|
|
Post by shocktroop34 on Apr 25, 2014 11:25:28 GMT -6
I've been reading up on a few basketball coaches that actually chart "toughness" plays during a game. Relative term, right? Right. I get that. But, it made me start thinking if something like this was possible in football. Of course, any suggestion would be debatable (and I hate to even open the door to a debatable topic as I never understand why coaches spend so much of their day debating with someone who's mind is not going to be changed anyway-rant over), but the idea is still intriguing to me. I read every post on this thread, Measuring Toughness in which some very good points were made by many. But the idea of actually looking for physical acts of toughness in direct correlation to the execution of scheme was never discussed. I think b-ball guys see many (but not all) non-physical/finesse/soft type players in their game that they actually have creative ideas to promote toughness. One coach charted the following actions: Physical screens, deflections, 50/50 balls, and charges. What would be some equivalent actions in a football game? And whatever concept you identified, would it be worth it to you/your program to chart it in order improve overall output? blb made a great statement when he said "I don't know how to quantify toughness, but I know it when I see it. " That's what I'm asking...what am I looking at "when I see it?" And is it something worth noting? As I was typing a few things started to come to me: what if a player gave/received a big hit and got up first. i.e. RB, sweep left, finds cut back lane, but gets smashed by LB. RB is 150, LB is 215 (this may be irrelevant). RB gets up first or quickly after hit. Could be labeled "Bounce Back." Another thought, I always like when a skilled player dips his shoulder and heads back toward the field to get an extra yard or two as opposed to running out of bounds (if the game situation permitted such an action). What about a DT that thoroughly beats a double team? I know it's his job, but what if he showed extra effort (ran down the RB or made a sack) in doing so? Or the WR that springs a big play because he was working is a$$ off 15 yards down field. The 5'8 corner that jams the dog sh*t out of a 6'1 receiver and rides him into the cheap seats. I mean wouldn't a kid beam inside if he was recognized in a film session for things like that? Yes, it is objective Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it being objective as the game, in and of itself, is objective. The thread I referenced above was considered dumb by a few coaches. To each his own. You can crap on this thread if you so choose, but I'm the type that tries to find any slight edge I can to help me get the most out of my players. For what it's worth, there are a lot of creative guys on this site, and I thought to seek your insight. Maybe it is just dumb. If that is the consensus, I'll wash my hands of it and move on. But thanks to those who give it some thought. |
|
|
|
Post by coachphillip on Apr 25, 2014 11:32:14 GMT -6
I don't know about charting. Seems interesting. Seems like a hit sticker type of deal would be easier to incorporate. But, just because it's easier doesn't mean it's better. Got me thinking, coach.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Apr 25, 2014 11:34:23 GMT -6
Of course, any suggestion would be debatable (and I hate to even open the door to a debatable topic as I never understand why coaches spend so much of their day debating with someone who's mind is not going to be changed anyway-rant over), but the idea is still intriguing to me. Why not bring up debatable topics? They're the only ones worth discussing. The answer to your question is simple. This is a public forum and every point that's made here is made to everyone who reads the thread, not just one poster. When you debate a guy who's mind is made up you're not trying to convince him. That ship has sailed. You're really talking to other readers whose minds are not made up. A different perspective on the question- why ask a question if your mind is already made up? |
|
|
|
Post by PIGSKIN11 on Apr 25, 2014 11:53:08 GMT -6
I've been reading up on a few basketball coaches that actually chart "toughness" plays during a game. Relative term, right? Right. I get that. But, it made me start thinking if something like this was possible in football. Of course, any suggestion would be debatable (and I hate to even open the door to a debatable topic as I never understand why coaches spend so much of their day debating with someone who's mind is not going to be changed anyway-rant over), but the idea is still intriguing to me. I read every post on this thread, Measuring Toughness in which some very good points were made by many. But the idea of actually looking for physical acts of toughness in direct correlation to the execution of scheme was never discussed. I think b-ball guys see many (but not all) non-physical/finesse/soft type players in their game that they actually have creative ideas to promote toughness. One coach charted the following actions: Physical screens, deflections, 50/50 balls, and charges. What would be some equivalent actions in a football game? And whatever concept you identified, would it be worth it to you/your program to chart it in order improve overall output? blb made a great statement when he said "I don't know how to quantify toughness, but I know it when I see it. " That's what I'm asking...what am I looking at "when I see it?" And is it something worth noting? As I was typing a few things started to come to me: what if a player gave/received a big hit and got up first. i.e. RB, sweep left, finds cut back lane, but gets smashed by LB. RB is 150, LB is 215 (this may be irrelevant). RB gets up first or quickly after hit. Could be labeled "Bounce Back." Another thought, I always like when a skilled player dips his shoulder and heads back toward the field to get an extra yard or two as opposed to running out of bounds (if the game situation