ADVERTISEMENT

Why is Willard terrible?

cocfan0439

Member
Oct 4, 2023
19
17
3
This is a legitimate question that I can sort of piece together some answers to but am still at a loss for and would love to hear opinions of others…why is Willard so bad at football???

Over the years they’ve had some of the biggest bodies in the COC, I’m sure everyone can agree, and their skill players are never THAT bad. I can understand that their district probably refuses to spend the money on a good coach, but still, you’d think somewhere along the line they would be able to produce a team that had a good run. It looks like the best Willard has been was a few years in the mid 90s where they won like 6-7 games a year, and two seasons in the early 2010s where they couldn’t get out of districts. You’d like to think a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while but Willard may be the blindest, deafest, and dumbest squirrel that’s ever existed.
 
This is a legitimate question that I can sort of piece together some answers to but am still at a loss for and would love to hear opinions of others…why is Willard so bad at football???

Over the years they’ve had some of the biggest bodies in the COC, I’m sure everyone can agree, and their skill players are never THAT bad. I can understand that their district probably refuses to spend the money on a good coach, but still, you’d think somewhere along the line they would be able to produce a team that had a good run. It looks like the best Willard has been was a few years in the mid 90s where they won like 6-7 games a year, and two seasons in the early 2010s where they couldn’t get out of districts. You’d like to think a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while but Willard may be the blindest, deafest, and dumbest squirrel that’s ever existed.
Did the district just fire you?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TadQueasy
This is a legitimate question that I can sort of piece together some answers to but am still at a loss for and would love to hear opinions of others…why is Willard so bad at football???

Over the years they’ve had some of the biggest bodies in the COC, I’m sure everyone can agree, and their skill players are never THAT bad. I can understand that their district probably refuses to spend the money on a good coach, but still, you’d think somewhere along the line they would be able to produce a team that had a good run. It looks like the best Willard has been was a few years in the mid 90s where they won like 6-7 games a year, and two seasons in the early 2010s where they couldn’t get out of districts. You’d like to think a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while but Willard may be the blindest, deafest, and dumbest squirrel that’s ever existed.
Like the well established correlation between the state of Kearney's hot moms and the success of its football program. Maybe there is a correlation between Willard and the state of their funnel cakes?
 
Like the well established correlation between the state of Kearney's hot moms and the success of its football program. Maybe there is a correlation between Willard and the state of their funnel cakes?

Eventually, you've got to start offering pumpkin spice, apple crisp, s'mores, etc. funnel cakes or the talent goes elsewhere.
 
Eventually, you've got to start offering pumpkin spice, apple crisp, s'mores, etc. funnel cakes or the talent goes elsewhere.
Hear, hear!! I said that YEARS ago!!! You HAVE to start offering different flavors, toppings, sauces, etc. Do you think a player really wants to play for a program serving the same, boilerplate carnival-like funnel cakes? NO!
 
17d64a61-c677-4993-9830-3e1495d34acb_text.gif
 
This is a legitimate question that I can sort of piece together some answers to but am still at a loss for and would love to hear opinions of others…why is Willard so bad at football???

Over the years they’ve had some of the biggest bodies in the COC, I’m sure everyone can agree, and their skill players are never THAT bad. I can understand that their district probably refuses to spend the money on a good coach, but still, you’d think somewhere along the line they would be able to produce a team that had a good run. It looks like the best Willard has been was a few years in the mid 90s where they won like 6-7 games a year, and two seasons in the early 2010s where they couldn’t get out of districts. You’d like to think a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while but Willard may be the blindest, deafest, and dumbest squirrel that’s ever existed.
That Willard team about 5 years ago with that kid at RB who was an absolute tank would've made some noise had they not been in a district/conference with 2 state champs and a runner up that year.
 
This is a legitimate question that I can sort of piece together some answers to but am still at a loss for and would love to hear opinions of others…why is Willard so bad at football???

