|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Apr 8, 2024 18:59:30 GMT -6
Not sure what I'm referring to in terms of specific examples, or just the general principle of what I was talking about? I’m not real sure what you’re complaining about? I don't know man, I pretty much spelled it out word for word and didn't beat around the bush haha But, to rehash: Ironman said: "you'd have to be good at coaching different for it to make e difference, no? Being different doesn't work without knowledge of the scheme and how to communicate it. I know guys that run single wing as a 'package' but sucked at teaching it which means it didn't work. But Darlington has made it work everywhere" Basically, that says Darlington is better at coaching the single wing than some other guys, that's not a controversial take. Pretty self-explanatory and evident, right? So then my question, and yes complaint is, if that's not a controversial take and is evident, why then do people (including on here before as well as other places) get their underwear in a knot and always gotta argue when someone says "Hey so and so is better at coaching this and knows better than some other people on this", or someone says "Hey this is a better way of doing it than this other way", I've literally seen people, including ON THIS BOARD, try to say that there are no better-than-other ways, and basically that all methods, tactics, techniques, schemes, etc are all created equal. I'm sorry man but it just annoys the fk out of me. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Apr 8, 2024 19:56:27 GMT -6
I’m not real sure what you’re complaining about? I don't know man, I pretty much spelled it out word for word and didn't beat around the bush haha But, to rehash: Ironman said: "you'd have to be good at coaching different for it to make e difference, no? Being different doesn't work without knowledge of the scheme and how to communicate it. I know guys that run single wing as a 'package' but sucked at teaching it which means it didn't work. But Darlington has made it work everywhere" Basically, that says Darlington is better at coaching the single wing than some other guys, that's not a controversial take. Pretty self-explanatory and evident, right? So then my question, and yes complaint is, if that's not a controversial take and is evident, why then do people (including on here before as well as other places) get their underwear in a knot and always gotta argue when someone says "Hey so and so is better at coaching this and knows better than some other people on this", or someone says "Hey this is a better way of doing it than this other way", I've literally seen people, including ON THIS BOARD, try to say that there are no better-than-other ways, and basically that all methods, tactics, techniques, schemes, etc are all created equal. I'm sorry man but it just annoys the fk out of me. I certainly have never gotten that impression on this board. Of course some coaches are better than other coaches. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 8, 2024 19:58:16 GMT -6
I’m not real sure what you’re complaining about? I don't know man, I pretty much spelled it out word for word and didn't beat around the bush haha But, to rehash: Ironman said: "you'd have to be good at coaching different for it to make e difference, no? Being different doesn't work without knowledge of the scheme and how to communicate it. I know guys that run single wing as a 'package' but sucked at teaching it which means it didn't work. But Darlington has made it work everywhere" Basically, that says Darlington is better at coaching the single wing than some other guys, that's not a controversial take. Pretty self-explanatory and evident, right? So then my question, and yes complaint is, if that's not a controversial take and is evident, why then do people (including on here before as well as other places) get their underwear in a knot and always gotta argue when someone says "Hey so and so is better at coaching this and knows better than some other people on this", or someone says "Hey this is a better way of doing it than this other way", I've literally seen people, including ON THIS BOARD, try to say that there are no better-than-other ways, and basically that all methods, tactics, techniques, schemes, etc are all created equal. I'm sorry man but it just annoys the fk out of me. Because those discussions are generally about schematics. What makes Someone like Darlington, JT Curtis, etc "better coaches" is not what lines they draw on the whiteboard, but how they go about teaching and implementing what THEY believe in. They go about teaching and implementing their ideas about football better than other coaches do. |
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Apr 8, 2024 19:58:52 GMT -6
