|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 3, 2015 9:05:43 GMT -6
I see posts on Huey quite frequently inquiring about schemes for "less talent" or looking for ways to give your lilliputian squad a chance against a schedule of juggernaut teams. Most recently a new thread inquiring about how to apply the movie "Moneyball" to a HS football squad brought up this concept again. I think all of these posts raise the question "WHY DON'T YOUR TEAMS HAVE TALENT???" Why are all of the OTHER teams more talented than you? Why do you not have ________ "types". Is there something in your school's water supply that keeps your kids small slow and weak, and the opponents big, fast, and strong? Do other schools serve something in their cafeteria salad bar that allows HS kids to throw 35 yard out routes on a line year after year after year and your cafe doesn't?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 3, 2015 9:33:43 GMT -6
And to be clear, this isn't just a "stop griping" thread. If you are making those types of statements (even to yourself) step one HAS TO BE asking that question doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by coach2013 on Apr 3, 2015 9:37:41 GMT -6
There are towns near by that have a history of producing NFL and College div I talent. That rep has people moving there for football as those areas are watched closely by college guys.
Talent breeds talent so to speak. Similarly there are areas where NOBODY MOVES IN due to poor sports, poor academic schools.
Similarly there are other schools well known for academics and high priced homes in the area. Good schools but not many good athletes.
As it goes, the schedule is made often without consideration of school size or program success, all made by "travel considerations" by the ADs.
Just one scenario of how things can get to a school having a perpetual underdog outlook.
|
|
|
Post by coachfloyd on Apr 3, 2015 10:11:01 GMT -6
I see posts on Huey quite frequently inquiring about schemes for "less talent" or looking for ways to give your lilliputian squad a chance against a schedule of juggernaut teams. Most recently a new thread inquiring about how to apply the movie "Moneyball" to a HS football squad brought up this concept again. I think all of these posts raise the question "WHY DON'T YOUR TEAMS HAVE TALENT???" Why are all of the OTHER teams more talented than you? Why do you not have ________ "types". Is there something in your school's water supply that keeps your kids small slow and weak, and the opponents big, fast, and strong? Do other schools serve something in their cafeteria salad bar that allows HS kids to throw 35 yard out routes on a line year after year after year and your cafe doesn't? I could be wrong but it seems to me that you haven't worked in a low talent area before. There are schools around me who have unbelievable talent. There are others that are flat out awful. Some of it is socioeconomic. More affluent areas tend to not be as athletic because there are other things to grab their attention. I moved from a school where I had 5 offensive linemen that were offered football scholarships (one of which went to an NFL camp after being a 3 year starter at UGA) to a school 30minutes away and I had a 175lb offensive tackle. After a year of hard training (I like to think at least that I know what I am doing in that regard) he was up to almost 190 but not even close to the guys I just had. And that was the best we had. My first job we went 1-9 both years I was there. Our FS ran a 5.0. That was the absolute best we had. We were so slow it was ridiculous. Another team in town(literally 5 mins away) went to the 3rd round. Their QB played at Navy. The year I got there the district redrew the lines for the schools. Now my old school has a ton of talent and the other team is terrible. Its basically the opposite. When youve had the fortune (or misfortune) of working in a school like that, you have a better appreciation for how little we as coaches actually control. Here is a good story and probably defines my views on the subject. When my dad first started coaching he won a state championship his first year as a varsity coach. This was a long time ago so he was one of like 4 on the staff. So he obviously had a lot to do with it. Him and another coach left to take over a struggling program. In almost 10 years they didnt break .500. He said when he got there he thought it was all them so they could turn it around no problem. That place hasnt won since he left except for maybe 2-3 years. We are talking over 40 years of football.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 3, 2015 11:32:52 GMT -6
My point is WHAT is a "low talent" area, and more importantly WHY is that a "low talent" area? I am not talking about a great class or two that rise up together. I mean the posts where the coach says "We don't seem to get ______" coach2013 brought up a few reasons why some schools might always have the best of the best, namely move ins. Also, once you have "talent", then your up and coming players get to practice against that talent daily, and they definitely get better. Obviously a snowball effect. But to address your point, WHY would Jefferson High be a "low talent area", but Lincoln High 15 miles away be a very solid team year in and year out?
