|
Post by throwthedeepball on Mar 7, 2017 13:32:54 GMT -6
I know I may get crucified for suggesting this, but the longer that I coach, the more I honestly believe that practice has very little correlation to the outcome of games (in all sports). The best team that i have ever been a part of was probably the worst practice team ever. Every day felt like we were pulling teeth trying to get them to do anything that we told them to do. Yet every Friday night we went out and dominated.
Does anyone else feel like we practice because "that's the way it has always been done"? I am not advocating for never practicing at all, but think that as coaches we overvalue practice too much. Anyone else in the same boat?
|
|
|
Post by wiscohscoach on Mar 7, 2017 13:44:14 GMT -6
While I disagree, I disagree for a different reason.
We currently live in a culture where people think the longer you do something, the better it's going to get. Lot of people waste time and claim they are "grinding."
|
|
|
Post by agap on Mar 7, 2017 13:48:34 GMT -6
I've coached teams who didn't always give a lot of effort during practice, but they still took Indy seriously and used the technique they were taught.
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Mar 7, 2017 13:54:35 GMT -6
In HS football I believe about 1/5 of the game are decided before the season even starts, basically the talent discrepancy is soo big that there is no amount of practice the losing team could do to overcome that. They will lose 10 times out of 10 (and usually by a blowout). I have actually talked with coaches here who believe that number to be higher; but the point is there is a variable out there of natural talent that we rarely can control, and I think you are missing out on that in your argument.
Think of it this way. You take that dominant team that sucked at practice but won all the time; and instead of having them practice technique, plays, reads, developing athleticism, etc. just have them show up for Thursday walk-thrus. You give me a team of equal talent, and let me work with them a couple hours a day M-W as well as Thursday walk-thrus. I won't go overkill, just teach and repeat quality technique, practice a simple but sound playbook, and develop athleticism.
Now, what do you think the score is if we play in week 1? How about week 5? I bet the team that practices wins easily in week 1, but by even more in week 5. We are what we repeatedly do.
Now, as was stated above, lots of teams do too much for too long and are counterproductive; so also take that into account.
Point being, gotta find that happy medium .
|
|
|
Post by throwthedeepball on Mar 7, 2017 14:19:53 GMT -6
In HS football I believe about 1/5 of the game are decided before the season even starts, basically the talent discrepancy is soo big that there is no amount of practice the losing team could do to overcome that. They will lose 10 times out of 10 (and usually by a blowout). I have actually talked with coaches here who believe that number to be higher; but the point is there is a variable out there of natural talent that we rarely can control, and I think you are missing out on that in your argument. Think of it this way. You take that dominant team that sucked at practice but won all the time; and instead of having them practice technique, plays, reads, developing athleticism, etc. just have them show up for Thursday walk-thrus. You give me a team of equal talent, and let me work with them a couple hours a day M-W as well as Thursday walk-thrus. I won't go overkill, just teach and repeat quality technique, practice a simple but sound playbook, and develop athleticism. Now, what do you think the score is if we play in week 1? How about week 5? I bet the team that practices wins easily in week 1, but by even more in week 5. We are what we repeatedly do. Now, as was stated above, lots of teams do too much for too long and are counterproductive; so also take that into account.Point being, gotta find that happy medium . See I think that is really where I am coming from. Like I said in the original post, I am not in favor of never practicing (like in your scenario). I hate the feeling of practicing just for the sake of practicing, like saying that we are going to practice from 4:00-6:00 because that's the plan and there is no room for change. If you are having a good day, moving around quickly, and getting things done there is no reason that you cannot accomplish your goals and be done, regardless of what time it is. On the other hand, if you stay out just because you said you were staying until a certain time you lose the kids. I don't want to eliminate practice, I want to change how it is done altogether. I guess the only way to do that is become the head guy.
