|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 10, 2007 16:43:48 GMT -6
Football just takes a lot of skills. It's one of the same reasons that the 40 may or may not have much merit, when do guys run 40 yard dashes?
To the extent that having "pure speed" or "track speed" serves as a proxy for being a good athlete in general, then sure. But the lesson is not that having pure speed doesn't "translate," it just means that football requires a great many skills, while being a track guy requires that you be exceptional at a few skills. Olympic track athletes are in the top 1/2 of 1% regarding their straight ahead explosion, body control, and pure footspeed. Football players can make due being not nearly so fast in those categories, but they must be developed in many, many others.
Even receivers have to deal with a lot of starts and stops, shiftiness, body control, sharp cuts, HANDS, dealing with jams, upper body strength, jumping ability, and not to mention the mental aspect. There's just a wide variety of skills required. Although being exceptional at one or two (like a track guy) is usually strong evidence of being talented in the others, it is by no means a sure thing and often the guys with exceptional "pure speed" are discouraged by being relatively "average" at the other skills.
Football just requires you to be a bit of a jack of all trades. Jerry Rice was in the top 1% of nearly every receiver skill except "pure speed," but he still had plenty of that as well. So to me it's not that they don't "translate," they are just entirely distinct skills that are involved.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 12, 2006 6:09:38 GMT -6
Tog and Huey: Great work and thanks! You guys put a lot of work in and I know we all appreciate it.
I promise to get some stuff to you guys by early next week, it's a hectic week and I'm travelling all weekend. I want to do my part to help get it going. The best way to get articles is peer pressure--if someone is talking or doing something that you want to know about, or has had an interesting experience ("From Worst to First, How the Single Wing Took Us to the Top" or "How we scored more on Punt Returns Than We Did on Offense--the Good Part") make sure to tell them to type up an article.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Nov 27, 2006 8:42:27 GMT -6
It's quite amazing what they do, and the fact that they have been running this same offense for the last 6 or so years, at least. Their variance is in a few route adjustments on the fly (not that many) and their QB getting them in the right call.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Oct 29, 2006 9:37:32 GMT -6
This is semi-off topic, but I finally got an expanded Cable service with DVR/Tivo capabilities at home, and I can't tell you how actually enjoyable it has been. I've been recording NFL Matchup for years, but now somehow I've been getting these Bill Belichek "coaching breakdowns" where Belichek spends about 5 minutes breaking down a coverage or a front, somehow this is coming through my On Demand. I'm in New England so this seems to make sense, but then last week I was able to set my DVR to record the Hal Mumme show from some obscure sporting network. Not to mention it is a very simple way to tape football games off TV at a high quality. I'm curious if anyone else is doing this and if so, if they know the best way to transfer the DVRs to DVD and/or computers. This week on NFL Matchup they broke down "Mills" (the curl/in with a post behind it Cover 4 beater) and that'd be great to put on a DVD to show to the kids as a teaching tool.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Sept 25, 2007 7:43:40 GMT -6
I respect Gundy, what he did and what he said, but unfortunately this is not going to help him in the long run. If Okie State drops a few more games he could even wind up losing his job.
As brophy said, the media all stick together. They may not agree with some guy but they will never applaud you for attacking them.
It can be a no-win situation. But for today, I will simply say: Kudos Mike Gundy.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Oct 31, 2006 22:22:12 GMT -6
Hey, doesn't surprise me you've got to do what you have to do. Read my article about "balance," I'm not surprised your passing game got better after your run game got better, especially off play action and faking too. It's all about having the right tools in your toolbox and being good with them.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Oct 30, 2006 14:28:18 GMT -6
firebird--how did the offense go this season? I know you were running the Airraid and struggled with the run game? Any big improvements on that front? The kids get more comfortable in it?
