3 hours ago, zoneblitz24 said:

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.

Great post. I think there are many guys coaching on Friday nights that are better than guys on Saturdays and Sundays but did not want to pursue that life or could not break in due to nepo/who you know. 

18 hours ago, New Colonel said:

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.  

 

He's not perfect, but I think Eddie does a really nice job. He makes it simple on the QB with easy completions on screens underneath but also on the shot plays a lot of them are gameplanned and 'called' where I really don't think the QB is reading it out. For example, get in a certain formation to get a certain coverage and then throw it to this player on a double move or out of the backfield. We don't do a lot of true drop back with Harney, but there is mostly good stuff. For example - a big one this year is we'll get in 3x1 and have the single side X run a speed out or curl, if that is not open there's a 3 receiver 'levels' concept working across the field that the QB works back to. 

Run game is a lot of trap, either from the guard or the TE on the end man of the line of scrimmage. We've also had a bunch of success with speed option (unsure if that is called or an alert by the QB vs some of these 5 man fronts) and QB iso/draw and maybe even some QB duo. Power without the puller and the back is kicking out the end man on the LOS.

On offense - outside of just having better players on the line of scrimmage, I think teams that heat them up can give them fits as I'm not sure the 'hot' answers are always built into the progression for the QB that aligns with the protection. The good news for them is the current QB is athletic enough to make a free runner miss and then the defense is in trouble when that happens. Live by the blitz, die by the blitz. 

There was a few year stretch where I thought they got a little lazy on what they ran, but overall I think they do a great job. The gameplan vs Boyle last year where he broke out essentially the shotgun version of their unbalanced short-yardage package to pull off an upset was an all-timer. 

19 hours ago, TheBallCoach said:

@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. 

I don't think that is all what I am saying.  I think there are tons of great leaders and FOOTBALL COACHES who do not have all of the support that those guys have had.  Cantwell is the prime example.  He wasn't winning state championships at Carroll County but he fielded a competitive team and when he received a private school job with resources, talent, and administrative support he's now on a roll.

There are a lot more good coaches in high school sports than there are good coaching jobs. There is a major difference.

2 hours ago, zoneblitz24 said:

I don't think that is all what I am saying.  I think there are tons of great leaders and FOOTBALL COACHES who do not have all of the support that those guys have had.  Cantwell is the prime example.  He wasn't winning state championships at Carroll County but he fielded a competitive team and when he received a private school job with resources, talent, and administrative support he's now on a roll.

Were they calling him after those 4–7 seasons with the Panthers? No. He got attention once he went 7–5 in year three and proved he could actually build something. This job is simple, you win or people start looking for someone who will. You don’t have to be a state contender every year, but you damn sure can’t stack losing seasons. If Coach Cantwell did that where he’s at now, the CAL administration would already be lining up replacements and he knows that. Competitors embrace that pressure and when you want to be at the top of the profession winning isn’t optional it becomes the expectation.

I am somewhat lost on the actual premise of this discussion but I will say that Trinity has always had top-top-top tier assistant coaches to go along with some of the best head coaches in the nation. Lampley was an assistant before taking over, Servino and Kalbhin were his assistants, Beatty came and inherited Coverdale and Mickey then hit home runs with Craig Swabek and Jay Cobb as his DC's. Coach Beatty always told us every assistant he hired should be worth 10 solid kids with the facilities and foundations our alumni and school had given us. The years we won state and beat good teams to do it was because of the maturation and development of some of the best kids in our area. Some of that was the coaching but a lot relied on the young men who wanted to work hard and win, which is what we really wanted to build with them.

All of that being said, Andrew Coverdale was the most brilliantly gifted and generous coach I have ever been around on any level. I do not make that statement lightly. His ability to mold our offense around quarterbacks like Geoff Riddle, Brian Brohm, Nick Petrino, William Stein, Travis Wright, Reggie Bonnafon, Nick Bohn, et al while keeping the core principles of what Bob asked of him makes him #1 in my book. The physical and mental differences in each of those QBs is vast but Andrew was able to maximize the abilities and strengths in them as long as they met us halfway. While Bob was the masterful planner and organizational wizard in how to build a championship program, Andrew was the general behind the scenes who weaponized the greatest run of offensive football the state of Kentucky has ever known. He also was a remarkable mentor to so many of our players and set an example of how to be compassionate, dedicated, caring and present in the moments that defined their careers as Shamrocks. It would be a marvelous shame to not mention Andrew Coverdale when you talk about the last 25 years of Trinity Football.

And if we're talking about principles, Andrew has discussed his Mesh and Screen concepts to everyone from grade school offensive coordinators to NFL coaches Mike Martz, Tom Moore and many others.

If I was a young coach wanting to develop offensive scheme, I start on Floyd Street in Downtown Louisville. If you want to manufacture a program, the Yellow Pages in Missouri is your first building block! 

Whoever coaches Johnson Central's offensive line.

20 hours ago, TheBallCoach said:

Were they calling him after those 4–7 seasons with the Panthers? No. He got attention once he went 7–5 in year three and proved he could actually build something. This job is simple, you win or people start looking for someone who will. You don’t have to be a state contender every year, but you damn sure can’t stack losing seasons. If Coach Cantwell did that where he’s at now, the CAL administration would already be lining up replacements and he knows that. Competitors embrace that pressure and when you want to be at the top of the profession winning isn’t optional it becomes the expectation.

