|
Post by nltdiego on Nov 22, 2014 11:48:32 GMT -6
I have heard this statement as a coach quite a bit. Is is true? What if you don't have jimmy and joes? Can you still win?
|
|
|
Post by bluedevil4 on Nov 22, 2014 12:52:45 GMT -6
Anyone can read a book and learn something (X's and O's). That doesn't mean you can go out and succeed just because you read that book.
No matter how much you want to avoid it, if you don't have athletes, you're not going to win the big games. However, having athletes doesn't guarantee success either. You have to have a good chemistry of coaching and athletes. We have a school in our conference who has gone through two staffs in my time here. Both staffs were excellent, and we've admitted to ourselves that we were out-coached on a number of occasions against this team. The difference? They had zero athletic ability. They had us trumped in every aspect, but their kids just couldn't do anything with the position their coaches put them in. This team has never had a winning season in my 11 years playing and coaching at my school.
This team runs a flexbone option offense now, and they have beat us up front the past two years with the veer and the rocket toss. They adjusted it will and had us pinned in a lot of scenarios. However, their QB and RB's couldn't outrun anyone when they got to the secondary. The RB's were so small that they went down when the wind picked up. When they pass blocked, their line was so slow that our D-linemen simply ran by them (while they had receivers all alone downfield because they got us to bust our coverage). On defense, they would use great technique and shed blocks when we ran to the edge, but their OLB's and DE's simply couldn't catch our RB's.
You could say that they didn't develop kids properly, or that they weren't getting the right kids out; nope. They're bad at every sport they have, and it's because their kids simply aren't athletic. It's a strange coincidence that a school would have so many nonathletic kids, but they do. Every athlete they have gotten has left either in middle school or their freshmen year to come to us or another nearby rival. Athletic doesn't simply mean speed either. Athleticism in this case also includes toughness and instinct.
|
|
|
Post by jg78 on Nov 22, 2014 14:43:38 GMT -6
I have heard this statement as a coach quite a bit. Is is true? What if you don't have jimmy and joes? Can you still win? You need comparable talent to have a realistic chance to win a football game. However, there are many, many high school football games played on Friday nights in which the talent is so mismatched that Nick Saban and Chip Kelly could take the lesser team and still get drilled. Winning is mostly about the players.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2014 16:52:20 GMT -6
With the talent disparities in high school ball, a talented team can get away with all sorts of unsound or simplistic stuff and still win games, while a well coached team without much raw talent can do everything right and still lose because they just aren't as big, strong , or fast as the opponents. That's part of it.
I think the most useful interpretation of this, from a coaching perspective, is to remember that it's not you who wins the game, but your players. Your job is to prepare them and put them in position to win. What you know or all the fancy things you can do on a whiteboard doesn't matter if you can't communicate it or teach it to your team adequately. So often, coaches think it's all about their whiteboard mastery and blame players when that doesn't work. It's really the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by coacho8 on Nov 22, 2014 20:33:15 GMT -6
I think once the players are at an equal talent level is when x's and o's and coaching comes into play.
|
|
|
Post by coacho8 on Nov 22, 2014 20:34:44 GMT -6
I think once the players are at an equal talent level is when x's and o's and coaching comes into play.
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Nov 22, 2014 22:45:30 GMT -6
Xs & Os are the most overrated part of the game, a team with better athletes, who consistently execute proper technique, and understand their assignments will win with 1 front 1 coverage, and 4 off. plays almost all the time.
As has been stated already, athletic differences at the HS level vary so greatly that a big playbook with a 'genius' play caller is usually a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by jg78 on Nov 22, 2014 23:11:25 GMT -6
Xs & Os are the most overrated part of the game, a team with better athletes, who consistently execute proper technique, and understand their assignments will win with 1 front 1 coverage, and 4 off. plays almost all the time. As has been stated already, athletic differences at the HS level vary so greatly that a big playbook with a 'genius' play caller is usually a waste of time. I agree. I have been fortunate to have (mostly) coached good to great football teams in my career. I have always (whether coaching offense or defense) kept things simple and allowed the players to have a thorough understanding of what they are doing at all times. We may not do much, but we know what we're doing and do it well. If we're on D and the offense comes out in empty, two tight Power I, a heavy unbalanced set, or some crazy formation with linemen and skill guys scattered all over the field - we are prepared for it and it wouldn't confuse us.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Nov 22, 2014 23:48:10 GMT -6
It's not the X's and O's, it's how well you teach the X's and O's.
