|
Post by coachdoug on Oct 12, 2008 9:10:30 GMT -6
Good luck to you coach - it sounds like this is the best thing for the kids.
|
|
|
1st Win
Oct 6, 2008 10:55:37 GMT -6
Post by coachdoug on Oct 6, 2008 10:55:37 GMT -6
Coach - I know what you mean. One year I was helping out with a very troubled team. They only won one game that year, but that win (20-19 over a rival) was so gutsy and so hard fought that it stands out for me (14 years later) more than a lot of the wins from championship seasons.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Aug 28, 2008 8:41:09 GMT -6
Well, just because the teams win on the field, does not necessarily mean the administration is doing a good job. In fact, that kind of on-field success makes it easy to make excuses for poor management ("Well, we must be doing something right - we had the best overall record in the conference, so don't us how to do our jobs..."), but it seems pretty obvious that they are not doing things properly. The Board's job is to enforce their organization's rules & policies - if the are non-confrontational they are NOT doing their job.
Likewise, just b/c a coach has been coaching for a long time, does not make him a good coach. If kids are staying away from him to the point where you're having a hard time fielding a team, it's pretty clear that he either needs to change his ways or move on.
Good luck to you coach, you've got yourself in a pretty tough situation there.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Aug 27, 2008 21:34:48 GMT -6
I gotta agree with coachtabales on this one. If the organization is not even following it's own rules, is allowing kids to stay in the wrong age/weight division, and is protecting a coach that obviously should be let go, well ... I don't see any good coming out of your sticking around.
Loyalty is great, but you shouldn't be loyal to an organization simply because that's where you happened to land. They have to earn your loyalty by treating you right, running the organization properly and good examples to all members of the organization. It doesn't sound like this organization has done any of those things.
It sounds to me like it's definitely time to move on. Also, keep in mind that poorly run organizations are lawsuit magnets. All it takes is one kid to get seriously hurt, and when the attorneys find out that rules weren't being followed, EVERYONE gets sued - you don't want to get caught in the middle of that. Even if you're not found liable for anything it'll cost you $15K - $20K just to defend it. (BTW, that alone is a good reason to join NFHS, which gives you substantial - $1MM or $2MM, i think - general liability insurance.)
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Aug 13, 2008 13:05:47 GMT -6
Coach, you may need to get creative. I don't know your organization or it's rules, so it's tough to say how far you can stretch things. However, it sounds like your board won't let you do formal fundraising like candy sales because of their protocol for approvals and budgeting. What about informal fundraisers like car washes or bake sales? You could probably put that together as a team in a week's time and raise several hundred dollars, at least.
It's not clear how much money you need. You may need to do several things. Another thing we've done is to throw a big party and charge admission. Try to use whatever connections you have to get a venue (maybe a local bar, or an Elks club, or an empty hall, or even one of the parent's house/back yard) either free or cheap, maybe get a band or a dj, and try to get some local merchants to donate some gifts that you can either raffle or auction off. We did a luau theme auction party once and raised over $6K, but that was with months of planning. Still, even in a couple weeks, with some focused planning, I'll bet you could do something similar and raise at least a couple thousand.
I would also follow the others' suggestions and try to get equipment to borrow from other local organizations - high schools, JCs, even other teams within your conference.
Good luck to you, coach.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Aug 6, 2008 14:33:42 GMT -6
Alright, I'm the head coach (first year) of a 7-8 Unlimited weight team here in Bama. We will probably end up having anywhere between 17-22 kids when its all said and done. My question is, I only have 2 assistants that can be around all the time (all prac and games). I have a couple that can be around sporadically, due to work. So, is 3 coaches really sufficent ? Or am I doomed? Things have been going fairly smooth so far......just wanted to know what everyone thought. BTW , I have really become addicted to this site.......and I respect you guys opinions.... I would think that 3 is plenty (the breakdown for group sessions outlined by casec11 is right on). The bigger danger is having too many. Getting any group of people to agree on one philosophy and scheme is difficult no matter what the subject matter. Only add assistants if you are 100% certain that they know & understand their roles and that they completely buy into your system. Otherwise, having a bunch of assistants that undermine you (often quite accidentally) will do far more harm than good.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Aug 3, 2008 16:09:24 GMT -6
Start with fit & form, but if you're asking this question now, it is an indication that your practices are probably not as well planned as they should be. Take a minute, search for posts by Dave Cisar & Ted Seay and see what they have to say about practice organization. I know there are several other coaches here that are experts on that subject also, but I think Dave & Ted have posted more on that subject than most others. If you organize your practices properly, you will have much more success.
