|
Post by spreadattack on Aug 27, 2006 12:31:57 GMT -6
It was a solid game. Byrnes appeared to be better coached--despite the crazy scheme. I think they just had the DL move around a bit and it gave the illusion of a crazy swarming D. Plus Glades Central seemed to mostly try to run a lot of "speed" plays so they could get away with it.
Byrnes' offense reminded me of the Andrew Coverdale/Trinity High School offense to some extent--solid 3-step game (spacing/mini-curl, some hitches) some 5-step (notably the Coverdale & Robinson mesh/Y-corner) and then some solid sprint out like flood and smash. QB turned it over a fair amount but I attribute that (and Byrnes' big plays) to Glades Central's speed and style of play.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 19, 2007 10:50:35 GMT -6
I agree about Rich Rod. I don't think he did anything bad. I mean he committed last year but they foresaw this. The Tubby Smith/KY thing was rough. I'm glad to see Tubby doing so well. They did him in. More power to Tubby.
One thing I think everyone - coaches, fans, sportswriters - get caught up in is the idea that a "contract" is some kind of profound moral obligation. No. A contract just says "We (the coach and the school) commit to have me (the coach) here for X years."
THEN - most all of these contracts say what happens when either side is done or breaches. It's hardly some novel event. They usually say if "If we, the University of Goodness and Niceness no longer want you to coach our football team, we can 'buy you out' for $X million dollars." Then they say, "If I, Coach Wandering Eyes want to go Coach the University of 15 national championships when they have a vacancy, I owe you, my former employer, the University of Goodness and Niceness $X million dollars (which will no doubt be paid by the University of 15 national championships.)."
That's it. There's no grave, moral, symbolic enshrinement in these coaching contracts. They are basically employment at will for both sides except they like to negotiate the pay packages.
Now, I still think Petrino was over the line with the 3 games left and notes for the players, but many coaches on here made the fair point of if not then, then when was he supposed to go? So again it's a shady game. Maybe we'd all like more loyalty etc but I'm not sure what the fix is.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 19, 2007 9:41:49 GMT -6
I agree that this stuff feeds on itself. Like Aztec said with Urban Meyer, he sticks around Utah and/or Bowling Green a bit longer and he never ends up at Florida.
I think Coaches are probably much more fungible than we think. I mean we all know too how important assistants are.
The hook of the article is that this has been a heavily discussed topic regarding CEOs, where they pay CEOs huge sums to save their company, or a CEO who "turned around" some business or brought them to success, and then if things go wrong they all blame the CEO. When of course the reality is a Corporation is just so big that a CEO's influence has its limits.
So he wanted to draw the parrallel with coaches and whats been going on. I think to some extent it is accurate, though lke someone else said I'm pretty sure he has no idea what coaches actually do. And a football team is hardly at big as General Motors, so yes the CEO will have an effect on every person, and preparing a gameplan is not like preparing the "gameplan" for general electric with subsidiaries as disparate and huge as NBC, and their various consumer products, home electronics, etc divisions.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Mar 14, 2006 20:03:19 GMT -6
i hate teams that are athletic enough to cover us in man to man without a free safety over the top to help. Hopefully a few basketball players will be playing wideout for me next year, so that should solve that problem I hate the teams that run all those stupid DNA plays, those are the hardest to prepare for. The DNA defense is terrible too. You know, DNA plays, like "Throw it up. Our guy has better DNA than their guy. Touchdown." Not much you can scheme there
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 6, 2007 0:47:33 GMT -6
87!!?? Please don't tell me they are subscribers to the Tony Franklin system Not a big Franklin fan? Really just more of a joke, in that it would certainly bring Franklin more clients and more moulah. Little did I know they are Franklin clients. But in all seriousness - more power to him. 90 TDs and a 14-0 record for a team that didn't make the playoffs last year and is from a very small town in KY, well, you can't really argue with that.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 5, 2007 20:32:10 GMT -6
Found this, not great quality but there's a tiny video link. Click on "Corey Robinson" in the box. They ran some quads and stuff in this but I think they ran mesh every other play... so yes there's some Airraid in there. The kid apparently isn't getting a ton of D-1 looks, but 90 TD passes is flat our impressive. Plus they are 14-0, and it's a little school out in Paducah. So good for them. ssfootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=740163
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 5, 2007 20:15:41 GMT -6
87!!??
Please don't tell me they are subscribers to the Tony Franklin system
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 5, 2007 12:33:43 GMT -6
To further whet any appetites, I just found an article online with Coverdale talking about their QB, a 5-11 170lb kid who broke several of Brian Brohm's records at Trinity.
