chakka3421
All Conference
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
- Like
- 3,640
Sorry for the wall.
FHCDM always did and finished the offensive game plan as it was his main strength by Monday morning (late afternoon if team got back late). He did not let his OC game plan. I believe he was involved and approved the D game plan but I think he left that up to HCSS but was always involved in finalization. I don't know if game planning is a strength of HCSS but it certainly doesn't look like it.
After a few seasons, FHCDM learned that in college the game plans had to "fitted" into the strengths of the team's players (due to lack of talent) versus having a play book that practically had every play ever played in the game of football (I saw and looked through the binder once) whereas in the Pros you can change it up each week as it's a full time job for players there and where talent is less of an issue. What I mean by this is that FHCDM got to the point where we would run our base plays based upon team strengths and have the opposing team defend it versus reacting to an opposing defense by changing up plays every game. Proactive versus reactive.
Secondly, college football for players isn't a full time job like in the pros, so even late in FHCDM's college coaching career he had to drastically reduce the number of plays to a few plays that he wanted the players to get to the point of executing them to perfection. In his last year, FHCDM only used just a core group of 25 base plays mixed in with only 3-5 new plays to learn that week to take advantage of some weakness he saw in an opposing defense. He also fitted the strength of Nassib's experience to implement the infamous up tempo zone-read option because everything was really simplified. The Oline didn't have to worry about what to do beyond their assignments because in the zone read plays for that series of plays they blocked the same way regardless of which option Nassib went with. So it was a mix of 2-3 plays included in each play - truly multiple - and a very similar strategy employed by GT in its triple option except that's all running based plays so zone-read is far superior.
HCSS actually has caused me to have real concerns with what he has done so far regarding strategy.
First, he is a first time HC. He brought in brand spanking new OC & DC with little to no coordinator experience. Major strategic mistake in my view - the sign of a great leader is that you hire to your weaknesses versus hiring friends. I would be ok if those friends had vast proven experience as coordinators.
Second, clearly the GT debacle points to a DC reacting to an offensive scheme and taking our players out of their comfort zone. They forced our players to go lateral while GTs offense ran downhill. Our DLine got double teamed and almost immediately by default GT got to our second level on every play. However, I was ok with trying the 3-4 but our HC & DC should have had a backup 4-3 plan if the 3-4 didn't work. I chalk that up to the lack of experience and strategy mistake on the part of our coaches.
Third, our OC isn't calling plays to match our strengths. The strength of the team is our running game and our OC keeps trying to pass the ball first. The old saying is that you cannot expect a different result doing the same thing over and over again. No real identity - he just seems to be calling plays. Anyone can do that.
Our HC, DC & OC are in over their heads right now - you can see it in their eyes. Compared to FHCDM becoming a proactive strategist, I think we are in for another 3-4 years of "re-building" by finding recruits to fit the scheme - what that scheme is I have no idea because I don't know if HCSS is a strategist or simply a players and coaches coach. What will HCSS become over the next 3 years?
Finally for the final 5 games remaining for this year I actually have faith in our players that our "talent" on the team will overcome our coordinator and HC coaching inexperience and lack of strategy as strange as that sounds. We can beat Wake, Maryland, Pitt & BC as long as our coaches let them play to their strengths.
FHCDM always did and finished the offensive game plan as it was his main strength by Monday morning (late afternoon if team got back late). He did not let his OC game plan. I believe he was involved and approved the D game plan but I think he left that up to HCSS but was always involved in finalization. I don't know if game planning is a strength of HCSS but it certainly doesn't look like it.
After a few seasons, FHCDM learned that in college the game plans had to "fitted" into the strengths of the team's players (due to lack of talent) versus having a play book that practically had every play ever played in the game of football (I saw and looked through the binder once) whereas in the Pros you can change it up each week as it's a full time job for players there and where talent is less of an issue. What I mean by this is that FHCDM got to the point where we would run our base plays based upon team strengths and have the opposing team defend it versus reacting to an opposing defense by changing up plays every game. Proactive versus reactive.
Secondly, college football for players isn't a full time job like in the pros, so even late in FHCDM's college coaching career he had to drastically reduce the number of plays to a few plays that he wanted the players to get to the point of executing them to perfection. In his last year, FHCDM only used just a core group of 25 base plays mixed in with only 3-5 new plays to learn that week to take advantage of some weakness he saw in an opposing defense. He also fitted the strength of Nassib's experience to implement the infamous up tempo zone-read option because everything was really simplified. The Oline didn't have to worry about what to do beyond their assignments because in the zone read plays for that series of plays they blocked the same way regardless of which option Nassib went with. So it was a mix of 2-3 plays included in each play - truly multiple - and a very similar strategy employed by GT in its triple option except that's all running based plays so zone-read is far superior.
HCSS actually has caused me to have real concerns with what he has done so far regarding strategy.
First, he is a first time HC. He brought in brand spanking new OC & DC with little to no coordinator experience. Major strategic mistake in my view - the sign of a great leader is that you hire to your weaknesses versus hiring friends. I would be ok if those friends had vast proven experience as coordinators.
Second, clearly the GT debacle points to a DC reacting to an offensive scheme and taking our players out of their comfort zone. They forced our players to go lateral while GTs offense ran downhill. Our DLine got double teamed and almost immediately by default GT got to our second level on every play. However, I was ok with trying the 3-4 but our HC & DC should have had a backup 4-3 plan if the 3-4 didn't work. I chalk that up to the lack of experience and strategy mistake on the part of our coaches.
Third, our OC isn't calling plays to match our strengths. The strength of the team is our running game and our OC keeps trying to pass the ball first. The old saying is that you cannot expect a different result doing the same thing over and over again. No real identity - he just seems to be calling plays. Anyone can do that.
Our HC, DC & OC are in over their heads right now - you can see it in their eyes. Compared to FHCDM becoming a proactive strategist, I think we are in for another 3-4 years of "re-building" by finding recruits to fit the scheme - what that scheme is I have no idea because I don't know if HCSS is a strategist or simply a players and coaches coach. What will HCSS become over the next 3 years?
Finally for the final 5 games remaining for this year I actually have faith in our players that our "talent" on the team will overcome our coordinator and HC coaching inexperience and lack of strategy as strange as that sounds. We can beat Wake, Maryland, Pitt & BC as long as our coaches let them play to their strengths.
