Old Coaches---New Job...

[Bullaholic]

I have always wondered how a veteran HC/and/orAD moves from one school to another and implements his program successfully enough to field a represenative team for the coming season. This comes to mind because we seem to have a lot of HC changes in some fairly high-profile schools this coming season.
Brownwood and Sweetwater, just to name a couple.

How does such a coach implement his offense and defense when he may inherit or keep some existing coaches, or maybe bring his staff with him. Still, the new schemes have to be taught to a bunch of young boys in a hurry. What's involved to get such teams ready for 2-a-days, coaches?

[Pick6]

With most teams going to the spread offense that makes it easier on the offensive side. The defense I would guess would be the most difficult to change.

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by Pick6
With most teams going to the spread offense that makes it easier on the offensive side. The defense I would guess would be the most difficult to change.

Why do you think the spread is easier to teach? Lots of pass patterns for the WR's to learn and good decisions have to be made by a good reading QB. Not disagreeing---just curious.

[Pick6]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
Why do you think the spread is easier to teach? Lots of pass patterns for the WR's to learn and good decisions have to be made by a good reading QB. Not disagreeing---just curious.

If a kid learns the spread for a couple of years it will be easier to pick up someone else's spread than say, the slot-T. The basics of the spread are the same.

[Johnny Utah]

Seems like to me the spread would be easier. Slot T, Wing T, Veer, Bone teams have all sorts of blocking schemes, sets, you name it. IF the defense is new, could take a long time as well.

[Bullaholic]

It just seems to me that there is a tremendous amount of added pressure to perform for a new HC stepping into a tradition-rich school. To me, a HC bringing it off successfully, especially in 1 season, has performed nothing short of a miracle.

[LHexPlayer]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
I have always wondered how a veteran HC/and/orAD moves from one school to another and implements his program successfully enough to field a represenative team for the coming season. This comes to mind because we seem to have a lot of HC changes in some fairly high-profile schools this coming season.
Brownwood and Sweetwater, just to name a couple.

How does such a coach implement his offense and defense when he may inherit or keep some existing coaches, or maybe bring his staff with him. Still, the new schemes have to be taught to a bunch of young boys in a hurry. What's involved to get such teams ready for 2-a-days, coaches?

It's a skill that most coaches do not have. That is why they are veteran coaches. They can make lemonade out of lemons.

[Ex-Tiger2005]

Originally posted by Pick6
With most teams going to the spread offense that makes it easier on the offensive side. The defense I would guess would be the most difficult to change.

When Coach Rogers came in I think the off. was harder to learn than the def. When he came in he said with def. if your aggresive and your flying around its hard to make mistakes that he would yell about. The bone was similar to wing t but the termenology was different so it took time.

[GreenMonster]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
It just seems to me that there is a tremendous amount of added pressure to perform for a new HC stepping into a tradition-rich school. To me, a HC bringing it off successfully, especially in 1 season, has performed nothing short of a miracle.

Honestly, I think you guys put way too much stock in the x's and o's part of this transition. Obviously there is some relevance to it, but a whole lot of the answer to the question truly lies in the Jimmy's and the Joe's that the new coach has to work with. I don't care who you are, if the talent pool is pathetic your record will be pathetic as well. As far as offensive and defensive systems go, you start with your basics and build from there. Some teams are able to digest your basics faster than others and therefore may be able to be more multiple by the end of the season, but that still goes back to the Jimmy's and the Joe's. You build wins in the offseason and the summer out on the track and in the weight room. As for spread being easier or wing t/veer/bone/I, I don't think there is much difference. It's comparing apples to oranges. In the wing T you start with the buck series and go from there so you teach the trap, the g, the buck sweep, the bootleg, and the wingback trap. That's 5 plays. Those 5 quickly become 10 when you mirror it and 14 when you throw in 2 pass plays usually the boot pass and the TE hot. The backfield action is almost identical in the buck series so you teach pretty much one play left and one play right and then the 2 pass plays. QB has to work his footwork and ballhandling skills a little extra and the o-line has a couple of plays to learn, but you have an entire offense that is ready to rumble in a week or two. Of course it will take tons of reps to polish it, but you just make sure you never put the cart in front of the horse and keep the playbook small until you get good at the basics. In the spread most of the routes are set on a passing tree where a number is given 1-9 and that number tells you which route to run. That takes time to learn and get comfortable with. The QB is the one with the biggest piece to learn in the spread, because he has to learn the terminology, know what every route is, who is running what route, learn which receiver to look for on what routes against what defenses etc etc. I think it all takes time to do well, but I think any offense can basically be able to run within a week or two. It may not be run well, but it can be run. Good coaches sell their scheme to their kids and the kids believe it will work giving the kids confidence. The coaches the have success are good at selling it, good at building athletes, and good at using those athletes to get the most out of them. If you have success right away, especially big success, then that tells me the Jimmy's and Joe's were in place already.