I don't know man, I pretty much spelled it out word for word and didn't beat around the bush haha But, to rehash: Ironman said: "you'd have to be good at coaching different for it to make e difference, no? Being different doesn't work without knowledge of the scheme and how to communicate it. I know guys that run single wing as a 'package' but sucked at teaching it which means it didn't work. But Darlington has made it work everywhere" Basically, that says Darlington is better at coaching the single wing than some other guys, that's not a controversial take. Pretty self-explanatory and evident, right? So then my question, and yes complaint is, if that's not a controversial take and is evident, why then do people (including on here before as well as other places) get their underwear in a knot and always gotta argue when someone says "Hey so and so is better at coaching this and knows better than some other people on this", or someone says "Hey this is a better way of doing it than this other way", I've literally seen people, including ON THIS BOARD, try to say that there are no better-than-other ways, and basically that all methods, tactics, techniques, schemes, etc are all created equal. I'm sorry man but it just annoys the fk out of me. I certainly have never gotten that impression on this board. Of course some coaches are better than other coaches. Yeah I wouldn't say it's the norm on here but it's happened enough over the years to stand out to me. I guess the better question people could in turn ask me is why am I getting so bothered by this? 😆 |
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Apr 8, 2024 20:00:57 GMT -6
I don't know man, I pretty much spelled it out word for word and didn't beat around the bush haha But, to rehash: Ironman said: "you'd have to be good at coaching different for it to make e difference, no? Being different doesn't work without knowledge of the scheme and how to communicate it. I know guys that run single wing as a 'package' but sucked at teaching it which means it didn't work. But Darlington has made it work everywhere" Basically, that says Darlington is better at coaching the single wing than some other guys, that's not a controversial take. Pretty self-explanatory and evident, right? So then my question, and yes complaint is, if that's not a controversial take and is evident, why then do people (including on here before as well as other places) get their underwear in a knot and always gotta argue when someone says "Hey so and so is better at coaching this and knows better than some other people on this", or someone says "Hey this is a better way of doing it than this other way", I've literally seen people, including ON THIS BOARD, try to say that there are no better-than-other ways, and basically that all methods, tactics, techniques, schemes, etc are all created equal. I'm sorry man but it just annoys the fk out of me. Because those discussions are generally about schematics. What makes Someone like Darlington, JT Curtis, etc "better coaches" is not what lines they draw on the whiteboard, but how they go about teaching and implementing what THEY believe in. They go about teaching and implementing their ideas about football better than other coaches do. I would say it's both, though. It's schematics AND teaching that makes some people better coaches. You can be a great teacher but if your scheme is a mess what good does that do? Now, in saying that, I will say it's more the specific pieces of schemes where you can have the good, the bad, and the ugly; arguing 21P pro offense vs Flexbone, etc, that's where I think schematic debates get dumb. But I think within schemes, you can compare different coaches' versions of for example Flexbone, and say Ok, this guy has a well-thought out, well-organized, solid Flexbone scheme. And meanwhile you can find another coach's Flexbone scheme that's not quite as solid. And then you can find another coach's flexbone scheme that is a joke. I've seen people argue about just the teaching aspect too, though. Lol. But like I said a moment ago in another post a better question is why is this bothering me so much haha |
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on Apr 8, 2024 22:44:41 GMT -6
Why's different need to be a matter of schematics?
I think tempo is a way to be different that is independent of scheme. You can go fast, you can go slow, you can go fast and then slow... It only takes coaching and effort. Or, use a sugar huddle and go slow and then fast.
Similarly, shifting is another way to be different that can be schematically independent. Stemming, too, on defense.
There's lots of ways to skin a cat, imo, skin it in the way that is most annoying for your opponents.
