|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 11, 2007 10:16:13 GMT -6
Here is a serious question from my ignorance. I don't know about you, but for myself, when I find a tactic that 'fits', I kind of run with it and get the tunnel vision thing going, so I am looking for correction, because a lot of times I'm wrong. Now, during HS, I had little to no actual coaching and a lot more of the "do this, you dumba$$". Basically, learning plays, not techniques. When I got to college, we focussed primarily on technique and how to respond to stimuli / situational muscle-memorization. THAT is what got me into coaching. Controlling particulars for a consistent output. It makes ME feel good (as a coach), but I am curious is it really necessary. Now, here is my personal hang up.... I don't feel comfortable "just winging it". In fact, I feel very insecure in that approach, to a point of neurosis. I know some folks look at me a little weird going over simple stuff like stance, steps, keys, etc.......wondering why we don't just line up and "play ball". Now, naturally, we're ALL gonna say "coach 'em up.... coach,coach,coach"...but is there ever a time when we should just roll the ball out and let the kids "figure it out for themselves"? Can you OVER-coach a position (not overload with assignment, but instruct TOO MUCH on technique)? Is there a point when you should just relax and wing it, even if you're getting inconsistent performance? Take for instance.....you have a guy that can 'get the job done', but is horrible in the steps leading up to the execution, and may lead to liabilities within the scheme? Should you put the brakes on and force the errs to be righted, or do you just let it roll, hoping things "catch on"? Just like too many chefs spoil the soup (or whatever).....is there a point of diminishing returns? Whereas, I believe you have to account for EACH step on the field (literally) in how you carry out your assignment ( 2nd step should be doing.....4th step should be.....). This makes me feel good as a coach, but is it necessary? Does it bog the athlete down with unnecessary responsibility? I would rather follow the pattern of European Olympic coaches in their approaches rather than old-school football guys in the states, but that is me (less emotionally tied to performance). I don't have an answer for this.....my gut tells me that I should keep doing what I've been doing, but I could be wrong and not seeing the entire picture. |
|
|
|
Post by tog on Dec 11, 2007 11:16:42 GMT -6
can you overcoach a position?
yes
runningback coaches do it all the time
after holding on to the ball and blocking
teach them where the aiming point is, and then let them be running backs
i do not want robots on the field
i want athletes that know the game
and can react to what is going on around them in the appropriate manner
meaning
the manner that will allow them to win
as coaches it is our job to get them to "get" that
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec on Dec 11, 2007 11:32:14 GMT -6
You can over coach to a point a guy is more worried about this step or that step and not on the end result which might be a tackle, a throw, or run. You want to coach fundamentals but realize some guys while thrive while being coached to the Nth degree and others will just flounder. I have found some guys have terrible stances but play very will from them and when I have tried to correct the stance they didn't play as well. So I let them use the stance they liked. I don't favor just play ball, what does that mean? If a kid can just figure it out on their own why am I out coaching. Think you have to evaluate your talent and the coachablity of each kid and determined how much you are going to coach him up. Too many coaches are going to coach every single kid the same way which might work for some and not for others. I have seen very good QB's over coached to a point that they are robots and look very mechanical. I have seen D-Line over coached to a point that they go through their steps and make contact but loose focus on making a play. Teach Fundamentals yes. Teach within your system yes. Also teach with a reason so guys can become players based upon the fundamentals but not to a point that every little movement is being coached.
|
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Dec 11, 2007 11:55:10 GMT -6
brophy-
i guess in my mind (as whacked as it is) would have one question to ask: Does it work?
If what you d is successful then don't worry about it. If it isn't working then fix it. being a QB/Db coach it is really easy to "over coach" them and they tend to get "Paralysis by analysis" syndrome versus being players. But, it is also a case by case basis (namely each player is different). It also is based on the scheme you are using. Is the scheme/techniques "cheap" or "expensive"; or are they time intensive or not time intensive. Answer those and then I think you are part of the way to answering your own question.