Over the years they’ve had some of the biggest bodies in the COC, I’m sure everyone can agree, and their skill players are never THAT bad. I can understand that their district probably refuses to spend the money on a good coach, but still, you’d think somewhere along the line they would be able to produce a team that had a good run. It looks like the best Willard has been was a few years in the mid 90s where they won like 6-7 games a year, and two seasons in the early 2010s where they couldn’t get out of districts. You’d like to think a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while but Willard may be the blindest, deafest, and dumbest squirrel that’s ever existed.
Their scheme hasn't exactly fit their personnel the last 3-4 yrs...but to be completely fair to anyone that has ever coached there, their "athletes" the last 3-4 yrs haven't been all that great or deep. They weren't exactly running a scheme that was built for those with lesser talent, which is what they've had.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MIZZOU71
Hear, hear!! I said that YEARS ago!!! You HAVE to start offering different flavors, toppings, sauces, etc. Do you think a player really wants to play for a program serving the same, boilerplate carnival-like funnel cakes? NO!
I remember in neosho years back at halftime they had a lot of food from sounded like a closed chineese resteraunt.
 
That Willard team about 5 years ago with that kid at RB who was an absolute tank would've made some noise had they not been in a district/conference with 2 state champs and a runner up that year.
That Willard team lost to Repmo in ‘18 and ‘19 when Repmo couldn’t even beat Branson
 
Year round baseball and lots of good athletes only playing baseball and no other sport probably is a contributing factor in the last 15 years. Had lots of success in baseball
Copied so I think this is right. Baseball Final Fours '91, '03, '12, '13, '19, '21, '22 '24.
That Willard team about 5 years ago with that kid at RB who was an absolute tank would've made some noise had they not been in a district/conference with 2 state champs and a runner up that year.
And if we combine these arguments, Garrett Rice, who is the RB you’re talking about, was also a baseball player that started his post high school career by playing baseball at Mizzou. A lot of that Covid senior class that would have probably won state baseball were all two/three sport athletes. Coach McGee promotes it. Theyve had the athletes, but have had no success. Russell Roweton, their QB a few years back, was a stud and was surrounded by decent talent, but they most they ever won was 3-4 games a year.

And I’m just a COC fan that wants to talk about COC football other than Webb City, something that seems frowned upon apparently…
 
I don't think it's any one thing. It's several of the things already mentioned, schemes that maybe don't fit their athletes, and other sports are of greater interest in that particular community - since they are baseball centric that one in particular can hurt football because for a lot of kids that want to be very good they are doing it basically year round and/or they don't want to risk missing baseball because of a football injury.

Another thing is that the actual town of willard is pretty small, a pretty good chunk of the district is the NW (poorest) part of Springfield so that probably doesn't help either. Boosts enrollment disproportionate to what their available talent pool might be.

I can remember talking to a couple carthage coaches maybe 5-10 yrs or so ago and Willard was often a name that would come up as a possible team to look out for awhile but they just never seemed to materialize other than a team or two somewhere seems like 2014 or so. I think they beat Carthage in the regular season but in district Carthage narrowly edged them out.

I agree they've had some good athletes but that hasn't translated into a good team. Neosho has had quite a few teams like that... some pretty impressive kids at various positions but the team as a whole really struggles. Seems like Neosho is going in the right direction though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cocfan0439
This conversation seems familiar and may have been discussed on this board before and not in reference to any one program, especially Willard, but to high school football in general.

The great X's and O's vs. Jimmy's and Joe's discussion. There are coaches at the high school level who are strictly ______________ (fill in the blank with pro style, wing T, spread, option, veer, splitback double tight end, pistol, five-wide and heck, this is Southwest Missouri, let's add The Mauk Family System as a style) coaches.

There are coaches who have a preferred system and that's what they are going to run.

Then there are other coaches who have a preferred system that they can adjust to the available talent.