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Oct 29, 2006 11:41:31 GMT -6
Don't beat yourself up too much--every game has plays like that and the ball takes certain bounces. Even if a scheme wasn't the best or a player gets out of position, it's still simply just chance for all of those things to come together at once. I'm sure the team you played had some good talent and is used to winning games even when it plays bad, which is difficult to surmount even if your kids put together a good game. Sounds like you guys put them in very good position to win, a position no one expected you to be in, and the kids put the other team on the ropes. Games are simply very short and the final score is often the result of some unfortunate bounces or just a play that goes against you. You'll be back, and it sounds like it was a performance everyone should be proud of.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Mar 21, 2008 17:47:09 GMT -6
It seems like everyone here knows more of the facts about the process, etc than I've been able to find on the internet. I had thought that the reason the Federal Judge set this aside is because they *didn't* follow the previous court order or had done something to cause a disproportionate impact. I didn't see where the problem was this white coach was a better writer or not, but again I can't find the Judge's orders or any of the fact-finding. I'd love to read it, and I can probably guarantee that this ruling will be appealed to the Fifth Circuit and we'll get something interesting out of it.
And to coachd's point, it's nice but not altogether realistic. Head coaches are always hired by school boards and administrations. There's no council of learned coaches that gets to hire for various schools (though assistants are another matter). I think school boards and such have lots and lots of problems apart from their views on hiring coaches, but I don't have a big problem with federal courts ensuring that these entities - which themselves have a history of racial animus, apart from the communities where they sit - conduct their processes in a race-neutral manner.
Now it's another question, again I can't find more info on this, whether this process really was race-neutral (fact question). And I don't think anyone here would argue if it could be proved (or just assume it) that some school board said "Well, we have Coach Jim and Coach Bruce who are both equal, and Coach Bruce is Asian and Coach Jim is Indian, and we hate Indians and like Asians so we like Coach Bruce." No one would argue that is okay. So if that's what did happen (I do not know), then we don't have anything to argue about. That's not a matter of anyone being helped out or put down or ripped off. That's an example of government (the school board) employing impermissible factors.
Finally, I am curious that the automatic judgment here was to put in the black coach. We'll see if that survives. (And all this about historically black colleges is a red herring. )
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Mar 21, 2008 11:30:34 GMT -6
I tried to do some research on this but I couldn't find much. If anyone has the district court judge's actual opinion and order I'd like to see it. All this will be appealed and we'll know what the deal is. The article (though the only one out there) is kind of inadequate in explaining what went down.
Sounds though like there were two factors, one that the process they used in some way disproportionately affected black candidates. I don't know how or in what way, but if true then that's definitely a no go. The other factor is that there appears to be still a remaining court ordered issue with a desegregation decree that actually applies to football coaches, left over from the '70s, when schools were essentially forcefully integrated.
If that's true then this judge probably ruled correctly, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals might be willing to lift that, citing the passage of time. I don't really know. I can say I'd never heard of a racial balance for football coaches before, but Louisiana has a rather sordid racial history and sometimes extreme measures are appropriate. (I also know they merged schools and didn't want to see the all-black coaching staffs of some all-black schools get completely displaced. Again, it was the '70s.) Another factor is the S. Ct. recently struck down voluntary race-based school assignments (as distinct from court ordered desegregation decrees) in Seattle and Louisville.
In any event, it's another matter whether you'd want to be in the middle of this, right or wrong. I'll be interested to see how this issue is framed on appeal.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Nov 26, 2007 11:40:36 GMT -6
Here's a "coaching" question: How do you account (and is there any truth) to the notion that a particular program (HS or college) is a smashmouth or running team, and can't be converted to being a "passing school" etc. I guess it gets into the limits of tradition. I tend to think that USC did pretty well as a "passing school" with Palmer/Leinert as it did as Tailback U, but these are questions. It comes up a lot at Nebraska.
I have seen passing coaches get brought down by taking over high-profile HS teams that had a "tradition" of running. There are practicalities of getting your players ready to catch the football. When Mumme/Leach took over Kentucky Bill Curry had built up an option/power team (though they had Tim Couch). Somewhat similarly Leach took over Texas Tech which had been a fairly power oriented team under Spike Dykes.