|
|
|
Post by coach2013 on Nov 23, 2014 5:34:41 GMT -6
I have heard this statement as a coach quite a bit. Is is true? What if you don't have jimmy and joes? Can you still win? Millions spent preparing for the Draft, free agency....recruiting, scholarships,scouting- players make more than the head coach
Why bother if the people on the field don't make the difference?
|
|
|
Post by coachjm on Nov 23, 2014 5:56:15 GMT -6
The goal in HS football is to build programs vs. teams... Programs are stocked deep in talent because it is the thing to do in the school the top athletes all participate and sacrifice in the offseason and are developed as football players by the staff. This is a long slow tedious process that takes many small steps over a period of years to achieve. The first step is generally taking a team that is not competitive and staying in games. Some places this is nearly impossible to do as the necessary steps to go through is too timely for you to maintain support.
|
|
|
Post by jlenwood on Nov 23, 2014 6:50:32 GMT -6
The goal in HS football is to build programs vs. teams... ...but a lot of "good" coaches don't get this. I also think that Jimmy's and Joe's win you games during the regular season, but when you want to see who can coach start going to playoff games. A talented HS team can win its way through a typical league, but when the talent starts to equalize, that is where i think coaching has to shine.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Nov 23, 2014 8:07:34 GMT -6
It's not the X's and O's, it's how well you teach the X's and O's. Technique and motivation can make an average player out of a poor athlete and a good player out of average. It won't take you to the elite level. Teams with elite athletes have off-season programs, practice every day, and may have coaches who know what they're doing. The only way that you're going to beat a bunch of elite athletes with Xs and Os is if their coach is a complete stooge and that doesn't happen much.
|
|
|
Post by bluedevil4 on Nov 23, 2014 10:20:23 GMT -6
It's not the X's and O's, it's how well you teach the X's and O's. Technique and motivation can make an average player out of a poor athlete and a good player out of average. It won't take you to the elite level. Teams with elite athletes have off-season programs, practice every day, and may have coaches who know what they're doing. The only way that you're going to beat a bunch of elite athletes with Xs and Os is if their coach is a complete stooge and that doesn't happen much. We did it last year in the playoffs lol. Played a conf champ from a charter school conference. Athletically and physically, we had absolutely zero chance (O-line was probably 6'3/280 across the board, QB could run and throw about 60 yards, all of their skill guys were lightyears faster than our guys, etc). Problem? They literally just snapped the ball, the QB ran around (no drop) and the players ran backyard routes (run around till you're open). They were so athletic that it didn't matter in the regular season, but in the first round of the playoffs we had our second stringers in by halftime. They had absolutely zero coaching. They used about 20 different defensive fronts on defense (no clue what they were trying do to in terms of coverage), and back on offense: They had no running game whatsoever. The line just blocked the guy nearest to them and the QB just gave or tossed the ball left or right.
|
|
|
Post by IronmanFootball on Nov 23, 2014 10:37:19 GMT -6
You could say that they didn't develop kids properly, or that they weren't getting the right kids out; nope. They're bad at every sport they have, and it's because their kids simply aren't athletic. It's a strange coincidence that a school would have so many nonathletic kids, but they do. Every athlete they have gotten has left either in middle school or their freshmen year to come to us or another nearby rival. Athletic doesn't simply mean speed either. Athleticism in this case also includes toughness and instinct. This paragraph sums up our athletic dept at my school. Our basketball team finally has "size" because more than one kid is 6'0. Our football program's "speed" players run 4.8's. Our OL averages about 5'9 170. We just have NO ONE athletic on campus. Our most athletic kid on campus is 6'6 but has a 1.26 GPA. He will NEVER play sports again.
