering it wrong. How do you relate to such kids in HS if that's the lot you have to work with?
My second issue is, and I know it's been discussed on here before, but it's been a while. Why are there no teams with tremendous talent anymore that decide to line up against you and just ram it down your throat? I watched James Madison do this to Montana back in 2004, and as much as I love the Grizzlies, the way James Madison just crushed Montana's spirit with an inside the tackle running game, how could you not love that approach?
The spread offense, in my opinion, has made a world of football full of finesse teams, and that to me includes the West Virginia-type teams that run a lot of option and misdirection out of shotgun. Now I know at the high school level there are still teams that run high octane power running offenses, but name one top tier school in D-1 (other than maybe USC), that uses no blend of spread and just lines up against you, could basically tell you what they're gonna run, and you just try to stop them. I know many will answer the speed and savvy of defenses now have taken that ability away, but is that really "the truth", or again, is it just too boring to the general fan, and the coaches take the politically correct route because people think you can't win without the spread offenses anymore?
Trends come and go in football, but to me, an offense that works like a defense, in some sense (ball-control), is still a better equalizer and potentially spirit crusher with the right talent, than any spread offense you can run out on the field....again just my opinion. The trend of the spread offenses and shotgun zone reads, seem to only be gaining ground instead if waning, especially in high school.
Oh, and I must rant on this, fundamental tackling at all levels of football is beginning to make me sick! When my 12 year old son watches a college or pro game with me and says, "Dad, our team tackles better than these guys do"....something is MAJORLY wrong with that!!!
Anyway, I look forward to seeing what you gentleman think about these things.
-S.R.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Oct 2, 2007 10:38:46 GMT -6
40 years ago they were saying the same things about the guys you're referencing.
Lot of it has little to do with 'emotional meltdowns' and just being out-performed / executed.
spread is 'finese'? Gimme a break with that empty sports writer rhetoric.
how many programs recruit boy scouts to maintain the highest nursing home volunteers? They recruit to win NOW, because that is the only thing they are judged on as a coach.
|
|
|
Post by mtsooner on Oct 2, 2007 11:17:35 GMT -6
Coach, first off, I'm a football coach like you (not a sports writer, funny by the way), and I DO feel the spread is a finesse offense. It's definitely not a line-it-up-and-let's-see-who's-tougher offense.
Again, I wasn't insulting the offense, actually there are many things I like about it, but why do spread guys get so defensive about the "finesse" word? It is what it is.....please, show me what you believe the offense to be, if you feel the word finesse is the wrong word. According to the dictionary:
fi·nesse (f-ns) n. 1. Refinement and delicacy of performance, execution, or artisanship. 2. Skillful, subtle handling of a situation; tactful, diplomatic maneuvering. 3. A method of leading up to a tenace, as in bridge, in order to prevent an opponent from winning the trick with an intermediate card. 4. A stratagem in which one appears to decline an advantage. v. fi·nessed, fi·ness·ing, fi·ness·es v.tr. 1. To accomplish by the use of finesse. 2. To handle with a deceptive or evasive strategy. 3. To play (a card) as a finesse. v.intr. 1. To use finesse. 2. To make a finesse in cards.
Again, nothing wrong with the offense, there's more than one way to skin a cat. I was just asking everyone's opinions about why they feel no one just lines it up and bullies the other team anymore....that's all. I don't want to get into a discussion of "which offense is better"....we all have our likes and dislikes, and believing in what you do and executing it are always the most important thing, yes.
I know it comes down to winning, but some of the greatest coaches ever could win a lot, win with dignity, pride, lesser players, and they were able to teach life lessons in the process (not the "winning is everything and the only thing" mentality many coaches have now). So I feel the "you have to win now" is a cop out for not doing things for the right reasons. How much of your character are you willing to sacrifice just for a win?
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Oct 2, 2007 11:24:31 GMT -6
. I know many will answer the speed and savvy of defenses now have taken that ability away, but is that really "the truth", Yes, it is
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Oct 2, 2007 11:31:39 GMT -6
Thats why I loved my old Cornhusker teams of the 70's-80's 90's. Most of the time, they came out on the field not jumping or hollering, just the confidence and knowledge that they were going ot kick the every loving you know what out of their opponent that day. Many teams during that era knew the same thing and were just looking for a soft place to land and layed down. So many 40-50-60 even 70 point wins NU 84 Minnesota 13, NU 62 Florida 24 etc etc
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 2, 2007 11:34:00 GMT -6
mstooner--how much of your character are you willing to sacrafice to feed your wife and kid?