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by GreenMonster
Honestly, I think you guys put way too much stock in the x's and o's part of this transition. Obviously there is some relevance to it, but a whole lot of the answer to the question truly lies in the Jimmy's and the Joe's that the new coach has to work with. I don't care who you are, if the talent pool is pathetic your record will be pathetic as well. As far as offensive and defensive systems go, you start with your basics and build from there. Some teams are able to digest your basics faster than others and therefore may be able to be more multiple by the end of the season, but that still goes back to the Jimmy's and the Joe's. You build wins in the offseason and the summer out on the track and in the weight room. As for spread being easier or wing t/veer/bone/I, I don't think there is much difference. It's comparing apples to oranges. In the wing T you start with the buck series and go from there so you teach the trap, the g, the buck sweep, the bootleg, and the wingback trap. That's 5 plays. Those 5 quickly become 10 when you mirror it and 14 when you throw in 2 pass plays usually the boot pass and the TE hot. The backfield action is almost identical in the buck series so you teach pretty much one play left and one play right and then the 2 pass plays. QB has to work his footwork and ballhandling skills a little extra and the o-line has a couple of plays to learn, but you have an entire offense that is ready to rumble in a week or two. Of course it will take tons of reps to polish it, but you just make sure you never put the cart in front of the horse and keep the playbook small until you get good at the basics. In the spread most of the routes are set on a passing tree where a number is given 1-9 and that number tells you which route to run. That takes time to learn and get comfortable with. The QB is the one with the biggest piece to learn in the spread, because he has to learn the terminology, know what every route is, who is running what route, learn which receiver to look for on what routes against what defenses etc etc. I think it all takes time to do well, but I think any offense can basically be able to run within a week or two. It may not be run well, but it can be run. Good coaches sell their scheme to their kids and the kids believe it will work giving the kids confidence. The coaches the have success are good at selling it, good at building athletes, and good at using those athletes to get the most out of them. If you have success right away, especially big success, then that tells me the Jimmy's and Joe's were in place already.


Now THAT's what I'm talkin' about, GM---Great post....thanks for the realtime, true-to-life, nuts-and-bolts, informative reply. :clap:

And this brings home another big point---A successfull coach will find a way to get his players to learn, i.e., use their heads as much as they use their arms and legs. I think this has been the downfall of many athletically blessed, but cerebrally-challenged teams in the past.

[BigGulpsHuh?]

The toughest thing for those kiddos to transition to is the terminology. its easy to show them the plays. its hard to go from calling it this, to calling it that.

[OldBison75]

I think the key is the ability of the coach to sell his program and scheme to the kids. If a kid believes in the system and will commit to executing his assignment instead of freelancing because he believes he can find a better way, most systems will work. What I see more times than not is kids that only commit to the plays that showcase themselves and take a rest when the play goes somewhere else. That is when a system fails. The great coaches are the ones that convince every player on the team that whether on the play side or the offside, every assignment is crucial to making the play successful.

Most defenses are taught to cover a gap or position and flow to the ball. Most offenses are taught based on the play called. In other words, the play side is worked hard and scrutinized hard and the offside gets little attention because the coaches worry about the point of attack. That leaves several players with the impression that their assignment is not important to that play and they become lazy. The great coaches are watching each position and pointing out what they could do the extend the play beyond the point of attack.

If you watch the top teams year in and year out, you see players blocking downfield, pancaking defenders on the offside blocking assignments, and never resting on a play. My best example is the Liberty Hill scheme, Slot T like is run by 100 other teams, same basic scheme, different results. I guarantee that you can analyze thier films and will find that on every play from scrimmage, all eleven players on the field are contributing on every play. I see more offside players making a block at the line and then being 20 yards downfield to block a linebacker or defensive back to spring the big play. That is the result of great coaching and selling a program to the kids. Every player believes that thier block is the difference between success and average. And , if you listen to the great coaches, they are congratulating each player on those accomplishments. I have heard the LH coach talk about his offensive line more than any back he has had. Keep the guys in the trenches happy and feeling like a big part of the success of a play and most plays will be successful most of the time.

[OldBison75]

I agree, and think we are saying alot of the same thing. Some kids believe that the program is not giving them the attention they think they deserve and therefore only perform when they can be showcased. They don't understand that football is a team game and every player has a job on every play. That is when they are uncoachable because they are freelancing or resting.

Kids that execute or at least put out the effort to execute on each play are coachable. Some may be more successful than others because of talent but if the effort and execution of the scheme are there every play, more plays are successful and that results in marks in the win column. High school kids seem to want to be recognized when they contribute and that is where I think that selling of a scheme and recognizing the contribution of each and every part of the scheme separates the top coaches from the average coaches. Great athletes can make a program look good in the short term, but committed athletes that give 100 percent to the program can make a program successful every year.

[Bullaholic]

How does a coach motivate kids from poorer districts and lower academic performance as opposed to a coach who inherits players in a more affluent, better academically performing district? Do the methods differ that much when coaching in such districts, or are there hardly any differences?

[nationalpastime]

I think a lot of it has to do with the administration. If they're not on board then there is no way you could try to convince the kids this was the right hire. Whenever I got a new HC in high school the superintendent and principal were both there to introduce the new guy to us and they made us think that they searched high and low to find the right guy for the job. The school I went to had a variety of kids; from nearly homeless to nearly mansion livers. After they convinced us they wanted our best interest we assumed the new coach had ours also. The first year the HC was there we set a record for wins at our school.

Another thing is, IMO, can the new guy relate to the kids? I've seen some "veteran" coaches that thought they were God's answer to a situation fail miserably. The only reason those guys took the job in the 1st place is to move up in the ranks and the kids can sense that. The kids have to matter where ever you are. There are a lot of athletes out there that do not have a home life and are looking for something positive to get out of athletics whether they realize it or not. If a coach can't/won't relate to them because they are "high and mighty" then they won't motivate anyone.