|
|
Post by coachnichols on Aug 1, 2007 20:43:23 GMT -6
Question/debate topic for everyone here; offensive and defensive coordinators, anyone! (This might get moved to the defensive section, but I thought I would put it here for everyone to give an opinion on.) LET ME SAY FIRST, THAT I AM NOT TRYING TO START A FIGHT ON HERE, I JUST REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THIS THOUGHT RELAYED IN AN ARTICLE. Recent article in the American Football Monthly magazine was titled, "What You Must do to be a State Champion". www.americanfootballmonthly.com/Subaccess/articles.php?article_id=4981&output=articleFor anyone who hasn't read it, it goes on to say they surveyed championship HS coaches and came to the following 6 conclusions: 1. The consistent use of ‘feeder’ programs among state championship teams. 2. A constant in the number of returning starters combining offense and defense. 3. Similar numbers of both seniors and juniors on varsity teams. 4. An average of 3-5 seniors on championship teams, per year, that go on to play college football. 5. THE OVERWHELMING POPULARITY ON DEFENSE OF THE FOUR MAN FRONT. 6. The consistency of overall football budgets. Number 5 is the one that got me to stop and wonder... I run the 3-5, so when I read that their research found four-man fronts "reign supreme among high school state champion defenses" my first sarcastic thought was, "damn, guess I'll never win a championship!" (Of course, the article says that the 4-4 and 4-3 combine for over 40% of state champion defenses...isn't 40% not a majority? That confuses me.) Then, the resident Kansas genius Steve Rampy goes on to be quoted as saying, “In late November and December you have to remember that in order to win a state championship, you have to do two things well: run the football and stop the run. While you may see a lot of spread offenses in Florida and Texas, there are a lot of traditional offenses in the Midwest that rely solely on the running game. You have to have a 4 man front to be effective and stop the run. You’re not going to be able to do it with a three man front.” My first question is why? Why do you think an odd front "can't" win a championship? I know I've been sarcastic up to this point, but I seriously want to know why this is a thought among respected coaches. Trimble from Jenks, OK goes on to add... “I really can’t remember a team winning a state championship in an odd front,” says Trimble, “except our Jenks team in 2001. That was because everyone threw the ball so much we ran our 3-2/3-4 Dime package most of the year. Pretty much everyone is in a 4-4 or 4-3 alignment in the championship games all around the area.” Like I said, I was being sarcastic in beginning, but I really am curious as to what everyone thinks about this. I am young at this, but stubborn and I refuse to believe an odd front is worse than an even front. Granted, there are situations that one might be "better" than the other for your team, but I find it hard to believe that one is inherently not as good as the other. The two coaches I figuratively took a swing at are older, but extremely successful. Is this an "old-school" thing (hatin' on the odd front) that I'm not aware of? |
|
coachf
Freshmen Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by coachf on Aug 1, 2007 21:42:56 GMT -6
I never really pay much attention to this stuff. But, it was an interesting article. Basically, we saw several teams running a 4 man front in our state series this year. But...they often walked down a backer on the line....so they were a 50....it doesn't really matter. I think the names are just so you can have an identity. It makes some people feel better. I don't know. I am sure coachnichols, that you use your 3-5 so that you can bring pressure from different areas on each play. Heck, you may walk down two backers/safeties. Now you are a 5-3. Or maybe, just maybe, you bring one guy up to the line and now you are running a 4 man front....Holy Crap, Championship time. In all seriousness, I think the majority of championship teams are running a 4 man front because of personnel. We run a 5 front the majority of the time, because we have more linemen than LB's. If I had a few more LB's who could run, I probably would line up in a 4 more often. If I had a couple of stud DT's and a crapload of LB's, I might run a 3 front. Of course, I would make sure that I throw a LB down on the line at least once, so we could win the title.  |
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Aug 2, 2007 5:29:59 GMT -6
A more reasonable way to look at this is what is the PERCENTAGE of teams with 4 man fronts playing in the State Championships.