Tog-
not to pick a fight but I have found that the RB position tends to be the least coached position in the multitude of schools and states I have coached. I hear RB coaches say "hold on to the ball and run that way" when there stances are horrible or they don't understand what they are doing when they don't have the football. I would love a RB coach that would teach technique and assignments, and be accussed of overcoaching our backs rather than the backs not knowing what to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by los on Dec 11, 2007 11:56:08 GMT -6
Good question Brophy, I think you can "over coach" certain players at times, but the common masses of your average HS and under athletes, probably "need" the kinda coaching you're talking about? For example though, do you think the "old LT" might have got fussed at a time or two, for running around a block, to make a play? Or somebody like Barry Sanders griped at, for not hitting the hole? So yeah, imho, with certain guys, its probably ok to let them "free lance" a little, without hurting the team. Comes down to that "performance" ratio you were talking about. Do they consistently make more "big" plays, than they hurt you?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2007 12:08:30 GMT -6
I think it revolves around the style--I think you can overcoach in a particular style, so the point is to get beyond that style and into the next one for that particular player. I'm not referring to a specific style of coaching, but into a style that fits that player. Think about it by level: At one level you may tell your QB that he's going to have a drag route across the back of the endzone and how to get it there. At the next level you tell him that the drag is going to come open after he clears the 2nd backer. At the next level you tell him that when he throws it he has to put it high about 4 yards from the sideline.
You've never quit coaching the player, you've just altered WHAT you're coaching.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 11, 2007 12:28:24 GMT -6
I think it revolves around the style--I think you can overcoach in a particular style, so the point is to get beyond that style and into the next one for that particular player. I'm not referring to a specific style of coaching, but into a style that fits that player. Think about it by level: At one level you may tell your QB that he's going to have a drag route across the back of the endzone and how to get it there. At the next level you tell him that the drag is going to come open after he clears the 2nd backer. At the next level you tell him that when he throws it he has to put it high about 4 yards from the sideline. You've never quit coaching the player, you've just altered WHAT you're coaching. that is a great point....and kind of what I'm wondering about..... because if you START OUT that way.....of free-balling it, what do you build off of? If you establish and hammer the fundamentals....(lets say, stance, steps, movement) you can build concepts on top of concepts (like you pointed out so beautifully). But, if (and this is kinda what I'm uneasy about)....you don't really get that particular about stance, or steps, or upper body movement, but expect a kid to perform his job (anyway he feels comfortable), how do you "adjust" when needed? How do you go back to a foundation of repetition to provide an 'answer'? Recently, I've experienced methodology of lining the kids in position and assuming they'll figure out a way to get their job done (line up HERE.....and get da ball!...or block dat guy!!). |
|
|
|
Post by coachmallory on Dec 11, 2007 12:45:03 GMT -6
For the most part I do not think that you can over coach. However, I think that you can coach too much at one time. I think that you should limit the feedback that you give to a player. For example, if you are coaching in an offensive line session and you notice several things wrong with a players technique dont point out every flaw. Rather coach them up on one or two of the most important flaws in their technique. I often have to stop myself and just focus on one aspect of a players technique. I think that too much feedback at one time will cause the player to play slow because they are thinking too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 11, 2007 12:55:03 GMT -6
I think the best way I can illustrate what I'm trying to say is..... You have a band  You are saying you are playing a song in E. Are you telling the bass player to just "wing it" and play it by feel? Or are you telling him to play such and such scale? Are you giving him the exact notes to the song, or is he gonna solo? My opinion is, you need freedom to do it "your way", but within the context of what we are all trying to do. So if you want to do it "your way", you are doing it within the confines we have established (Root, Scale, Melody, Rhythm, Riff)....each player is going to be taught the same technique (this is your stance, this is your movement, this is how you perform "X"), now each is going to bring something different to that recipe. So if I am hearing the song and say, "y'know, we need more cowbell". We know exactly how we are going to GET IT. (instead of bull-rush, we need to change up the rush with counter-club) / (nose of the ball is sinking on throws....get the pinky lower on the football) I'm sure you have to let the kids play and have fun......so not to take away the joy of why they are out there - I'm just wondering about the dynamic mix of demanding perfect execution with the fun of performance |