As far as being "finesse", I would say the collisions between lineman are as violent in the spread as they are in a two tight I formation Power/Iso offense. There are just more of them in the latter.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Oct 2, 2007 11:36:15 GMT -6
App. State and Oregon beat Michigan
Do you think if they lined up in the I-bone the result would have been the same?
It has to do with the type of athletes available to recruit.
Quick guys are a dime a dozen, quality big men are a premium
Quality big men go to the "big" schools---------USC, Ohio State, LSU, a dozen or so others
So when you got undersized OL men and quick guys what do you run?
It is an equalizing offense, and it is the current trend to "equalize" the competition (thatnks to Meyer)----------whenever (I hope not "if ever") Paul Johnson moves up, you will see a flexbone frenzy.
As to the "finesse" question, that is BS, you try to tackle Tim Tebow
Finesse doesn't have much to do with scheme, my team is a spread team, and we will flat out get after you up front
That is an attitude thing, not a scheme thing (sure some guys how are ground pounders must teach that attitude, but it isn't exclusive from spread teams)
|
|
|
Post by deaux68 on Oct 2, 2007 11:48:40 GMT -6
I have a hard time thinking Tim Tebow on the power play running at full tilt is "finesse". Texas A&M in the gun with a 260 plus running back.
There are a lot of reasons to spread. I would bet the number one reason is to get all those bodies out of their. Sometimes just a threat on the perimeter works. Other times you have to exploit a weakness in the defense.
|
|
|
Post by mtsooner on Oct 2, 2007 11:57:05 GMT -6
Wow, when I started this thread, I had no idea so many would take offense to the use of one word. I guess that's predictable though.
As far as being "finesse", I would say the collisions between lineman are as violent in the spread as they are in a two tight I formation Power/Iso offense. There are just more of them in the latter.
Every collision between linemen is violent, yes...no doubt about that coach. There's just more technique used than flat out smashing when the OL is dropping into most forms of PP.
mtsooner--how much of your character are you willing to sacrafice to feed your wife and kid?
None....there are many ways to do the right thing and feed your family and still come out victorious in whatever you do in life. I will NEVER compromise my character for a football win and the parents of my kids respect that about me, though yeh, they want to win just like me!
Quick guys are a dime a dozen, quality big men are a premium
Quality big men go to the "big" schools---------USC, Ohio State, LSU, a dozen or so others
Hence my question...why don't these "big" schools use there superior size and just run over people....pass only when they have to....make the other team buck up or roll over and take it?
So when you got undersized OL men and quick guys what do you run?
SW, DW, Veer, Flexbone, Wishbone, Jet Sweep, etc...hell, I think some needs to give Ted Seay's WB a try at the college level.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 2, 2007 12:47:21 GMT -6
Coach--i think you are getting off track of your own point. You need to differentiate between the "spread" and running the football.
After reading your rebuttles, I think what you are really asking is "why do teams not run the ball 80-85% of the time like they used to?" "Why are they throwing it so much?"
I am a little confused though where you are trying to go with this though. You talk about the zone read, and WVU 's style option offense as being "finesse" but your rebuttle to this is talking about pass protection.
Anyway, I think the answer to what you are trying to get at...why doesn't Michigan /OSU/etc just line up 2 TE and just pound away at teams is the spill concept. 20 years ago, the "way" to play defense was to squeeze all blocks. You needed a blue chip DT to take on dbls, and a blue chicp DE to take on kick outs. When playing against a superior opponent, this allowed for a great deal of running room, and the top schools seemed to fair well. However, once the concept of spilling plays laterally became more prevalent, teams no longer needed blue chip talent to take on blue chip OL. An average D-1 player can make a pile. So the "superior talent" of the blue chip OL is somewhat neutralized.
Just an aside here, one could argue that the veer,flexbone, and wishbone option series could be consider "finesse". You are not even colliding into TWO players...how powerful is that?