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Nov 23, 2014 14:02:42 GMT -6
The goal in HS football is to build programs vs. teams... ...but a lot of "good" coaches don't get this. I also think that Jimmy's and Joe's win you games during the regular season, but when you want to see who can coach start going to playoff games. A talented HS team can win its way through a typical league, but when the talent starts to equalize, that is where i think coaching has to shine. True, but I think good coaching is far more than X's & O's (ie play calling). Good coaching is getting kids to utilize quality technique and consistently execute that technique. Good coaching is getting kids to be in the proper location on the field, on time (no mental errors, no paralysis by analysis).
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Nov 23, 2014 20:40:41 GMT -6
It's not the X's and O's, it's how well you teach the X's and O's. Technique and motivation can make an average player out of a poor athlete and a good player out of average. It won't take you to the elite level. Teams with elite athletes have off-season programs, practice every day, and may have coaches who know what they're doing. The only way that you're going to beat a bunch of elite athletes with Xs and Os is if their coach is a complete stooge and that doesn't happen much. I agree. I am a players over coach type of coach. Give me the naturally gifted kids, give me the weight room rats, give me the coachable kids who are focused on getting better, and you can have the scheme. My point is, it is not the fact you out leveraged me with that shift and motion, it's can you execute once you create the advantage? THAT, is what I think many of us miss (myself included). It is very frsutrating when we are in trips and cannot execute to our guy on the backside. As coaches, we have created the space for the athlete to operate, but if we haven't taught Jimmy how to capitalize (technique, responsibility, etc.), then it is useless. We would be waaaaaaay better off running something we can execute into an unfavorable look.
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Nov 23, 2014 21:48:31 GMT -6
What Fantom said.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Nov 23, 2014 22:29:49 GMT -6
Coaching is huge. Program is huge. Lifting is huge. Culture is huge. Fundamentals and Techniques are huge. X's and O's are important. Admin is important. Facilities are important. Tradition is helpful. Community support is helpful.
But all of those don't matter if talent is not comparable.
Just ask yourself this one question. How will your 3rd team do against your 1st team?
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Nov 23, 2014 23:30:44 GMT -6
I feel like I know a lot of $h!t about football, but I still don't know how to teach this:
Sometimes you just gotta hope you got better dudes than they do... Been too many places with guys in the right place, but not the better team. Spent this season with a lot better athletes and I appeared to be a lot better coach despite feeling like I never did less.
|
|
|
Post by Rooster on Nov 24, 2014 8:33:31 GMT -6
Coaching is huge. Program is huge. Lifting is huge. Culture is huge. Fundamentals and Techniques are huge. X's and O's are important. Admin is important. Facilities are important. Tradition is helpful. Community support is helpful. But all of those don't matter if talent is not comparable. Just ask yourself this one question. How will your 3rd team do against your 1st team? For 34 years our high school has had 3 non-winning seasons. Never had a D1 player. Always had to play bigger schools than us. The schools for the most part had better talent. ( We never could kick deep on kickoffs because of other teams speed....) I believe that the culture and tradition is huge. Up until about 8 years ago we never had a consistent weight lifting program. Just a rural community with farm strength kids that were tough. I agree with everything above, but culture in the locker room is more important than scheme any day. Just my 2 cents Rooster
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Nov 24, 2014 8:43:27 GMT -6
My takeaway from this quote has always been that coaching is about a lot more than just Xs and Os. Whether you have great talent or you don't, your job is to get your players (Jimmys and Joes) to play as hard and as well as their ability allows. That means focusing on technique, fundamentals, discipline, effort, training and culture.