|
|
|
Post by aztec on Dec 11, 2007 13:05:37 GMT -6
For the most part I do not think that you can over coach. However, I think that you can coach too much at one time. I think that you should limit the feedback that you give to a player. For example, if you are coaching in an offensive line session and you notice several things wrong with a players technique dont point out every flaw. Rather coach them up on one or two of the most important flaws in their technique. I often have to stop myself and just focus on one aspect of a players technique. I think that too much feedback at one time will cause the player to play slow because they are thinking too much. Great Point. You can only give so much feed back at one time. We limit our comments to 1 per player per play so they can focus on that for the next play during practice. If you give them 10 things they are doing wrong then nothing will get fixed. Normally I work on what needs the most improvement and then once that is fixed I move on to the next item. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec on Dec 11, 2007 13:10:41 GMT -6
I think the best way I can illustrate what I'm trying to say is..... You have a band You are saying you are playing a song in E. Are you telling the bass player to just "wing it" and play it by feel? Or are you telling him to play such and such scale? Are you giving him the exact notes to the song, or is he gonna solo? My opinion is, you need freedom to do it "your way", but within the context of what we are all trying to do. So if you want to do it "your way", you are doing it within the confines we have established (Root, Scale, Melody, Rhythm, Riff)....each player is going to be taught the same technique (this is your stance, this is your movement, this is how you perform "X"), now each is going to bring something different to that recipe. So if I am hearing the song and say, "y'know, we need more cowbell". We know exactly how we are going to GET IT. (instead of bull-rush, we need to change up the rush with counter-club) / (nose of the ball is sinking on throws....get the pinky lower on the football) I'm sure you have to let the kids play and have fun......so not to take away the joy of why they are out there - I'm just wondering about the dynamic mix of demanding perfect exec ution with the fun of performance I think you are correct in your thought. I would say if you rep your fundamentals day in and day out then muscle memory will take over. Then the little adjustments will help refine what is being done. Not every player will do it exactly the same but many in general will have a simlar look to it. Just like the bass player doing his thing it is still with in the confine of the song and not making it sound like {censored}. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Dec 11, 2007 13:19:13 GMT -6
A lot of times, I find myself coaching a group of players (say LBs) and at the end, I always make sure to remind them to be an athlete and make the play. The key is, you can't have your players thinking about technique, steps, fundamentals, etc during game time. It is the muscle memory that is key. Rep the heck out of the kids...make them do the drills right, but don't stop them from being an athlete come game time. Two examples of this Jet Sweep. My WR is coming in motion. He has been taught over and over to cut off the WBs seal block. Well the WB blows his assignment...and my WR literally gets the hand-off, and takes it off tackle for an 80 yard run. Made me look like a brilliant coach. Defense, I had an OLB who had responsibility to flat on pass, notice the QB immediately turn his back to him on play action to throw a pass. OLD rushed in for the sack. Perfectly time blitz right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2007 13:26:17 GMT -6
Great music analogy. I'll add to it a bit.
A 6-string guitar always has 6 strings but Roy Orbison, Jimi Hendrix, Joe Strummer, and Eddie Van Halen all get a different noise from it. They had to learn how to play it in order to take it to the next level.
I agree about starting without structure--nowhere to go from there. Can't break the rules until you know them. Can't break the law if there's no law to break.
And any day I can sneak Joe Strummer into a post it's been a good day.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Dec 11, 2007 13:31:22 GMT -6
Theres more than one way to get it done.
wooden taught his guys how to tie their shoes
Then theres guys with 300 wins who dont even know what a "6 tech" is and havent a clue as to what "steps" they teach their linemen.
let me add...ever watch to great chefs cook stuff....one guy measures everything and constantly peeks at his ingredients list...the other guy...pinch of this, dab of that, sprinkle of that...eating bits along the way. one maybe more "exact" while the other a bit more by "feel"...
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 11, 2007 14:51:18 GMT -6
I think some things can be over-coached if you aren't doing the coaching for a "purpose" For example, 6 inch steps...or 3 read steps or tweaking a stance for no apparent reason other than you want a "2 inch stagger" or something like that. However, I would argue that chances are...for your average H.S kid..these things are probably better than under-coaching.