permitted such an action). What about a DT that thoroughly beats a double team? I know it's his job, but what if he showed extra effort (ran down the RB or made a sack) in doing so? Or the WR that springs a big play because he was working is a$$ off 15 yards down field. The 5'8 corner that jams the dog sh*t out of a 6'1 receiver and rides him into the cheap seats. I mean wouldn't a kid beam inside if he was recognized in a film session for things like that? Yes, it is objective Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it being objective as the game, in and of itself, is objective. The thread I referenced above was considered dumb by a few coaches. To each his own. You can crap on this thread if you so choose, but I'm the type that tries to find any slight edge I can to help me get the most out of my players. For what it's worth, there are a lot of creative guys on this site, and I thought to seek your insight. Maybe it is just dumb. If that is the consensus, I'll wash my hands of it and move on. But thanks to those who give it some thought. Funny this is a basketball thing - when they all flop and act like little sissy soccer players nowadays.... OK - sorry for the vent - I am a big Warriors fan and Blake Griffin is a freaking crybaby flopper... Great player but no respect for his European soccer theatrics.... |
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Apr 25, 2014 11:54:58 GMT -6
I used to use a 3pt system per play:
1. Task - did you do the right assignment, step the right way, run the right route etc
2. Technique - body position, leverage, etc
3. Toughness - it encompassed things like finishing to the whistle, pursuit, getting up quickly after getting knocked down, etc.
I liked it. It provided alot of opportunity to praise those who do all those things and encourage others to keep working on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Apr 25, 2014 12:00:58 GMT -6
I've been reading up on a few basketball coaches that actually chart "toughness" plays during a game. Relative term, right? Right. I get that. But, it made me start thinking if something like this was possible in football. Of course, any suggestion would be debatable (and I hate to even open the door to a debatable topic as I never understand why coaches spend so much of their day debating with someone who's mind is not going to be changed anyway-rant over), but the idea is still intriguing to me. I read every post on this thread, Measuring Toughness in which some very good points were made by many. But the idea of actually looking for physical acts of toughness in direct correlation to the execution of scheme was never discussed. I think b-ball guys see many (but not all) non-physical/finesse/soft type players in their game that they actually have creative ideas to promote toughness. One coach charted the following actions: Physical screens, deflections, 50/50 balls, and charges. What would be some equivalent actions in a football game? And whatever concept you identified, would it be worth it to you/your program to chart it in order improve overall output? blb made a great statement when he said "I don't know how to quantify toughness, but I know it when I see it. " That's what I'm asking...what am I looking at "when I see it?" And is it something worth noting? As I was typing a few things started to come to me: what if a player gave/received a big hit and got up first. i.e. RB, sweep left, finds cut back lane, but gets smashed by LB. RB is 150, LB is 215 (this may be irrelevant). RB gets up first or quickly after hit. Could be labeled "Bounce Back." Another thought, I always like when a skilled player dips his shoulder and heads back toward the field to get an extra yard or two as opposed to running out of bounds (if the game situation permitted such an action). What about a DT that thoroughly beats a double team? I know it's his job, but what if he showed extra effort (ran down the RB or made a sack) in doing so? Or the WR that springs a big play because he was working is a$$ off 15 yards down field. The 5'8 corner that jams the dog sh*t out of a 6'1 receiver and rides him into the cheap seats. I mean wouldn't a kid beam inside if he was recognized in a film session for things like that? Yes, it is objective Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it being objective as the game, in and of itself, is objective. The thread I referenced above was considered dumb by a few coaches. To each his own. You can crap on this thread if you so choose, but I'm the type that tries to find any slight edge I can to help me get the most out of my players. For what it's worth, there are a lot of creative guys on this site, and I thought to seek your insight. Maybe it is just dumb. If that is the consensus, I'll wash my hands of it and move on. But thanks to those who give it some thought. I think any coach worth his salt already goes out of his way to single out players who do these things. I don't see any way to make everything objective or any need to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by shocktroop34 on Apr 25, 2014 12:01:50 GMT -6
I don't know about charting. Seems interesting. Seems like a hit sticker type of deal would be easier to incorporate. But, just because it's easier doesn't mean it's better. Got me thinking, coach. Right. I thought about stickers, too. Then there are some who don't use stickers. The thought I had was to try and keep it simple, like 2-3 per position. IDK. Even still, I would assume that those things would vary from program to program. I guess what I was hoping for is that guys would start generating ideas on what a "toughness play" looks like to them within the game itself. We all may see a variety of different things, which, I guess is the whole purpose. And at the end of the thread, someone may say, these (x amount) of things are worth highlighting in our program. |
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Apr 25, 2014 12:06:54 GMT -6
We just call out toughness when we see it.