You can certainly win without talent but it won't be because you drew up a fancy pass play or exotic blitz. It'll be because you've built a real team and your players are getting the most out of their ability, and playing hard and sound. The scheme stuff can help at the margins -- and the thing with scheme is you need to sort out your scheme in order to isolate the fundamentals and techniques that will be important for you -- but it's not what decides most games. That said, scheme can decide games where everything else is evenly matched, which is rare, but also tends to show up in critical moments (playoff games, etc). That's why coaching is hard.
|
|
stu
Sophomore Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by stu on Dec 6, 2014 21:48:36 GMT -6
My takeaway from this quote has always been that coaching is about a lot more than just Xs and Os. Whether you have great talent or you don't, your job is to get your players (Jimmys and Joes) to play as hard and as well as their ability allows. That means focusing on technique, fundamentals, discipline, effort, training and culture. You can certainly win without talent but it won't be because you drew up a fancy pass play or exotic blitz. It'll be because you've built a real team and your players are getting the most out of their ability, and playing hard and sound. The scheme stuff can help at the margins -- and the thing with scheme is you need to sort out your scheme in order to isolate the fundamentals and techniques that will be important for you -- but it's not what decides most games. That said, scheme can decide games where everything else is evenly matched, which is rare, but also tends to show up in critical moments (playoff games, etc). That's why coaching is hard. Agree with the vast majority of this...I think you can win occasionally with X's and O's... at least in terms of putting them in positions to be succesful and the like. but there is so much more to it then X's and O's. I remember as an assistant being down by 30+ and the fans getting on the head coach and the AD coming over and saying something to the fan " look at the scoreboard. do you think that's coaching?" Now... I will say that we could have done better as a staff that week, obviously. but that was one of the first times I really had an in-life experience with the idea that no matter what I drew up, it wasn't the end all and be all that I used to think it was.
|
|
|
Post by olinedude on Dec 6, 2014 23:42:02 GMT -6
I think the Jimmy's and the Joe's saying is true. Great players can execute simply play calling and win.
However, good coaches develop lesser athletes into the "Jimmy's and the Joe's." I've seen lots of teams with non athletic kids turn kids into phenomenal football players and win, which ultimately is coaching. Likewise, just last night I watched a team with DUDES all over the field, ridiculous WR'S that could win any 1 on 1 battles and 2 kids in the backfield that could score on any play, and they got smoked by a team with lesser athletes. Certainly the jimmy's and the joe's can be underutilized by lesser athletes. It comes down to coaches getting the most out of their athletes.
|
|
|
Post by coach2013 on Dec 7, 2014 6:45:56 GMT -6
Ever see a team blow through its schedule, 11-0 winning by huge scores every week? Yet they never get past the first round of the playoffs?
weak schedule, better joes than the foes.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Dec 7, 2014 19:33:15 GMT -6
I always find it interesting that we (coaches) approach this as an either/or argument, when in reality, it never is......
Kind of like: "Would you rather have a good offense, or a good defense?"
Hell, I'll take both.
|
|
|
Post by coachhunt on Dec 9, 2014 7:01:57 GMT -6
It's not the X's and O's, it's how well you teach the X's and O's. This! It is Jimmy and Joes (natural talent) + how well taught they are = results
|
|
|
Post by coachmonkey on Dec 9, 2014 8:01:52 GMT -6
Coaching is huge. Program is huge. Lifting is huge. Culture is huge. Fundamentals and Techniques are huge. X's and O's are important. Admin is important. Facilities are important. Tradition is helpful. Community support is helpful. But all of those don't matter if talent is not comparable. Just ask yourself this one question. How will your 3rd team do against your 1st team? For 34 years our high school has had 3 non-winning seasons. Never had a D1 player. Always had to play bigger schools than us. The schools for the most part had better talent. ( We never could kick deep on kickoffs because of other teams speed....) I believe that the culture and tradition is huge. Up until about 8 years ago we never had a consistent weight lifting program. Just a rural community with farm strength kids that were tough. I agree with everything above, but culture in the locker room is more important than scheme any day. Just my 2 cents Rooster That. Heart and toughness can compensate for a lot. A lot of coaches egos don't let them handle a loss as anything more than the other team was better as it would be painful to admit our coaching was inadequate.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Dec 13, 2014 19:57:53 GMT -6
Also, do not underestimate your ability to improve your Jimmy's and Joe's......the old R&D (recruit and development) department is more important than the clinic circuit.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Dec 13, 2014 19:58:04 GMT -6
Also, do not underestimate your ability to improve your Jimmy's and Joe's......the old R&D (recruit and development) department is more important than the clinic circuit.
|
|