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Dec 11, 2007 15:01:51 GMT -6
i think wr is the least coached at high schools. most often it is cause he is really a decoy for running teams. never understand why running teams take away a blocker by having a wr. if you are not going to throw the ball why have a wr.
i think you have to be strict with wr. if you are not, they tend not to break down the corner very well. a out round turns into a bannana like arc.
it is also why wr have to be coached on a line. the line gives them reference. also I can tell when wr are poorly coached. you see them running side by side with the db instead of stacking the db.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Dec 11, 2007 15:32:49 GMT -6
i think wr is the least coached at high schools. most often it is cause he is really a decoy for running teams. never understand why running teams take away a blocker by having a wr. if you are not going to throw the ball why have a wr. i think you have to be strict with wr. if you are not, they tend not to break down the corner very well. a out round turns into a bannana like arc. it is also why wr have to be coached on a line. the line gives them reference. also I can tell when wr are poorly coached. you see them running side by side with the db instead of stacking the db. Interesting, airman, because my experience is the complete opposite. Our receivers are carefully coached to run routes a certain way. We micromanage everything...their stance, releases, sticks, hand movement...everything we can manage, we manage. Well, this year, we had a kid who didn't run ANY of the routes the way we wanted them run...kid ran hitches too deep, broke on the wrong foot on curl routes, didn't stick the corner when he was running the post, etc, etc... This kid also ended up the year with over 1000 yards of total offense, scored about 15 TDs and was the Conference Offensive MVP. I banged my head against the wall with this kid for half the season about his route running until I realized that his way, although I didn't like it, produced results. The kid just had an uncanny knack for getting open and he was usually the best athlete on the field. So, what was I supposed to do? Should I have benched the kid because his hitch routes were run at 5 yards and he broke down on his outside foot instead of running it at 4 yards and breaking down on his inside foot? To answer the original question, I think that you HAVE to respect the "stud" factor...if you have a kid who is just a superior athlete, you teach him the "right" way but if he does it "his" way and still gets the job done and then some, what difference does it really make? Is it worth a power struggle simply because a kid isn't doing it "your" way? |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Dec 11, 2007 18:05:10 GMT -6
Personally, I am always throwing stuff out there for the kids. During EDDs, I repeat the same cues (or variations of) over and over again. As irishblitzer noted, the cues get a little more technical throughout the year, but its all leads back to the same stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Dec 11, 2007 19:14:50 GMT -6
brophy- i guess in my mind (as whacked as it is) would have one question to ask: Does it work? If what you d is successful then don't worry about it. If it isn't working then fix it. being a QB/Db coach it is really easy to "over coach" them and they tend to get "Paralysis by analysis" syndrome versus being players. But, it is also a case by case basis (namely each player is different). It also is based on the scheme you are using. Is the scheme/techniques "cheap" or "expensive"; or are they time intensive or not time intensive. Answer those and then I think you are part of the way to answering your own question. Tog- not to pick a fight but I have found that the RB position tends to be the least coached position in the multitude of schools and states I have coached. I hear RB coaches say "hold on to the ball and run that way" when there stances are horrible or they don't understand what they are doing when they don't have the football. I would love a RB coach that would teach technique and assignments, and be accussed of overcoaching our backs rather than the backs not knowing what to do. saint i have seen that too pisses me off that is the other end of the spectrum i guess it boils down to a fine line how much can your kid handle? you don't want him to be a robot and be thinking out there but you still have to correct fundamentals somewhere in between depending on each kid is the answer i bet |
|
|
|
Post by PSS on Dec 11, 2007 19:33:28 GMT -6
Here's my response to the question: (from a defensive view)
I don't think enough technique is taught at the lower levels from stance, to steps, to angles, to hand placement, tackling (the very basic techniques). Now this may not be the case everywhere but it has been in a lot of the places I have coached. IMO you can only get by with your talent for so long. Sooner or later someone is going to have just as much or more talent than you. That is when the better technique will become a factor.
This year I coached Defensive Line. I have had the privilege learn D-line technique from Pete Jenkins by working camps the past several years. The D-lineman I coached this year were sponges, soaking up everything I taught them. Sure they thought some of the drill were goofy and not related to football.
Then today I had one of my seniors, probably one of the best D-lineman I've ever coached, come up to me. He had seen his recruiting highlight DVD and told me, "I didn't realize I was using all those things you had taught us". Then he said that when he went on his recruiting visit to Tulane last weekend they had watched Tulane's practice video. He said that they did the exact same drills that we did all year.
|
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Dec 11, 2007 19:40:07 GMT -6
Great topic Brophy. I can really get philosophical on this one if I don't catch myself. I am very anal about coaching proper steps, aiming points, hand placent, etc. Like you said, this makes me feel good and in control as a coach. But I definitely think there is something to the idea of putting more respinsibility in the kids hands. I mean when you think about it, who says that we know the BEST way. If you look at football historically, innovators are what keep the game progressing. Who knows...maybe guys like me who are very anal actually stifle innovation. I'm not saying I'm going to change any times soon, but interesting to think about.