|
|
|
Post by freezeoption on Apr 3, 2015 11:41:10 GMT -6
i could give a couple, parents interests in kids, work ethic, funding, admn,
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 3, 2015 11:43:12 GMT -6
i could give a couple, parents interests in kids, work ethic, funding, admn, But other than Admin and funding...aren't the other two going to be potentially universal to all public schools?
|
|
|
Post by coachphillip on Apr 3, 2015 11:43:32 GMT -6
I've always seen it as a result of socioeconomics. My school has that weird lower middle class / upper lower class type of kid. They don't have home support because a lot of them come from single parent/grand parent/foster parent/no parent homes. But, the people who are taking care of them, make it work. It's bad enough to where they don't aspire to do anything admirable with their free time. They would rather do drugs, sell drugs, drink at the park, etc. But, their situation is not so thug life ghetto crazy that they need to "escape". When we get talent, we win games. But, we have a tendency to have the talent well run dry every four years or so.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Apr 3, 2015 11:52:14 GMT -6
First, I think our talent has to do with school enrollment v. our opponents. We are about 850 and our average opponent is about 1350. So in our case, I feel like we have SOME talent but it seems like for every one of our "studs" they have two.
I guess in that sense we have talent but not usually comparatively to who we play.
Furthermore, b/c it tends to be a 2to1 ratio our studs v. them we usually have to play our studs both ways b/c the 2nd in line isn't even close to what "they" have on the field.
I think this in a sense can put you in a never ending vicious cycle b/c our already low numbers comparatively tend to gradually become lower b/c many kids realize they may not play much when 6-7 kids start both ways. It keeps us competitive at times but scares me in the long run.
With that being said, I think we do a solid job of developing what we have and are fairly respected in our area. But 10 years from now if the cycle continues, I could see me thinking "why don't we get those types of guys". Not because we don't, but b/c we don't always get enough of them.
What I mean to say is that I think time can "skew" your view on your talent if you don't periodically step back & keep things in perspective. Threads like this help me to do just that.
JMO.
|
|
|
Post by coachphillip on Apr 3, 2015 11:56:55 GMT -6
It also can be a problem when your low enrollment leads to only having two levels. We used to have a Frosh, JV, and Var. Now, because of a drop in enrollment and budget cuts, we only have a JV and Var. We lose a lot of freshmen who get to us and realize they have to sit an entire year before they play because the sophomore in front of them on the depth chart has had a year in the system and the weight room. This makes it so that we can't grow the freshmen numbers and puts us back into a situation where we have to have two levels. It sucks.
|
|
|
Post by IronmanFootball on Apr 3, 2015 12:01:35 GMT -6
Why? We're a charter school so they have to want to come here in the first place, then make it into a lottery system. We have no buses. We have no athletic history and are sandwiched between two perennial powers and a private school that wants to become one. We have a lot of rules at the school, including school uniforms, and mom and dad have to do 30 volunteer hours a year. Lastly, I don't recruit. Thus, we have very little talent.
|
|
|
Post by coachstepp on Apr 3, 2015 12:28:25 GMT -6
How do coaches move into a place and turn it around after a season or two? At some point, coaches have to develop their players.
|
|
|
Post by coachphillip on Apr 3, 2015 12:56:52 GMT -6
Right. Nobody here is saying that coaches don't have to develop their players. These are just some issues that some guys have to deal with. I can develop the heck out of talent. But, if the athletic ceiling of that kid is a lot lower than kids in surrounding areas or I have a lot less of those high ceiling kids, then maybe 5-5 is one heck of a season.
