|
|
Post by carookie on May 29, 2019 9:55:05 GMT -6
So when it comes to efficiency I am very OCD (probably to the point that I go too far in what I try to do). Along these lines it got me wondering- how much actual movement and physical practice do individual players get during practice?
Example: You are working a drill with a small group of seven players, Johnny is 4th in line. First player goes and it takes him 6 seconds to complete the task, next player goes and it takes him 6 seconds, except he makes an error that the coach pauses the whole group to explain how to fix which takes 15 seconds. Second player repeats at 6 seconds, third player goes at 6 seconds, then Johnny at 6 seconds. The three players after Johnny go the same as the first. So to go through the whole group it takes 84 seconds, of that Johnny is actually practicing football movements for 6 seconds- so roughly 93% of his time is spent not practicing.
Now, this is just an example. Some times we are more efficient, other times (coaches who give speeches) we are not.
My questions are: Looking at your practices, about how much actual football practice in regards to movement do individual players get (this excludes "mental Reps" which I think is a cheap phrase)? How much do we want them to get?
|
|
|
|
Post by morris on May 29, 2019 10:02:31 GMT -6
That’s a really good question. Of course one alternative is having half or everyone going at once in certain drills ( how the wing-t does their OL work). The problem I run into there is being able to watch and coach them. One thing we do is try to run things in cycles. Think pat n go the way Air Raid teams do it. We also run two lines alternating so while one is resetting the other is going. This cuts down some of the waiting in line. Another thing is we don’t switch bag holders until it’s their rep. I’m always playing around with rotational patterns to keep kids moving and try to cut down on wait time.
I have no idea how much my guys really stand in line compared to being active. I do know I try to cut as much wait time down as I can.
|
|
|
|
Post by MICoach on May 29, 2019 10:47:01 GMT -6
That’s a really good question. Of course one alternative is having half or everyone going at once in certain drills ( how the wing-t does their OL work). The problem I run into there is being able to watch and coach them. One thing we do is try to run things in cycles. Think pat n go the way Air Raid teams do it. We also run two lines alternating so while one is resetting the other is going. This cuts down some of the waiting in line. Another thing is we don’t switch bag holders until it’s their rep. I’m always playing around with rotational patterns to keep kids moving and try to cut down on wait time. I have no idea how much my guys really stand in line compared to being active. I do know I try to cut as much wait time down as I can. When we pull up underclassmen for the playoffs my OL group gets to some ungodly number and at my last school I was the only OL/TE coach. If we were doing say a double team progression I might have 4-6 groups going at once, so there's up to 12 OL getting a single "rep" at a time. It is definitely impossible to look at all of them and give good feedback so I'll put my top 8 or so guys on one end and not watch them exclusively but definitely give them the lion's share of my attention. Even during regular season I'll try to have as many as manageable going at once in drills, so a fair amount of the time it's close to half of the group repping at one time. |
|
|
|
Post by agap on May 29, 2019 11:13:30 GMT -6
We try to keep them moving as much as possible, although sometimes we will do a drill at a slower pace towards the end of Indy to give them a break. We don't do this everyday, but maybe once a week. Typically this is for some type of competition.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on May 29, 2019 12:50:48 GMT -6
We get as many kids going at once but keep eyes on our starters the majority of the time to correct mistakes. We choose or develop drill progressions that are going to get the kids as many reps as possible. We have very few drills where everyone isn't involved and we push kids through at a blistering pace when we do use those drills. Some kids might only be doing the drill 75% correct but they're still getting something out of it. We can see when a kid is completely chitting the bed on a drill and we fix it ASAP.
But, this does come down to having a proper drill progression and not just tossing the kids into random drill after another. Each drill is designed to gradually build skill(s) until a kid can execute the whole thing. By using drill progressions, you can fix things quickly, on the fly and keep kids moving.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluboy on May 29, 2019 15:29:28 GMT -6
"We get as many kids going at once but keep eyes on our starters the majority of the time to correct mistakes."
We do the same. We adhere to the "racehorse" philosophy of practice. A player doing something, even if not correct, is better than a player doing nothing but killing grass. Our HC goes nuts when he sees 3 players doing a drill and 10-15 other kids standing in line.