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Mar 7, 2017 14:40:40 GMT -6
In HS football I believe about 1/5 of the game are decided before the season even starts, basically the talent discrepancy is soo big that there is no amount of practice the losing team could do to overcome that. They will lose 10 times out of 10 (and usually by a blowout). I have actually talked with coaches here who believe that number to be higher; but the point is there is a variable out there of natural talent that we rarely can control, and I think you are missing out on that in your argument. Think of it this way. You take that dominant team that sucked at practice but won all the time; and instead of having them practice technique, plays, reads, developing athleticism, etc. just have them show up for Thursday walk-thrus. You give me a team of equal talent, and let me work with them a couple hours a day M-W as well as Thursday walk-thrus. I won't go overkill, just teach and repeat quality technique, practice a simple but sound playbook, and develop athleticism. Now, what do you think the score is if we play in week 1? How about week 5? I bet the team that practices wins easily in week 1, but by even more in week 5. We are what we repeatedly do. Now, as was stated above, lots of teams do too much for too long and are counterproductive; so also take that into account.Point being, gotta find that happy medium . See I think that is really where I am coming from. Like I said in the original post, I am not in favor of never practicing (like in your scenario). I hate the feeling of practicing just for the sake of practicing, like saying that we are going to practice from 4:00-6:00 because that's the plan and there is no room for change. If you are having a good day, moving around quickly, and getting things done there is no reason that you cannot accomplish your goals and be done, regardless of what time it is. On the other hand, if you stay out just because you said you were staying until a certain time you lose the kids. I don't want to eliminate practice, I want to change how it is done altogether. I guess the only way to do that is become the head guy. I used to work with a HC who did as you said (practiced to the clock). Our summer days were 8am-12noon; most of the time we'd get done about 10:30 with what we needed to do, so he'd fill time with speeches and videos. As I've gotten older in coaching I've learned how to become more efficient in my coaching; in turn I've realized, darn near the exact minute, the amount of time required for things to be done. I'm fairly meticulous in my practice planning (some sessions will be for 7 minutes as opposed to 5 or 10). But this allows for us to get things done correctly without wasting time.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Mar 7, 2017 15:13:33 GMT -6
I have become a minimalist over the years when it comes to practice. Practice is planned in detail, we maximize reps (during all phases of practice) and get a ton done. The kids don't get water breaks, they have water bottles that they bring with them in drills. Every drill is designed to get as many reps as possible and coaches learn to teach on the fly. No one is every standing around, even during team time. We break all of the younger guys into scout teams and we zip through team time. These are just a few of many examples of the types of things we do to maximize our time. We rarely run over an hour and a half.
|
|
jbutch17
Freshmen Member
[F4:@JButch17]
Posts: 95
|
Post by jbutch17 on Mar 7, 2017 15:50:09 GMT -6
In HS football I believe about 1/5 of the game are decided before the season even starts, basically the talent discrepancy is soo big that there is no amount of practice the losing team could do to overcome that. They will lose 10 times out of 10 (and usually by a blowout). I have actually talked with coaches here who believe that number to be higher; but the point is there is a variable out there of natural talent that we rarely can control, and I think you are missing out on that in your argument. Think of it this way. You take that dominant team that sucked at practice but won all the time; and instead of having them practice technique, plays, reads, developing athleticism, etc. just have them show up for Thursday walk-thrus. You give me a team of equal talent, and let me work with them a couple hours a day M-W as well as Thursday walk-thrus. I won't go overkill, just teach and repeat quality technique, practice a simple but sound playbook, and develop athleticism. Now, what do you think the score is if we play in week 1? How about week 5? I bet the team that practices wins easily in week 1, but by even more in week 5. We are what we repeatedly do. Now, as was stated above, lots of teams do too much for too long and are counterproductive; so also take that into account. Point being, gotta find that happy medium . I'd put that number at 2/3
|
|
|
Post by jg78 on Mar 7, 2017 16:19:21 GMT -6
I have coached small school ball (where the talent difference between one team and another is probably larger on a weekly basis than it is in larger classes) all of my career. I have coached in plenty of games where my team could gone down to the beach for the week, spent the whole time drinking beer and chasing tail, and showed up at game time hung over and still would have won. I have also coached a lot of games where Bill Belichick and Co. could have taken my players for three months and still would have been drilled. In games like that, practice isn't the deciding factor. But in the games decided by a TD or two, you better believe good practice habits and established discipline make a big difference in the outcome. That doesn't mean you have to practice for five hours, but you need a good scheme and productive practices.