Anyway, just curious what your thoughts are. It seems clear to me that Osborne is not looking to hire Mike Leach for this job.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 30, 2006 8:22:06 GMT -6
I agree with spread bone. Another option for power-I type sets is to run I with 1TE, 1 Split end, and if one of your WRs has a little toughness put him at wing to let him run some cracks and different routes
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 31, 2007 22:53:17 GMT -6
Phantom - I've been at this a long time my friend. I in no way shape or form took that as a dig. At my previous school we played in a league with a 6 time state champion. We got to play them during the time they set the then state record 54 game winning streak. They were good, very good and even though we always gave them a black and blue ball game and our games were almost always close...14-13, 14-7.....they always seemed to make that one or 2 plays they needed to beat us. I never harbored any resentment towards them, I put them on the top of our list. I placed them on the "benchmark" pedastal, and eventually what we did was we took dead aim at them and tried to get our program to their level. Even though we were always close to them, we were never quite able to get over that hump. In 2000 we finally beat them. 17-14. We had a dramatic goalline stand 1st and Goal from the 3 yd line. With about 3 minutes left. FINALLY we had made the play to win it for us. What caught me was, as our kids were losing their minds, their kids were lined up on the 50 waiting on to shake up. Their kids came through the line saying "good game" no different in the year we beat them than in all the years they had beaten us. Their coaches were the same way. What went unnoticed until later reflection, in our pursuit of reaching that team was we became a pretty good football team ourselves. That win gave us the league title and was the last year of that league. We go into a different league in 2001 and we promptly win 5 straight league titles and our worst record was 8-2. I don't look down my nose at HD, I respectfully look up to them and their program...but at the same time, I want to play them, I want to play the best of the best, I want the opportunity to knock Goliath off his mountain top. Who wants to go out there and play that team you beat 70-0? I sure don't. I want us to play good teams & good programs. If you have comparable kids, that's how you get good. You won't get good..really good playing Sister Mary's Catholic School for the Blind every week. That's just my opinion. Great post. Good read, good background story, well written. Thumbs up. (And I totally agree.)
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 31, 2007 11:54:36 GMT -6
I love their line splits! I mean HD. I wish they showed the Mentor highlights too though. It'd been more fun to see it where they showed highlights of both squads. (Though whenever it is for one team you get way more defensive highlights.)
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 21, 2006 19:22:51 GMT -6
Good advice in this thread all around. My (probably unhelpful answer) is simply to make sure you and your coaches have the attitude and don't come across like you're trying to be rocket scientists. I mean we know football can be somewhat sophisticated at times, even tricky with fronts, coverages etc, but compared to most things it never really gets that challenging, even at the Pro level. As long as you stay focused on the basics and reinforce to the kids that all this is masterable and doable; that the important thing is to learn their assignments, the basic "whys" and then just go out, have fun and hit some people then football really becomes a simple game.