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Oct 2, 2007 12:51:37 GMT -6
I firmly believe the upsets in college football are a result of much more strict rules on recruiting, NFL teams drafting players (and having success with them) all the way down to the Div-III level, and as mentioned above, more complex passing attacks at all levels. The result? Your top teir skill position athletes aren't just going to FSU, OSU, ND...but settling for smaller schools.
And then. a team that can, on any given night, throw the ball as well as everyone in the country, can pull off the upset. At the same time, that same team, on any given night, can be upset themselves because of inconsistency.
It's similar to a basketball team that relies on the 3 pointer or a baseball team that relies on the homerun.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 2, 2007 12:58:52 GMT -6
wing--I agree..not just the stricter rules, but also scholly limits, increased diversity in TV exposure, AND.. oddly enough, the "ME" mentality. 35 years ago, 3rd and 4th string players on teams such as LSU, BAMA, OU, etc. would have been 3 year starters at many other schools. Coaches such as Charlie Mclendon and Bear Bryant would give kids schollies as a preventative measure---he might not play for me, but he darn sure won't play for anyone else. And the prevalent culture of the time was TO GO to LSU, BAMA, OU, NEBRASKA etc...for the community, rather than maybe going to a school that would better showcase your talent or get you on the field. Sitting at Texas was better than playing for Texas Tech.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 2, 2007 13:13:00 GMT -6
This thread has all sort of implications that I believe really are the cause of the start of this thread, but I believe would cause real problems and most dont really want to talk about. That being said, I dont believe you see teams impose their will as they use to, and I am not talking about schemes. I do believe the level physicality has dropped off. Some of that I believe is political correctness that has creeped into our sport. Some of that is just smart coaching, some of it lack of good coaching, but a lot of it has to do with people and their knowledge of this game. The Number of SCHEMES and not necessarily the advancement of or the focus on individual skills. I would really like to see an open debate about what I believe the source of this thread, to be. I am not the one to bring it out. Nor do I think the powers that be want this discussion taking place. Uhhhh..could you try that again? I have read this 14 times, and have yet to grasp what ever it is you are trying to get across. The source of the thread is the author. His question/point is simply why don't we see the big time schools running the ball 85% of the time anymore. The answer is because the non big time schools have good enough players to make piles and run laterally.
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Oct 2, 2007 13:15:30 GMT -6
wing--I agree..not just the stricter rules, but also scholly limits, increased diversity in TV exposure, AND.. oddly enough, the "ME" mentality. 35 years ago, 3rd and 4th string players on teams such as LSU, BAMA, OU, etc. would have been 3 year starters at many other schools. Coaches such as Charlie Mclendon and Bear Bryant would give kids schollies as a preventative measure---he might not play for me, but he darn sure won't play for anyone else. And the prevalent culture of the time was TO GO to LSU, BAMA, OU, NEBRASKA etc...for the community, rather than maybe going to a school that would better showcase your talent or get you on the field. Sitting at Texas was better than playing for Texas Tech. Yup, it's all about playing time now, cause "I'm going pro by my 2nd, MAYBE 3rd year" Not to mention the thought of injuries too. Can you blame someone though? Your an elite athlete coming out of HS. Even late round picks get signing bonuses that are a lot of money to these kids.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 2, 2007 13:17:40 GMT -6
wing-can't blame them at all. And I don't think it is even all that much about going pro. This is probably one of the ONLY things that has been a plus of the "me" mentality. A little more parity.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 2, 2007 13:24:25 GMT -6
READ THIS SLOWLY This thread has all sort of implications that I believe really are the cause of the start of this thread, but I believe would cause real problems and most dont really want to talk about. . Verbage does not equal communication. Don't try to use fancy words. It does not get the job done (especially when used incorrectly) Something can not be an IMPLICATION made in some piece of writing, and also the "cause of the start" of that writing. English lesson over. I have to disagree. What "devious" implications is the author making by asking why teams don't just line up in big tight formations and run downhill anymore? You brought it up, it IS for you to say.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 2, 2007 13:33:37 GMT -6
It isn't a conversation. It is a written dialouge.
That said, you didn't put ANYTHING coherent out there. I apologize if you don't like being called out on your incoherent post, but quite frankly you are accusing someone of something, and yet are so incoherent in your explanations, that I don't think many if any people here know exactly what you are accusing him of. I sure don't.