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on May 29, 2019 18:53:34 GMT -6
"We get as many kids going at once but keep eyes on our starters the majority of the time to correct mistakes." We do the same. We adhere to the "racehorse" philosophy of practice. A player doing something, even if not correct, is better than a player doing nothing but killing grass. Our HC goes nuts when he sees 3 players doing a drill and 10-15 other kids standing in line. I don’t disagree, but also see the side of “don’t mistake activity for progress.” |
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on May 29, 2019 19:21:52 GMT -6
"We get as many kids going at once but keep eyes on our starters the majority of the time to correct mistakes." We do the same. We adhere to the "racehorse" philosophy of practice. A player doing something, even if not correct, is better than a player doing nothing but killing grass. Our HC goes nuts when he sees 3 players doing a drill and 10-15 other kids standing in line. I don’t disagree, but also see the side of “don’t mistake activity for progress.” Yeah I think there’s a fine line. If a kid is focused and intentional when arent watching it can benefit the kid. But if they are just going through the motions then that practice might just be making them better at doing things wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 29, 2019 20:08:13 GMT -6
I don’t disagree, but also see the side of “don’t mistake activity for progress.” Yeah I think there’s a fine line. If a kid is focused and intentional when arent watching it can benefit the kid. But if they are just going through the motions then that practice might just be making them better at doing things wrong. Has anyone here actually seen that last bit happen, or heard from reliable witnesses of its happening? I ask because I've always been a fan of doing things in parallel as much as possible -- that it was better to do a rep crappy and with nobody watching than to not do it at all. Seemed to me that coaches who disagreed were just control freaks. I could think of only 2 reasons it might be bad: that they'd do something dangerous; or that they'd reinforce bad technique. You're saying the second of those things is an actual possibility, and if that actually ever occurs I could change my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on May 30, 2019 5:54:50 GMT -6
Yeah I think there’s a fine line. If a kid is focused and intentional when arent watching it can benefit the kid. But if they are just going through the motions then that practice might just be making them better at doing things wrong. Has anyone here actually seen that last bit happen, or heard from reliable witnesses of its happening? I ask because I've always been a fan of doing things in parallel as much as possible -- that it was better to do a rep crappy and with nobody watching than to not do it at all. Seemed to me that coaches who disagreed were just control freaks. I could think of only 2 reasons it might be bad: that they'd do something dangerous; or that they'd reinforce bad technique. You're saying the second of those things is an actual possibility, and if that actually ever occurs I could change my mind. Well first, as I mentioned, I don't think it's always the case, but I do think it's possible. Second, an example that pops in my mind is completely anecdotal and not specific to football. Even with a coach watching traditionally youth levels of baseball have a hard time getting strikes thrown in practice and in games. So they start to tell kids to just swing at anything close. So kids for years practice swinging at bad pitches in both practice and games. Then as they advance in age and skill level that is a habit that is hard to break with a lot of players because it has been practiced and reinforced for so long. I know the coach is watching so it isn't completely the case but it does fit into the idea of getting worse by practicing bad habits. A counter example would be learning and practicing an instrument. My son is learning to play guitar. He takes a half hour lesson every week but he practices by himself everyday for at least half an hour. He has had monumental growth in the last two years. Again I don't think practicing without a coach's eye on the players at all times is wrong. We do it with some techniques and drills, but I do think it is vital to make sure those drills have specific purpose and that the coach is reinforcing the importance of players taking those drills seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by kcbazooka on May 30, 2019 7:21:12 GMT -6
I got my masters in exercise science. In one of the classes each of us had to teach to pe activity. The teacher would use a stop watch and time an individual student to see how much time the student was actively involved. It was eye opening. It would be easy to have a manager/walking wounded do that for you. As a head coach I’ve always stressed that the assistants are cognizant of keeping the kids busy. Often, inexperience coaches are working their butts off in a drill but the actual players are getting very few reps. Cut down the lines as much as possible and coach on the run.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on May 30, 2019 8:06:47 GMT -6