|
|
|
Post by coachphillip on Apr 3, 2015 12:58:08 GMT -6
Odds are good that in "those situations" where coaches turn programs around fast, either circumstances changed or ... the guy who came in was better for that situation or just flat out better at his job.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 13:22:23 GMT -6
I see posts on Huey quite frequently inquiring about schemes for "less talent" or looking for ways to give your lilliputian squad a chance against a schedule of juggernaut teams. Most recently a new thread inquiring about how to apply the movie "Moneyball" to a HS football squad brought up this concept again. I think all of these posts raise the question "WHY DON'T YOUR TEAMS HAVE TALENT???" Why are all of the OTHER teams more talented than you? Why do you not have ________ "types". Is there something in your school's water supply that keeps your kids small slow and weak, and the opponents big, fast, and strong? Do other schools serve something in their cafeteria salad bar that allows HS kids to throw 35 yard out routes on a line year after year after year and your cafe doesn't? This is an excellent question. I used to think that the talent pool at most schools is pretty similar. Then I worked at my last school. Genetically, I feel like that's still the case, but in a lot of places, the coach's ability to improve the overall talent level is strongly influenced by factors beyond the coach's control. For example, maybe you're right down the road from a powerhouse program that's won 10 championships in the last 14 years and has open enrollment. Good luck keeping your best athletes in the program when you're dealing with that. Where I live, there's an area where there are TWO programs like that within about 10 miles. The county schools don't have half the resources and can expect to see their best players transfer as soon as they hit MS or show something on the field. "Recruiting" is illegal for coaches (and still goes on, anyway), but not for boosters and other kids who want talented teammates. Where I grew up it was similar: my alma mater had the 2014 VA POY living across the street from them this past season. The only problem is they're in TN. They also usually have about 2 or 3 All-State or future All-State players living in in their zone. The problem is those kids go to a school 20 minutes down the road with better facilities and reputation where they will now *literally* be guaranteed a playoff spot. My alma mater also has a career win percentage of about 30%. I assume stuff like this is commonplace in other areas. I know it did at the last school I worked at, which was right across the state line from a program that competed for titles in KY. Now, as a coach you can do everything you can to build the relationships with those kids early and keep them in the system, but the tradition, media coverage, facilities, community attitude, and proven chance to compete for championships (or at least play on turf with a jumbotron) is hard for the coach at Podunk Co. HS to compete with. Then there are demographic and cultural issues. You can have the best weightroom and offseason program in the world, but will the kids actually show up to lift or will they be too busy goofing off on 4 wheelers, getting high, knocking up their girlfriends, running with a gang to do the work, but you're left without enough numbers to field a team if you discipline them? What if you have a transient population and you never know who will be on your roster year after year? What if all your lifting has to be done after school, but your kids live in communities spread out an hour or more away in all directions and there's no practical way to make sure they all get home? Stuff like that plays a role. It's not an excuse for neglecting the weights and organization, but it's a big part of the reason why going 10-2 in some places is treated like the end of the world, while in others it takes a COY candidate to go 4-6.
|
|
|
Post by coach2013 on Apr 3, 2015 13:30:10 GMT -6
How do coaches move into a place and turn it around after a season or two? At some point, coaches have to develop their players. When you turn it around in your first year, it was COACHING not player development. When you turn it around in 3-4 years (ie your frosh mature and become jrs and seniors) then its both coaching and player development.
lucky is the guy who takes over a job that HAS TALENT but was poorly coached/improperly utilized. Hes going to look like a hero.