Then there are coaches who are so flexible and have such a deep playbook, they could literally switch styles from year to year depending on the talent and which system the players adapt and execute the best. Face it, any program could have 200 different running plays, but why dump such an information overload on high school student-athletes when chances are the staff is going to call the same four plays on game night with the only difference being personnel, formation and direction.

During my days working in the sports media, I promised the coaches of the games I covered I would never question their decisions about what system they run, why they did or question their play calls after a game. Now, I have asked coaches about certain plays that worked the best and why it was successful in order to add it to a game story, but I never felt like it was my place to question a coach why he made the decision he made, plenty of other people (parents, fans and now social media pundits) do enough of that, they didn't need me adding to it.

Additionally, coaching staffs see all the offseason work, work in the weight room, reps at summer camps and reps in preseason workouts ... their evaluation of available talent is greater than anything I see in 2+ hours of game reps on Friday night. Kind of difficult to question those who see more than I do.

It is easy to second guess ... I look at teams like Lamar and Seneca, especially this year, and see four or five receivers who would be match up problems for most any opponent. Philosophically, the spread system is designed to exploit matchups and get athletes in space with the ball, the concept that my third, fourth and fifth best receiver will be better than your third, fourth or fifth best cover guy. But Seneca and Lamar are power run schemes that control the ball and then add that to a solid defense and it will win a lot more games than lose. No need for either program to get away from the bread and butter that makes them successful.

It's kind of like growing up watching Pittsburg State run the splitback option against opponents for years ... it was a thing of beauty and they did it so well. Now, they have adapted over the years to incorporate elements of the spread into the run game. They still run the ball and prefer to do so, but they have different skill sets that allows them to exploit matchups based on the opponent and the opponents scheme.
 
Last edited:
This is a legitimate question that I can sort of piece together some answers to but am still at a loss for and would love to hear opinions of others…why is Willard so bad at football???

Over the years they’ve had some of the biggest bodies in the COC, I’m sure everyone can agree, and their skill players are never THAT bad. I can understand that their district probably refuses to spend the money on a good coach, but still, you’d think somewhere along the line they would be able to produce a team that had a good run. It looks like the best Willard has been was a few years in the mid 90s where they won like 6-7 games a year, and two seasons in the early 2010s where they couldn’t get out of districts. You’d like to think a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while but Willard may be the blindest, deafest, and dumbest squirrel that’s ever existed.
It's all about the Band in Willard..... the only reason they have Football is for the Band to practice a new routine at halftime before they unveil it at a Band Competition.
 
Could of fooled me... they go that big arse semi-truck and all the bells and whistles anyone can dream of for the band. And has the school district even thought about Turf for the boys? Doubt it.
 
This conversation seems familiar and may have been discussed on this board before and not in reference to any one program, especially Willard, but to high school football in general.

The great X's and O's vs. Jimmy's and Joe's discussion. There are coaches at the high school level who are strictly ______________ (fill in the blank with pro style, wing T, spread, option, veer, splitback double tight end, pistol, five-wide and heck, this is Southwest Missouri, let's add The Mauk Family System as a style) coaches.

There are coaches who have a preferred system and that's what they are going to run.

Then there are other coaches who have a preferred system that they can adjust to the available talent.

Then there are coaches who are so flexible and have such a deep playbook, they could literally switch styles from year to year depending on the talent and which system the players adapt and execute the best. Face it, any program could have 200 different running plays, but why dump such an information overload on high school student-athletes when chances are the staff is going to call the same four plays on game night with the only difference being personnel, formation and direction.

During my days working in the sports media, I promised the coaches of the games I covered I would never question their decisions about what system they run, why they did or question their play calls after a game. Now, I have asked coaches about certain plays that worked the best and why it was successful in order to add it to a game story, but I never felt like it was my place to question a coach why he made the decision he made, plenty of other people (parents, fans and now social media pundits) do enough of that, they didn't need me adding to it.