Good luck to you coach.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Aug 3, 2008 13:33:16 GMT -6
Call it what you want, the rule is very clear. If the refs don't understand the rule then someone should point it out to them. I coach by black letter law, so the misconception does not fall on me. Not to mention, like coryell2009, I don't teach any variation of any block that may cause injury. It may cause me a game, but it will never cause me a suspension or an injured player. You're right, the rule is very clear, which is why I thought you were confused, because you also said, "cut blocks are illegal in Pop Warner by rule," which is clearly an inaccurate statement. The basis for that statement seemed to be several quotes from the rules about chop blocks, which is why I tried to explain the difference. Like Dave, I have coached for 15 years and have never seen an injury from a cut block. At the youth level it's just not a dangerous block, if executed properly. Drive blocking, in comparison, is much more dangerous because the defender's legs are carrying all of the defender's weight plus the pressure of the opponent's push - so if anyone rolls into the defender's legs, he is extremely vulnerable to injury. In my experience, this is exactly how the vast majority of leg injuries in the interior happen. Yet, we don't hear anyway crying that drive blocking should be abolished. We teach our d-line to stay low and protect their legs (not so much to avoid injury, but because we don't want them getting taken to the ground) - if they do that it is almost impossible to get injured by a legal cut block. I actually rarely teach cut blocking - not because it's dangerous but because it generally isn't terribly effective - if the defender as had any coaching at all, he'll just push down a lineman that dives at this legs and go over him. What I do teach that I've found to be much more effective, and accomplish the same thing of allowing a smaller blocker to control a much bigger defender or to slow down an overly agressive charge, is to have my blocker make initial contact at the midsection and then roll down into the defender's thighs. Very effective and very safe. Coryell2009 said a couple of things that should be addressed. He quoted a couple of NFL players about how they dislike cut blocking. As others have pointed out, what happens in the NFL has liitle or no bearing at the youth level. At the NFL level, cut blocking is typically employed to cut off backside pursuit. As such, it often has a lineman blindsiding the defender and hitting him from the SIDE, which is much more dangerous than any block from the front. At the youth level, line play is much more straightforward so dangerous side blocks don't happen much. Honestly, I don't think I've ever seen a blindside cut block from the side at the youth level. I would agree with y'all that a block like that is dangerous and has no place on the field, but I don't see anyone doing it. Also, Coryell2009 is in Texas, which plays HS ball under NCAA rules (please correct me if I'm mistaken), which allows for cut blocking anywhere on the field against anyone (expecpt on kickoffs, I think). A running back cutting a linebacker, or cutting anyone in the open field is inherently more dangerous than cutting in the FBZ, because both players can have a full head of steam, and the liklihood that the defender might not see the blocker coming and might have his feet planted, is substantially higher. So, if he has seen a lot of injuries from cut blocking, I'd be curious to know how many, if any, happened in the FBZ between linemen.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Aug 2, 2008 16:49:47 GMT -6
According to the NCAA rule book: "Chop Block (Rule 2-3-3). The definition of the chop block has been simplified to assist in the understanding of this rule and to encourage more consistent officiating. A chop block is now defined as a high-low or low-high combination block by any two players against an opponent (other than the runner) anywhere on the field, with or without a delay between contacts. The “low” component is at the opponent’s thigh or below. A dangerous action that can lead to serious injury, the chop block is a personal foul that carries a 15-yard penalty." According to the Pop Warner Officeal Rules for 2008 season (Page 38): "Both the National Federation and NCAA rulebooks contain extremely strong language on blocking and tackling. It is the responsibility of every Pop Warner coach to be fully informed of, and abide by, all such rules of the governing body (National Federation or NCAA) under whose jurisdiction his state falls, and to review same every year. In addition to other specific prohibitions in the National Fedeartion and NCAA rulebooks, no butt blocking, chop blocking, face tackling or sprearing techniques shall be permitted. If such techniques or any others forbidden by the National Fedeartion and NCAA rulebooks are taught by Pop Warner coaches, said coaches shall be dismissed from the program, upon being found guilty following a hearing." So to answer your question, yes, cut blocks are illegal in Pop Warner by rule. That's a common misconception, coach. Many coaches, and even some officials, don't understand the difference between an illegal chop block and a cut block. As the definition you posted states, a chop block is a double team block with one or both of the blockers going low (thigh or lower) on the defender. A cut block, which is legal in the FBZ in Pop Warner and under Federation rules (subject to some limitations, such as both blocker and defender must be on the LOS at the snap and both must be in the FBZ and contact must be initiated in the FBZ), is simply a block below the waist. As long as the cut block meets the FBZ criteria, and is not a double team block, it is perfectly legal.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Jul 29, 2008 21:29:00 GMT -6
Well, your league may have its own rules about cut blocks, but cut blocks are allowed in the FBZ under Federation (NFHS) rules, which is what most youth leagues use. A chop block is defined as a high-low (or I think it's been expanded to include a low-low) double team block, and that is not allowed anywhere at any level. You can order the Federation rule book from their website, which I believe is www.nfhs.org. BTW, if you read through the Rules of the Game section above, you will find several discussions about cut blocking and exactly what is legal and illegal under Federation and NCAA rules. Good luck to you, coach.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Jul 27, 2008 15:55:58 GMT -6
If you haven't done so already, you need to have a coaches meeting ASAP and spell out for everyone exactly what their roles are and what you expect from them and what they should expect from you. This is not a time to worry about being nice, but to make sure that your positions are crystal clear and that you have clear and open lines of communication.
You need to stress that while their input will be given serious consideration, once you make a decision it is FINAL and you expect everyone to get on board 100%. Any undermining of your plans and schemes is grounds for immediate removal from the staff and then be prepared to act on that should the need arise.
