|
Post by edgy on Feb 7, 2007 19:34:28 GMT -6
It is not uncommon now for schools, college and high school, to have co-coordinators for either offense or defense. I understand the concept. My question is, for example, you have co-defensive coordinators and one is responsible for the running game and one for the passing game. How would you determine who has the final say-so in game preparations and during the game? Also, from experience, have you seen the co-coordinator concept work or does it create unnecessary problems? Any input would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Feb 7, 2007 20:51:32 GMT -6
One would have to have the final say, I would think. One has to be the one calling plays on Saturday. I could see a guy who really knows the running game needing a guy to help him out with routes for PA passing, or a hurry-up offense. Really though, one has to ultimately be subordinate to the other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2007 8:36:36 GMT -6
I was a co-defensive coordinator for a year. It honestly wasn't that bad but only because there were certain areas that each of us were better and we knew it. We both readily deferred to the other.
I like practice, want to assure we get a certain number of reps, want to see things on the script, etc. etc. so I really took that role. In games I was on the sidelines mostly signalling in the calls he made. If I disgreed with him I'd say it and every time except once he would say, "ok, make your call."
But we were very like-minded in our philosophy. I knew the scheme inside and out, he was very good at the game time decisions. He was a very good film guy--picked up tiny things, I was better at applying it to practice planning.
So if the people are a good match it can work. But it's like the old song, "if you want love, you've gotta give a little."
|
|
|
Post by jackedup on Feb 8, 2007 9:33:28 GMT -6
I was a co-cordinator for a year and loved it. We broke it down into the run game and pass/outside game. I was responsible for 7-7, outside contain, & option responsibilities. During games, that is where my focus was. The inside coach called the plays b/c that was where the most defensive calls are affected. I would tell him when I thought we should run a different coverage or an outside blitz. We eventually we so attuned to each other that we didn't have to finish our sentences b/c we already knew what the other was saying... unless I was giving a disortation about something...
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Feb 8, 2007 9:43:26 GMT -6
Just my opinion, but I think that titles are overrated. Coaching staffs have shared duties for years without having to have titles. I think in today's world our egos often get in the way and we think a title somehow gives us more power or status. I am blessed to have a coaching staff where there are no egos. I am the head coach, and I have three assistants who ask what I want them to do. Not one of them is a coordinator, but they all have very important roles which they carry out very efficiently. If all the titles are working for you in your situation, great. But I would encourage everyone not to be so concerned with the title and focus more on making a contribution to a winning program while serving the best interests of the team.
|
|
|
Post by redandwhite on Feb 9, 2007 7:58:36 GMT -6
I agree with Superpower that titles are overrated - it is a collaborative process on both sides of the ball. That being said, as a HC, I have hired great coaches as DC and OC. I am much more involved with the offensive side, and in reality, would probably be considered by most to be a "co-coordinator." However, I feel that it is important to not use the term for three reasons. 1) My OC does an outstanding job and I want players to have complete faith in him, 2) for others to recognize the great job he is doing, and 3) to give him complete ownership. The key idea to me, as far as the title goes, is "who's calling the plays?" Whoever is calling the plays is the coordinator; all offensive and defensive coaches are an integral part of what goes into the game plan and how it is communicated and taught. When I hired my OC a year ago, we decided that the guiding principle in our relationship was to be "No Egos."
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Feb 9, 2007 9:13:55 GMT -6
Just my opinion, but I think that titles are overrated. Coaching staffs have shared duties for years without having to have titles. I think in today's world our egos often get in the way and we think a title somehow gives us more power or status. I am blessed to have a coaching staff where there are no egos. I am the head coach, and I have three assistants who ask what I want them to do. Not one of them is a coordinator, but they all have very important roles which they carry out very efficiently. If all the titles are working for you in your situation, great. But I would encourage everyone not to be so concerned with the title and focus more on making a contribution to a winning program while serving the best interests of the team. AWESOME!!! HAVE BEEN SAYIN' THIS FOR YEARS!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2007 10:57:42 GMT -6
While I agree, I'd also point out that having that title does several positive things as well--gives the HC one guy to go to about anything on that side of the ball (which in my case means that I will take the criticism from the HC when things go wrong and I'll shoulder it, dispersing it out to the position coaches in smaller doses). Also rewards a guy for his commitment and loyalty by "upping" a guy to coordinator.