Sometimes too, a coach "hits the lottery" and hes got ENOUGH talent when others in the league are in down years. That's the nature of high school football, particularly the smaller schools where one year they have 13-15 seniors and then the following year maybe only 4-5.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 13:32:53 GMT -6
Odds are good that in "those situations" where coaches turn programs around fast, either circumstances changed or ... the guy who came in was better for that situation or just flat out better at his job. The change in circumstances is a biggie. There's a school near me who had a .250 record in nearly 40 years of football. A few years ago, admin decided they were sick of losing and wanted to get serious about football. They went out and lured a couple of young coaches who had once gone to the school to come in and turn it around. They were twin brothers, so they hired them as a package deal, then brought in a bunch of guys they wanted as assistants. The twins got tons of concessions: one only teaches lifting classes all day, the other gets an extra planning period and no testing pressure. They also got a brand new weightroom after theirs was mysteriously "vandalized" and the school put tons of money into football: they get to run 3 levels now, got nice new gear including a bunch of alternate uniforms, etc. It didn't hurt that they also inherited a couple of the most talented classes in school history. Surprise, surprise, but 2 years later, with the help of a down district, that school won 10 games and those two are considered "geniuses." Contrast that to the previous coach who went 3-7 and 4-6, but had no support from admin, no money given for anything, and saw his staff dismantled going into his final year as the district tried to run him off to make room for "their guy(s)." The situation was night and day. Then again, there are some places where admin puts a complete moron in charge of a program and lets him run it into the ground. A lot of times, hiring committees have no idea what it takes to run a program and are more impressed by who someone's family is or what he did as a player or the image he projects. They hire coaches who waste talent, then eventually they get it right and that guy turns it around.
|
|
|
Post by coach2013 on Apr 3, 2015 13:33:32 GMT -6
Anybody who thinks talent from school to school is the same and uses lines like "its all relevant" hasn't been around much. I coached at three schools in the same league:
1) farm school where kids would have to drive an hour to get to weights in the summer. Guess what, they didn't. more of a soccer school.
2) school had an orphanage that fed it, seemed to have kids two and three years older than the rest of the league because these kids were often "reclassed" - routinely produced division I prospects even though NOBODY did squat in the off season.
3) more typical school, townies that loved football and everyone in town closed shops down and boarded up windows for football season. Great off season program, developed their own talent but didn't have the natural athletes that school number two had. Much more blue collar in approach.
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on Apr 3, 2015 13:55:32 GMT -6
We are both the school with talent and without talent, compared to our schedule.
We have way more talent compared to our league. I'm sure the rest of our league looks at us and says, "Man, if we could get kids like that..." Our kids outwork theirs, they're coached better, our enrollment is higher, we're wealthier as a program and as a community, we've got 'mystique' in our favor having won 2 section titles in a row and having had a running clock for the last 3 years worth of league games.
We have less talent than our non-league schedule, which features 4 private school powerhouses and a section runner up that we barely beat last year. They are more talented than us because they have a ton of kids coming in from all over to play for them, have higher enrollments, are more affluent than us, have played in just as many big games as we have...
Perspective.
|
|
|
Post by coach2013 on Apr 3, 2015 14:50:01 GMT -6
I have to say this...
we actually have less talent right now than maybe the prior coach had in his last couple of seasons. What I think we do have however is a different work ethic.
I think we are better because of the work ethic. Our kids are getting strong.
|
|
|
Post by veerman on Apr 3, 2015 18:06:58 GMT -6
You can only improve talent so much. I have to disagree on if u win your first year it's just coaching. The situation has to be right to turn it around that fast. I'm going to say more often than not if a program goes from 0-10 to 7-3 the situation was set up right for them. Lots of times if you came in and your kids have been playing since they were freshman then chances are they seasoned. Herd a good coach say some years the record don't reflect how good you were but a combination of how good your opponents were that year.