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Mar 7, 2017 17:22:10 GMT -6
In HS football I believe about 1/5 of the game are decided before the season even starts, basically the talent discrepancy is soo big that there is no amount of practice the losing team could do to overcome that. They will lose 10 times out of 10 (and usually by a blowout). I have actually talked with coaches here who believe that number to be higher; but the point is there is a variable out there of natural talent that we rarely can control, and I think you are missing out on that in your argument. Think of it this way. You take that dominant team that sucked at practice but won all the time; and instead of having them practice technique, plays, reads, developing athleticism, etc. just have them show up for Thursday walk-thrus. You give me a team of equal talent, and let me work with them a couple hours a day M-W as well as Thursday walk-thrus. I won't go overkill, just teach and repeat quality technique, practice a simple but sound playbook, and develop athleticism. Now, what do you think the score is if we play in week 1? How about week 5? I bet the team that practices wins easily in week 1, but by even more in week 5. We are what we repeatedly do. Now, as was stated above, lots of teams do too much for too long and are counterproductive; so also take that into account. Point being, gotta find that happy medium . I'd put that number at 2/3 Its an interesting thing to look at. For me, to declare a game is decided before it starts it would have to be a game in which the winning team wins every time, and wins every time by 24+ points. Anything closer than that indicates to me that there was at least some competition and possibility of the other team winning; but in most cases this is usually a win of 40+ points. So figuring that some 24+ point victories do not fit into one of these "guaranteed victories" (they are games that either team could win but ended up in a large win), you'd have to figure that for that 2/3 number to be accurate probably 75% of games played would have to end up in a blowout. I just don't think thats how it is.
|
|
|
Post by mrjvi on Mar 7, 2017 17:42:12 GMT -6
I'm a contrarian so I LOVE this kind of thread.
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Mar 7, 2017 21:00:28 GMT -6
So let me throw this out there. Is there other benefits to practice outside of football. We are always trying to make quality young men, do we sometimes practice for this purpose? Overcoming adversity, working around a crowded schedule, developing mental toughness- even if we are not benefiting our team in regards to winning football, is there something to be said to practicing for the intrinsic value it provides the players?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2017 22:04:42 GMT -6
What I think is useless is practice where coaches and kids are standing around scratching their balls, no purpose, things not really being accomplished. I'd agree that those practices have no benefit and the argument could be made that they're actually a detriment.
That said, this past year we played a team from a ghetto area that has ATHLETES. I knew nothing about them until they walked out onto the field and I thought, "We're about to witness a massacre." They had 28 kids and only one of them was not athletic, although he was 6'6", 340 lb jelly roll. The rest looked like they were straight out of the combine or an Under Armour advertisement. One of the other assistants looked at me and said, "I hope all of our kids went to Mass today." As their backs & receivers warmed up I thought they were going to air attack & hang 100 on us. But once the game started, after 3 plays it was, "This is a joke and a waste of our time." The other team was so poorly coached that they were just awful. Their kids were just terrible. After the game I spoke to their AD who said that the coach had a hard time getting kids to practice every day so they only practice 3 days a week.
|
|
|
Post by jared10227 on Mar 7, 2017 23:04:46 GMT -6
What I think is useless is practice where coaches and kids are standing around scratching their balls, no purpose, things not really being accomplished. I'd agree that those practices have no benefit and the argument could be made that they're actually a detriment. That said, this past year we played a team from a ghetto area that has ATHLETES. I knew nothing about them until they walked out onto the field and I thought, "We're about to witness a massacre." They had 28 kids and only one of them was not athletic, although he was 6'6", 340 lb jelly roll. The rest looked like they were straight out of the combine or an Under Armour advertisement. One of the other assistants looked at me and said, "I hope all of our kids went to Mass today." As their backs & receivers warmed up I thought they were going to air attack & hang 100 on us. But once the game started, after 3 plays it was, "This is a joke and a waste of our time." The other team was so poorly coached that they were just awful. Their kids were just terrible. After the game I spoke to their AD who said that the coach had a hard time getting kids to practice every day so they only practice 3 days a week. Been a part of the same type of scenario...we were 9-0 going into the last game and the other team was 1-8...if you lined both teams up at their own 45 yard line and determined a winner by athletic ability and how the teams looked physically, you would have thought the records were reversed. But we wore them out on the field 42-6.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Mar 8, 2017 1:04:56 GMT -6
I think the other team always seems to look "better" relative to our own, and I think that's largely just familiarity with our own guys. We're around them every day, we're used to what they look like. We've seen them with their helmets off, we seen them act like kids, etc. The other guys just look like muscular athletic guys in their pads, so I think we look at them and think "holy $hit, look at those guys."