If 80% of all HS teams use 4 man fronts, but only 40% of the teams playing For the State Titles, were 4 man fronts then the 4 man front maybe isnt such a great idea. Ex 500 teams in the State, 400 running 4 man fronts and 5 teams playing in the finals are 4 man fronts . While the majority of teams in the State Finals assuming 12 teams total, 5/12 the overall percentage is low.
But on the other hand lets say you have 10 teams in that state running 8 man front and 2 of them end up in the finals. While the 8 man front represents just 2% of the total number, they represent 16% of the Teams in the State Finals.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 2, 2007 7:45:45 GMT -6
1. The consistent use of ‘feeder’ programs among state championship teams. 2. A constant in the number of returning starters combining offense and defense. 3. Similar numbers of both seniors and juniors on varsity teams. 4. An average of 3-5 seniors on championship teams, per year, that go on to play college football. 5. THE OVERWHELMING POPULARITY ON DEFENSE OF THE FOUR MAN FRONT. 6. The consistency of overall football budgets. The most "telling" stat from this study is 5 out of 6 characteristics have nothing to do with the real "game" and more to do with overall PROGRAM health / stability / commitment. Which kind of relays the importance of winning over the community and administration as the first BIG GAME you need to win. Records and schemes be damned. A defense is only as good as who/what they are defending. The coincidence of prevailing teams running a 4 man front is just that, it just happens to be that way. Do you consider a 3-4 / 5-2 a 3 man front or a 5 man front? |
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Aug 2, 2007 9:15:18 GMT -6
Interesting article. Don't know if I agree about the even front theory - I agree with Brophy that its probably more of a current trend than an absolute. I've never played on or coached a HS State Champion - was the OC for a college Conference Champ  - but a good friend of mine won the state championship in his state about 10 years ago after several years of winning teams. I asked him what the difference was and his responce was this - the kids, the coaches, the opponents were all basically the same. The difference, according to him, was that the year the won it all, EVERYTHING went their way. The close calls by a referee, the bounces of a loose ball, the injuries (none), and the rest of the "breaks". His opinion was ... yes you definitely have to be good, but you also have to be lucky. He continued to have good seasons but never returned to the championship game. |
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Aug 2, 2007 9:22:16 GMT -6
If you did this survey 10 years ago the "defense of champions" might have been the 5-2 monster.
I agree with Brophy that winning year in and year out, and winning titles has more to do with 1-4 than what specific D you run. Provided it fits your players.
3-5 players going on to college ball? What about the small school where maybe 1 kid goes on to play D3 ball?
I dropped my subscription to AFM recently b/c I got tired of all the advertisements and useless articles like this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 2, 2007 9:43:38 GMT -6
I dropped my subscription to AFM recently b/c I got tired of all the advertisements and useless articles like this one. word. The statistics / poll is nice (the do the same one every few years....which is nice), but I can't say I've ever really gotten anything out of the articles, because they are sooooo germane. fbdoc brought up a lot of great points on what really needs to happen to win "it all". Now if you are sending 4-5 kids to college every year.......... 1) You have a great off-season weight room program 2) There is something in the local water supply 3) Kids are consistently in the books, making the CLASSROOM thing happen. Kids that are dedicated and focussed like that come from strong backgrounds 4) You have a support network of parents who have money 5) You have a pool of great athletes - when you have superior players, you can run whatever the hell you want to run 6) I would say this...I don't believe that coaches coach their players up to turn into college players. A DI prospect is a DI prospect no matter who he plays for. If a kid wants to play college ball, that ultimately has very little to do with the coach at all, and more to do with him hitting the books for the ACTs/SATs and hitting the weight room to be a legitimate prospect. Coaches only provide the arena / opportunity to showcase how good your player can perform |
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Aug 2, 2007 11:09:43 GMT -6