Assistants coaches that have not completely bought into your systemc can severely undermine what you're trying to do, so if sense that any of them are not with you, don't hesitate to remove them.
Good luck coach.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Jun 22, 2008 22:50:49 GMT -6
I guess I read that wrong, my bad .....As for our trick play, no he is on the field already, we run hurry up no huddle, so he just kinda gets lost during the previous play...but this is interesting, is yelling ball, or fumble during a play illegal??/because we do that WRT your trick play - even if he is on the field already, he has to be inside the 9-yd hashes (i.e. top of the numbers) after the ball has been marked ready for play or it is either illegal substitution or illegal participation (I'd have to look it to tell you which it is). You can't just hang out by the sideline after the previous play is over. I'm not sure about yelling "ball" or "fumble" during a play if there isn't actually a loose ball. I wouldn't do it, for no other reason than because it seems like a waste of time when I could be instructing my players to become better football players. It also just isn't good sportsmanship. I know yelling out things that mimic the offense's cadence is illegal under the "unsportsmanlike conduct" rules - I suspect this situation would fall into the same category. I'm not even sure what benefit you would get from it - wouldn't your own team get more confused than the offense anyway??
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Jun 20, 2008 18:41:51 GMT -6
Coach I would add :Not properly managing the clock Also, if anyone is having trouble with a minimum play rule, let me know I have a pretty good soultion for dealing with that Not managing the clock properly is a problem that is not unique to rookie coaches. Pretty much all coaches at all levels have trouble with this one. I routinely am amazed at how poorly NFL coaches manage the clock. As far as the MPR goes, please share whatever solutions you have. It is a major problem for most new coaches, so I'm sure your suggestions will be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Jun 20, 2008 18:37:52 GMT -6
Boy he would've had a field day with my team, Tell that coach to take a hike, hell all I run is deceptive stuff. Provided noone outside the players on the field were involved the play is legal, and he should just shut up and eat it. We sometimes have a flanker stand along our sideline, with his arms crossed, we tell him to blend in with the crowd, then when they dont cover him we hit him with a hitch. Not sure who you are responding to, but the issue isn't whether any players not on the field are involved. As the quote from the rule book (actually, I believe that quote is from the case book) stated, any "actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is problem and a snap isn't imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal." It is not the opinion of any particular coach on this forum - it is what the rule is, per the NFHS. The play is illegal, period. Your play where you have a flanker stand by the sideline with his arms crossed is legal only if that player came onto the field past the 9-yard hashes (i.e. at the top of the numbers) after the ball was marked ready for play, then went towards the sideline. If he simply stepped onto the field from sideline, it is unquestionably illegal.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Jun 14, 2008 17:57:08 GMT -6
The spread totally blows for youth football. You are a liar if you think it works well and you are a liar if you say you have been successful with the spread at the youth level for any length of time. bs Well, that was certainly a well reasoned, thoroughly researched, and eloquently stated retort. I don't know that anyone here could argue with reasoning like that. You must be very proud.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Jun 11, 2008 15:14:17 GMT -6
Hey coaches I just wanted to introduce myself to the board. I am youth football coach in Florida. I am the creator of _. I see alot of familar names from the old infosports board. Welcome aboard, coach - glad to have you here. There are plenty of spread-friendly coaches here, but there are many more (and often more vocal) spread naysayers. It makes for entertaining discussions. My opinion is probably pretty close to yours - the main thing I like about spread is that it allows me to move defenders (often the most athletic defenders) away from the POA and to get my best athletes the ball in space.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on May 7, 2008 13:14:34 GMT -6
in an 8 min game, how many snaps do you typically get in a youth game? I'm thinking the 30 range (?)....which really isn't much. With so fewer snaps / opportunities is there a desire / game plan to get MORE. Or is the general consensus to get LESS (and get the game over fast)? Lets say you get _____ amount of snaps in a game, do you game plan / script those opportunities and how does a coach manage those (more plays, a few plays multiplied, never punt, etc). How diverse is the youth coach's philosophy of managing a truncated game? Do you purposely go no-huddle to increase the chances? Do you purposely huddle to limit the chances? Do you purposely go fast-tempo to increase the chance even more? Here are the metrics I've experienced over the years. Note: we play 10 minute quarters with standard timing rules except that they wind the clock on the chop after change of possession. So, reduce everything by about 15-20% for 8 minute quarters and all standard timing. Average Plays Per Game: 90-100 total Average Offensive Plays Per Game: 37-43 Average Defensive Plays Per Game: 37-43 Average Spec Teams Plays Per Game: 15-20 Average # of Scores per Game: 6 (this varies widely from game to game - I only reference it to show how you get that many special teams plays - 8 kickoffs plus 6 PATs plus 2-6 punts) Average # of possessions per Game: 8 Obviously there is a fair amount of deviation from the mean and blowouts, turnovers, etc. will skew the numbers, but most games will fall within about 10% in either direction of the numbers I gave. Also - teams that throw a lot get a lot more plays in (probably 10-20% more) because they tend to stop the clock a lot more. Your estimate of about 30 plays on each side of the ball for games with 8 minute quarters is probably about right - maybe more like 33 or 34. In general, I like to go up tempo (I've even gone no-huddle at times in the past) as much as possible, to get more plays in, for no other reason than to get the MPR requirements done. After all my MPPs are done, then we may slow down by game plan if we know we're overmatched (may even do that from the opening gun if we know our only chance is to shorten the game, keep the score low and try to make a break with a turnover). So, we like to get a lot of snaps in (especially early) to get our minimum plays done. Separately, we may game plan to go either up tempo or slow tempo depending on our opponent. Generally, though, we just play our game and only change tempo depending on game situations (2-minute drill or slow down with a small lead late in the game).