|
|
|
Post by racehorse on Apr 3, 2015 18:56:41 GMT -6
I see posts on Huey quite frequently inquiring about schemes for "less talent" or looking for ways to give your lilliputian squad a chance against a schedule of juggernaut teams. Most recently a new thread inquiring about how to apply the movie "Moneyball" to a HS football squad brought up this concept again. I think all of these posts raise the question "WHY DON'T YOUR TEAMS HAVE TALENT???" Why are all of the OTHER teams more talented than you? Why do you not have ________ "types". Is there something in your school's water supply that keeps your kids small slow and weak, and the opponents big, fast, and strong? Do other schools serve something in their cafeteria salad bar that allows HS kids to throw 35 yard out routes on a line year after year after year and your cafe doesn't? I'm not saying there is no talent at my school, just never very much. Our district is full of well off parents who were the intellectuals in school, not the jocks. When intellectuals marry and have kids, generally speaking, the genetic combination does not create D1 athletes. So we usually have a lot of small slow smart kids who are great kids, but not the best football players. The district will periodically have several good athletes at one time (not 11, more like 4 or 5). Half of them will go to the local private school after 8th grade, or change schools. If enough remain, we will contend for a league championship, if too many leave or we are at a low genetically-speaking, we finish below 500. The other schools don't have to contend with so many options for their kids to go to. They keep them, and are able to develop them for several years.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Apr 3, 2015 19:32:54 GMT -6
I've heard "talent" described as D,1 talent a few times. We've sent quite of few D.1 kids and our league hass had a lot. Rarely do we have a whole slew of them It might be tough to compete for state titles without them but you can be competetive for 5-5 or better with just good HS players.
|
|
|
Post by coachfloyd on Apr 3, 2015 19:40:18 GMT -6
My point is WHAT is a "low talent" area, and more importantly WHY is that a "low talent" area? I am not talking about a great class or two that rise up together. I mean the posts where the coach says "We don't seem to get ______" coach2013 brought up a few reasons why some schools might always have the best of the best, namely move ins. Also, once you have "talent", then your up and coming players get to practice against that talent daily, and they definitely get better. Obviously a snowball effect. But to address your point, WHY would Jefferson High be a "low talent area", but Lincoln High 15 miles away be a very solid team year in and year out? I would bet money that at heart of it it's all socioeconomic. The lowest around here tend to churn D1 guys like crazy. One we play is very inner city. They had three just on defense that I know of and their qb might be the most recruited in the state next year. I don't follow that stuff so it might have been more. But in the same city there are teams that have no talent. Same with another team in our area.
|
|
|
Post by coachorm on Apr 3, 2015 21:28:51 GMT -6
I agree with most all of the reasoning that's already been said here.... But one thing that I think makes a difference the nature of the sport compared to other sports....I can go out from August to November in 25lbs of gear, the heat and cold, rain and snow, and beat the hell out of my body.... OR I can dribble and shoot a ball in an enclosed gym that may be air conditioned, while wearing shorts and a tank-top. OR I can go hit an throw a little white ball around a diamond only when weather conditions are optimal.
For those of us that love football those reasons I listed are part of the reason why.... But for that talented kid who is also just a little lazy or doesn't feel like he should have to work as hard because he is talented those other two sports are a lot more inviting.
I know this isn't true of all kids but I have seen it in our school a lot. We had 3 seniors on our football team this season. The basketball team had 5. None of those 5 played football at all. The baseball team has 3 seniors... again none of them play football. All talented enough to be football players and help our team.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 3, 2015 21:35:34 GMT -6
I agree with most all of the reasoning that's already been said here.... But one thing that I think makes a difference the nature of the sport compared to other sports....I can go out from August to November in 25lbs of gear, the heat and cold, rain and snow, and beat the hell out of my body.... OR I can dribble and shoot a ball in an enclosed gym that may be air conditioned, while wearing shorts and a tank-top. OR I can go hit an throw a little white ball around a diamond only when weather conditions are optimal. For those of us that love football those reasons I listed are part of the reason why.... But for that talented kid who is also just a little lazy or doesn't feel like he should have to work as hard because he is talented those other two sports are a lot more inviting. I know this isn't true of all kids but I have seen it in our school a lot. We had 3 seniors on our football team this season. The basketball team had 5. None of those 5 played football at all. The baseball team has 3 seniors... again none of them play football. All talented enough to be football players and help our team. Ok, but how is that different than other teams you play?