1. The consistent use of ‘feeder’ programs among state championship teams. 2. A constant in the number of returning starters combining offense and defense. 3. Similar numbers of both seniors and juniors on varsity teams. 4. An average of 3-5 seniors on championship teams, per year, that go on to play college football. 5. THE OVERWHELMING POPULARITY ON DEFENSE OF THE FOUR MAN FRONT. 6. The consistency of overall football budgets. The most "telling" stat from this study is 5 out of 6 characteristics have nothing to do with the real "game" and more to do with overall PROGRAM health / stability / commitment. Which kind of relays the importance of winning over the community and administration as the first BIG GAME you need to win. Records and schemes be damned. That was the exact same thing I thought of when I saw that list. Lots of schools have a football team. Schools that win championships have a football program. Big difference. |
|
|
|
Post by coachnichols on Aug 2, 2007 14:58:00 GMT -6
I dropped my subscription to AFM recently b/c I got tired of all the advertisements and useless articles like this one. word. The statistics / poll is nice (the do the same one every few years....which is nice), but I can't say I've ever really gotten anything out of the articles, because they are sooooo germane. fbdoc brought up a lot of great points on what really needs to happen to win "it all". Now if you are sending 4-5 kids to college every year.......... 1) You have a great off-season weight room program 2) There is something in the local water supply 3) Kids are consistently in the books, making the CLASSROOM thing happen. Kids that are dedicated and focussed like that come from strong backgrounds 4) You have a support network of parents who have money 5) You have a pool of great athletes - when you have superior players, you can run whatever the hell you want to run 6) I would say this...I don't believe that coaches coach their players up to turn into college players. A DI prospect is a DI prospect no matter who he plays for. If a kid wants to play college ball, that ultimately has very little to do with the coach at all, and more to do with him hitting the books for the ACTs/SATs and hitting the weight room to be a legitimate prospect. Coaches only provide the arena / opportunity to showcase how good your player can perform Good direction to take this in brophy! What You Must do to be a State Champion" by "The X's and O's of Football Forum. Let's list away! I'll start with, in no particular order,... 1. Great weights/conditioning program. 2. Great feeder program 3. Good coaches |
|
ex-centralcoach
Junior Member
[F4:@marcmarinelli ] [F4:marcmarinelli]
Posts: 384
|
Post by ex-centralcoach on Aug 2, 2007 15:24:41 GMT -6
I dont know if I would choose a great feeder program as being in the top 3. We dont have Middle School football, our kids play in a close-by large (for Kansas) city. They try and run our stuff, but really they are for the most part on thier own. I think it would be great if we did have middle school ball here, but it didnt exactly hurt us.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Aug 2, 2007 15:34:31 GMT -6
As brophy said, the article itself goes FAR beyond schemes.
Now, I'd prefer to talk about programs that consistently win and make the playoffs, versus state champions. There are teams out there that win state championships every few years; BUT there are far more winning teams that DON'T win state titles every year.
Those are the teams that I want to see in an article; the team that's made the playoffs every year for a decade, with 1-2 state titles under their belts over that decade. Being a contender for the state title year in and year out is more impressive to me than winning one and falling back into obscurity.
Now, what I want to know from that article is what percentage of those state title teams are repeat champions, which ones have 2 titles in 3 years and so on and so forth.
Every once in awhile, we'll get a state title team that flat out came out of NO WHERE. These teams are generally middle tier teams that are flat out LOADED with talent for a year or two. Then, when the talent is gone, they're right back to being a middle tier unit.
|
|
|
|
Post by wingman on Aug 2, 2007 21:53:42 GMT -6
In Calif. Open Enrollment would be reasons 1, 2, and 3 for the big schools division.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoachJohnsonMN on Aug 3, 2007 7:29:48 GMT -6
Did the article mention anything about the likelihood of winning a championship based on a cap or visor?
I will add "Must wear a cap" as a determining factor for the X's & O's list o' champions.
|
|
- but a good friend of mine won the state championship in his state about 10 years ago after several years of winning teams. I asked him what the difference was and his responce was this - the kids, the coaches, the opponents were all basically the same. The difference, according to him, was that the year the won it all, EVERYTHING went their way. The close calls by a referee, the bounces of a loose ball, the injuries (none), and the rest of the "breaks". His opinion was ... yes you definitely have to be good, but you also have to be lucky. He continued to have good seasons but never returned to the championship game.