We also call out not being tough when we see it.
We reward helmet stickers for other things.
Being tough is just simply expected.
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Apr 25, 2014 12:22:19 GMT -6
"Big Hits" or perhaps more accurately collisions are not always indicators of toughness because of the Kinesiology factor.
We tell our kids that to be a successful Football player (and by extension, successful team) they have to take pride in doing difficult things well.
When I see them doing difficult things well, that's one sign of toughness.
But I don't know how to put a grade or a percentage on that.
|
|
|
|
Post by shocktroop34 on Apr 25, 2014 18:54:25 GMT -6
Of course, any suggestion would be debatable (and I hate to even open the door to a debatable topic as I never understand why coaches spend so much of their day debating with someone who's mind is not going to be changed anyway-rant over), but the idea is still intriguing to me. Why not bring up debatable topics? They're the only ones worth discussing.The answer to your question is simple. This is a public forum and every point that's made here is made to everyone who reads the thread, not just one poster. When you debate a guy who's mind is made up you're not trying to convince him. That ship has sailed. You're really talking to other readers whose minds are not made up. A different perspective on the question- why ask a question if your mind is already made up? Since you ask, I try to avoid debatable topics because I don't come on this site looking for debate. I come here looking for answers. I come here looking for help (and providing help) so football games can be won. If 200 people read a post, and there is only one response, then maybe it just a sh*tty thread. But even in that one response, it might be the one thing that person was looking for. So, it ultimately turns out to be successful after all. Unless an OP is open ended, inviting debate, then I think it is a monumental waste of time. When someone posts a thread asking for specific ideas, one can either contribute, or not. And because it is a public forum (which I was aware of prior to your reminder) those that do contribute are generally very helpful. However, those that offer something other than what is requested, hinder the learning process, not only for the person requesting help, but everyone else that clicks on the thread wondering what information they might find. I will say that I understand your point on asking a question with your "mind already made up" as that happens often. Yet, with many people, it's not about having one's mind made up. It is more about thinking along a certain track. When considering a response, readers have to ask themselves, can I get on that track? If not, give your fingers a rest. If so, let it flow. At the same time, we're talking about human nature as most OP's come from basic initial ideas that progress into more developed thoughts, which inadvertently creates a stronger attachment. It is just a part of the natural mental process to become more connected to those ideas. Back to my point, 33coach said "if you ask a general question, expect a general answer." That makes perfect sense. However, when something specific is asked, is it wrong to expect specific feedback? We obviously have different philosophies, but your comments are noted. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Apr 25, 2014 19:07:05 GMT -6
We obviously have different philosophies, but your comments are noted. As are yours. |
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Apr 25, 2014 22:30:33 GMT -6
One thing that comes to mind when you talk about toughness plays would be second effort by a runningback. He's hit, he's stopped, but somehow he gets another yard. Or he heads for the pylon with two defenders in the way and splits them like bowling pins instead of trying to outrun them.
The OL who is stalemated only to keep on keeping on and eventually wins the battle. The QB who makes the throw and takes the hit.
On D you could be looking for relentless block destruction and pursuit. Also the second effort tackles.
|
|
|
|
Post by tothehouse on Apr 25, 2014 23:10:28 GMT -6
I kinda lean with fantom on this. I think that toughness should be expected. How did that linebacker win the position? He was probably tougher than the kid behind him. How did the OL man become the starter/every down player? Probably partly/mostly because of his toughness.
In film, practice, etc. call that {censored} out. "Billy just knocked the piss out of Bobby...that is the toughness we need". I don't think Billy needs a sticker for that. Then Billy goes out and destroys the other team's RB and you point that out later. "Love that stuff Billy" "Keep that up. That's what we're all about".