|
|
|
|
Post by CS on Apr 9, 2024 3:53:49 GMT -6
Why's different need to be a matter of schematics? I think tempo is a way to be different that is independent of scheme. You can go fast, you can go slow, you can go fast and then slow... It only takes coaching and effort. Or, use a sugar huddle and go slow and then fast. Similarly, shifting is another way to be different that can be schematically independent. Stemming, too, on defense. There's lots of ways to skin a cat, imo, skin it in the way that is most annoying for your opponents. I don’t know why more people don’t sugar huddle. It’s the worst if the kids aren’t used to it |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Apr 9, 2024 3:58:19 GMT -6
I’m not real sure what you’re complaining about? I don't know man, I pretty much spelled it out word for word and didn't beat around the bush haha But, to rehash: Ironman said: "you'd have to be good at coaching different for it to make e difference, no? Being different doesn't work without knowledge of the scheme and how to communicate it. I know guys that run single wing as a 'package' but sucked at teaching it which means it didn't work. But Darlington has made it work everywhere" Basically, that says Darlington is better at coaching the single wing than some other guys, that's not a controversial take. Pretty self-explanatory and evident, right? So then my question, and yes complaint is, if that's not a controversial take and is evident, why then do people (including on here before as well as other places) get their underwear in a knot and always gotta argue when someone says "Hey so and so is better at coaching this and knows better than some other people on this", or someone says "Hey this is a better way of doing it than this other way", I've literally seen people, including ON THIS BOARD, try to say that there are no better-than-other ways, and basically that all methods, tactics, techniques, schemes, etc are all created equal. I'm sorry man but it just annoys the fk out of me. I guess I didn’t understand because I can’t think of a time it happened. Pretty much everyone here agrees it’s how you can teach the scheme that matters most |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Apr 9, 2024 4:25:20 GMT -6
Why's different need to be a matter of schematics? It doesn't have to be. I just limited it to scheme in OP for the purposes of this discussion because that kept focus narrowed to what I was interested in. |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Apr 9, 2024 4:49:15 GMT -6
Why's different need to be a matter of schematics? It doesn't have to be. I just limited it to scheme in OP for the purposes of this discussion because that kept focus narrowed to what I was interested in. We focus on the kids but being different is hard on the coaches as well. I remember my first year as a coach having to face 2 single wing teams, 2 DTDW teams, and a flexbone team. I had never even heard of DTDW and had no clue what I was doing against it. Single wing I kinda got lucky and I had played in the flex so I was at least familiar. A few years back when I was in a larger classification a door mat in our conference went to the DTDW. I was proud of them because they were a spread team and got monkey stomped weekly. Anywho they were losing but also giving people in our conference fits. Lucky for me I had seen sh!t loads of it and we were prepared. After that the way we defended them was pretty much the norm for the league and they quit running the DTDW eventually. |
|
|
|
Post by MICoach on Apr 9, 2024 5:58:01 GMT -6
This is great stuff coach. How much time do you invest daily / weekly for ST? How do you manage the "other guys" when you are installing on ST? I've always run into the issue where when are working with our core teams guys, even with a scout team there are still like 25-30 guys on the sideline doing nothing and turning into distractions. 5-10 minutes per unit, per week, but we will also get some time in during offseason For punt, kickoff, and field goal we will pull the kids during pre-practice or the first period of practice while everyone else is either in O or D indy. For KOR we will get two scout kickoff teams (one lined up right behind the other) so that we can get more reps with the added benefit of keeping almost everyone busy. Punt block/return and field goal block we will build into the defensive practice plan so the scout O will give us a look. I'll put the opposing punt team on a scout card so we can get that accurate. We do end up with some guys standing around in these ones but it goes right into team D or goalline D so it's as limited as it can be. I also try to have defensive subs/rotation guys standing behind me in these two because I don't want to have to sub in for them. |
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Apr 9, 2024 10:04:13 GMT -6
Which coaches on here have chosen to be "different" schematically - either offensively, defensively, or both - to try to gain an edge or at least be competitive with teams on their schedules? I'm late on here, but to answer the question posed- I am one of those coaches. Some of that is intentional, some of it just "happened". Offensively, we choose to be different. We are the only 11-man team in the state that does what we do. I think that is an advantage to a degree because other teams have a limited amount of time to work on us, which I do think helps as long as we do what we do well. About 30 years ago I was in a program that was just better than the schools we played. We were bigger, stronger, faster...and 5 of 8 in our conference ran what we did... and 2 of the others were similar. (And the other team was a "problem" to prepare for. They were a middle of the pack team but gave a lot of us fits- and probably won a few games they shouldn't have won) About 20 years ago I started to find myself in situations where I went to programs that didn't have better players (we had some athletes, but were certainly not dominant). This is when we changed over and became "unique" by running a Single Wing. It wasn't just because it was unique- it aligned most with my philosophies, was mare adaptable than what we had been doing, and was something I felt I had studied enough to mesh with concepts we already wanted to emphasize. Defensively, we run a common defense, but align differently. When I first saw it on paper, I thought it was "dumb"... but we've basically ran that defense (43) for 30 years with some tweaks. Again, no one else runs it like we do, so I think there is an advantage to that. We run it because it is sound and easy to teach, but being a little different certainly doesn't hurt. However just being different, while helpful, isn't enough to separate you from your opponents. You need to be able to teach it, sell it and execute it. If you can do all that with any scheme you will have success, but being different from everyone else does give a little more advantage, because it is unfamiliar.
