|
|
Post by carookie on Feb 12, 2017 18:27:12 GMT -6
So a recent thread (the one about time spent on the chalkboard) got me reflecting about how much time HS programs waste instructing in generally ineffective ways (lots of time standing at the whiteboard with players zoning out with a notebook in front of them). As I continued reflecting I realized that a lot of coaches I know who tend to be wasteful in instruction time tend to not be trained as educators, rather most of them come from coaching in the college ranks.
Now I have asked a number of these coaches about this, and a number of them seem to justify their actions by stating they are running their program like a college program (lots of install, chalk time, diverse playbook, meetings, etc.) Now, I have seen them sell this to college coaches in an attempt to help their players get recruited- the college coaches seem to be impressed by this but who knows if that is just being polite.
So I wonder if this is something you all have noticed as a growing trend? Also, do any of you ascribe to this mentality of emulating what is done at the next level even if it is less effective in creating wins at your level?
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Feb 12, 2017 19:25:40 GMT -6
We've had guys get recruited and the college coaches told us that they liked our guys because they're used to hard coaching and know how to practice hard. Never heard one say that they cared about how they are in meetings.
|
|
|
|
Post by chi5hi on Feb 12, 2017 19:37:45 GMT -6
The "next level" depends highly upon what we teach at this level. That means blocking and tackling, not necessarily X's and O's.
Team meetings and chalks are good, and necessary up to a point, but you don't teach blocking and tackling at the white board.
I would rather spend time on the field working INDYS and walk-throughs than to use that time in lots of team meetings. Certainly knowing what to do is important...but being able to actually do it is critical.
At the "next level" they'll get all of the team meetings and chalks they can handle. They won't even get there if they can't perform.
My 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluboy on Feb 12, 2017 19:50:28 GMT -6
We've had guys get recruited and the college coaches told us that they liked our guys because they're used to hard coaching and know how to practice hard. Never heard one say that they cared about how they are in meetings. Same with us!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Feb 12, 2017 20:02:07 GMT -6
In my opinion...
TEAM meetings are mostly waste of time because of what you guys have said...
POSITION meetings are worth their weight in gold...
I'm still a firm believer in big-small-big, and the first big has to be to understand the entire scheme of what you are trying to do. That is a lot of information. Gotta download that into their brains so they have some kind of context of what you are trying to do. Then you gotta hit the field and do the small. Learning to L-cut as a wingT running back because of what is going on in front of me with the blocking is gonna not only increase the buy-in, but also giving them a better understanding of why they are doing it.
Most of the time I go to a college and spend a day, they have never met as an entire team. Only by position, or at the very biggest, as the 9on7 group or the 7on7 group. Only times I've seen entire offense or entire defense in the same meeting is for program-level things like teambuilding and program development type stuff. Everything else is just the QBs, just the RBs, just the DBs, etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Vint on Feb 13, 2017 9:15:25 GMT -6
If you meet as an entire offense or defense, you will not get as much out of your meetings. The fact is, if you can have smaller groups meeting, they can ask more questions and get clarification when they don't understand something. If you are not two platoon you meet in offensive position groups then defensive position groups. We did this for years meeting with each group.
Even in our program building, character, and leadership activities we spent more time in smaller groups. Meet as a team to introduce the topic. Then meet in small groups to discuss. That was much more effective.
If you take your position meetings further, you get them up and moving around. We have a little bit of board work, but our board work involves more looking at pictures than drawing X's and O's. I like to show film on the white board and draw lines that way. Then you have them walk through. Getting them moving is very beneficial.
To make this work you have to coach your coaches. It is vital they have confidence in what they are presenting.
I like meetings to be limited to 25 minutes at the longest. The more engaging your coach is, the better the meetings will run. Each team is different, and some teams can't handle more than 10 minutes. Gage your team and what they need, then structure your meetings accordingly.
I don't think having meetings is running a program like a college. We have had meetings everywhere I have been. We have had team meetings and position meetings. I am not criticizing those who don't have meetings, I just haven't been a part of a high school or college program that didn't meet at least three days a week with our position groups.
We film practice and watch film during meetings as well. I pick 3 or four reps each day that we are going to watch and we focus on those. Our meetings typically have a 2minute review of the previous day's practice. 10 minutes of film. 5 Minutes of install, and a 3 minute overview of that day's practice. That is for a 20 minute meeting with a position group.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Feb 13, 2017 22:12:34 GMT -6
I know exactly the meetings you're talking about, and they really influence how I run my meetings. I put a lot of effort into making sure my meetings are organized and have a lot of audience interaction.
First I'll go through the week's install stuff. Make sure it's an open environment to ask questions.
Then where possible we look at clips of that play in different scenarios, picking five or six examples that cover the different things I want to discuss.
Then I pull up some weird examples and we discuss how to handle them, especially weird blitzes. Suggestions are welcomed.
Then I have a scout report and a ready sheet. I pick a player, give him a play and a front/blitz, and he has to draw it. Then he gets to pick the play/defence for the next guy, and around we go.
When we go over yesterdays practice I'm very particular to take the 80-odd clips and cut it down to maybe 12 where there's something truly coachable. I have an advantage working with the backs obviously, but I don't include something like a pass where they had no block to make. That really makes meetings go quicker.
Game review is the same. I keep the plays that either have something good or something bad. It's usually like 10 bad and 2/3 good but I also really play up the good.
A lot of times in practice we'll walk through schemes with just the backs standing in for the OL and defence. That seems to really help them see how every part fits.
Scout reports we go through the reports and we use the drill down feature to pull up clips of any weird stuff so we can look at it right away.
Those meetings where the OC goes through and makes 12 comments on every play? That's over 1000 comments! Full O game review really needs to be cut down to a similar number. 10-12 plays that really influenced the game from a whole offense perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Feb 14, 2017 6:38:14 GMT -6
Our program is run like a college program for the most part. We do have full team meetings, but the chalk talk part is usually only 10-15 minutes and film for about 15-20 minutes. Our kids are well behaved for the 30-40 minutes. The HC set the tone for that early.
|
|