I know I'm as guilty of anyone of "intellectualizing" football--hell I have a website devoted to it--but it's really a pretty simple game and remind your players and yourself of this and no one should feel overwhelmed.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 3, 2007 12:39:15 GMT -6
college game is the only thing remaining outside of HS ball that resembles what the game actually is. No offense brophy, but I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. What the "game" actually "is"? According to what? And to whom? Last I checked there was no platonic ideal "football." This reminds me of that A-11 thread where people tried to say it was gimmick ball or whatnot. People try to say the same thing about the spread, particularly the spread run games these days with the fly. It's all "gimmick offense" etc., not "real football." So now suddenly teams that run the I, 3-wide 1 back, no back, bunch, spread, power, bootlegs, fakes, the zone run game, most of the run and shoot pass game, quick screens, and hell, Vince Young and Vick even ran the zone read some (I'm not asking Peyton Manning to do so), are suddenly not "real football." All this points to a simple point: there is no what the game "actually is" - there is no "is." Otherwise, when ideas like Ted's Wild Bunch come along, they should be appropriately blacklisted because they are some kind of ill mutation of what football truly "is." And make no mistake, many many people think this. The irony now is that it is the Pros who don't resemble what the game actually "is" because they are (at least in outward perception) too generic! That idea must be shocking to the Woody Hayes's who also thought they knew what "true football" was. I'm not really trying to go after you brophy, I know it was just a comment and I was just using it as a launching pad for something I've thought about since that A-11 thread not being real football, so nothing personal at all. ;D But my point is this: there is no "ideal" football. There is no "right" way to play the game - it's a sport. If you line up in any legal formation and do anything legally (and not unsprortsmanlike like trying to hurt someone or doing dangerous things) you are within the notion of football. There is no "Platonic" form. As long as you are within the (rather arbitrarily defined) rules, it is football. Think about this. You might say that something is not "real football" because of some formation or "cosmetic look" but what is more fundamental than the size of the field or how many downs there are. Those are about as significant as it can get, yet both vary (see Canadian football). Or think about 8-man football, they don't even have 11 players on each side. Thats way more significant than whether someone runs the power-F too much. I understand the point of this thread was something else, that the NFL is boring or generic or whatever. This is wrong too, of course as I have documented previously: college "appears" more diverse for the reason that teams can simply execute fewer things, so each team has a small subset of plays that others teams do not run, unlike the Pros where, guess what, they have time and the resources to run it ALL. The irony about the position is not that they are "generic" because they do the same things, but you all are saying it is generic because each team runs just about everything. I know college and HS breeds some degree of diversity because the smaller schools with nothing to lose serve as laboratories for new ideas. This is true and is a virtue. In any event, there is no "true" football. It's fair to say you enjoy watching the pros less - that is fine. Much of what goes on in the pros is the subtle micro game, and one of my biggest complaints is that the typical TV coverage (boo Fox) and announcers simply gloss over or fail to recognize these interesting and subtle nuances, or make it impossible to even see what Ed Reed just did on that play or what Tom Brady was looking at or even what stunt they brought and how the line picked it up. It's the micro-game, and TV coverage makes it hard to see. But it's there. College appears more easily digestible as something different because it simply appears that way, with few exceptions. The one exceptions I'll grant are Navy and a few very small schools only talked about some on here. It's well documented that all the Airraid concepts get run every day in the Pros (and that is not the point of the offense). In fact, concededly most came from the pros (even the coveted "shallow" concept came from Mike Shanahan on admission by Mumme and Leach! The rest came from the Pros to BYU via Doug Scovil/Lavell Edwards/Norm Chow. ). But show me the BCS conferences and EVERYTHING you see, with the exception of maybe the gun-triple stuff (i.e. Florida), and I can more than likely choose a single pro playbook and ALL of the playbooks for all of those teams will not amount to what a single pro team does. This is a reality of practice time and experience. Like it or leave it. Sorry for having the ax to grind, but that's my view, in my humble opinion. And sorry brophy, it's not all directed at you, just sort of my general thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 15, 2006 19:12:27 GMT -6
Coaches don't make enough money for anyone to pay for a coaching degree lol
So we create our own by teaching ourselves, visiting other coaches, and resources like this message board.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Oct 29, 2007 18:23:06 GMT -6
Where did Randy Moss go again? Difference is at NE, he's not the big fish. He's a big enough fish, but he knew the pecking order coming in and any BS behavior and he'd be back in Oakland or even worse...Miami. Reminds me of phantom's excellent post. Teams are teams. Coaches can be great and try to build teams around their personalities, but every team is different. Guys with talent immediately draw attention, and it puts coaches and their teammates in a terrible bind when the talented guys have horrible attitudes. Everyone knows they need them. It's also hard to make kids think long term. Shirk practice or a drill or a play and it seems like a good or "cool" choice because thats what that guy does, but ten years down the road what will you wish you had done? I've never heard a player come up and say, "You know working hard and winning that division/state title was fun, but the thing I really and truly regret is not being lazier in practice/weightlifting/games. I really blew it."