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on May 7, 2008 12:56:01 GMT -6
coachdoug if you can get to mavs site there is alot of info fo the wedge in doublewing and explaintion of it good luck. Thanks for the info - I'll check it out. I know the basics of wedge, but I know that Dave is particularly successful running it, so I was curious to know exactly how he teaches it. And, since he offered, I was just letting him know that I'd like to see it.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on May 7, 2008 7:55:19 GMT -6
Falcon - my only advice is, if you're going to run option, commit to it. Youth teams that mainly run power, misdirection, etc. and just try to spinkle in option as a change of pace, generally fail miserably with the option. Option requires a ton of reps (like 50% or more of your practice reps, EVERY day), so unless it is going to be a major component of your offense, it is isn't worth it.
That said, if you are going to commit to it, it is tough to stop, and I think the advice offered by casec11 and bulldogoption is solid.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on May 7, 2008 7:40:15 GMT -6
If there are those that seriously want to learn how to do it properly to run it and not just as an exercise in throwing spit balls I could start another thread on how to teach it. That is obviously only part of the puzzle, then you get into the various series we use it with and the conflicts we create with it. What different backfield actions we pair it with, formationing and why we love it when MLBs go after our center etc. etc I'd be interested to learn how you teach the progression. As you've pointed out, there are a lot of sloppy, ineffective wedges out there - the difference is in out it is taught/coached. So, yes, please start another thread.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on May 1, 2008 8:33:08 GMT -6
CoachJ - you make excellent points. Without making my original points any more overly verbose than they already are, here a handful of comments:
In your case, I would consider all your dives one play and all your isos one play. It is amusing that one coach might say he only has 5 plays and another says he has 50 (the same 5 plays, but from 3 different formations/motions, to slightly different aiming points, right/left, etc.) and they mean exactly the same thing. My point was just not to have a ton of different things for the players to learn.
I'd say your approach to scrimmaging is fine - you essentially have 2 sessions of 10-15 each. My point was to avoid the natural inclination to spend 1/2 or more of practice scrimmaging.
Regarding assistant coaches, I agree with you completely, and I should have mentioned that it is important to include your assistants and to value their input. Heck, I'm going to be an assistant this year (with a 1-yr old girl at home, I don't want the admin duties of a head coach), so of course I want to coach on a staff that is going to value my input. My frustration, though, as a head coach has been with assistants that either just don't follow my program, or try to follow it, but just don't know how to yet.
Regarding conditioning, I go back and forth on this myself, sometimes. For me, when my teams haven't been well-enough conditioned, it's been more a factor of my inability to get my staff and/or my practices organized so that we stay at a high-enough tempo to accomplish proper conditioning. My point was more about yelling at the kids and using conditioning as punishment to "toughen 'em up."
Thanks for the feedback.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on May 1, 2008 0:38:51 GMT -6
Judging from the number of new posters I've seen recently, and based on the fact that it is currently spring ball season, and that many programs (like mine) will be starting in 3 short months, I thought it would be appropriate to offer some words of advice to any new coaches that my be lurking here. Now, I am hardly an expert on these things, but in 15 years, I've picked up a few things, so here is my list of the top 10 mistakes that rookie coaches make (almost of which I've made myself), so that all you new coaches out there can learn from those of us that came before you:
1. Schemes Too Complex. This is probably the single most common mistake I've seen. Guys watch TV, or remember their playing days in college or even HS and want to implement multiple sets, complex reads, zone blitzes, disguise coverages, etc. and just leave their team of 8 yr-olds scratching their heads. If ever there was a time and place to put the K.I.S.S. principle to use, it is in coaching youth sports. Keep it simple and add on very slowly only after you are 100% sure your players are 100% on board with whatever they already have. 5-10 plays on offense and 1-2 fronts and coverages on defense is all most youth teams need (less for the younger ages).
2. Failure to Manage the Minimum Play Rule (MPR). Not all leagues have an MPR, so if yours doesn't, skip this one. For everyone else, almost all new coaches don't get how important this is. 6-10 plays per player doesn't seem like a lot, but in the heat of battle it is very easy to not get it taken care of, then the 4th quarter starts and you have to put in 5 Minimum Play Players (MPPs) at the same time and the other team scores twice in 5 plays and you lose. You have to sub from the 2nd play of the game and continue subbing every play until all your MPR plays are done, regardless of the situation. I can't tell you how many times I've heard rookie coaches say, "No, we can't put him here - you don't understand how important this drive is - we'll get him in later." That kind of thinking will kill you. Similarly, you have to balance how much you work with your weakest players - most rookies coaches just ignore their weakest players and they really hurt them when they get into games. I erred in the other direction - I thought that if I just worked hard enough with my weakest players, I could make them substantially better. It didn't work - all I did was prove to them that they couldn't play. Weak players generally know they are weak - if you can hide them and protect them so that the whole world can't see that they aren't ready yet, you can keep their confidence up until they improve. This subject is more complex than this, but to grossly over-simplify the situation, just don't ask marginal players to do things that they can't do or are not ready to do yet, especially in games in front of all their family and friends.
