Saw a post about showing appreciation for assistants from across the state before - made me think about the state as a whole and who are the best at what they do on the field. With that said:

Who would be considered the Masters of their Craft in coaching across the state with the scheme they run on offense/defense? (Ex. Scott County - McKee - Wing T). Keep in mind this could be a great thread/resource for young coaches to figure out where to learn from, etc. 

Anyone who tells you they have the scheme to win is a liar. You need the players to win that’ll never change, Coach McKee and his Cardinals are a great example. 2013 State Champions, they had a great 3 headed monster and hoisted the trophy. They’ve had good teams since but they haven’t been at the top, not because McKee changed what he was doing but because of the lesser talent walking through the halls. History repeating itself no? Trinity had a strange 2013, now we’re in 2025 the Purple reign over 5A seems to be in question as well. All it takes is a special group of kids to come along to have a jolt of success. Not saying the X’s and O’s are not important because coaching can 100% lose football games when the talent is similar, but elite players will ruin schemes more often than your average kid being in the right position to stop the playmaker in the open field. 

56 minutes ago, TheBallCoach said:

Anyone who tells you they have the scheme to win is a liar. You need the players to win that’ll never change, Coach McKee and his Cardinals are a great example. 2013 State Champions, they had a great 3 headed monster and hoisted the trophy. They’ve had good teams since but they haven’t been at the top, not because McKee changed what he was doing but because of the lesser talent walking through the halls. History repeating itself no? Trinity had a strange 2013, now we’re in 2025 the Purple reign over 5A seems to be in question as well. All it takes is a special group of kids to come along to have a jolt of success. Not saying the X’s and O’s are not important because coaching can 100% lose football games when the talent is similar, but elite players will ruin schemes more often than your average kid being in the right position to stop the playmaker in the open field. 

Guess I'm more asking who does things at a high level? Offensively or defensively - yes, jimmies and joes matter more than X's and O's, but that doesn't mean you don't recognize who does things at a high level. 

1 hour ago, JimmieJoeXO said:

Guess I'm more asking who does things at a high level? Offensively or defensively - yes, jimmies and joes matter more than X's and O's, but that doesn't mean you don't recognize who does things at a high level. 

I get what you’re asking, who’s actually operating at a high level schematically. And there are many staffs across our State that are sharp on both sides of the ball but even then the ceiling is still tied to the talent in the building. A great system can maximize what you have, but it can’t magically turn average personnel into a state contender. Even if you’re putting your athletes in the right position to make plays every snap, it’s difficult to assess coaches if they aren’t executing.

Great topic! I've been super impressed every time I see Eviston's teams play.  Now, they typically have better players, but they are normally very sharp on both sides of the ball and I like how he schemes his offense.  

1 hour ago, TheBallCoach said:

I get what you’re asking, who’s actually operating at a high level schematically. And there are many staffs across our State that are sharp on both sides of the ball but even then the ceiling is still tied to the talent in the building. A great system can maximize what you have, but it can’t magically turn average personnel into a state contender. Even if you’re putting your athletes in the right position to make plays every snap, it’s difficult to assess coaches if they aren’t executing.

I wouldn't consider only state contenders as the ones executing. Plenty of talented coaches on all levels at schools that likely won't ever sniff playing that last weekend in Lexington. 

7 minutes ago, New Colonel said:

Great topic! I've been super impressed every time I see Eviston's teams play.  Now, they typically have better players, but they are normally very sharp on both sides of the ball and I like how he schemes his offense.  

Anything specific you like about how he schemes the offense? 

4 hours ago, JimmieJoeXO said:

I wouldn't consider only state contenders as the ones executing. Plenty of talented coaches on all levels at schools that likely won't ever sniff playing that last weekend in Lexington. 

^^^ This 100%
 

Too many people get caught up on wins and losses to determine if a coach is “good” or not.

Some of the best coaching jobs I’ve seen are when a coach gets everything he/she can out of lesser talented teams.

 

5 hours ago, JimmieJoeXO said:

Anything specific you like about how he schemes the offense? 

I don't follow them exclusively or closely, but I've always been impressed with how he adapts to the talent that he has.  He doesn't have "1 offense" that he forces players into each year.  And maybe some Cov Cath people can correct me if I'm way off base here.  But if he has a mobile QB, he's going to utlize him in the run game quite a bit.  If he has a pocket guy, he's going to adapt to his strengths.  I also feel like I've seen times where they use more of a power run game when they have the right personnel to do so.  

 

1 hour ago, Falcon Pride said:

^^^ This 100%
 

Too many people get caught up on wins and losses to determine if a coach is “good” or not.

Some of the best coaching jobs I’ve seen are when a coach gets everything he/she can out of lesser talented teams.

