ADVERTISEMENT

Kick/Punt/Return teams: X's & O's beat Jimmies and Joes

cr8zyncalif

Hall Of Fame
Gold Member
Jan 21, 2005
6,441
2,041
113
I got kind of intrigued toward the end of a rather long thread by a comment from Bleed, who was responding to another poster. It is a slow news day, and I thought this might make an interesting topic to kick off a new thread.

The reference is to Walden's comment that Jimmies and Joes beat X's and O's; in other words, a sufficient difference in talented athletes can beat any coach's strategizing.

This comment, however, was in the context of the kick/punt units, and which is more important…the team sticking to the plan as coached, or the athletic ability of those carrying it out?

Here is my thought. Please feel free to shoot at this.



There are definitely aspects of ST where X's and O's beat Jimmies and Joes, but not across the board.

Your punt and kick returners had better be Jimmies and Joes. The same is true for your gunners on the punt team. The kickers, holders and long snapper are so specialized, I'm not sure how to characterize them.

But for the bulk of the coverage units, lane discipline is more important than athleticism. You can survive with a good athlete who has excellent lane discipline and is smart enough to read the field ahead of him. You cannot survive with an NFL caliber athlete who abandons lane discipline and does not do a good job of reading the field. Of course, when you have guys who are not NFL caliber athletes who also abandon lane discipline, you have the worst of both worlds, and that was the WSU kickoff team last year. It isn't so clear cut with a punt unit, but the principles are the same.

As for the return units, you can teach an average D1 athlete how to identify his target (whether you are zone or man blocking) and execute an open field block. If you have 6 or 7 lead blockers doing that job correctly on a kick return, or the same number executing a well drilled wall or other punt return formation, you will occasionally break a long one. And you will seldom have a complete fail. Sure, as is always the case, if one guy is a better athlete and is just as good between the ears as the lesser athlete, then the better athlete will win most of those battles. But when a return requires team discipline to execute, and one or two flubs blows the whole thing, you have to take the guys who have it between the ears first, regardless of whether they are your best Jimmy or Joe.

One more thought. Learning to block in the open field is a totally different process than blocking along the LOS. It requires instruction and practice, or it is too easy for a defender to juke or evade the blocker. Back in the '60's, '70's and early '80's we could just throw a cross body block and if that was properly executed, it would at the very least delay the defender. Injury issues caused that to be removed from the list of legal blocks, and what is now legal is harder to do effectively and takes practice. And more practice. It is pretty clear to me that the required amount of open field blocking practice did not happen previously at WSU (with the exception of WR's, who have consistently been exposed to it). Who knows if it will happen now? Particularly on kick returns, IMO you would be better off making up a unit of reasonably mobile and coordinated scrubs and doing nothing but coaching kick returns for half of every practice, as opposed to spending 10 minutes 3 days per week with the better athletes.


Comments?

This post was edited on 4/8 7:58 AM by cr8zyncalif
 
I can't stand the stupid "Jimmies & Joes" cliche. So overused and simplistic.

On coverage units, if it were all about the athletes, then more coaches would put their best players on the unit. Instead, most coaches put their backup LBs, safeties & RBs out there. So, it must be a matter of simply finding guys who can follow instructions and have enough athleticism to get down the field and tackle.

And we weren't just "overpowered" by Cal's incredible athleticism on special teams. Those were just blown assignments.

As I look back, special teams seems like a really stupid reason to lose games. Last year, WSU had the QB, they had the OL, they had the DL, and they still found a way to lose 9 games. I think it was primarily due to horrid special teams & slightly less horrid secondary play. Seems like those should be the 2 units that are easiest to fill, which makes last year's dud even more confounding and frustrating.
 
"a sufficient difference in talented athletes can beat any coach's strategizing"

Nope. Walden was wrong.

2003 Holiday Bowl. 1992 Apple Cup. 2002 Apple Cup. 1988 UCLA. 2007 Stanford/USC. 2007 Appalachian State over Michigan. All games where teams that were more talented - in some cases far more talented - did not win.

Where it applies to special teams, I can agree to an extent. Lane discipline, downfield vision, and pursuit angles are the requirements. If he knows how to position himself, a backup LB who runs a 5.0 could bring down a 4.4 returner. None of the ST players need to be NFL caliber athletes, but they all need to be disciplined. The outside guys typically need to be a bit more athletic so they can protect the edge...but they also have to have enough athleticism to get off a block or avoid it, and to turn the returner into the field, and also have enough discipline to not attempt a solo tackle. They need to keep their feet and stay in position - contain the runner and let the inside pursuit take them down.

You're right about open field blocking. The blockers are also at an additional disadvantage because they don't actually know where the ball is. The man they're blocking can see it, but it's behind them so they have to guess based on where their assignment is looking/heading.
 
If App State played Michigan 10 times,

how many times will App win? One? One in a hundred, which is what happened. But Walden is right, talent is greater than coaching.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT