BleacherCoaches.com

say OW, I agree with your assessment that a big problem is that Richland isnt a great defensive team, but a lot of that IS due to the offense. (although your pre Bailey statement is a little off, they had a winning record before he took over but did not win more than 3 LHAC games until year 7 or so)
Richland has had AWFUL T.O.P. the last few years. On top of that, throwing the ball 30+ times a lot of turnovers will happen. These are both very bad for ANY defense, let alone at a school where kids arent tough because there parents have money :roll:

Another complaint has often been the offensive line. Again your offensive line looks a TON worse when teams know your just going to be in shotgun and throw the ball. Passing blocking every play is in my opinion a very very tough feat, definitely harder for any high school lineman than run blocking.

Take this year for example. About the third or fourth game, the QB basically said I cant do this anymore, so they ran the ball the majority of the time henceforth. Suddenly Richland did not give up ANY 100 yard rushers(only gave up like 3 the whole year), and people were amazed at how the offensive line was making holes and weren't giving up sacks when they did pass. Now was this because Richland linemen and defense had some kind of miraculous awakening, or because Richland simply had the ball for long periods of time and gave up very few turnovers. Definitely the latter. (Even in Richlands other seasons with more seniors/talent they gave up 7 or 8 100 yard rushers, sometimes including 2 or 3 200 yard rushers)

Still, obviously the line and defensive play need to improve. Not debating that the least. Any good team has senior linemen who have been through the system, have developed on the field and in the weight room. Instead Richland has senior returning starters who somehow get moved to TE or get replaced by freshman or sophomores who just came from the junior high ranks. That can't happen, something is not right with that.

Here are some facts... These are objective statements of truth because they are documented and witnessed by many persons.

2010 FACT: Richland lost four of its first five games in 2010. Three of the teams that beat Richland won their respective championships in 2010 (BC, FH, JHS). Those same three teams that beat Richland rushed for at least 230 yards in their wins over Richland (BC 279, FH 283, JHS 232). The fourth team (McCort) rushed for 160 yards. Richland gave up at least 100 yards every game in 2010 with the exception of BG which isn't listed on maxpreps. (Bedford 127, Somerset 121, Westmont 167, Cambria Heights 189, Central Cambria 215).

2009 FACT: Richland allowed the following rushing totals per game during the 2010 season: CC 252, Bedford 99, BC 159, JHS 129, BM 487, Somerset 103, WH 207, FH 228, CH 0, PC 291, Huntingdon (unavailable), FH 357. Only one time did they surrender under 100 yards. However, in the biggest games, what did their opponents do - run the ball.

It may make sense to attribute high rushing totals to high TOP in losing games, its apparent that Richland also had trouble with run defense in their 2009 season when they finished 9-3. Despite blowing out many teams, the Rams still allowed a lot of rushing yards because it was easier for the team than passing. I could go on and on, but i won't. You can look at maxpreps yourself. Its all there.

Based upon the facts, I think a stronger argument is that Richland just isn't tough enough on defense, and not that the team needs a new offensive scheme.

"This is just the topic that will not die.... No matter what type of offensive system you pick doesn't change the fact that the Richland kids just can't tackle, and never have been able to tackle." ~Sayoww

What is the cause of the so called poor tackling year after year.

Must be something in the water....

Say oww, In 2009 Richland avearged roughly 23 passes and gave up on average 230 yards rushing per game(in 10 games vs LH opponents)

In 2010, Richland averaged roughly 12 passes and gave up on average 197 yards rushing per game (compare to "tough tackling kids" from BM gave up 210 yards rushing per game and CC gave up 203 yards rushing per game)

Yet in 2009 they had 50% more wins and overall more talent/bigger senior class(22 seniors vs 11 seniors)

The difference: RUNNING THE BALL and T.O.P.


Show me a great or an above average defense, and the vast majority of the time there will be an offense with good ball control based on running(or short passing/screen game)

Not debating Richland has had overall bad defense, but I am saying a balanced offense/an offense with any run game will suddenly make Richlands defense appear a ton improved, just look at this year.

Whatever you say... The facts, are the facts. BM, CC and Richland were all middle of the pack in the LHAC this year. CC beat BM, BM beat Richland, and Richland beat CC. So what is the point? None of them were that good, which is why they didn't go very far. (Side note: In my opinion, CC and Richland however would have both won some playoff games if they also played in A.)

Your rationale is intriguing... since Richland gave up 200 yards per game in '09 with a bunch of big seniors, does that mean they would have given up 400 yards per game in 2010 if they would've thrown more??? Apparently, the only reason they didn't get completely trampled was because they ran time off of the clock. You aren't exactly making any progress with your argument that the kids can tackle and that its all Bailey's fault. Until Richland has kids tough enough or good enough up front, I imagine we'll continue to see you and other Richland parents lobbying for Bailey's dismissal because he can't magically transform his kids into bigger and stronger lineman.