So when it comes to efficiency I am very OCD (probably to the point that I go too far in what I try to do). Along these lines it got me wondering- how much actual movement and physical practice do individual players get during practice? Example: You are working a drill with a small group of seven players, Johnny is 4th in line. First player goes and it takes him 6 seconds to complete the task, next player goes and it takes him 6 seconds, except he makes an error that the coach pauses the whole group to explain how to fix which takes 15 seconds. Second player repeats at 6 seconds, third player goes at 6 seconds, then Johnny at 6 seconds. The three players after Johnny go the same as the first. So to go through the whole group it takes 84 seconds, of that Johnny is actually practicing football movements for 6 seconds- so roughly 93% of his time is spent not practicing. Now, this is just an example. Some times we are more efficient, other times (coaches who give speeches) we are not. My questions are: Looking at your practices, about how much actual football practice in regards to movement do individual players get (this excludes "mental Reps" which I think is a cheap phrase)? How much do we want them to get? Another thing to be cognizant of is the intensity of the drill. Max effort for 6 seconds, followed by 78 seconds of rest might not be quite enough recovery time. Especially if the purpose of the drill is skill refinement. If it is your daily musts, then yeah, spread out/multiple lines |
|
|
|
Post by coachfrigo on May 30, 2019 8:08:28 GMT -6
Yeah I think there’s a fine line. If a kid is focused and intentional when arent watching it can benefit the kid. But if they are just going through the motions then that practice might just be making them better at doing things wrong. Has anyone here actually seen that last bit happen, or heard from reliable witnesses of its happening? I ask because I've always been a fan of doing things in parallel as much as possible -- that it was better to do a rep crappy and with nobody watching than to not do it at all. Seemed to me that coaches who disagreed were just control freaks. I could think of only 2 reasons it might be bad: that they'd do something dangerous; or that they'd reinforce bad technique. You're saying the second of those things is an actual possibility, and if that actually ever occurs I could change my mind. Not sure anyone has measured if their kids have reinforced bad techniques, but think of it this way: do you think that practicing with God technique improves your technique? If so, would it not make sense for poor practice technique to lead to poor technique? I'd take 10 perfect reps over 100 poor reps. |
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on May 30, 2019 8:23:25 GMT -6
and not the dig another rabbit hole, b/c we could argue the semantics of Indy period ad infinitum.
However, I think you need to decide what your focus/objective is for the period/drill. Reps? Technique? Effort? Reinforcement? Correction?
For example, we are having an on going feud with the HC over a defensive period. It is a team blitz/coverage review. It is a quick period where we align and step through blitzes and have the secondary call out matching coverages. We go over formation checks/automatics, motion adjustments, etc..... The 2s serve as the offense/formation. We run through these fast (making any corrections as we go if needed) then the 2s jump in. Repeat.
The HC wants to incorporate a ball into the drill/period. He comes down and runs speed option, fake runs/boots, throws a bubble screeen, etc...... We've argued that this is not the objective of the period and the ball is a distraction, and we don't get near as many reps. I understand what the HC wants-- get more people involved, more game like, react, etc..... But scout team isn't the objective - we want to review scheme/game plan based on what we will see and make sure the players know their assignments.
Sometimes you have to compromise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Victor on May 30, 2019 8:32:49 GMT -6
You need to have the base drills of each position, once you install them the players must know what you are working on it and the purpose. You only start to get deeper with the approach when the players have 100% knowledge of what they are doing, otherwise it will be a machine gun of lost reps.
Once you have your overall base you can work with the energy system based on your team's philosophy. If you are HUNH offense, offensively the drills time must emulate the actual time a play lasts, as well the rest (time between plays during a game). At the other side of the ball you do the same thing.