Now, since you insinuated that board moderators wouldn't like the discussion, I have to ask "What do you think the root is" Do you think it is a bashing of ground pounding (like the multi page thread long ago)? Is it racially motivated? What other implication could be so devious that it isn't your place to mention, but it is your place to incoherently suggest?
As far as why bring it up... there was recently a thread on why the wishbone formation died out in major college football. To me, that seemed obvious (better formations to pressure the defense and still get the same concepts you want to achieve in) but it was still valid discussion.
He brought it up because HE WANTED TO DISCUSS IT.
|
|
|
Post by mtsooner on Oct 2, 2007 13:37:33 GMT -6
Coach--i think you are getting off track of your own point. You need to differentiate between the "spread" and running the football. After reading your rebuttles, I think what you are really asking is "why do teams not run the ball 80-85% of the time like they used to?" "Why are they throwing it so much?" Yes coach, that was my point originally and things got misconstrued, I believe, that I was tearing into the spread offenses, which I wasn't. I am a little confused though where you are trying to go with this though. You talk about the zone read, and WVU 's style option offense as being "finesse" but your rebuttle to this is talking about pass protection. Well, yeh, coach, I wasn't necessarily pointing to how teams like West Virginia run the ball, but more to the fact of how much they tend to choose to pass it vs. run it. Now, I know the defenses alignments are going to dictate a lot of what your going to do (run or pass) when your lined up in a zone read, some version of spread, shotgun, etc, so I don't consider those offenses to be true, power...run it right at you offenses. Anyway, I think the answer to what you are trying to get at...why doesn't Michigan /OSU/etc just line up 2 TE and just pound away at teams is the spill concept. 20 years ago, the "way" to play defense was to squeeze all blocks. You needed a blue chip DT to take on dbls, and a blue chicp DE to take on kick outs. When playing against a superior opponent, this allowed for a great deal of running room, and the top schools seemed to fair well. However, once the concept of spilling plays laterally became more prevalent, teams no longer needed blue chip talent to take on blue chip OL. An average D-1 player can make a pile. So the "superior talent" of the blue chip OL is somewhat neutralized. You make a some great points, coach. My only thought there is if you stretch a team left to right with jets and sweep-type plays, make them stretch the field like they would to defend the spread, then pound them over and over up the middle, to me, it seems you put them in conflict. Then hit then with a play-action pass from time to time to keep them honest, continue to pound them up the middle...it seems to me, that's demoralizing to stop. Of course, that's the point of playing the game, huh? Just an aside here, one could argue that the veer,flexbone, and wishbone option series could be consider "finesse". You are not even colliding into TWO players...how powerful is that? Your right here too. My only thought is if the defense knows what's coming and they can't stop it from happening, that's deflating. Plus all these offenses base themselves generally off of the dive plays, which if you can't stop that, your really in big trouble. On the other hand, if you can stop the pass, and make a passing team one-dimensional....there's in big trouble. Again, I know that all goes back to personal philosophy. I love defense, and if the offense I run gives me basically another defense on the field (ball-control), that to me gives a greater percentage chance of winning or even (stealing) a game from a better opponent talent-wise. Somewhat like what Colorado did to Oklahoma on Saturday. In the end, coach, I was just looking for opinions to see what other coaches out there thought about the current state of high level football. Personally, I like some things old school and I like some things teams do now, hell I use some of them.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 2, 2007 13:46:42 GMT -6
mtsooner--remember now, most defensive thought in college football these days is to defend formations, not plays. If you are in a tight alignment, someone is going to be aligned well enough to stop the jet, while others are still aligned perfectly to stop the Iso and others will be keying the WR to stop the PAP. Obviously you can do some things to put a player or two in conflict, but I don't think you can do that well enough to hang your hat on it.
As far as demoralizing, isn't it equally, if not MORE demoralizing to play against a team that lines up, runs Mesh/Curl Flat/ Post/Dig Drag concepts, and makes you wrong every time?
|
|
|
Post by mtsooner on Oct 2, 2007 13:55:58 GMT -6
Wow, this discussion isn't going where I thought it would!!!
Coachjerk, as coachd5085 said, I wasn't trying to imply anything by my questions. He actually has an excellent handle on where I was going with this. We all have different views, and I for one do believe too much P.C. has attacked our sport.