It's worth comparing St. X's team stats:
Team Season Totals Record 14 - 0 ------------------------------------Total-----------------------------Average Points Scored--------------------561 -----------------------------40.1 Points Allowed -------------------96-------------------------------- 6.9 Total Rushing Yards Gained --3674 ---------------------------262.4 Total Passing Yards Gained ---1425 --------------------------101.8 Total Rushing Yards Allowed---1246 ---------------------------89.0 Total Passing Yards Allowed ---1572--------------------------112.3
The moral is: Please I hope someone can tape this ;D
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 5, 2007 12:16:33 GMT -6
Louisville St. X (#15 USA Today) plays Louisville Trinity (whose OC is our own Andrew Coverdale, or "yspace") in the KY 6A finals this weekend, I believe.
Haven't followed them much this year but St X is undefeated and I think Trinity's only loss came to St X in a 23-13 or so game. I know this is a big rivalry between these two teams.
Also of some interest is the clash in styles. Trinity is much more wide open (though they can run the ball well) and use lots of multi-receiver sets and throw it quite a bit. St. X runs a lot of the power game and mixes in the veer.
One big thing of interest to me is I just read in the local paper that St X switched this year from a 6-2/4-4 to a 4-3. I'd be curious if anyone had any info on whether it is very basic or where it came from. Looks like it helped them against Trinity this year, who averages 40-50 points a game.
Anyway, was wondering if anyone was going to (a) attend to the game, or (b) knew if Fox sports or anyone was going to be broadcasting it. I'm not in the area so it's unlikely I'd even get it on regional coverage. Plus you have to take any opportunity you get to see an Andrew Coverdale offense in action, particularly against maybe the strongest defense in the state.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 1, 2007 19:25:01 GMT -6
Can I say that Dick Vermeil is actually a very good announcer. He did get a bit confused regarding overtime rules, but his observations are actually quite good. Much better than the typical announcer anyway.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 9, 2006 8:13:08 GMT -6
I agree with this thread, but there can be a correlation vs. causation problem when you just look out at title winners and lesser teams. Of course the teams that win year in and year out don't change--they're winning! The teams that want to start winning or beat their division rivals are the ones trying new things. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. There's a good and bad side to "if it ain't broke don't fix it."
I mean, if a team had like two winning seasons in 10 years I wouldn't expect them to "Stick to their system."
Anyway, that's just a tangent though. I do agree that too much change year in and year out hurts you. The old saying is true that every time you change your system you make your seniors freshman again (And your coaches neophytes instead of veterans).
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 4, 2007 13:53:25 GMT -6
Those of you applauding the old "shoot from the hip" It was a spring game. No real gameplanning...restricted defenses...No pressures...not trying to beat the defense, but rather trying to execute the play called as best as possible. Guarantee you he isn't "shooting from the hip" if a crystal football is up for grabs. Well sure. It was just fun to watch, he's an entertaining guy and he's Spurrier through and through. I will say that the guy was trying to score, I assure you of that. He kept trying to get them in man so he could run that fade route. He's not that different on gameday though. Just uses a sheet of paper pretty much with some plays on it. The guy knows his offense pretty well at this point, and his QBs are supposed to make checks at the line too.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 3, 2007 21:25:07 GMT -6
that was great
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Apr 1, 2008 22:26:04 GMT -6
I will agree with the others that the focus should just be on doing the basic things right and let the butt whuppin take care of itself. Put together a good gameplan, have a great week of practice, and execute.
I think if you turn it into too much of a "me vs. him" scenario you might press and not call a good game, and if some breaks go against you, might get a little off too. If it so happens that you're up 45-7 late the in the 3rd quarter, then go from there. If you can use anything to fire up your team though, go for it.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Nov 28, 2006 0:40:03 GMT -6
Assuming I have a good and pretty reliable place kicker, then I basically only go for two when I think there will not be any more scoring, and rarely if ever in the first half. If it is early in the second and it's a low scoring game, then maybe.
I do not buy the theory that 50% 2-pt percentage is the same as kicking 100% PATs, if for no other reason than the variance will cause you to lose games you should be tied or ahead, and the extra 2 or 3 points will not make a difference in games you would have won anyway: you want the sure points.
Now, the worse my kicker is, the more likely I am to go for two, but I try to keep that decision independent of what the score is. Do I think I have a 2-point play that will work? I may call it. And then will do it based on need just as if I had a great kicker.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 24, 2007 13:20:42 GMT -6
so what words do you think are well, overrated. For this reason I find the word humorous, and thus useful
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 21, 2008 17:18:48 GMT -6
To tie this thread in the other one hemlock started, if I was an NFL ready QB I'd think Neuheisel/Chow at UCLA is a good place to learn the QB position.
