bruin66

Definitely!!

The offensive scheme St. X runs does not fit the players it consistently is able to get. The 100% shotgun, 100% no TE's, and 100% no huddle simply is not smart. Also, they never have their offensive linemen in a 3 point stance. Trinity, however, does all of the above at times. While Trinity spreads it out and slings the ball around quite well, they also have the capacity to get under center and run downhill when they need/want to. St. X needs to realize that they need to be who they are. Stanford would be a good example to follow. Multiple TE's, multiple formations, multiple tempos. Power run game from under center. Play-action passing. And spread it out occasionally.

The formations they run cause no stress to the defense.

All JCPS would have to do is to turf the field at Manual Stadium. They have already redone the lights and stands. The stands have plenty of capacity for all but the St. X - Trinity game. It would be a wonderful atmosphere for some big Louisville high school games.

Opponents are going to get that info anyway. If everyone just provides it, it eliminates work for everyone. Kind of like film exchange. It is now mandatory. Before, coaches spent tons of time going around and getting film behind their opponents back instead of just getting it from them. Seemed like a ridiculous waste of time when film could have just been traded. One of the best rule changes in the last several years.

Thanks for clarifying. I just have a hard time giving any team that makes the final 4 anything below a B regardless of their season before that. And thanks for starting many of these grade threads. Good discussion points.

Bert, That may very well be the case. Who knows. If so, that is one sorry reason to either hire a coach originally or keep one too long. Coaching ability and acumen should be the deciding factor, not $$ donated. Simply put, I believe in paying one's dues; this is my main issue with the Wolford hire to begin with. He simply did not pay his dues in the coaching ranks by working his way up the ladder. He simply skipped too many rungs and was thrust into a position he did not deserve or earn.

I would say B/B+ due to their deep playoff run.

I would have said C- for the regular season. However, their deep run in the playoffs bumps them up to the B-/B range for the entirety of the season.

I agree with your grade. South Oldham has made significant progress in the past 5 years. They are to be applauded for their improvements.

Tigercat, I think he was more a victim of clashing with the administration than anything football-specific. The offense evolved significantly over the last 5 or so years of his tenure.

A recent threat delved into the things about football that have changed. The following are some things about football that I think will never change as long as the sport exists: 1. Football emphasizes and demands more teamwork than any other sport. 2. It is possible, through hard work, for an average athlete to mold himself into a good football player. 3. The more physical team usually wins. 4. Good coaching really makes a difference; bad coaching really hinders. 5. Running the football, regardless of formation, is essential. 6. Overcoming adversity is essential to a good team. 7. Teams that are cohesive and play well together are more successful than a collection of good athletes who do not. 8. It is hard to overcome poor line play even with good skill athletes. These are just some quick thoughts. Feel free to add others.

Although it will be something new and exciting, the size of the venue was better at WKU. Expect a cavernous stadium for most of the games.

I wish Josh the best. Hope it works out for him this time. Hopefully he gets the top-to-bottom support he needs to build a program. It does seem a bit strange. It they like him that much, why did they run him off a few years ago? If they did not like him that much, why did they hire him back?

Seems like poor timing, does it not?

They used to be one of the most physical teams in the state on offense. Now not so much.

Go ahead and ask their fans. They have not been under center, in a 3 point stance, or employed a TE in 2 years. FACT.

I have seen very few championship teams that do not have at least some of both, combined with good coaching and discipline.

St. X has not had a lineman in a 3 point stance in more than 2 years. Their goal line and short yardage run game sucks.

Yes, the Patriots do get in Empty from time to time in short yardage. And they are often successful with it. My point in all of this discussion is that teams that ONLY align in spread formations and ONLY have their linemen in 2 point stances are not sound. I just think well-rounded offenses need to have the capability to get under center at times, employ a FB and multiple TE's, get in 3 point stances, and run downhill on occasion. I also think well-rounded offenses need to have the capability to spread it out, get in shotgun and 2 point stances, and be productive in the passing game and spread runs. I think the ALL or NONE issue is what plagues many high school offenses. I mean, the best high school offense in Kentucky for the past 15 years is Trinity. They do all of this stuff when they need it. Their offense is much more situationally productive now than it was 15 years ago when they were all spread. Just like they are more productive offensively than they were 25 years ago when they were never spread.

By you logic, I guess NFL coaches are idiots. I don't see many of them in 2 point stances in short yardage and goalline. In fact, I don't see many of them in shotgun in those situations. In my mind, there will always be a place in football for the QB to be under center, a FB, and multiple TE's. Not necessarily every snap, but there is a time and place for it. In fact, I just read an article on ESPN.com where Louisville is focusing on under center offense during the spring with Lamar Jackson.

The difference is what the two different positions are asked to do. The role of the 6 technique defensive end is to hit the TE, shed his block, and pursue to that ball to make a tackle. His job is not necessarily to knock the TE back. The job of an offensive lineman in short yardage situations is to knock the defender back. Which I believe can best be accomplished while coming out of a 3 point stance. I am not saying that an offensive lineman should never be in a 2 point stance. I just think coaches that have their offensive linemen in 2 point stances regardless of the situation are not wise. In obvious run situations, get your hand in the dirt, come off of the ball, and knock the defense back!

I think playing a 6 technique or inside LB on defense is a totally different thing than an offensive lineman on offense in short yardage. I have not seen Boyle Co. play in a few years, but I bet Chuck Smith does not have his offensive linemen in a 2 point stance on 3rd and 1.

May be true, but you can play more physically in a 3 point stance. I have no problem with spreading it out at times, but I think it is not smart to be in a 2 point stance on 3rd and 1 in an obvious running situation.