|
|
|
Post by coachorm on Apr 3, 2015 23:14:05 GMT -6
I agree with most all of the reasoning that's already been said here.... But one thing that I think makes a difference the nature of the sport compared to other sports....I can go out from August to November in 25lbs of gear, the heat and cold, rain and snow, and beat the hell out of my body.... OR I can dribble and shoot a ball in an enclosed gym that may be air conditioned, while wearing shorts and a tank-top. OR I can go hit an throw a little white ball around a diamond only when weather conditions are optimal. For those of us that love football those reasons I listed are part of the reason why.... But for that talented kid who is also just a little lazy or doesn't feel like he should have to work as hard because he is talented those other two sports are a lot more inviting. I know this isn't true of all kids but I have seen it in our school a lot. We had 3 seniors on our football team this season. The basketball team had 5. None of those 5 played football at all. The baseball team has 3 seniors... again none of them play football. All talented enough to be football players and help our team. Ok, but how is that different than other teams you play? I guess it isn't a different problem than what other teams could have. It just happens to be one of the biggest problems I have seen at our school.
I would say for us the disadvantage we have is growth in the town. We have Fred's, Dollar General, Family Dollar, and Subway. Everything else is locally owned. Other name brands have asked to come in and build but are always met with old money resistance. Back in the 70s we had some of the best teams in school history. The reason for that was the building of a power plant in the area and employing people there. There was an increase of talent then because of the influx from the building and employing at the plant. Those days are passed now as most employees at the plant are already living in town or drive from neighboring counties. Therefore we don't get many athletes moving in anymore. Also our location is, yes by a plant but, surrounded by cities/towns that have more interest and attractions for people looking to move. Usually we have athletes come in groups every 3-5 years. So we have about 2-3 decent years and then fall off for 3-5years. Success here comes in cycles, but has never been sustainable for a period longer than 2-3 years except for that 70s time period. That feels like it could be a thread of its own... why does success come in cycles for some programs? Anyway hopefully I answered your question in the OP this time but more than likely I am way off topic again.
|
|
|
Post by realdawg on Apr 4, 2015 5:18:47 GMT -6
I think talent is relative to who else you play. There can be a 1a team whose talent is good relative to the rest of the 1a teams they play, but compared to a 4a school that is 5-5 they dont have talent. Just as that 5-5 4a school feels they dont have talent bc they are compared to the big boys in their state. Second, talent sometimes is a simple math equation. Our school has some talent, dont get me wrong, however, over the last several years our school numbers have been on a steady decline. (from as many as 1300 to less that 1100 now) This has resulted in less players on the team, which results in less talent compared to our opponents whose school numbers have stayed steady or rose.
|
|
|
Post by lions23 on Apr 4, 2015 18:55:16 GMT -6
You can only improve talent so much. I have to disagree on if u win your first year it's just coaching. The situation has to be right to turn it around that fast. I'm going to say more often than not if a program goes from 0-10 to 7-3 the situation was set up right for them. Lots of times if you came in and your kids have been playing since they were freshman then chances are they seasoned. Herd a good coach say some years the record don't reflect how good you were but a combination of how good your opponents were that year. One of best teams I coached went 5-4. We murdered those five teams. One of the teams we got beat by 7 got second in state in an upper division and had 3 d1 kids. Another team was a semi finalists in a division 3 above ours and had 8 d1 kids. We lost 2 heartbreakers. One game had 5 kids who went on to play d1 athletics. We lost 1 game we should have won. We had 2 d1 kids and 4 other d2 kids. We were good. Everyone else was just better.
|
|
|
Post by jgordon1 on Apr 4, 2015 19:37:03 GMT -6
this year, i coached the most talented team I have I ever coached...heres what I will say..we lost 4 games this year..twice to a team that had 5 players either go Ivy or had scholarships, once to a team that had 4 scholarships (2 acc)Lost by 4 pts and one team that had a Big 10 and a acc player. we played them twice and beat them once. we didn't have a scholarship pkayer on our team although some did go d3 and d2.. we were good but not as good as them. Lots of times its just relative
|
|