Anyway, as people said the reality of the situation was that the front office for the Titans decided that Young was a franchise type guy, and a combination of friction and perceived lack of development will lead to a new OC. I don't think it's necessarily a terrible thing for Chow or he got hosed in particular. I mean, he wanted the challenge of trying to mold an extremely talented though flawed QB into something special: a guy who could be a successful dropback passer who has great physical skills. Young is not Einstein, but football isn't the world's most intellectually challenging game, even for NFL QBs. Now the method of learning style can be significant (what someone said about him lacking the smooth ability to visualize plays run from different formations or sets fluidly rather than seeing them as new plays).
But anyway, they brought in VY, he was never the HC nor the GM so it wasn't his call, but neither does Chow - to my mind - need some kind of constant and new evaluation on whether the guy can help develop and build QBs. If you coach for that long, with that success, and that many great QBs who did great things or simply were great with him, the fact that VY isn't Joe Montana yet means little. It doesn't mean that he can't coach QBs now nor does it mean that he shouldn't have been let go if they decided to go in a new direction. That's life and the NFL.
I also got the impression that maybe they weren't happy with Norm and Vince's relationship. Maybe VY needs to be more diligent and serious, but the NFL inevitably looks at things quite black and white, and not always entirely fairly at that. As a side note, I always wondered about the Titans/VY's low TD number: they are a solid running team and I'd imagine their goal line offense is very run-oriented, as opposed to say the Pats with Brady where they (a) trust him completely, (b) throwing the fade to Randy Moss is basically a high percentage play, and (c) spent much of the year in basically spread sets. (Not taking away from Brady's numbers, just noting that team styles can inflate/decrease the TD pass stat.)
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 15, 2008 16:36:37 GMT -6
So Chow got fired: sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3197683To keep this from being footballscoop.com, any analysis on what the issues were? Was his offense not sophisticated enough for the Pros? Did he fail to develop VY? Is that his fault as an OC? If you were in his shoes would you have done anything differently? I know Darin has his views on VY from a mechanics perspective. In my view I thought Chow did a lot of good things with the run game and improving Vince in the pass game. I thought his reads improved. With him things take time, especially with the mechanics/accuracy issues. Not totally sure what would have been the superior approach there for him to do.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 13, 2007 22:15:58 GMT -6
Saintrad, good concern. If I'm Franklin (especially with the independent income stream) I better get full reign.
And as a coaching thread I think the visit/selling the product issue has to be important. Letting HS/other coaches go to D1 schools is all a part of networking/recruiting etc. It has to matter.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Mar 19, 2006 14:12:18 GMT -6
This gets to two interesting topics: signalling and self-fulfilling prophecies. A bad program probably indicates some bad coaching/administration along the way, but it is difficult to say where in the chain and if that is current. Plus, how does one get to be a "good coach" (measured by what?) if there is apathy among the program, the kids being turned out arent improved, no wins, etc. "Good coaching" is hard to define without some kinds of results. It's like describing a theory that is incorrect and serves no purpose as good--under what criteria? It sounds clever?
Anyway, the signalling is interesting because we use "success" as a proxy for intelligence, drive, etc because these are difficult to determine elsewhere. Good example is NFL hiring, if you're an assistant on a winning team, you are assumed to be a good coach. Is ti good players? Good support staff? Luck? All probably play a role. On the other hand, being part of a good HS or even NFL program may not be a testament to your innate abilities but rather what you probably gained from being a part of that, i.e. if you coached with Belichick you might be a regular joe but you probably picked up some things along the way. Thus people want to hire you, work for you, play for you, etc
Plus, "good coaching" and teams that are tough, hard nosed, disciplined, etc are easier to have with a history of success. Much of the best coaching is from the seniors down to the freshman. Turning a losing program around takes luck to have the right guys. Sometimes when things go downhill no matter how "good" you are you may not be able to fix things. You also might be "Good" for a certain type of kid or program, but it's just not a good fit. It's all tough to say.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 10, 2007 15:37:03 GMT -6
oh, i enjoy it
it's all good stuff
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 10, 2007 13:53:32 GMT -6
50 it isn't the music so much as the gang type attitudes associated with it some of the attitude stuff within hip hop seems to be pushing the cycle of poverty to me is it the only cause? no but i really don't think it helps its just more of the glamorization of the superficial things in life, or of certain lifestyles that will not allow young people to succeed in a professional world i like tog's posts in part because they read like haiku poetry they are deep in a way that indicates intelligence but also reserve. sometimes a longer thought (always a good one) is followed by a space and then, a few closing words of reflection.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 3, 2007 8:02:20 GMT -6
Shameless plug for my site...I just added a post about the "shoot."
The "spread" is a loose umbrella under which almost anyone who believes in the "speed in space" philosophy would likely fall under, whether they run, pass, or whatever. The run and shoot is very specific. It is more akin to the Airraid "system" - you can borrow parts of it but it was designed as a system, with formations, protections, routes, complementary plays, and drills all built towards it.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 16, 2007 20:23:02 GMT -6
What is this "Raiding of Air" that you speak of?