I mean it is a thing you could call cherry at the top of your program, because it is a major point to work however you need assistants, smart ones, to help you out. It suits more college and pro programs though. If you have the human resources go for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by echoofthewhistle on May 30, 2019 9:29:54 GMT -6
I think it helps to teach the drills and guidelines initially. Such as, the next group always set right away, so I don't have to wait for them to ready. Also, explaining the drills ahead of time should alleviate confusion that slows down the tempo. I don't think you should always go fast, but when we are hitting the sled or in the chute we are at tempo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on May 30, 2019 9:56:26 GMT -6
and not the dig another rabbit hole, b/c we could argue the semantics of Indy period ad infinitum. However, I think you need to decide what your focus/objective is for the period/drill. Reps? Technique? Effort? Reinforcement? Correction? For example, we are having an on going feud with the HC over a defensive period. It is a team blitz/coverage review. It is a quick period where we align and step through blitzes and have the secondary call out matching coverages. We go over formation checks/automatics, motion adjustments, etc..... The 2s serve as the offense/formation. We run through these fast (making any corrections as we go if needed) then the 2s jump in. Repeat. The HC wants to incorporate a ball into the drill/period. He comes down and runs speed option, fake runs/boots, throws a bubble screeen, etc...... We've argued that this is not the objective of the period and the ball is a distraction, and we don't get near as many reps. I understand what the HC wants-- get more people involved, more game like, react, etc..... But scout team isn't the objective - we want to review scheme/game plan based on what we will see and make sure the players know their assignments. Sometimes you have to compromise. Great point It drives our HC crazy when we don't use a ball in route combo drills. He thinks it's a wasted opportunity but I think it enhances the period and allows both side to have better focus. |
|
|
|
Post by bluboy on May 30, 2019 13:21:47 GMT -6
On Tuesdays and Thursdays throughout the season we do combo pass without a ball. Tuesday's focus is seeing what the offense wants to do. Thursday's focus is review without having a scout teamer bang into someone while trying to be an All-American..... Our HC loves this idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 30, 2019 19:29:48 GMT -6
Has anyone here actually seen that last bit happen, or heard from reliable witnesses of its happening? I ask because I've always been a fan of doing things in parallel as much as possible -- that it was better to do a rep crappy and with nobody watching than to not do it at all. Seemed to me that coaches who disagreed were just control freaks. I could think of only 2 reasons it might be bad: that they'd do something dangerous; or that they'd reinforce bad technique. You're saying the second of those things is an actual possibility, and if that actually ever occurs I could change my mind. Not sure anyone has measured if their kids have reinforced bad techniques, but think of it this way: do you think that practicing with God technique improves your technique? If so, would it not make sense for poor practice technique to lead to poor technique? It "makes sense", but I'm not sure it's true. If I knew the answer to that, I wouldn't ask. Basically, it depends on whether a student who does a rep wrong realizes it was wrong or thinks it was right. A lot of drills are designed in such a way that doing it badly produces bad results. Often a drill even over-stresses form, being less forgiving than actual game situations would. But I can also see drills giving no feedback of their own at all. To take the example of music practice given by another poster, when I was taking piano lessons I could usually hear whether I played right. But I recall one interval between lessons where I'd been playing a certain note wrong every time I'd practiced, and she had to point it out to me, because to me the wrong note sounded right. (The right note didn't sound bad, either.) But my visits to my piano teacher were only weekly or fortnightly; I think if I line up a bunch of players doing a drill it'll be only a few reps between visits to each of them, a matter of a minute or so -- think that'd be long enough to reinforce bad technique? By the way, I hated music lessons and quit as soon as my parents let me. Never regretted quitting, despite what they'll tell you. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 30, 2019 19:41:23 GMT -6
On Tuesdays and Thursdays throughout the season we do combo pass without a ball. Tuesday's focus is seeing what the offense wants to do. Thursday's focus is review without having a scout teamer bang into someone while trying to be an All-American..... Our HC loves this idea. For that matter, I'd like to practice tackling without a ball, but no HC has let me. We don't have enough balls to go around, but I'd like to have a lot of players rep it in parallel. Seems my superiors think it's weird to do it without a ball (just having them imagine which is the ball side), and are afraid kids will learn to tackle everybody and get called for holding. Some of them get bugged if in practice I treat a field's marked goal line as some other yard line, or practice in an end zone or even on grass beyond an end line, like maybe kicking field goals backwards (because the posts look the same from either side). Is it totemization or are they afraid the players will be disoriented? |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on May 30, 2019 19:44:26 GMT -6
On Tuesdays and Thursdays throughout the season we do combo pass without a ball. Tuesday's focus is seeing what the offense wants to do. Thursday's focus is review without having a scout teamer bang into someone while trying to be an All-American..... Our HC loves this idea. For that matter, I'd like to practice tackling without a ball, but no HC has let me. We don't have enough balls to go around, but I'd like to have a lot of players rep it in parallel. Seems my superiors think it's weird to do it without a ball (just having them imagine which is the ball side), and are afraid kids will learn to tackle everybody and get called for holding. Some of them get bugged if in practice I treat a field's marked goal line as some other yard line, or practice in an end zone or even on grass beyond an end line, like maybe kicking field goals backwards (because the posts look the same from either side). Is it totemization or are they afraid the players will be disoriented? I practice tackling without a ball all the time, if and when you do you have to be ready for some of the imaginary ball carriers to try to use both arms to stiff arm and break tackles- usually those who never really would carry a ball anywho. |
|
|
|
Post by coachfrigo on May 30, 2019 19:54:50 GMT -6
Not sure anyone has measured if their kids have reinforced bad techniques, but think of it this way: do you think that practicing with God technique improves your technique? If so, would it not make sense for poor practice technique to lead to poor technique? It "makes sense", but I'm not sure it's true. If I knew the answer to that, I wouldn't ask. Basically, it depends on whether a student who does a rep wrong realizes it was wrong or thinks it was right. A lot of drills are designed in such a way that doing it badly produces bad results. Often a drill even over-stresses form, being less forgiving than actual game situations would. But I can also see drills giving no feedback of their own at all. To take the example of music practice given by another poster, when I was taking piano lessons I could usually hear whether I played right. But I recall one interval between lessons where I'd been playing a certain note wrong every time I'd practiced, and she had to point it out to me, because to me the wrong note sounded right. (The right note didn't sound bad, either.) But my visits to my piano teacher were only weekly or fortnightly; I think if I line up a bunch of players doing a drill it'll be only a few reps between visits to each of them, a matter of a minute or so -- think that'd be long enough to reinforce bad technique? By the way, I hated music lessons and quit as soon as my parents let me. Never regretted quitting, despite what they'll tell you. Can't say I disagree. I think the solution is to look for ways for players to be able to self-correct, much like dubmaddox 's C4. |
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on May 30, 2019 20:01:22 GMT -6
Not sure anyone has measured if their kids have reinforced bad techniques, but think of it this way: do you think that practicing with God technique improves your technique? If so, would it not make sense for poor practice technique to lead to poor technique? It "makes sense", but I'm not sure it's true. If I knew the answer to that, I wouldn't ask. Basically, it depends on whether a student who does a rep wrong realizes it was wrong or thinks it was right. A lot of drills are designed in such a way that doing it badly produces bad results. Often a drill even over-stresses form, being less forgiving than actual game situations would. But I can also see drills giving no feedback of their own at all. To take the example of music practice given by another poster, when I was taking piano lessons I could usually hear whether I played right. But I recall one interval between lessons where I'd been playing a certain note wrong every time I'd practiced, and she had to point it out to me, because to me the wrong note sounded right. (The right note didn't sound bad, either.) But my visits to my piano teacher were only weekly or fortnightly; I think if I line up a bunch of players doing a drill it'll be only a few reps between visits to each of them, a matter of a minute or so -- think that'd be long enough to reinforce bad technique? By the way, I hated music lessons and quit as soon as my parents let me. Never regretted quitting, despite what they'll tell you. That was part of my point on music lessons. That it could go either way. There has to be reinforcement in order for the unwatched reps to be useful. My son enjoys music so far. Won’t force it on him but am glad he does it and hope he continues to. |
|
|
|
Post by bluboy on May 31, 2019 11:10:58 GMT -6
We never use a ball when tackling. The ball carrier always carries a hand shield.