I think that's why you see vanilla offenses in the NFL and in a lot of college programs....coaches want to save their jobs first and really only think revolutionary ideas WAYYYY down the line. I'm not a fan of Urban Meyer, but his Single Wing ideas he's incorporated with the spread and option ideas, puts him out on a limb, and except for Auburn last week, it's been working out pretty well so far.
I for one would like to see coaches take more chances and create new and exciting concepts like they used to. I also BEG to see more competent coaching at the higher levels, i.e., better fundamental tackling, blocking, and teaching some of these guys to play as a team with sensible character or sit on the bench, no matter how talented you think you are.
|
|
|
Post by mtsooner on Oct 2, 2007 14:36:52 GMT -6
Wow! Do you have any idea what being a head means at the higher levels? No, but I'd love the chance to find out, and a million dollars a year wouldn't be too bad! Well, I know one of the biggest college coaches around, and maybe surprising to some, he's one of the most genuine, caring men I know....he's also very successful to boot, so I think that's on a per person basis. It's like anyone else, you choose to be what you are in life, no matter status, power or money. Yes! Because they don't want to explain themselves when it fails, and all schemes will fail from time to time. Yes, if your good. Many of the greats have or are doing just that. These unfortunately are more societal issues and as long as there are coaches out there that want to win more than stand up for what's right, these thugs will continue to flourish.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Oct 2, 2007 15:07:17 GMT -6
My father worked in a packing house for 20 years. He was a tough man and beat down for it. I work at desk. I make more money and have less physical ailments.
I could bang my head into a wall all day to prove I am the tougher man, or I can go around the wall and get to the same place.
Football coaches realized that a football field is not only long, but also wide. They figured out creativity has a place in football. When a smashmouth team runs up against a team they can't physically beat, they are toast. All teams eventually run into a physically better opponent. Then what they do they do to adjust?
One the great smashmouth teams we played when I was in college was a tough, uncompromising team that you knew what they were going to do and they still killed teams. They were a splitback veer team. They made it look easy, but every year we beat them. You almost always run into someone better than you. They couldn't throw when they HAD to. They could throw to keep you off balance, but not when you KNEW it was coming. We had balance. They used to "punish" or WRs when they caught the ball, but our "finesse" WR would simply get up, thank them for letting them catch the ball and then come across the middle again. We would run to keep them off balance, but we could also run when we HAD because of the massive seems our passing game created.
|
|
|
Post by tog on Oct 2, 2007 19:21:33 GMT -6
let's keep this civil
we can agree to disagree as to why
there are some interesting ideas here though
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Oct 2, 2007 20:22:53 GMT -6
Do you have CSTV?
There are a dozen classic games on during the week. In these 'classic' games' I see just as many blown assignments and bad football as I see on Saturdays.
I think the "top programs" you are referring to melting down........maybe weren't really the "top" programs they were supposed to be. Largely because the poll system is backwards. Is Michigan / ND / PSU really top 10 teams this year? No.
I think the gauntlet of absolutes has been laid down in this thread (you can either have talent or character....but not both).
I guess I just took personal offense to the cliche of "remember when we used to be tough"? Maybe I've just heard it one too many times or something. I mean, who is this generation's parents? You guessed it....the guys we are lauding as being so darn tough.
There is more ways to skin a cat, so why break your back to do the same thing you could do more efficiently?
The great equalizer is TALENT. How do you get talent? You recruit and utilize it. It is really hard to recruit 4.3 receivers to be blocking wingbacks. Why don't people line up in one formation and two plays? Believe me, it has nothing to do with ego. It has everything to do with the fact that it isn't efficient...........it would be arrogant, stubborn EGO that put his principles above the success of the team / program to do that.
I don't find "talent" to be "bad character". I believe if you have a program with a clear vision and competent leadership, you will foster dominant leaders. LEADERSHIP is the end sum of 'character'. LEADERSHIP is unselfish direction. ME-ME guys don't fit into that culture.
Look at your USC's, LSU's.......they embody the same qualities we revered in the Husker programs of the 90's.......the Nittany programs of the 80's.........The Wolverines of the 70's......the Buckeyes of the 60's.....