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Nov 26, 2007 11:31:17 GMT -6
I said think about it.. if you are out playing in the backyard and it starts to rain... do you stop playing? Do you just hand off now? No.. you keep playing.. Most people go inside. I'm being serious. You may not need to run something wholesale different, but players are not invulnerable to the elements. At the minimum make your kids throw and catch with wet balls. Slicked balls are often harder to catch and throw than really drenched ones. By the same token try throwing a precision corner route in the driving rain/mud I'm not sayin you junk your offense. But I think you're being a bit cavalier.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Nov 26, 2007 10:09:19 GMT -6
Track down the QB manual from John Jenkins.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Aug 20, 2006 22:17:44 GMT -6
College and HS provide you the widest variety of schemes. You can get a flavor of the spread, or the midline, etc. The schemes themselves and the level of detail is a bit elementary compared to what they do in the NFL.
The only thing I find frustrating about watching the Pros (and any football on TV) are the camera angles. There's so much going on on every play, and the details are so beyond what is going on on Saturday, but it's hard to see with the angles. Now, the college teams have caught up in sophistication of ideas--schemes, etc--but the Pros spend so much more time (And money) that it is just constant battles within the battles. It's a shame it is so hard to get a hold of good Pro film, because that stuff is great to learn from.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Oct 9, 2006 22:43:54 GMT -6
Poise is difficult to teach. Nothing revolutionary to tell you; challenge your upperclassmen to lead by example, even if the young kids are more talented your upperclassmen can still earn their respect. From a coaching point of view possibly try more explicit situational football in practice. When you practice perfect play types drills actually tell them down and distance, when you go 7 on 7 or scrimmage or whatnot do the same. Tell them it's 3rd and 4 and challenge them to get the first. Or run red zone offense on the 20 and make it live re: downs, etc. Again, nothing revolutionary. Must preach poise in these situations.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Apr 23, 2006 11:45:22 GMT -6
From my experience it depends on the kid, to a large extent. Sometimes juvenile diabetes is correlated with lots of other problems, but other times it is just something the kid has to deal with, but otherwise he is fine. I have found that some of the toughest kids are ones with diabetes who are willing to control their bodies and fight through their condition. Most others wouldn't even realize it.
Basically I would arrange an informal meeting with him where you make sure that he knows it is his responsibility to take most of the proper precautions and to alert you and the coaching staff if he has any needs. He needs to be aware of his own body, but your training/medical staff/coaches should be aware of anything and have an extra stash of glucose, etc should he need it.
Typically, the big thing is that he MUST have a glucose meter and should test his blood sugar before practice and games, and potentially during any breaks. He also must have some good form of glucose (sometimes simple Gatorades are fine, otherwise ask him to talk to his Doctor to recommend some good ones). He also will likely have insulin with him but usually going hypoglycemic and having his blood sugar drop too low is the more common problem.
Just make sure your coaches are aware and understand that he may need to step away during gasers at the end of practice and test his blood sugar or he may be risking getting hypoglycemic in the hot sun, particularly during two-a-days. It is a tough balance for the coaching staff because what looks like (and may even come across to the other players) as weakness or lack of toughness is simply legitimate medical concern, although kids with diabetes are like any other kids and one reason they play football is so that they will be pushed beyond what they think they can do. I'm sure this kid is a good one but kids definitely can play the sympathy card and skip out on difficult things even if they could do it. I'm sure it will become obvious quickly what kind of kid he is, and if he wants to push himself and be there he will, if he's not into football he'll probably move on like most other kids.
Not too much you need to do affirmatively other than take precautions and be understanding.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Apr 19, 2006 17:42:26 GMT -6
I agree with do what you know. If both the players and the coaching staff are complete neophytes to the scheme, that is a recipe for disaster (especially since typically in new coaching jobs the fundamentals are the biggest hurdle to cross!).
The only caveat being is study what the rest of your league runs and have answers within your scheme. If your scheme doesn't have answers prepare some adjustments and do research on those specific things that you'll need to be able to do, rather than scrapping your system and doing something completely foreign.
Just as a chance to make the point, this is one reason that new schemes fail. Not because the scheme itself is bad, but experienced coaches have answers for everything, if for no other reason than they have that terribly frustrating game under their belt when they had no answer for that particular thing. New schemes/coaches aren't always ready for those contingencies, and a clinic and a playbook and even a visit to a school isn't always going to be thorough enough to give it to you.
Anyway, bottom line: start with what you know, do your homework on your opponents now rather than later, and realize that whatever you do, you're going to need at least some flexibility to deal with unforeseen issues.
|
|