Along those same lines, I sometimes wonder if we coaches have assumed too much control when it comes to play calling and game planning. You hear about guys like Unitas being the field general. I wonder how that would play out if we stepped back and gave the players more control and decison making when it come to things like this. Could be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Dec 11, 2007 23:59:27 GMT -6
brophy- i guess in my mind (as whacked as it is) would have one question to ask: Does it work? If what you d is successful then don't worry about it. If it isn't working then fix it. being a QB/Db coach it is really easy to "over coach" them and they tend to get "Paralysis by analysis" syndrome versus being players. But, it is also a case by case basis (namely each player is different). It also is based on the scheme you are using. Is the scheme/techniques "cheap" or "expensive"; or are they time intensive or not time intensive. Answer those and then I think you are part of the way to answering your own question. Tog- not to pick a fight but I have found that the RB position tends to be the least coached position in the multitude of schools and states I have coached. I hear RB coaches say "hold on to the ball and run that way" when there stances are horrible or they don't understand what they are doing when they don't have the football. I would love a RB coach that would teach technique and assignments, and be accussed of overcoaching our backs rather than the backs not knowing what to do. saint i have seen that too pisses me off that is the other end of the spectrum i guess it boils down to a fine line how much can your kid handle? you don't want him to be a robot and be thinking out there but you still have to correct fundamentals somewhere in between depending on each kid is the answer i bet I would have to agree with you on that too Tog. I don't want robots either, but I would love to see a kid have great fundys and execute at a high level too. Would love to be able to "plug in" any Rb and have a 1000 yards rusher (e.g. Denver Bronco style). |
|
|
|
Post by coachcoyote on Dec 12, 2007 0:53:00 GMT -6
I've always thought I might be micro-managing the positions I've coached. Then I watch others and thought how much better they might be if they had a coach micro-managing them. Players have to be an athlete many times, but they must be taught how to do that. That's what we do.
|
|
|
|
Post by tborne on Dec 12, 2007 8:11:59 GMT -6
It depends on the athlete. I had a DT whose stance was horrible and he had a hard time making proper reads or running the right stunt. Every time I tried to tweak his stance or change a technique he regressed. So I stopped trying to teach him proper technique - he turned out to be an all-district player, all-district MVP 1 year, took two handoffs for touchdowns during his playing time, and had close to 50 tackles behing the line his senior year. On the other hand, this year the guys I had needed the reps and technique taught to them all year.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachmacplains on Dec 12, 2007 18:02:33 GMT -6
Agreed that there is a balance to where you must teach fundamentals but also let kids do what they are good at doing - the "uncoachable" things. One thing that I have attempted to do is find things that they can easily identify with in order to help them be fundamentally sound without being overly technical. One of the best things we have done in our breakdown instruction for tackling is to think of playing tag (something we have the guys do), a game in which any first grader does this almost instinctively. Before that, I used to scratch my head trying to communicate the concept. Obviously, whatever we are using must be relevant to what they will actually do in a game situation.
BTW, I believe you can teach "overly technical" concepts with some kids; if they understand the finer points, then it seems to me that you can run with it. I also know that a lot of kids (at least that play on our team) are not there.
|
|
|
|
Post by pegleg on Dec 12, 2007 22:50:06 GMT -6
can you overcoach a position? yes runningback coaches do it all the time after holding on to the ball and blocking teach them where the aiming point is, and then let them be running backs i do not want robots on the field i want athletes that know the game and can react to what is going on around them in the appropriate manner meaning the manner that will allow them to win as coaches it is our job to get them to "get" that amen...........we have had this convesation, and it is the most over coached spot on the field. i always say the ol is never wrong. the rb has an aiming point and if he misses the uncloudy area, he blew it............thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by tog on Dec 13, 2007 6:39:07 GMT -6
yeah
it aint that hard
go where there aren't guys that can tackle you
if there still isn't anywhere to go
then get as much as you can
the ball control stuff and explosion stuff we do for fundamentals should no be thought of, they should be second nature
|
|
