|
|
Post by mjgrant82 on Nov 27, 2010 15:16:02 GMT -6
Does anyone have information on using the games approach during practice? I have begun reading about it, and would like some examples of games that are used. It sounds neat and I would love more info. Does anyone out there use this approach?
|
|
|
|
Post by drfootball99 on Nov 27, 2010 15:51:58 GMT -6
just out of curiousity, where did you read about that?
It difficult to apply to football as it is such a technical sport. But it can be done....Have to revamp traditional thinking of practices...
|
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Nov 28, 2010 14:23:47 GMT -6
Where did you read about this? I'm quite interested. I don't want to make assumptions about what the approach entails. But if it is related to what I've assumed then I'm really interested. I'll be looking to see if I can research anything on the topic. Thanks Coach.
|
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Nov 28, 2010 14:55:03 GMT -6
Just found this while I was researching. It's an interesting and quick read: www.asep.com/news/ShowArticle.cfm?ID=50Here's an excerpt from the article: The games approach requires skillful analysis of the game by the coach to structure game-like situations so that players learn what they need to know to play well. Coaches do this using three methods: shaping play, focusing play, and enhancing play.
Shaping play is about teaching through the game. For example, a basketball coach may vary the number of players (three on one, three on two, three on three), size and shape of the playing area (full court, half court), or scoring (reward points for hitting the backboard for younger athletes), to emphasize certain aspects of the game or increase motivation.
Focusing play allows a coach to zero-in on key elements of the game. One technique is the "freeze replay," in which play is stopped and "rewound." By questioning players while replaying a play, the coach is able to help players identify the key components of a good play.
Lastly, a coach may present challenges for athletes to enhance play. By restricting scoring from within the lane, a coach can emphasize perimeter play. Another example would be to emphasize passing by requiring three passes before a player can shoot.I believe I utilize a games approach, on occasion, in my coaching but certainly not exclusively. I am much more of a traditional approach coach but with some games approach sprinkled in. Within our practices, you would see the following concepts in the corresponding segments: Shaping Play concept - offensive group (skills meshes & routes, OL vs. various fronts) and defensive group (Half-Line, 7 on 7) Focusing Play concept - "freeze replays" are done throughout all practice segments (I stop and rewind all of the time!) Enhacing Play concept - running plays vs. challenging alignments by the scout defense (warrants communication of checks by QB and/or OL) These concepts are definitely aspects I'll be brainstorming because keeping my players engaged during practice is something I'm always striving to do. I suppose that is the teacher side of me showing through. Great coaches are great teachers. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 28, 2010 15:25:13 GMT -6
Does anyone have information on using the games approach during practice? I have begun reading about it, and would like some examples of games that are used. It sounds neat and I would love more info. Does anyone out there use this approach? The "standard" practice approach for most teams would fall into these definitions. Warm up Individual Inside Run (9-on-7) DB/WR 1-on-1 Pass Skell DL/OL 1-on-1 Team |
|
|
|
Post by seagull73 on Nov 28, 2010 15:42:14 GMT -6
I think we have been doing this in football forever:
Inside run
7 on 7
1 on 1 pass rush or wr vs db
Routs on air
I think breaking up indy time to 5 minute segments with inside run, 7 on 7, 1 on 1 in between them would help keep players focused. Breaking up the 15 min I usually schedule for INDY time could be more effective:
5 min INDY
10 min Routs on Air
5 min INDY
10 min Inside Run
5 min INDY
10 min 1 on 1 pass rush
|
|
|
|
Post by highball007 on Nov 28, 2010 16:54:56 GMT -6
I am not sure if this is where it started or not but I remember reading about it in a book called, "Coaching Football Technical and Tactical Skills"
It is a great book for any level and any experience of coaches. It just breaks things down to the basics and reassures you that you don't need anything but the basics to be successful. We all see and hear what the nearest University or the power house teams are doing, but we forget that they probably weren't doing those things before they got there.
|
|
|
|
Post by mjgrant82 on Nov 29, 2010 20:17:23 GMT -6
I first heard about it in that book. My confusion was if the games approach would include a skelley, where points are given based on ints, catches, etc. Would it count as the games approach if you gave a team 4 chances to "score"? Is it as easy as turning drills like inside hull, skelly, 2 minute drill into a game with a reward? Also, the book does not say that drlls are worthless. However, I just find some drills do not translate onto what happens on the football field. The book is awesome, and the games approach is blowing me away. What I like about it is it focuses on developing football sense. Instead of over coaching (something I am guilty of), you use questioning to lead a player to a conclusion and they learn through playing. This way the athlete learns on their own through the way the coach shapes each game. I also like that in a game, competition is stressed. My quest this offseason is to find a way to make pursuit into a game. And as an elementary teacher, shaping learning through games is right up my alley!
|
|
mcrsa75
Sophomore Member
Posts: 116
|
Post by mcrsa75 on Nov 29, 2010 21:45:04 GMT -6
I read about the concept in the same book. I think that this method is consistent with the modern trends of teaching in general. I think it works well with kids who possess a certain skill level. Otherwise, you will find yourself constantly stop to reinforce a basic technique. In my mind, this approach is learning by doing. Too often, educators want to throw out the good with the bad. I would try to combine the traditional with this "games" method.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachguy83 on Nov 29, 2010 21:57:17 GMT -6
Since I am not a teacher I had to be certified by ASEP in order to coach in Illinois. They have an entire unit that deals with the games approach and I found it pretty interesting. The thing that the unit stresses is that drills are important for teaching the fundamentals of the sport, but once players have a grasp of the fundamentals it is more enjoyable for them to play "games." This is something I try to use as much as possible with my linemen. We will do the sumo drill where the winner stays and the loser has to do push ups. We will divide into two teams and do 1 on 1 pass rush/pass blocking drill where we keep score and the losing team has to do push ups.