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Apr 20, 2007 11:20:24 GMT -6
Does anyone use the wing to take handoffs (or option or anything along those lines?). Would be curious what misdirection you guys use. You could run a kind of quasi-spin/double-slot style O with this set.
If you were fancy you could motion the I-back out to one side and run the veer with the wingback as your pitch man.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 16, 2007 14:59:36 GMT -6
Merriman should be personally taunted before, during, and after games for ruining my admittedly delusional fantasy that NFL players don't use steroids. Merriman should be glad they didn't ban him for life, all this crap about whether he should make the pro bowl or not is meaningless and, in a perfect world, LT would be too dishonored to consider him a teammate.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 18, 2007 10:59:33 GMT -6
I've had success with kids around 5'10"-6'0" and 170-180, more rangy receiver types if they have some grit in them to block and have hands. Obviously the ideal is bigger.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Apr 29, 2007 13:28:42 GMT -6
To me you run the spread becauser you can not physically match up with your opponents on the schedule. You stillw ant to be physical and everything. However you just can't line up and go head to head with the other teams in your conference. Therefore you try and spread people out and get mismatches. This is what Northwestern and Urban Meyer have done. The whole basketball on grass thing to me is the old Run N' Shoot. Throwing the ball 60 times a game. Urban Meyer runs a run first offense as did Northwestern when they were totally spread. I would actually partially disagree. I think Northwestern "spread out" because they couldn't match the Wisconsin's, Michigan's and Ohio St's in size and strength. At this point I think Meyer "spreads" for the same reason Ohio St or Texas with Vince Young "spread"--they have the size, but their bigger advantage is speed. This is why I think the spread is not so much of an "equilizer" anymore. You "spread out" and the teams you face have LBs and safeties who are fast enough to cover your receivers (and fast enough to react to your run game). Meyer at Florida, on the other hand, has four-track stars out there. I guess it boils down to the fact that the spread is a kind of double edged sword. It creates "one on one matchups" but, in many cases, there's nothing very good about one on one matchups. Or at least rubs (man) and spacing routes (zone), etc, are better. On the other hand, if you're Urban Meyer with the Florida talent, or Texas with Vince Young at QB, or Ohio St with Ted Ginn and another first round receiver, "one on one" matchups are just fine and dandy. (Note: Meyer is able to be "run-first" because of the threat of pass created by his spread and his speed. Make no mistake, the "spread" is only a good running formation because there is the added threat of passing.) But if you're Purdue or Northwestern or Oregon, and you go "spread" and they have 4 or 5 good athletes and covermen who can also play run, you haven't done yourself any favors. I admit in HS it is a different calculus. But this is where I see the spread these days. Not as an equilizer but as an amplifier.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 3, 2007 17:48:45 GMT -6
Oh I don't disagree Don't know much about Brady and he never seemed to develop.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 1, 2007 11:44:11 GMT -6
I agree with Sparkey, but it should be a pretty obvious point. One commonality of the "spread," whether you run or pass or gun triple or Airraid it, is a very large proportion of your offense runs through your QB. I mean that's the common thread between Florida with Tebow and Tech with Harrell. I still think Florida puts too much on Tebow, but he's clearly a special player and the offense and team are set up to go as he does.
Contrast this with the I, where you need a solid I back and the QB can be kind of a hand-off guy, or even some of the wing-t offenses where you need a QB who can throw and run a bit but it's often mostly about his agility and ability to make great fakes.
The spread is designed to put the onus on that guy, so you have to put a guy there you trust. This is a double edged sword, of course. Some people argue that in HS it means you're only good every other year (i.e. the years your QB is coming back as opposed to his first season as a starter).
Things are changing and the coaching is improving but it is very hard for a first year HS starter, even a talented one, to put together a flawless season or lead his team to be undefeated when he is asked to make so many good decisions. Again coaching and innate talent play a role, but it is designed as a QB demanding system. It also presents the risk of injury to your QB bringing your whole season to a halt (Dixon). You lose a receiver or even a RB or your QB in another offense and you can still "manage" the game otherwise.