There are a lot of coaches out there going 7-5 that given the right opportunity are winning titles is all I am saying.  I'm not discounting anything Cantwell has done because he has been able to take CAL to another level of consistency.  I was simply pointing out different ways to evaluate a head coach and a coaching staff on more than just the win and loss column but you don't seem to be able to see past that.  I think every high school coach knows if your don't win you will be replaced but there a lot of really good coaches getting replaced because mommy and daddy can't see past wins and losses and school administrations don't support the program and have no backbone when parents come calling for the coaches head.  Heck there are a lot of coaches out there winning that I would never want my kids to play for as well. Somebody said it best "There are more good coaches than good jobs in the state of Kentucky." Evaluate the jobs guys are doing with building a program in more ways than just wins and losses.

3 hours ago, zoneblitz24 said:

There are a lot of coaches out there going 7-5 that given the right opportunity are winning titles is all I am saying.  I'm not discounting anything Cantwell has done because he has been able to take CAL to another level of consistency.  I was simply pointing out different ways to evaluate a head coach and a coaching staff on more than just the win and loss column but you don't seem to be able to see past that.  I think every high school coach knows if your don't win you will be replaced but there a lot of really good coaches getting replaced because mommy and daddy can't see past wins and losses and school administrations don't support the program and have no backbone when parents come calling for the coaches head.  Heck there are a lot of coaches out there winning that I would never want my kids to play for as well. Somebody said it best "There are more good coaches than good jobs in the state of Kentucky." Evaluate the jobs guys are doing with building a program in more ways than just wins and losses.

So we do agree that winning and losing is the standard, that’s nice to hear you say which is all I’ve been getting to from the beginning. We’re just having a philosophical discussion, no harm given nor taken. I do agree with you that coaches can be let go in situations that the school probably would’ve been better off with seeing it through rather than changing the guard. Where I don’t agree is when you mentioned you wouldn’t want your son playing for some coaches that do win, and while you have a right to your opinion it’s subjective thus not holding any weight for other parents who may like that coaching style you deem to be bad for your kid. All I’m saying is winning football games is the measuring stick that we all can see without any sort of bias to the discussion.

55 minutes ago, TheBallCoach said:

So we do agree that winning and losing is the standard, that’s nice to hear you say which is all I’ve been getting to from the beginning. We’re just having a philosophical discussion, no harm given nor taken. I do agree with you that coaches can be let go in situations that the school probably would’ve been better off with seeing it through rather than changing the guard. Where I don’t agree is when you mentioned you wouldn’t want your son playing for some coaches that do win, and while you have a right to your opinion it’s subjective thus not holding any weight for other parents who may like that coaching style you deem to be bad for your kid. All I’m saying is winning football games is the measuring stick that we all can see without any sort of bias to the discussion.

Winning and losing is a standard but I do not agree that is is the only standard to take into account when evaluating if a guy can coach football.  Is the the only standard a majority of people are going to look at yes but a large majority of people have no clue what they are talking about.  I know people that played the game and still have no clue what they are talking about because they only see a small portion of what goes into coaching and leading a program.  There are way more factors that come into play than just that single statistic.  I can promise you that there are guys winning a lot of games strictly because they have more talent standing on the other side of the field. 

There are coaches out there that win but do not do it the right way.  At the end of the day 99% of high school kids are not going to play at the next level.  Yes I want me kids to be a part of a winning program but I also want them to be taught the right things and to be able to apply those things to their lives as they get older.  Rush Propst won a lot of football games and championships but he's not somebody I want teaching my kids how to be good humans.

7 minutes ago, zoneblitz24 said:

Winning and losing is a standard but I do not agree that is is the only standard to take into account when evaluating if a guy can coach football.  Is the the only standard a majority of people are going to look at yes but a large majority of people have no clue what they are talking about.  I know people that played the game and still have no clue what they are talking about because they only see a small portion of what goes into coaching and leading a program.  There are way more factors that come into play than just that single statistic.  I can promise you that there are guys winning a lot of games strictly because they have more talent standing on the other side of the field. 

There are coaches out there that win but do not do it the right way.  At the end of the day 99% of high school kids are not going to play at the next level.  Yes I want me kids to be a part of a winning program but I also want them to be taught the right things and to be able to apply those things to their lives as they get older.  Rush Propst won a lot of football games and championships but he's not somebody I want teaching my kids how to be good humans.

You nor I or anyone else for that matter can go through every program and dictate whether or not the coach is doing the right things. That’s why winning and losing is the only true standard. If you would’ve read my first post that I commented on this thread you would’ve saw where I mentioned talent and support from the administration is more important than anything you’ll ever draw up on the board.
 

You’re not wrong to have that outlook of Rush but again a subjective stance, some parents don’t mind a coach that is strictly about the game of football and I would consider myself one of those too. I for one don’t expect my children to be raised by their HS football coach; that’s my responsibility to instill the proper values and morals into my son. Is it a plus to have a leader who can boost the importance of those qualities? Absolutely, but it’s not their job to do that.

9 minutes ago, TheBallCoach said:

You nor I or anyone else for that matter can go through every program and dictate whether or not the coach is doing the right things. That’s why winning and losing is the only true standard. If you would’ve read my first post that I commented on this thread you would’ve saw where I mentioned talent and support from the administration is more important than anything you’ll ever draw up on the board.
 

You’re not wrong to have that outlook of Rush but again a subjective stance, some parents don’t mind a coach that is strictly about the game of football and I would consider myself one of those too. I for one don’t expect my children to be raised by their HS football coach; that’s my responsibility to instill the proper values and morals into my son. Is it a plus to have a leader who can boost the importance of those qualities? Absolutely, but it’s not their job to do that.

I am glad to hear you feel that way about raising your children but that is not the case for a lot of kids out there.  I was raised by 2 great parents that instilled discipline and morals into me as a kid but I also played for great coaches who did the same thing but from a different perspective than my parents.  I will agree with you that winning is going to be the standard a coach is judged by and most coaches accept that and understand that as well.  I am simply saying that I don't think it is the only way to ultimately judge a coach on.  Now this horse has been beat enough for the day.