Heck between self scouting and scouting the other opponents...one thing I shouldn't have to chart is "what is tough".
Now...making your players tough....that could be rewarded. But to me...that is weight room prowess.
My $.02
|
|
|
|
Post by gators1422 on Apr 26, 2014 6:14:23 GMT -6
We have a hitman award, we as coaches vote the top 3 hits of the week and keep points all year. We give out a championship type belt each week to the hitman. The kid who accumulates the most points all year gets his name engraved in the belt. The kids LOVE it!!!! Now on the other hand we expect are kids to play tough. If they don't in a game we give them a PLP "playing like p****" and they are called out and have to bear crawl for it. Just the shame of being called out during film is usually a great motivator.
|
|
|
|
Post by shocktroop34 on Apr 26, 2014 7:39:45 GMT -6
I kinda lean with fantom on this. I think that toughness should be expected. How did that linebacker win the position? He was probably tougher than the kid behind him. How did the OL man become the starter/every down player? Probably partly/mostly because of his toughness. In film, practice, etc. call that {censored} out. "Billy just knocked the piss out of Bobby...that is the toughness we need". I don't think Billy needs a sticker for that. Then Billy goes out and destroys the other team's RB and you point that out later. "Love that stuff Billy" "Keep that up. That's what we're all about". Heck between self scouting and scouting the other opponents...one thing I shouldn't have to chart is "what is tough". Now...making your players tough....that could be rewarded. But to me...that is weight room prowess. My $.02 I hear you loud and clear. And maybe the OP implies that toughness needs to be charted because there is an absence of it or it is not expected. On the contrary. Because there is a certain level of toughness, how do you continue to highlight toughness in an already tough program? It was more about taking toughness to the next level. You, me, fantom, or anyone else are not in disagreement about whether or not toughness should be expected. But the intent was trying to open up a dialog on what a toughness play would consist of in the eyes of the beholder. Yes, toughness is objective, and yes it will vary from coach to coach. But this was never about whether is was expected or not. I was doing the same thing everyone else was doing. When I saw toughness, I was quick to point it out. In the same manner, when I saw someone loaf, take a play off, get destroyed, I jumped all over that, too. What I think I was trying to challenge myself to do was look at the game a little closer. To actually put a set of criteria in front of players that might help their performance and help us win. RB: Break multiple tackles, second effort as groundchuck indicated (maybe a third effort is truly toughness), Deliver the big hit/block (Now I wouldn't chart: the big run, a great catch, or a nifty move because, as others have indicated, those things are a part of the job. That is talent, not toughness) OL: What does a toughness play look like from the OL's perspective? I don't spend a lot of time with the OL, so an OL coach may have a better idea. Just for kicks: Wins long stalemate, Regains leverage to win block, Multiple knockdowns on one play (Those ideas probably sucked, but, for us, even though we chart pancakes and knock downs, they are not necessarily toughness plays. Those are expectations. Plays they want to make to keep their job. But toughness is that extra thing they do) A coach could either provide a sticker or have a list of guys that he will call out, have them stand up after film to be applauded by all. After every film session, kids will be sitting with anticipation hoping to hear their name. I started stickers a few years ago, and the players act like 3rd graders. They love it. Obviously, this is not for everybody, but this is right up my alley. I think I have enough to go on to know what I need for my team. It may take a while, but when I finish a chart, I'll post it. I appreciate the dialog and input from everybody. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Apr 26, 2014 8:41:38 GMT -6
I used to give out cookies for that sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottbailey on Apr 26, 2014 8:45:44 GMT -6
My opinion for what its worth...
I think we are talking about two different things....toughness and extra effort. Even with the chart the basketball coach is using I think he is talking about physical/mental toughness with the charges taken (and honestly, sometimes I see it better in charges given) and screens. But with loose balls and deflections I think that is more an indication of extra effort plays than physical/mental toughness plays.
Probably the biggest area I see physical/mental toughness is how a player deals with injuries/pain. For the more serious injuries, how do they fight through the mental part and attack the rehab. For the minor injuries, how much practice/weight room time do they miss? How important is it to them to get their reps in practice and sets in the weight room to show their teammates they are preparing for game day? For the normal pain that comes with playing football, do they accept it and keep playing full speed or do they use it as an excuse to give less than full effort....especially when things are not going our way?