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Oct 2, 2007 21:15:16 GMT -6
The spread in some cases is finness, but in the case of Tim Tebow plowing over LBs, its a power offense. Boy do I wish we had a 6'3 240lb kid who has a need for high impact collisions every few plays.
|
|
|
Post by spreadoption on Oct 2, 2007 21:30:22 GMT -6
The first page of this thread was a train wreck.
|
|
|
Post by eickst on Oct 2, 2007 21:41:22 GMT -6
The first page of this thread was a train wreck. Only the first page?
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Oct 2, 2007 21:52:30 GMT -6
The first page of this thread was a train wreck. lol.............yeah, and I couldn't look away internet sure makes people brave anyway, here's my final opinion on the subject, for what very little it is worth: If it works, the coach will run it. Period. If Tressel knew he would win every game with Ohio State running the lonesome polecat as a base offense, he'd do it. However, he does not think that the lonesome polecat gives his team the best chance, so he runs whatever the heck Ohio State is running right now I wasn't alive then, but I bet when run and shoot came into popularity in the 70's (?) people were in an upthrong about how "that wasn't football" *Faught, Mouse, Black, Ellsion sure thought it was! Formations are covering the width of the field, the OL men are getting farther and farther apart, soon, you may some lonesome polecat-ish formations as a team's base with the OT's in bunches with the WR's. You can say "that ain't football", but if they score more points than you, that is all you can say Same thing can be said about 22-personnel power teams........."that's an archaic offensive system", but if they beat you, all you have is your words I have to say, when it comes to offensive systems, the only thing that matters is that it works. and that is the only criteria by which an offense should be judged. Word.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by tedseay on Oct 3, 2007 2:48:20 GMT -6
SW, DW, Veer, Flexbone, Wishbone, Jet Sweep, etc...hell, I think some needs to give Ted Seay's WB a try at the college level. Coach, I'm having a hard time arguing with that. ;D ;D Now I'd like to touch upon another aspect of your original post, rather than turning this into the N th iteration of "system vs. coaching vs. alignment of the planets" etc. Now, I do know many great young men, but it seems there's becoming a shift in the majority where the youth today are semi-lazy and very self-centered. Anyone involved in youth coaching these days has either experienced this personally or knows fellow coaches who have. The culture of entitlement is pandemic -- and athletic entitlement (as we have seen in far too many NFL and NCAA cases) is worst of all. I've just read an account from a youth coach in Illinois about an attempted "strike" by team leaders who wanted to scrimmage instead of undertaking the coach's plans for practice. He kicked the little darlings off the team after giving them three chances to line up for practice -- and yet he's been questioned by another coach for his decision. I happen to think we are feeling the effects of drowning in plenty, and our tendency to lavish things upon our children (often in an attempt to make up for the time we don't have to spend with them) is a primary culprit. In any event, yes, I agree with you, this is a culture-wide phenomenon. I'm not ready to tie it to the use of the spread shotgun or any other offense, but yeah, it's definitely out there and a factor in the way our society is moving. I believe that we as coaches will increasingly find ourselves as the only authority figures in the lives of many of these young men. What we choose to do about that situation will say a lot about us, I think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2007 6:11:34 GMT -6
Now I know there are exceptions to this rule, Nebraska being a main one, but a couple thoughts on this.
If you did a little research I'm sure that you'd find that 25 years ago the average scores for games were much lower than now. Why? More teams were full-time 2-back offense and didn't air it out. The clock kept running, the game was shorter. Look back at the mid 1980s and you'll see that the higher scoring teams were running some kind of option game and passing was not even a secondary thought. In fact if you go back to 1988 you'll see Notre Dame's wide receivers in 3 point stances. Nebraska, Oklahoma, Holtz's Irish were option teams and had the capability of putting up big points. Colorado climbed up in the late 1980s running option.
You couldn't line up with a powerful running team and beat them down for down and outscore them. You had to run a race with them and needed a new weapon. Had to take advantage of the defenses they were in to stop each other.
Most college coaches felt that they couldn't put up enough points to win if they stayed in I-backs. The lure of this new passing phase attracted some players--kids who could catch and run.
As for the James Madison-Montana game, the Grizzlies couldn't get into a field defense or an aggressive 8-man front and JM ran at the bubble that whole game. JM found that bubble and exploited it--to the point that a year later the Grizzly coaches met up with John Skledany from Iowa State to install an Under defense with an 8-man front.
|
|