So that's the whole thing with the QB. It's not just that the spread "needs" a good QB (as a runner or passer, but in either event a good decisionmaker), but the entire offense is DESIGNED to be run through that guy.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 1, 2007 11:32:03 GMT -6
1. Someone other than Brady Leaf 2. An athletic QB (not like Brady Leaf) 3. An elusive cutback style RB (to get the hand offs from someone other than Brady Leaf) 4. WR that can block downfield and catch the rock (not thrown by Brady Leaf) 5. Oh, did I mention... anyone other than Brady Leaf. Back in his college days though Ryan was a beast... Saw some 1996/97 Washington St cutups not too long ago. They ran the double-slot a TON and just checked around between hitch vs. soft, inside option routes vs. press man, IZone vs. Cover 2, ran boots when the outside backers cheated in (often when a lot of us would run bubble, was quite effective), and they ran the ball well enough vs. cover 2 that when safeties came up they KILLED them with play action. Lot of verticals and post routes behind those Cover 2 safeties. Before the new advances in the spread we have now this stuff was the high-technology - really safe, very simple, but difficult to stop. They were reading the number of safeties and the box (as many others had done) when Urban Meyer was still running the I (not to knock Meyer).
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 11, 2007 8:24:52 GMT -6
I'll put it this way with Tebow: If they win a National Championship, he will not mimic the stats he had this year. If he does, they will have another 3 losses.
This is not causation, but simply correlation. It's the same principle as a RB who carries 20 times for 120 yards may not be a better runner than the guy who carries 35 times for 130 yards, but I can tell you he plays in a better offense.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 9, 2007 16:57:12 GMT -6
It was a very weak field this year. I thought McFadden was the best guy in the country but it's hardly like, if he had won, you'd be telling stories about him to your grandkids.
It's a shame that a couple years ago you had Vince Young define what a spread QB is supposed to be like (3000 passing, 1000 rushing, undefeated team that averages 50 points a game) and this year a talented guy who plays on a decent but not great Florida team who ends up shouldering the load because of a total lack of talent in the backfield wins. But that's life.
Can't argue with Tebow I guess, but one of the more underwhelming Heisman winners in years.
I mean if I could draft my team based on everyone in college football - even if I ran Florida's offense - I'm pretty sure I would choose Dennis Dixon over Tebow. Significantly more dangerous guy. Second it'd be McFadden, a guy who strikes real fear into the defense. But maybe others would disagree.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 9, 2006 10:27:58 GMT -6
Another quick thought: On the point that even if we time kids too fast, everyone does it this way so the times are comparable--I think this is misleading. First, is a reason that doesn't apply to most of us, in that the article tends to refer to NFL and College coaches who are trying to evaluate 40 times by players from lots of different tracks with different coaches. Second though, is that the hand's imprecision isn't just a tangible lag that we make players seem faster than they are, it's also that they vary quite a bit, whether we think it or not. I think the general point of the article is that not only do the conditions and the hand timing inflate the speeds, but coaches aren't especially trained in this type of thing, and the conditions we do it on also makes the whole thing rather unpredictible.
I've found this to be true. I mean even if one coach was similar, most of us don't have one single guy do all the measurements for every player.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 8, 2006 20:04:38 GMT -6
I agree with the specificity insofar as I don't really get why the 40 is THE speed stat. It's true you don't bench press or power clean in a game, but a) how many 40s do your kids run (Especially non-WRs?) other than when they are tested, since the bench/clean etc we seem to at least think they work important muscle groups, and b) we don't put the emphasis on a kid's bench number in the same way we do 40 times. A .2 difference in 40 time has a huge impact on how a lot of people think, whereas you'd have to have a huge difference in bench press to justify basing the reason to sit or start a kid based entirely on that number.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 6, 2007 8:21:28 GMT -6
I think I thought the kids were a bit older. Ted's recommendations are good. I would still think you could run the jet sweep at this level. But yes, fundamentals are the key and should be your focus.
|
|