Scott Bailey
Lamar HS
Lamar, Missouri
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 26, 2014 8:53:00 GMT -6
Now on the other hand we expect are kids to play tough. If they don't in a game we give them a PLP "playing like p****" and they are called out and have to bear crawl for it. Just the shame of being called out during film is usually a great motivator. I would watch your back with this one. It is an indefensible position/action. Even as an AC you can be taken down by not reporting this type of thing. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Apr 26, 2014 8:54:21 GMT -6
I kinda lean with fantom on this. I think that toughness should be expected. How did that linebacker win the position? He was probably tougher than the kid behind him. How did the OL man become the starter/every down player? Probably partly/mostly because of his toughness. In film, practice, etc. call that {censored} out. "Billy just knocked the piss out of Bobby...that is the toughness we need". I don't think Billy needs a sticker for that. Then Billy goes out and destroys the other team's RB and you point that out later. "Love that stuff Billy" "Keep that up. That's what we're all about". Heck between self scouting and scouting the other opponents...one thing I shouldn't have to chart is "what is tough". Now...making your players tough....that could be rewarded. But to me...that is weight room prowess. My $.02 I hear you loud and clear. And maybe the OP implies that toughness needs to be charted because there is an absence of it or it is not expected. On the contrary. Because there is a certain level of toughness, how do you continue to highlight toughness in an already tough program? It was more about taking toughness to the next level. You, me, fantom, or anyone else are not in disagreement about whether or not toughness should be expected. But the intent was trying to open up a dialog on what a toughness play would consist of in the eyes of the beholder. Yes, toughness is objective, and yes it will vary from coach to coach. But this was never about whether is was expected or not. I was doing the same thing everyone else was doing. When I saw toughness, I was quick to point it out. In the same manner, when I saw someone loaf, take a play off, get destroyed, I jumped all over that, too. What I think I was trying to challenge myself to do was look at the game a little closer. To actually put a set of criteria in front of players that might help their performance and help us win. RB: Break multiple tackles, second effort as groundchuck indicated (maybe a third effort is truly toughness), Deliver the big hit/block (Now I wouldn't chart: the big run, a great catch, or a nifty move because, as others have indicated, those things are a part of the job. That is talent, not toughness) OL: What does a toughness play look like from the OL's perspective? I don't spend a lot of time with the OL, so an OL coach may have a better idea. Just for kicks: Wins long stalemate, Regains leverage to win block, Multiple knockdowns on one play (Those ideas probably sucked, but, for us, even though we chart pancakes and knock downs, they are not necessarily toughness plays. Those are expectations. Plays they want to make to keep their job. But toughness is that extra thing they do) A coach could either provide a sticker or have a list of guys that he will call out, have them stand up after film to be applauded by all. After every film session, kids will be sitting with anticipation hoping to hear their name. I started stickers a few years ago, and the players act like 3rd graders. They love it. Obviously, this is not for everybody, but this is right up my alley. I think I have enough to go on to know what I need for my team. It may take a while, but when I finish a chart, I'll post it. I appreciate the dialog and input from everybody. I never said that toughness should just be expected. I definitely think it should be pointed out and even rewarded. I just don't think that it's possible to make an objective list of specific "toughness" plays. I've coached OL for years and couldn't make a list. Does a player have to win a play spectacularly for it to be considered a "toughness" play? Like Blb said, that could be because our guy just physically outclassed the other guy. To me, toughness on the OL just means finishing the block. Pancaking an inferior opponent is nice but isn't it more impressive if our guy just barely wins the play by staying on the block against a well-matched opponent? Does s guy even need to win a play to display toughness and courage? How about a guy who's on a "suicide mission"- maybe a 140 lb. corner who has to take on a 240 lb. fullback who has a head of steam in the open field. If throws all of his $hit up there but loses the battle of Mass x Velocity didn't he show toughness? You can't grade everything with a rubric. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 26, 2014 9:08:29 GMT -6
You can't grade everything with a rubric. Shhhhhhhhh The Dept of Education has imprisoned people for saying this!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Apr 26, 2014 9:13:47 GMT -6
You can't grade everything with a rubric. Shhhhhhhhh The Dept of Education has imprisoned people for saying this!!! Remember, I'm retired (Hee hee hee). |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Apr 26, 2014 9:32:25 GMT -6
On a somewhat related topic, I'm still waiting for some weight lifting guru to provide the scientific formula for "Explosiveness."