 

I agree.  I think Coach Trosper did this very well in NKY.  

1 hour ago, Falcon Pride said:

^^^ This 100%
 

Too many people get caught up on wins and losses to determine if a coach is “good” or not.

Some of the best coaching jobs I’ve seen are when a coach gets everything he/she can out of lesser talented teams.

 

At the end of the day the only thing you’re judged off of as a coach is whether you are winning or losing football games. That’s the profession, no other way to cut it. The funniest misconception I had as a young coach was the confidence I had in my schematics of the game rather than my ability to get the kids to buy into what I’m trying to implement. We’ve seen teams who run power left and right sprinkled with a fullback dive time to time make State title runs and I’m supposed to believe it was because of the X’s and O’s or would it be the mixture of talent and leadership of the coaching staff. Everybody in a coordinating role knows some sort of chalk talk, who is actually going to get them to execute it is what makes coaches elite and even when they do put them in position if they don’t have the personnel it’ll never matter. 

10 hours ago, TheBallCoach said:

At the end of the day the only thing you’re judged off of as a coach is whether you are winning or losing football games. That’s the profession, no other way to cut it. The funniest misconception I had as a young coach was the confidence I had in my schematics of the game rather than my ability to get the kids to buy into what I’m trying to implement. We’ve seen teams who run power left and right sprinkled with a fullback dive time to time make State title runs and I’m supposed to believe it was because of the X’s and O’s or would it be the mixture of talent and leadership of the coaching staff. Everybody in a coordinating role knows some sort of chalk talk, who is actually going to get them to execute it is what makes coaches elite and even when they do put them in position if they don’t have the personnel it’ll never matter. 

Hard disagree.

At the HS level, it shouldn’t be JUST about wins and losses. But alas, it’s heading that way which is why we see so much turnover.

1 hour ago, Falcon Pride said:

Hard disagree.

At the HS level, it shouldn’t be JUST about wins and losses. But alas, it’s heading that way which is why we see so much turnover.

To each their own but how you are attempting to assess coaching is subjective thus leading to misunderstanding of what is expected from the role. We could sit here all day discussing what qualities you want from your coach. X’s and O’s in my opinion is down on my list of things you are in search of, participation from kids is up there. Another big factor is how well you can assemble a competent coaching staff to back you, but at the end of the day the only real way to judge coaching is from winning and losing. It’s concrete, not opinion based.

I think there are a lot of coaching staffs in this state that if you gave them talent and resources they would win a lot of games and titles.  I also understand that to most average fans the only way they will judge a coach is off wins and losses.  To people who truly understand the game and coaching there are things you can evaluate to see if you have a coaching staff that is effective.  1) Do they have the ability to adjust their schemes based off the players they have.  Shows an ability to adapt and put players in a position to be successful. 2) What is the teams effort level?  If a coach can get his team to consistently play hard no matter what it shows leadership and the ability to build a culture. 3) Halftime adjustments if a coaching staff is able to make solid consistent adjustments it shows their understanding of the game. 4) Staff turnover.  If guys are constantly leaving or being fired it shows an inability to lead men.  Part of being a head coach that is over looked is you probably aren't coaching players as much as you are coaching coaches.  If you cannot develop your staff how can you develop teenagers. 5) Morals/Accountability.  What is a coach teaching his players about being good men?  If kids are not held accountable in school and outside of the school but are allowed to be celebrated on Friday night what are they being taught?  If they miss practice or workouts but are still allowed to play how good of a employee are they going to be when they are older?  Some places a coaching staff can do all these things and it will still be a grind for a .500 season but remember the game of football and sports in general at the high school level is to teach young boys how to be good men in their community when they are done playing.  Parents are the ones who lose sight of that.

I don't look at the number of players on a team as if the coach is successful.  Football is supposed to be hard and that's not something a lot of kids are being taught by their parents.  I would rather have 40 kids 100% bought in to the culture than 70 who are lazy and entitled.  A big roster doesn't mean more wins.

@zoneblitz24 Who are the best coaches in our State in the last decade? Cantwell, Haddix, Brandon Smith? Think we could all agree to that. You’re trying to weigh two different things on the same scale and that’s just wrong to do. All 3 of those guys are great leaders, they also have support from administration and their coaching staff, great players as well. If any of them didn’t win football games at their school they’d be replaced by someone. What you are describing is a great leader of men who is not a good ball coach, and that’s okay, we need those individuals in the landscape too because not all programs have the things in place to build a successful program. Trying to move the goal post on how you equate good coaching to anything other than wins and losses is a loser mentality, again great coaches have the same qualities as a great leader though not all great leaders can be great coaches.