All that said, I think practice matters, but I also think I've coached in way more games each year where the outcome was decided before kickoff than those where the team that practiced the best were going to win.
|
|
jbutch17
Freshmen Member
[F4:@JButch17]
Posts: 95
|
Post by jbutch17 on Mar 8, 2017 6:34:43 GMT -6
I'd put that number at 2/3 Its an interesting thing to look at. For me, to declare a game is decided before it starts it would have to be a game in which the winning team wins every time, and wins every time by 24+ points. Anything closer than that indicates to me that there was at least some competition and possibility of the other team winning; but in most cases this is usually a win of 40+ points. So figuring that some 24+ point victories do not fit into one of these "guaranteed victories" (they are games that either team could win but ended up in a large win), you'd have to figure that for that 2/3 number to be accurate probably 75% of games played would have to end up in a blowout. I just don't think thats how it is. We could make the thresh hold high enough to disprove it. A 3 score game isn't that close, seriously, go down the schedules, you can pick the outcome at about a 66% efficiency.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Mar 8, 2017 6:49:24 GMT -6
So let me throw this out there. Is there other benefits to practice outside of football. We are always trying to make quality young men, do we sometimes practice for this purpose? Overcoming adversity, working around a crowded schedule, developing mental toughness- even if we are not benefiting our team in regards to winning football, is there something to be said to practicing for the intrinsic value it provides the players?
Part of learning how to make and carry out a commitment, being self-disciplined, responsible, and accountable.
Also being part of a group or organization and contributing to a process to achieve a desired outcome.
Taking pride in doing difficult things well rather than going through the motions.
Competing hard every day.
|
|
z
Junior Member
Posts: 332
|
Post by z on Mar 8, 2017 7:32:25 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by blb on Mar 8, 2017 7:34:34 GMT -6
Why we practiced:
A. Learn assignments
B. Refine skills
C. Gain camaraderie
D. Learn capabilities of teammates
E. Develop great game pace (practice hard and tough, coach on the run)
F. Learn Big Picture (rules, situations)
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Mar 8, 2017 8:27:08 GMT -6
So let me throw this out there. Is there other benefits to practice outside of football. We are always trying to make quality young men, do we sometimes practice for this purpose? Overcoming adversity, working around a crowded schedule, developing mental toughness- even if we are not benefiting our team in regards to winning football, is there something to be said to practicing for the intrinsic value it provides the players? We emphasize the "process" a lot with the guys. Putting in the work on the basic skills, building on them and applying them and then seeing the results from the work. I don't think this is something that kids get a lot of in the American education system anymore as I haven't seen a lot of emphasis on work ethic in classrooms anymore. I friggin' cringe when I plug a low test score into the grading system now as there's a good chance I'll get an email or a phone call from a p-ssed off parent. Apparently, telling them that their kid needs to work harder, be more organized and study for tests doesn't apply anymore. I'm going to lose my sh-t if I hear the word "accommodation" one more time this year.
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Mar 8, 2017 8:50:21 GMT -6
Its an interesting thing to look at. For me, to declare a game is decided before it starts it would have to be a game in which the winning team wins every time, and wins every time by 24+ points. Anything closer than that indicates to me that there was at least some competition and possibility of the other team winning; but in most cases this is usually a win of 40+ points. So figuring that some 24+ point victories do not fit into one of these "guaranteed victories" (they are games that either team could win but ended up in a large win), you'd have to figure that for that 2/3 number to be accurate probably 75% of games played would have to end up in a blowout. I just don't think thats how it is. We could make the thresh hold high enough to disprove it. A 3 score game isn't that close, seriously, go down the schedules, you can pick the outcome at about a 66% efficiency. Picking the outcome successfully doesn't mean that the game was decided beforehand with the losing team having no shot. I picked all but one of the NFL playoff games successfully beforehand this season (thats 92%), doesnt mean that the disparity between the two was so great that the losing teams were going to lose every time. If they replayed those games 10x each I am fairly certain you'd get different results. Ergo, the games were not decided beforehand. A Game that is decided beforehand is when Alabama schedules their FCS mid-season rest game, its what would happen if my last school with a 33 man roster throughout the program would play De La Salle; its a game where the winner of that game at their worst beats the opposition at their best. Picking with a 66% efficiency does not mean all the games are those where the winner wins every time no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by funkfriss on Mar 8, 2017 9:53:56 GMT -6
I know I may get crucified for suggesting this, but the longer that I coach, the more I honestly believe that practice has very little correlation to the outcome of games (in all sports). The best team that i have ever been a part of was probably the worst practice team ever. Every day felt like we were pulling teeth trying to get them to do anything that we told them to do. Yet every Friday night we went out and dominated. Does anyone else feel like we practice because "that's the way it has always been done"? I am not advocating for never practicing at all, but think that as coaches we overvalue practice too much. Anyone else in the same boat? I use this type of example all the time with our kids in practice. Whenever we're having a lousy practice or getting lazy with our fundamentals I ask, "Are we here to beat the POS's on our schedule or are we here to beat the teams we're not supposed to beat? Which are you going to remember when you tell stories to your kids or your buddies? How good do you want to be?" That sort of stuff.... That's why you practice with a purpose. To beat the 33% you're not supposed to have a chance at beating. Coach, even though you won games that year I bet you look back and say your team underachieved.
|
|
center
Junior Member
Posts: 483
|
Post by center on Mar 8, 2017 10:03:31 GMT -6
I got a better sense for what needed to be done with practice when I heard this at a clinic.