3. Failure to Balance Winning vs. Fun. Okay, this is probably the single biggest challenge facing any youth coach, rookie or not. Far too many coaches subscribe to the "win at all costs" approach - they run off marginal players, sweat down overweight kids, break rules to gain an advantage, and never play MPPs beyond what they have to. Don't be like these poor confused souls - make a positive difference in your players lives in a way far more meaningful than wins and losses. Teach values like sportsmanship, discipline, hard work, teamwork, perseverance, honesty, integrity, and the will to win - if you take care of those meaningful things, insignificant things like wins and loses will take care of themselves. OTOH, do not focus solely on "having fun" either. While this problem is less prevalent, it is actually worse - I've seen over-exuberant coaches learn to tone it down over time, but coaches that don't care about being competitive and only worry about fun almost never survive to see a second season, which doesn't do themselves, or their players any good. "Fun-only" coaches don't enforce discipline, don't stress fundamentals, try to have every player get a turn at QB or running back, give all players equal playing time and spend all of practice scrimmaging or doing fun, full-contact drills. These coaches not only rarely win, they almost always lose by mercy rule scores; their players get hurt; their good, hard-working players lose interest because they see no reward for their work ethic and no punishment for other players that goof-off or skip practice, so they don't come back - and neither does their coach. Finding the right mix is extremely difficult, but it is worth the effort.
4. Too Much Practice Time Spent Scrimmaging. I frequently hear new coaches talking about how the old coach spent too much time on non-game situations and how the team really needs to practice game situations, so he wants to spend half or three quarters of practice scrimmaging. Big mistake. It is almost impossible for coaches to watch 22 players at once, and even if you can, you don't want to stop the entire team to correct one player's mistake. The best coached youth teams spend the vast majority of practice in groups or indy skills sessions (like broken out into linemen, backs, and receivers; or line, linebackers, and secondary). The closer you can come to one-on-one time with your players, the more effective you'll be. If you're spending more than 10-15 minutes of practice time in full 11-on-11 scrimmages, it's too much.
5. Failure to Manage Your Coaching Staff. This should probably be higher on the list. At least, this is the single biggest problem I've had in my coaching career. If you're the head coach - you need to make it clear that it's not a democracy and your assistants need to follow your program or get out of the way. It is far better to have a second-best scheme with the entire staff on board 100% than to have the absolute best scheme with a divided staff. I guess because when I've been an assistant my attitude was always to tell the head coach if I disagreed with him and why, but if he heard me and still wanted to go in a different direction, then I got on board with his system 100%, that I expected my assistants to be the same way. Sadly, this is simply just not the case. If you don't know if your assistants understand your system 100% and will teach it the way you want it taught, you're better off to get rid of them and do it all yourself. If you don't already know your assistants and trust them 100% to run your system, you should probably start off giving them no more responsibility than holding bags and setting up drills & cones until you're comfortable that they are on the same page as you. Trust me on this - once you've give your assistants more responsibility than they've earned, it's really hard to take it back without getting rid of them completely - and that can cause a whole other set of problems. DO NOT GIVE AUTHORITY TO YOUR ASSISTANTS until you are 100% certain that they know your system inside and out and will teach it the way you want. I cannot stress this enough.
6. Failure to Communicate With Parents. I've been doing this for 15 years, and about 2 years ago, I thought because I had mostly returning players and I had sent several emails to all the parents explaining my philosophy and how we run things, that I could skip my annual parent's meeting to go over all that stuff. BIG MISTAKE. I had huge, huge problems with the parents that year. If the parents don't know exactly what's going on, they will assume the worst. Even worse, they'll talk to each other, get the rumor mill going and then all the parents will believe the worst and you'll have a mutiny on your hands. Make it a point to meet with all the parents the first week of practice (or before) and clearly spell out your philosophy, your goals, your approach to playing time, your approach to winning vs. fun, and the chain of command that the parents should follow when they have questions or complaints. If possible, have something written up that you require them all to sign - this will cut down on a lot of arguments later during the season. Then, make sure you regularly update them on how you and the team are doing vis-a-vis all the goals and objectives you stated during your initial parents meeting. After practice discussions are good (not all parents come to practice or leave their cars, though); after game discussions are better; and email newsletters to the team are good supplements.