Additionally, coaching staffs see all the offseason work, work in the weight room, reps at summer camps and reps in preseason workouts ... their evaluation of available talent is greater than anything I see in 2+ hours of game reps on Friday night. Kind of difficult to question those who see more than I do.

It is easy to second guess ... I look at teams like Lamar and Seneca, especially this year, and see four or five receivers who would be match up problems for most any opponent. Philosophically, the spread system is designed to exploit matchups and get athletes in space with the ball, the concept that my third, fourth and fifth best receiver will be better than your third, fourth or fifth best cover guy. But Seneca and Lamar are power run schemes that control the ball and then add that to a solid defense and it will win a lot more games than lose. No need for either program to get away from the bread and butter that makes them successful.

It's kind of like growing up watching Pittsburg State run the splitback option against opponents for years ... it was a thing of beauty and they did it so well. Now, they have adapted over the years to incorporate elements of the spread into the run game. They still run the ball and prefer to do so, but they have different skill sets that allows them to exploit matchups based on the opponent and the opponents scheme.
Find an identity and stick with it. Build a culture. It’s all about consistency. Teaching kids a new scheme every year is hard for the best of coaches simply because 14-18 year old boys knuckleheads.
It’s harder for smaller schools to do this because of the limited availability of players/ types of players. But there is no reason why a bigger school should not be able to do this though.
 
Find an identity and stick with it. Build a culture. It’s all about consistency. Teaching kids a new scheme every year is hard for the best of coaches simply because 14-18 year old boys knuckleheads.
It’s harder for smaller schools to do this because of the limited availability of players/ types of players. But there is no reason why a bigger school should not be able to do this though.
f5b312dc-937e-4ca5-ab1a-6d94b88938c2_text.gif
 
Find an identity and stick with it. Build a culture. It’s all about consistency. Teaching kids a new scheme every year is hard for the best of coaches simply because 14-18 year old boys knuckleheads.
It’s harder for smaller schools to do this because of the limited availability of players/ types of players. But there is no reason why a bigger school should not be able to do this though.

A new scheme every year is not ideal, but you do need to adjust to your personnel. I prefer to adjust within the system as opposed to trying to bring in a new scheme wholesale. You still have your identity, but you aren't banging your head against a wall with a new crop of players who have different skill sets than the old.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cardsbeatwriter
A new scheme every year is not ideal, but you do need to adjust to your personnel. I prefer to adjust within the system as opposed to trying to bring in a new scheme wholesale. You still have your identity, but you aren't banging your head against a wall with a new crop of players who have different skill sets than the old.
I agree. And I also understand why coaches make wholesale changes sometimes also. Most of the time, especially in smaller schools they see how hard a the kids work and just want to put them in a position to be competitive.
My little town in KS ran flexbone. We simply ran out of big kids up front. They simply were none in the school. We had skill kids so the change was made to the spread to get the ball out fast. But that example is from a school with less than 250 kids total. A bigger school should have fewer issues with this.
 
I agree. And I also understand why coaches make wholesale changes sometimes also. Most of the time, especially in smaller schools they see how hard a the kids work and just want to put them in a position to be competitive.
My little town in KS ran flexbone. We simply ran out of big kids up front. They simply were none in the school. We had skill kids so the change was made to the spread to get the ball out fast. But that example is from a school with less than 250 kids total. A bigger school should have fewer issues with this.

I make the argument all the time that big offensive linemen, while useful in any offense, aren't needed to run the flexbone successfully. Smaller athletic linemen are perfectly fine because I believe, in high school at least, athletic linemen beat chunky linemen far more often than not. Would I prefer larger O linemen (or larger athletic O linemen, ideally)? Of course I would if given the choice, but if you have a D lineman you can't block...don't block him; read him and double team the D lineman at the point of attack. It's not the most glorious offense, and certainly can be boring, but it is one that is very sustainable with lesser talent and size. It's also one that can easily adapt to being in the pistol/gun and adding spread elements when the talent/situation calls for it.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT