|
|
Post by bigred1 on Feb 23, 2006 13:09:11 GMT -6
The state champs I have seen the last five years in two states including Texas, have two things in common. Good players and simple schemes. Obiviously the players win games for you, but is the ultra simple approach the best? Do we as coaches out think ourselves? We are in winter workouts and I question are we simple enough often. So much stuff is just fluff. Example: Do you really need to say 26 counter, or is counter rt. good enough.
If you have coached in an all-star game you make it simple and get ready to play. Do we do things cause we like to prove how smart we are as coaches.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Feb 23, 2006 13:11:21 GMT -6
the better the athletes the simpler the scheme can be
you don't HAVE to trick people
you don't HAVE to outscheme people every week
Obviously, the coaches of those teams have earned some respect, but I respect the job done by guys going 5-5 with a total lack of talent probably just as much if not more.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Feb 23, 2006 13:22:28 GMT -6
saying 26 counter is in my opinion SIMPLER than leaving the numbers out...its more descriptive, less thinking...adn what if you have more than one counter?...anyhow, i think simlicity in terms of using the same techniques is the MOST IMPORTANT thing you can do as a coach. for example, your 3 techs and 5 techs should be able to use the same techniques in their dline play...but if you go from 2 techs to 3 techs it could require learning a different technique...now you might not be great at either. ....alignment, assignment adn fundies...few errors in those areas will win a lot of games in my opinion. good question though. this year at the 8th grade level i plan to use 3 formations and maybe 4 tops...i want the kids comfortable in what they are going to see from down to down. and im going to limit myself to about 12 run plays and 5 or so pass plays. thats not all that much stuff when you consider the repeated blocking schemes or repeated pass patterns. allows us more time to focus on blocking and tackling and pursuit at our level." multiple everything means good at nothing"...fritz shermur.
|
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Feb 23, 2006 13:24:49 GMT -6
"There are no miracle coaches, and no coach has any great secrets or any unsolvable plays that make him successful. The successful coaches are those who know how to handle men, who pay great attention to a thorough teaching of the rudiments of the game, who have a comparatively few basic plays which they can teach their teams to execute flawlessly, and who have good material to work with." Glenn S. "Pop" Warner, "Football for Coaches and Players" 1927
I do think it is true that the successful programs tend to have great talent. I also believe that winning breeds winning (and that losing breeds losing). When the great talent works hard on the fundamentals, they have success. The younger kids, who may or may not be as talented, see the example set by the talented older kids, and that is when tradition takes root.
I also agree with tog that a 5-5 season with a lack of talent is often a more impressive coaching job than 13-0 with a boat load of talent.
|
|
jman
Sophomore Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by jman on Feb 23, 2006 15:29:35 GMT -6
" I also agree with tog that a 5-5 season with a lack of talent is often a more impressive coaching job than 13-0 with a boat load of talent. I have often felt that I coached sooo much harder in our 6-4 years than our 11-2 Championship years. |
|
|
|
Post by jhanawa on Feb 26, 2006 13:03:49 GMT -6
I've coached teams that used one formation, 4 runs and 1 pass, thats all they could handle so thats what we did. I've also had teams that were truly multiple and could do just about anything, and do it very well.
My question is, why keep it at "stupid simple" if your kids are capable of more? Why limit yourself or your teams capabilities?
We put in our base stuff and expand from there based on the mental and physical capabilities of our kids.
IMO, the more your kids can execute correctly, the more dangerous they are. Also, it seems to me, that once the kids get interested and excited about learning football, they soak up knowledge like a sponge, its truly amazing what you can do when you have smart "player/coaches" on the field.
|
|
|
|
Post by bark77dc on Feb 27, 2006 10:30:02 GMT -6
I am kind of torn between the KISS philosophy. I hear coaches say far to often that "the kids can't handle it" It makes me cringe. You also hear it in the classroom as well. Aren't we supposed to be challenging the kids? I run a restaurant, and I expect my employees, most of them high schoolers, to be able to handle everything I throw at them. I think the KISS philosophy can sometimes sell the kids short. I am a coach that believes that players win, but schemes enhance that ability. I scheme up everyone we play. So I always have adjustments to make, I find the kids take to the adjustments quicker than the base package because it is "new and different" even though it is just an expansion of the base package.... just my 2 cents
|
|
|
|
Post by texasokie on Feb 27, 2006 16:04:05 GMT -6
I will call veer rt./veer lt., lead rt./lt., and midline- check with me, because I want to run these plays to the bubble on the LOS. I want to run it where they are not. I feel it sets the kids up for success better than just calling back and hole to go through. If the hole they are supposed to run through has a 315 lb. monster in it, you're double team might not move him anyway. Why not use these plays with a bubble philosophy so that you can run the same plays against different defenses.
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Feb 27, 2006 20:43:14 GMT -6
For what it is worth a highly regarded coach once told me this: When you have talent you can do a lot of things but probably don't need to. When you are lacking in talent and struggling you think you need to try different things but in reality cannot execute them anyway so just keep it simple and execute.
|
|
mcrsa75
Sophomore Member
Posts: 116
|
Post by mcrsa75 on Feb 27, 2006 23:05:03 GMT -6
I agree with you!! Your philosophy allows you to have the best of both worlds; (simplicity) the system involves a lmited number of plays and (complexity)the players must analyze a situation to determine when/where to execute certain plays.
With a limited number of players and time, I believe that it is more important to get the best bang for your buck. Just my thoughts.
|
|