7. Failure to Properly Plan Practices. Create a practice plan and go over it with your assistants before each practice. You do not want your players standing around twiddling their thumbs while you and your staff set up cones & bags and explain the drill. Get organized and maximize your players reps. I tell my assistants that I expect the same level of effort from them during practice that I expect from the players. If they want to chat on the sideline with other coaches about work or their wives or the NFL or anything other than what's happening in practice right then, they shouldn't coach. At least one coach on this forum says he and all his coaches are drenched in sweat at the end of each practice - that's how it should be. A corollary to this is that you should make sure you know why you are running every drill you do. Too often new coaches just run whatever drills they remember from college or high school without any regard for whether it makes sense for the scheme they are running or for the level they're at. I certainly did this - hey, I had to fill up the time with something, so I ran what I knew. Don't waste your time or your player's time - think about each drill and make sure it fits into your overall scheme. If you don't have enough to fill out your practice plan, ask some questions on this forum (or others like it) - you'll get plenty of ideas to fill up your practice time.
8. Not Enough Time Spent on Fundamentals. This ties in with #4 and #7 (even #3 to some extent). Focusing on assignments may be easier or get faster on-field results, but properly teaching blocking, tackling, footwork, executing fakes, mechanics, etc. will mean much more to your players in the long run. Likewise, scrimmaging or doing full-contact, big-hitting drills may be more immediate fun for the players, but you're selling them short if you don't focus on really teaching them sound fundamentals.
9. Too Much of an "Old School" Approach Regarding Toughness & Conditioning. I'm a big Vince Lombardi fan, so I was very guilty of this one. Full-contact, big-hitting drills and heaving conditioning designed to get the kids tough sounds great if you come from that school of thought, but it really is best left back in the 60s or 70s. Yelling at the kids and focusing on drills to make the kids "tough" is just a waste of time. If you run a well-organized, up-tempo practice conditioning will take care of itself, so time spent on up-downs and other conditioning-only exercises not only turn off the players, but are largely a waste of time. Same thing goes for stretching - most kids don't really need much, they're naturally loose at that age. I remember my first few years coaching, we would spend 20+ minutes per 2-hour practice stretching. Are you kidding? A 5-minute dynamic warm-up is all you need. BTW, I didn't come around on this issue because I became PC or got soft or any other nonsense, I changed my mind because being positive and focusing on skills rather than toughness simply works better.
10. Throwing Too Much on Offense. Don't get me wrong - I firmly believe that youth offenses can throw the ball effectively. However, many rookie coaches come in thinking that what they've seen on TV in the pro or college game will work at the youth level. Setting up in the pocket on a 5-step drop with various reads depending coverages and blitzes is a recipe for sacks and INTs at the youth level. If you know how to coach the passing game at the youth level, go for it. But if you're not sure, focus on the run game first until you really know how the passing game works at this level.
Well, that's my take on it - again, I'm no expert, so take it with a grain of salt. Sorry this was so long, but I hope that is helpful to any of the new coaches out there. Please chime in with your opinions if you have other items to add to the list or disagree with anything I have on my list.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Apr 26, 2008 14:15:10 GMT -6
LOL....coach doug.....after officiating many youth games...even some jr. high games....I learned to understand....theres "movement".....then there's "enough movement thats early enough" to warrant a flag.....otherwise in most youth games...they'd never get a play off for the "yellow rags", (as one of our local mama's use to scream), thrown all over the field? You kinda learn to tone down your penalty sensors, in youth ball and let them play, unless it really effects the outcome of the play or is in the personal foul/sportsmanship category? You could literally call a penalty on "every" play, if you wanted? I know what you mean, and that's not what happened on this play. On this play most of the players were still walking up to the line and hadn't even reached their positions to get set when the center picked up the ball and handed it to the QB. Like I said, I wasn't even aware the ball had been marked ready for play yet. It wasn't even close and this level of movement would normally been called at any level down to 5 yrs old. Also, as you said, "unless it really effects (sic) the outcome of the play or in is in the personal foul/sportsmanship category." Well, as a "trick" play, clearly it was designed to affect the outcome of the game (which we ended up winning 6-2, so it definitely would have had a major impact), and since the play is designed to trick the defense into thinking that a snap has not actually happened, then the players being set or not is directly relevent to whether or not the defense would believe there was a snap. Finally, this play is illegal because of it's unsportsmanlike nature (see rules 9-6-4-e and 9-9-3).
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Apr 26, 2008 12:29:01 GMT -6
LOL! I'm glad somebody nailed that 'wrong ball' play before every coach in the country decides to try it. A team tried that play against us about 3 or 4 years ago on the first play of the game. Luckily, one of my CBs had heard that this team had worked on this play, so he was ready for it and shadowed the QB and made the tackle before the QB could get going. I didn't even realize the ball had been marked ready for play yet, when I saw my CB tackling the QB. Later, I got really upset when I watched the video of the play. The entire offense (like at least 8 or 9 players) were moving at the "snap." The officials had been told in advance that this team was going to run this play, but didn't think it was important to make sure they got set before the snap. Not to mention the play isn't even legal anyways. Sheesh.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Apr 23, 2008 14:56:27 GMT -6
I do it similarly. During conditioning week we test every player in a number of categories - some are timed with stop-watches, some are eye-balled, but all are objective and measurable (such as how many balls caught out of how many attempts). I like to have objective, quantifibable data because assistant coaches are not always as objective as I would like them to be, and also so that I have something more concrete than "I don't think your son would be a good receiver," when I have to explain to a disgruntled parent why his son isn't playing his preferred position. Just letting the parents know that the decisions are made based on objective data seems to cut down on those conversations.
We tell the kids what the requirements are for each position and ask them what they would like to play. We'll tell them that they better be in the top half of the team speed-wise if they want to be a running back. I'll let anyone who wants a to try out for QB (or any other position) have a shot at it. I can usually eliminate most pretenders in one practice and have most kids in the right positions by the end of conditioning week. The kids seem to appreciate having been given the opportunity to try out for a position even if they didn't make it. In the end, we end up putting them all where we think they'll help the team the most.
We do end up doing some position switching throughout August, so I guess this is an area where we could improve. Since Dave seems to have excellent results in this area, I would be interested to know more details of exactly how he does it (what are the position requirements, what games/drills are run, what is measured, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Apr 23, 2008 12:25:03 GMT -6
I do feel as adults we far to often confuse winning with competing. I think you hit the nail on the head! Great thread & great discussion.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Apr 23, 2008 11:06:04 GMT -6
I hesitated to even bring up the point about the importance of being competitive because I didn't want to start this argument, but I think it's important. In general, I agree that more coaches make the mistake of over-emphasizing winning, and winning probably is more important to the adults involved than it is to the kids. However, I know some new coaches read this board and I think it's important that they understand that an attitude of "make it all fun, all the time," while not as common, is just as bad, or even worse. I've seen some "win-at-all-costs" type of coaches get enlightened and tone it down over time and become really good influences for the kids. OTOH, I've never seen a coach that errs in the other direction ever make it to a second season (and most of his players won't either), let alone eventually become a really good youth coach. In my experience, when coaches focus on nothing but "having fun," they tend to not enforce discipline, let everyone play QB or RB, give everyone close to equal playing time, only do "fun" drills in practice with lots of live hitting like scrimmaging, and a lot of practice ends up looking like a sandlot game with full pads. The end result is that the kids don't learn much about football, don't learn much about the values of sportsmanship, hard work, discipline, etc, no one learns any one position really well, there is no incentive to work harder or even come to practice (since everyone plays the same amount anyway), and the team is just not very good. Consequently, they lose most or all of their games badly and it's no fun for the players, the coaches, the parents, or even their opponents. The good players don't come back the next year because there was no recognition of or reward for their talent or hard work and it was no fun getting their butts whipped when no one else seemed to care about getting better. The weak kids don't come back because instead of being brought along slowly and protected so he could think, "Man, I know I could play more - I just need a chance to show what I can do," he has rather been put in a position he wasn't ready for, and his weaknesses have been exposed, and now all he can think is, "Man, I suck, this team sucks, and I'm never doing this again." The coach doesn't come back the next year and neither do most of the players and the team probably never recovers. I've seen this happen dozens of times over the years and I've never seen play out differently. At the beginning of every season I spell out for the players and their parents what my goals and objectives are for the season. It may vary a little bit by age group, but it generally goes something like this (in order): 1. Have Fun. This is absolutely the number one objective, but we will rarely actually actively focus on having fun during practice. Having fun will be a natural byproduct of doing everything else well. 2. Learn Values. Sportsmanship, Discipline, Hard Work, Conditioning/Physical Fitness, Perseverance, Integrity, Commitment. These things we will actively try to teach and instill in the kids on a daily basis. 3. Be Competitive. Winning is not the most important thing, but we are playing a competitive game and the object of the game is to win. We don't have to win all the time to be successful, but we do have to try to win to accomplish our goals and objectives. That's the important distinction - it's the will to win, the desire to win, rather than the actual outcome of winning that's important. 4. Develop of Understanding of and Love for the Game of Football. We love the game and we want to share that love with the players. Even if they never play a down at the next level, if they learn the game and appreciate it as a fan, then we've accomplished this goal. 5. Prepare for the next level. This doesn't apply to all the players - I'm well aware of the stats about how few youth players ever play in HS. Well, I think about 2/3 or more of our players play in HS (at least at the Frosh/JV level), and it's probably in part because we do take seriously our role in helping them prepare. We don't run the HS's schemes or anything like that, but we try to make sure we are teaching proper techniques and terminology so they can hit the ground running when they get to HS. So, getting back to the issue of being competitive. Again, it doesn't mean you have to win a championship. I was part of a team that went 2-6 or 3-5, but the kids had a great time and almost the entire team was back the next season. They weren't very big or athletic, so they were playing about well as they could more. Even though they lost, most of the games were close (scores were like 8-6, 14-6, 7-0). They won big a couple times and lost big a couple times, but all the rest of the games were close. They were competitive - they saw that they were close and if they could just improve a little, they could maybe get to the playoffs. That's all I mean be being competitive. Sorry so long - I just wanted to clarify my position as clearly as possible.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Apr 23, 2008 1:01:29 GMT -6
coachwarner -
Great thread and a great idea. I will start doing this with my teams. I have done season-end surveys before, but it never even occured to me to ask this question at the start of the season.
Anyway, I intended to respond to the original question, but I was out of town and just didn't get to it. Nonetheless, I probably would have said (from your list) #s 1,2,4,5, and 7. I'm not surprised 3 is on the list, but it would probably have been #6 on my list. I would have guessed that wanting to be like the stars they've seen on TV would have made the list (I guess it's kind of included in #5).