Preseason workouts get you ready for the start of practice. Preseason practice gets you ready for the season. Weekly practice gets you ready for that game.
Once I stuck to the objective for each situation I was better able to streamline practice.
|
|
jbutch17
Freshmen Member
[F4:@JButch17]
Posts: 95
|
Post by jbutch17 on Mar 8, 2017 10:10:43 GMT -6
We could make the thresh hold high enough to disprove it. A 3 score game isn't that close, seriously, go down the schedules, you can pick the outcome at about a 66% efficiency. Picking the outcome successfully doesn't mean that the game was decided beforehand with the losing team having no shot. I picked all but one of the NFL playoff games successfully beforehand this season (thats 92%), doesnt mean that the disparity between the two was so great that the losing teams were going to lose every time. If they replayed those games 10x each I am fairly certain you'd get different results. Ergo, the games were not decided beforehand. A Game that is decided beforehand is when Alabama schedules their FCS mid-season rest game, its what would happen if my last school with a 33 man roster throughout the program would play De La Salle; its a game where the winner of that game at their worst beats the opposition at their best. Picking with a 66% efficiency does not mean all the games are those where the winner wins every time no matter what. 24 as the barometer in the HS game is high enough to illustrate to prove your point and give the illusion of it being competitive. Period and point blank, the gap continues to grow that the "haves" in nearly all situations are moving further and further from the "have nots". 92% accuracy of winner in the NFL seems a little high as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 10:38:41 GMT -6
There have been time where we're evenly matched against other teams - size, athleticism, records, etc. In the week before we've had a stellar week of practice and the coaches know that we're going to smash them on Friday night which we do. There have also been similar matchups where we've had an awful week of practice - kids missing here & there, lots of screwing around, attitude, unfocused. After walk-thru a coach will say to the other coaches, "That week of the practice, what do you think?" and it will be unanimous - we're gonna get rolled, which we is what happens. Your mileage may vary.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Mar 8, 2017 10:43:52 GMT -6
There are some things just by the nature of the process of preparing for a contest and the game itself that are routine drudgery. But they are necessary.
Having said that, kids don't get bored, coaches do. They only do this for four years max. We've been doing it for however long we played plus our years' coaching.
Bring enthusiasm to practice every day and it will not seem so long or purposeless. If you don't feel enthusiastic, ACT enthusiastic - you might fool yourself.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 8, 2017 11:10:52 GMT -6
Here's another thought.......ever give your kids a day off? Like on a Tuesday?
|
|
|
Post by rudyrude9 on Mar 8, 2017 11:46:59 GMT -6
This is the whole deal. Just because you win games with {censored} practices doesn't mean you've figured anything out. It just means you've cheated those kids out of what they could have been. Do better. If your practices suck then you probably suck at coaching practice. Find a better way.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 8, 2017 11:55:01 GMT -6
I know I may get crucified for suggesting this, but the longer that I coach, the more I honestly believe that practice has very little correlation to the outcome of games (in all sports). The best team that i have ever been a part of was probably the worst practice team ever. Every day felt like we were pulling teeth trying to get them to do anything that we told them to do. Yet every Friday night we went out and dominated. Does anyone else feel like we practice because "that's the way it has always been done"? I am not advocating for never practicing at all, but think that as coaches we overvalue practice too much. Anyone else in the same boat? Also keep in mind there is a cumulative effect. You are better in Nov/December than you were in Aug/Sept because of the practices, not the 7-10 games you played. Practices allow performance to trend upward. Much like the stock market, there will be downward movements (bad practices) and lack of correlation between fundamentals and prices (bad practices, crisp game performances) but for the most part performance improves.
|
|
|
Post by holmesbend on Mar 8, 2017 11:55:52 GMT -6
Here's another thought.......ever give your kids a day off? Like on a Tuesday? I've heard people throw around the thought of taking Monday off, and I've known people to not practice at all on Thursday.
|
|