I coach at the freshmen level and our HC is good about even using this during team and conditioning. During team we will give each of our squads two possessions. So they have three downs to get a first down, or at least a fourth a short or the possession is over. I like it because it gets our kids playing in game situations and I hope they think about things like down and distance because of it. With conditioning we break up and do a three station circuit quite a bit. We always include a shuttle run race that is sometimes individuals and sometimes in teams. Again we'll make the loser(s) do something like pushups.
|
|
|
|
Post by prostylespread on Nov 29, 2010 22:08:07 GMT -6
What I like about it is it focuses on developing football sense. Instead of over coaching (something I am guilty of), you use questioning to lead a player to a conclusion and they learn through playing. This way the athlete learns on their own through the way the coach shapes each game. I also like that in a game, competition is stressed. My quest this offseason is to find a way to make pursuit into a game. And as an elementary teacher, shaping learning through games is right up my alley! Right on fellow elementary school teacher! Maybe make it timed and have each group compete to win against a set expected time based on their ability level. If they are successful in the effort or skills necessary to meet the expectation then they have fewer repetitions or even get to do something fun as a reward as opposed to more repetitions or added conditioning. As a PE teacher I know that motivation works way better when it is positive and rewarding so I try to use this to get better quality out of my drills. Last summer we had a four down passing competition where the offense scored a point if they completed a pass or got a first down. Defense scored a point if they had a pass knockdown, coverage sack (timed), or prevented a first down. Each group had 4 downs on both offense and defense to earn points for their team. Since the offense usually has the advantage, I kept the play calls simple and repetitive so players would learn how to compete against more challenging situations. The biggest challenge in doing all this was creating fair teams. The kids enjoyed it though and we felt like it gave us many coachable moments. My off-season goal is to think of ways to keep the scout teams motivated in practice such as if they record x number of stops then they have no conditioning and for each additional number the first team has extra conditioning. |
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Nov 30, 2010 7:59:37 GMT -6
Having not researched this yet, I pose this question. Would the following fall into this 'games' concept?
- 2nd and 8. 1s vs 1s, best of 5
- 3rd and 4, same senario
- WR/DB 1 on 1, best 5 vs best 5
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Nov 30, 2010 9:39:57 GMT -6
I may be thick (well, OK, there's no "maybe") but I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around this concept. I'm especially uncertain about the idea that after a player has "mastered" the fundamentals you should stop drilling and go to competitive stuff. Am I reading that wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachguy83 on Nov 30, 2010 16:05:01 GMT -6
I may be thick (well, OK, there's no "maybe") but I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around this concept. I'm especially uncertain about the idea that after a player has "mastered" the fundamentals you should stop drilling and go to competitive stuff. Am I reading that wrong? You are reading it correctly, but taking it the wrong way I think. You are still drilling in that the "games" focus on the techniques that they need to be successful. You are just doing it a less monotonious way. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Nov 30, 2010 18:43:31 GMT -6
I may be thick (well, OK, there's no "maybe") but I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around this concept. I'm especially uncertain about the idea that after a player has "mastered" the fundamentals you should stop drilling and go to competitive stuff. Am I reading that wrong? You are reading it correctly, but taking it the wrong way I think. You are still drilling in that the "games" focus on the techniques that they need to be successful. You are just doing it a less monotonious way. So, how do I make a game out of lead step, power step? |
|
|
|
Post by mjgrant82 on Nov 30, 2010 21:44:47 GMT -6
The way I understand it from you guys as well as the book, is that its up to you on how to use drills along with the team stuff. I think I mentioned this earlier, but I have been thinking a lot on something like pursuit. To me, it gets too boring and players just go through the motion. Its not game like to have a defense on air take angles. A few times I did what I call a challenge drill, where I took secondary and skill guys, and had one center, a qb, fb, and rb vs a dl, 2 olb, and a s. in about a 10 X 7 rectangle, the o had 4 chances to score. It gave guys a chance to play out of position, while working on tackling. Best of all, everyone got into it (even the sidelines), and people were competitive. That is an example of the games approach, right? However, some drills just are drills as I understand it, and don't need to be a game.
|
|
|
|
Post by prostylespread on Nov 30, 2010 22:44:39 GMT -6
I have used the games approach only after players have been instructed in the basic fundamentals of a block as well as a blocking scheme. The games approach is when you put it all together in a dynamic situation such as 4 downs to get a first. It works best in my opinion when you simplify the situation and only run one or two schemes or plays but the players are educated to know that they can be successful when they execute correctly and adjust on the fly correctly. A couple of examples I can think of are a zone read option from shotgun or a power/counter scheme from the I. You can run the same couple of plays in a row and be successful if you execute fundamentals within the scheme and understand when to run them. Every play will not look the same and the defense will adjust. This is where the games approach comes into play. Players get competitive because of the challenge and then you have learning situations where as a coach you can guide them through adjusting to what the defense has changed. If you are running a pass play it is a great opportunity to coach up different strategies in different down and distance situations. It simulates a real game situation such as 3rd and short take the quick out route don't go for the low percentage home run. Too often we as coaches (myself included) just throw up one or two defenses and don't account for any adjustments. Good teams can adjust on the fly and know exactly what to do when one thing doesn't work any more. The more I can get my players to take ownership and be smarter on the field the more confidence I believe they will have. I also can't stand when a player has the nerve to tell me that the play won't work because of what a defense is doing. For some plays I want them to have the mentality that they will make it work no matter what the defense shows. I am still experimenting with how to make this strategy work but I think it is something definitely worth including in practices when applicable.
|
|