I'm not too surprised that no kid ever said "To Win" or "To Win a Championship," but I think it is a byproduct of having fun (or maybe the other way around) - for most kids winning is fun. For instance, when I played as a kid, I had a friend that was mildly interested in hearing about my football team, but when I started telling him every week about how we won the previous weekend, he started to get really excited about it and signed up to play the following season. I think that sort of thing happens fairly regularly. I'm sure if he had been asked, he would have said he was playing to have fun or to be part of a team, but wanting to be a winner was a big part of it for him. Everyone wants to be part of a successful, winning organization, be it sports, or business, or whatever. I don't want to overemphasize the point (believe me, winning is far from my #1 priority), but it is also dangerous to underemphasize it - kids don't have to win every game to have fun, but they do need to be competitive or it's no fun for anyone.
JMHO
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Apr 22, 2008 20:57:14 GMT -6
Wow - that was pretty. That looked like a lot of fun - I would have enjoyed being on that sideline. I didn't see anything there that looked particularly difficult to execute, even with average or slightly below average athletes (except maybe the one deep corner route and some of the other deep throws). With proper coaching, a lot of youth teams could duplicate this, or at least come close, I think. I would think it would take a total commitment to running spread, but you said these guys only ran spread as a supplement to DW? That's either really impressive, or the competition on this video was really poor - maybe a little of both?
In any event, I don't condone continuing to sling the ball down the field with a 30 or 40 point lead late in the second half.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Apr 17, 2008 11:57:23 GMT -6
Does the "change required" necessitate a PR move? Change the face of youth coaching as something more worth the investment of time and attention? I'd be curious to see how much of an impact the "Snoop Dogg Youth Football" Program in LA has had on interest / awareness of youth sports (big fields / new uniforms / etc). I can address the question about the Snoop League. One of the fields they use is the HS located a block from where I live. Snoop's league has been something of a double-edged sword. It has been both good and bad to some extent. First, the good: - Increased exposure/awareness of youth football. I'm not sure this is really as big of a deal as it might seem - most kids that were interested in playing had plenty of options available to them and plenty of opportunity to be exposed to them - that is, I don't think there were a lot (or any) kids that wanted to play but didn't because they didn't know there was a program available. Of course, a big celeb like Snoop has the abillity to get exposure that ordinary programs don't have. Like when he performed on American Idol and had a bunch of players from his league join him on-stage - that was pretty cool and would never have happened otherwise.
- More opportunities in lower income/disadvantaged areas. I'm not sure exactly where all of Snoop's teams are located, but they tend to be in the poorer parts of the city - they are certainly NOT in Beverly Hills. Maybe some kids got a chance to play that otherwise wouldn't have because they wouldn't have been able to get to practice in another part of town.
Neither good nor bad: - Fields. As far as I know, all Snoop teams use local HS fields, or existing park fields, just like everyone else. I don't know of any new fields built for his league.
- Uniforms. Yeah, they're new and flashy and nice, but not really any more so than any of the other options locally. The average team in our league probably has better overall equipment/supplies than the average Snoop team, and the uniforms are probably about even.
- Quality of play/coaching. I've only watched parts of games from the Snoop league, but it looks pretty much like youth ball anywhere. I don't know anyone that's played against any of their teams, so I can't really say for sure, but I would be surprised if the level of play is dramatically different from what you could find elsewhere. Having said that, I would be shocked if the best teams in our league couldn't consistently beat the best teams from Snoop's league, if only because we are so much larger than they are.
Finally, the bad: - Pain to other, existing leagues. In our area, there are several leagues (Pop Warner, Jr. All American, ours - we were American Youth Football but now we're independent, and other independent leagues, and now Snoop). When Snoop formed his league, the vast majority of his players were poached from existing programs. In our league, the Long Beach program was decimated by defections to the Snoop league. The year before Snoop started his league, Long Beach was in our Mitey Mite level conference championship game led by Willie McGinnest's nephew. The next year, with McGinnest and several others off to the Snoop league, Long Beach didn't even field a team in the Jr. Pee Wee level. Their program still has not recovered and barely fielded teams last year that all struggled. I suspect they will go defunct in the next year or two. I would be a lot more enthusiastic about Snoop's league if he had really gone to areas that had no football available, but he mostly encroached on areas that already had teams and took their players. I just looked at their site, and they have 13 cities (some are not clear where they are located because they have names like "California Cowboys"), of which only 2 or maybe 3 are in areas where I wasn't aware previously had football available. Every other city already had football available.
- Ego - maybe it's just my bias, but the league seems to be more about Snoop than it does about the kids. I'm not sure if they have to wear Snoop patches on the uniforms or anything like that, but it does seem that when you go by a Snoop game, you immediately know that it's a Snoop game, not just a youth game. I'm not sure why that is.
So, ultimately, just because of the publicity he's generated for youth football, I guess the Snoop league is overall a positive thing. However, I think he could have done more good by getting involved in an existing program and using his celebrity to make it better. If he had to start something new, I wish he would have restricted the teams to just those areas that didn't already have teams. JMHO.
|
|