But to me the biggest responsibility is to share the wealth. As a defensive coordinator I know that as good as we do, the offense is usually going to get the publicity and TV / Radio coverage. So a point I make is that when the newspaper, TV, or radio does a story about our defense, I make sure to stress how well the defensive STAFF is doing.
I enjoy reading an article about our defense and seeing that the writer has given the credit to the assistants as I've asked. If they want to do an article about one of our linebackers and come to me, I give a few answers and say, "you should really talk to his position coach--let me call him for you."
Gotta give the recognition to the other assistants when they put the mike in front of your face.
|
|
|
Post by edgy on Feb 9, 2007 19:16:35 GMT -6
First, let me say that I really appreciate the input and responses. Now a scenario that might materialize. As a new head coach, you project yourself as the offensive coordinator or play caller. You have two coaches that you would like to hire for the defensive side of the ball. One is a veteran (older) coach that has been a defensive coordinator at a big school for several years with a strong secondary background. The other is the head coach at a small school with vast experience at the linebacker and defensive front positions. The veteran might see the overall picture a little better, but the younger coach could provide the fire. If provided with that scenario, how would you go about trying to attract both coaches and integrate them into the program?
|
|
|
Post by biggroff on Feb 9, 2007 22:55:33 GMT -6
I agree with superpower about titles. I am the defensive coordinator but I get pretty squeemish when someone talks about the defense as "MY" defense. I don't read a lot into my title. I am not the "second in commmand" of the football team or the head of the defense. I feel that I am nothing more than the overseer, the coordinator of the big picture, the one who sets the guidelines, the parameters, the philosophy, and the language that we all as a staff agree to work within. A lot of our terminology is not mine but coems from our position coaches. It is my job to make sure there are no discrepancies or contraditions in the terminology. Almost all of us come from a 4-3 background. We have all agreed to buy into the cover 2/4 philosophy. The techniques, terminology, and teaching come from each position coach. We trust each other and allow each position coach to make that postion his own. I coach the LB's. I rarely run the 7 vs 7 portion of the practice. I leave that up to our saftey and corners coaches. They know what they need to work on. The focus of any inside drill stuff I leave up to our D-end and D-Line coaches. That leaves me free to think about the team portion of our practice. I know a lot of D-coordinators that want to control all phases of practice.....That seems way too hard for me to plan all that out even if I wanted to do that. I have too much respect for our other defensive coaches to do that...they know a lot more than I do what is happening with their positions because they are working directly with those kids. When it comes to game planning we all bring or concerns and worries by position to the table. I feel I referee the Debate, not dictate where it will go. I can't really remember a time where I told one of the position coaches "Do This" or "Do that". We all have a vested interest in the game plan. Even when it comes down to play calling we as a staff have pretty much decided what we want to call in what situation. The defense runs itself often times. We may not agree what to do at the start of Sunday's game plan meeting but we really work to make sure we are all comfortable by the end of the meeting. We do make adjustments durign the game but those adjustments and changes to the play calling come from all of our defensive staff. I really see our defensive staff as 5 coordinators of each position we coach. My job is to put it into a cohesive package. This works for us because of the background, experience, and personalities of our staff.
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on Feb 12, 2007 14:33:45 GMT -6
It is not uncommon now for schools, college and high school, to have co-coordinators for either offense or defense. I understand the concept. My question is, for example, you have co-defensive coordinators and one is responsible for the running game and one for the passing game. How would you determine who has the final say-so in game preparations and during the game? Also, from experience, have you seen the co-coordinator concept work or does it create unnecessary problems? Any input would be appreciated. I'm not a fan of co-coordinator where one guy calls runs and the other passes. How is the run guy learning about passing while he's pissed off that he didn't get to call that particular play? And vise versa with the passing coordinator when it is a run. There are a number of options one has, but I believe that creating co-coordinators causes more problems than it solves. Just what I've seen.
|
|