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 26, 2014 9:33:50 GMT -6
Shhhhhhhhh The Dept of Education has imprisoned people for saying this!!! Remember, I'm retired (Hee hee hee). You are a fool if you think that protects you from educational reform |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Apr 26, 2014 14:05:41 GMT -6
I think what we may be talking about here is "Contact Courage."
Easier to see than quantify.
That said, one of the best players I ever had was not what I would call a "hitter" by any means but he was a play-maker.
In fact when he had the ball in his hands his fear of getting hit made him run faster and more elusive.
As a Senior he was All-Conference WR, DB, Kicker, AND Punter.
He would Stalk or Crack block and make open field tackles when called upon to do so, but none were going to be highlight reel stuff.
Just effective.
But catching-running, covering, and kicking - boy, was he a difference-maker.
|
|
|
|
Post by shocktroop34 on Apr 26, 2014 17:21:35 GMT -6
I think what we may be talking about here is "Contact Courage." Easier to see than quantify. That said, one of the best players I ever had was not what I would call a "hitter" by any means but he was a play-maker. In fact when he had the ball in his hands his fear of getting hit made him run faster and more elusive. As a Senior he was All-Conference WR, DB, Kicker, AND Punter. He would Stalk or Crack block and make open field tackles when called upon to do so, but none were going to be highlight reel stuff. Just effective. But catching-running, covering, and kicking - boy, was he a difference-maker. First, I love the phrase "contact courage." Second, I had a player almost identical to the one you described. Even the characteristics of being hit were spot on. He was the only player that I ever coached, when he was in the open field, could make the first guy miss, every single time. He didn't want to get hit. He plays for Towson now. He was the same kid that exemplifies a point that fantom made about not winning a play to show toughness. We were playing a team that had a LB that committed to Ohio State. They just scored and were kicking off. The LB was on kick cover and my little lamb was returning the kick. I thought my kid was going to break it as he crossed the 40 what looked like open field. The LB was playing safety and came out of no where and completely crushed our RB. To this day, I can hear the crowd as there wasn't any cheers, but that 'Oooooh!' sound you hear at a boxing match when someone gets tagged. It was the hardest hit I've ever seen and it was right in front of me. I seriously thought he might have been killed. I ran over to him, and he was stunned for a second. In fact, the hit made tears come out of his eyes. When I looked at him, he pulled his mouthpiece out, smiled and said, "Coach I almost broke it." This what I know so far. I'm going to highlight "extra effort," "contact toughness," or whatever fits best. What I don't know is how. From thinking about this further, there might even be something to be said for not categorizing such plays. It could possibly limit their natural play making ability by trying to fit their actions into a certain criteria. Who knows what other plays could be made that come outside of what I might have established for them. Thanks to me convincing fantom of the importance of debate on this site, I never would have received this revelation!  I think I see the light... |
|
|
|
Post by shocktroop34 on Apr 26, 2014 17:32:48 GMT -6
You're the man fantom. Now, if you could please pass me a fork, I'd like to get started on this humble pie.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Apr 26, 2014 17:34:25 GMT -6
You're the man fantom. Now, if you could please pass me a fork, I'd like to get started on this humble pie. Thanks. I've seen boards where everybody agrees with each other. They're boring. |
|
|
|
Post by shocktroop34 on Apr 26, 2014 17:41:06 GMT -6
I must admit, that was fun. And I learned something along the way. Time for a beer. Thanks coach. Thank you coaches.
|
|
|
|
Post by 4verts on Apr 26, 2014 17:47:13 GMT -6
We charted knock down blocks and yards after contact and run after catch on offense, as well as, explosives. Not because we wanted to reward these plays, but make sure we were getting them.
|
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Apr 26, 2014 18:27:36 GMT -6
One thing we've always done for toughness is point to a former player who had it and challenge kids to meet or exceed his toughness. We had a kid who was a 164 lbs. and played MLB for us and OT. While playing both ways this twerp was one of the best blockers and tacklers we had on back to back playoff teams (yes he started both ways 2 years in a row) as well as all conference. He recorded 117 tackles in one season. We feel this is a pretty good example to use as a measuring stick for toughness. It's tangible because you can measure the fact that he was undersized at both spots, played both ways and still lead our team in tackles. That's pretty tough IMO.
We simply tell our kids if you are tired of hearing about kids from the past then replace them as examples for us to talk about.
|
|