How many times do we see on here "I need help defending XXX", when XXX isn't a commonly run scheme anymore?
When we played our schedule for the last few years, generally 7 of 9 aligned similarly on both sides of the ball. While they may emphasize different things, our basic alignment against them doesn’t change much. We might be in a different coverage from one game to the next, but that’s about it. As simple as it seems, knowing where to line up and knowing what to do is a huge key to success at any level of football, but maybe especially in high school, where most of our players are certainly not “students of the game”.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Apr 9, 2024 10:45:10 GMT -6
Yes, I think it absolutely makes a difference. And, it creates a spectrum of advantages, depending on the team your playing. Some DCs will be smart and make small adjustments to their base in order to defend you. That's still an advantage as they might only have to install Robber 2 to deal with you but that's still an investment in practice time. And, it's moving them and their kids out of their comfort zones.
Other DCs will go full-grab bag and install something completely alien to the kids in 2-3 days. This is obviously a huge advantage, for a variety of reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Apr 10, 2024 21:13:59 GMT -6
Yes, I think it absolutely makes a difference. And, it creates a spectrum of advantages, depending on the team your playing. Some DCs will be smart and make small adjustments to their base in order to defend you. That's still an advantage as they might only have to install Robber 2 to deal with you but that's still an investment in practice time. And, it's moving them and their kids out of their comfort zones. Other DCs will go full-grab bag and install something completely alien to the kids in 2-3 days. This is obviously a huge advantage, for a variety of reasons. full scale triple option changes this imho if they don't understand, they are screwed |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Apr 11, 2024 6:05:36 GMT -6
Yes, I think it absolutely makes a difference. And, it creates a spectrum of advantages, depending on the team your playing. Some DCs will be smart and make small adjustments to their base in order to defend you. That's still an advantage as they might only have to install Robber 2 to deal with you but that's still an investment in practice time. And, it's moving them and their kids out of their comfort zones. Other DCs will go full-grab bag and install something completely alien to the kids in 2-3 days. This is obviously a huge advantage, for a variety of reasons. full scale triple option changes this imho if they don't understand, they are screwed I agree. Unless they just play blocks and fit gaps. |
|
|
|
Post by veerwego on Apr 11, 2024 6:17:08 GMT -6
Yes, I think it absolutely makes a difference. And, it creates a spectrum of advantages, depending on the team your playing. Some DCs will be smart and make small adjustments to their base in order to defend you. That's still an advantage as they might only have to install Robber 2 to deal with you but that's still an investment in practice time. And, it's moving them and their kids out of their comfort zones. Other DCs will go full-grab bag and install something completely alien to the kids in 2-3 days. This is obviously a huge advantage, for a variety of reasons. full scale triple option changes this imho if they don't understand, they are screwed When I started almost everyone still had an UC option package, now almost nobody does. I would imagine many, if not most, defensive coaches have never game planned for/played against and UC option team. Problem is, it is very hard to find staff members who have ever coached it. So unless you are in a situation where you can get good people and teach them, it is hard to coach it well on offense. |
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Apr 11, 2024 6:19:39 GMT -6
full scale triple option changes this imho if they don't understand, they are screwed When I started almost everyone still had an UC option package, now almost nobody does. I would imagine many, if not most, defensive coaches have never game planned for/played against and UC option team. Problem is, it is very hard to find staff members who have ever coached it. So unless you are in a situation where you can get good people and teach them, it is hard to coach it well on offense. When I started coaching, the first thing defensively we did every year was install option responsibilities. |
|