|
|
|
|
Post by newhope on Jun 5, 2019 6:24:59 GMT -6
Reps>talking is a simple and productive equation for on field practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Victor on Jun 5, 2019 12:00:05 GMT -6
Reps>talking is a simple and productive equation for on field practice. One simple thing to do is never to talk or walk on the field, ever. If you are on the field is for the solo purpose of practice/game. |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jun 5, 2019 13:33:22 GMT -6
We never use a ball when tackling. The ball carrier always carries a hand shield. I am interested in the thought process as to why a hand shield, and the evolution of how you came to this. |
|
|
|
Post by bluboy on Jun 6, 2019 5:38:32 GMT -6
I was not clear,duhhhh. The BC carries a hand shield in front of him, not in place of ball. We have found that this helps prevent "collateral" injury.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Jun 6, 2019 6:12:44 GMT -6
Not sure anyone has measured if their kids have reinforced bad techniques, but think of it this way: do you think that practicing with God technique improves your technique? If so, would it not make sense for poor practice technique to lead to poor technique? It "makes sense", but I'm not sure it's true. If I knew the answer to that, I wouldn't ask. Basically, it depends on whether a student who does a rep wrong realizes it was wrong or thinks it was right. A lot of drills are designed in such a way that doing it badly produces bad results. Often a drill even over-stresses form, being less forgiving than actual game situations would. But I can also see drills giving no feedback of their own at all. To take the example of music practice given by another poster, when I was taking piano lessons I could usually hear whether I played right. But I recall one interval between lessons where I'd been playing a certain note wrong every time I'd practiced, and she had to point it out to me, because to me the wrong note sounded right. (The right note didn't sound bad, either.) But my visits to my piano teacher were only weekly or fortnightly; I think if I line up a bunch of players doing a drill it'll be only a few reps between visits to each of them, a matter of a minute or so -- think that'd be long enough to reinforce bad technique? By the way, I hated music lessons and quit as soon as my parents let me. Never regretted quitting, despite what they'll tell you. This is a great answer. I'm a firm believer in micro-dosing to learn. You can't CRAM great technique. Kids learn (IMO) through a few steps: 1) They see/hear how the skill is performed 2) They try to mimic it and are evaluated 3) Corrective measures are applied 4) They perform corrective measures and are evaluated/given feedback 5) Rinse/wash/repeat Through days/weeks/months they get better, a little bit at a time, at the skill until they are able to mentally process and apply the corrective measures to fix issues. So what does that look like at practice? Ex: Defensive Backs BackPedal skill- ou could backpedal an entire practice...2 straight hours...and get the same affect as a well-structured/well-coached 10min session. The kids will only be able to process so much before they need to relax, go home, chill out, and allow the neurons to create movement pattern connections. It doesn't happen at practice. It happens when they are home after practice. So I never understood why we would expect kids to "get it" after 1 practice. They're not going to. You have to identify the few skill fundamentals needed to play the position and continually (over the course of their career) practice them. First comes an understanding, then random proficiency (they can do it right once in a while), then consistent proficiency, then honing of the skill with more detail, then mastery through practice. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 6, 2019 8:08:32 GMT -6
Ex: Defensive Backs BackPedal skill- ou could backpedal an entire practice...2 straight hours...and get the same affect as a well-structured/well-coached 10min session. The kids will only be able to process so much before they need to relax, go home, chill out, and allow the neurons to create movement pattern connections. It doesn't happen at practice. It happens when they are home after practice. So I never understood why we would expect kids to "get it" after 1 practice. They're not going to. You have to identify the few skill fundamentals needed to play the position and continually (over the course of their career) practice them. First comes an understanding, then random proficiency (they can do it right once in a while), then consistent proficiency, then honing of the skill with more detail, then mastery through practice. This is something I "know", yet have to keep reminding myself. I looked many years ago at the literature on programmed learning, and believe it. Outlining a pre-season practice schedule, I know that in installing anything -- a technique, a play, signals -- I have to allow not only practice time, but time in between for it to sink in. It's not just a number of minutes or hours, it's a number of days or weeks. And yet, it's always tempting when teaching to keep going continuously on something until everybody's all right. You know how you want it, you see the players...and you see that if you can fix just this, just that, it'll be perfect. And you're right, you could just work on that straight thru...but it'd be much less efficient than putting it aside and returning to it 2 and 4 days later. It takes a lot of mental discipline for a coach to not give in to the temptation to keep working on one thing to completion in one session, or even in 2 successive sessions. There's the nagging fear that if you just leave it that way, it'll never get fixed, and you have to overcome that fear, because if you're at all organized, it will. Of course part of being organized means that your superiors have to understand this and be confident too, or they might snatch the task out from your hands and not let you get back to it. Fortunately I think most coaches "get" the "over the course of their [players'] career" part of what you wrote. They know the players are going to improve season after season, or late season vs. early season. It's the part about learning over the course of a week or two that we need reminding of. |
|
