|
Post by 44dlcoach on Jun 13, 2022 10:12:02 GMT -6
The D&D part of this has been interesting to read. We script the scout offensive play, the defensive call, and the Hash for every period but not a down and distance.
We do have a couple periods during the week where we work 3rd and long and 3rd/4th and short, but in a standard team period we don't work down/distance into each play. Maybe it would help our kids to be more aware of the situation in the games if we did, but I've felt like outside of 3rd/4th down scenarios there just hasn't been a big change in what our opponents are calling and what we'll be calling.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on May 26, 2022 14:25:15 GMT -6
I don't think that's necessarily true about the HC in the building being indicative of how much the school cares without having more context.
I know of quite a few scenarios where the private school wants the HC in the building, but the HC is far enough down the road on a public school teaching career/retirement vesting that giving up that job to teach at the private school just isn't feasible.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Apr 25, 2022 20:51:55 GMT -6
In general give me the experienced guy, I'll take the consistency that I assume comes with it over the variance that I assume comes with the talented guy.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Apr 22, 2022 7:38:57 GMT -6
This has taken a weird turn. I feel like good coaches are good regardless of personality type and crappy coaches suck regardless of personality type.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Apr 8, 2022 15:58:22 GMT -6
Article says transfer portal.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Apr 7, 2022 8:55:28 GMT -6
Hard to track for other teams but for your own purposes I think "blown assignments" will have a strong correlation to negative outcomes.
The big majority of the negative plays we have on defense involve some sort of blown assignment whether that is a misalignment, bad eyes, whatever the case may be. Same with negative plays on offense whether that's a bad read, allowing a free runner in the backfield, etc.
I don't know how to present that using statistics but we try hard to impress on our kids that our results are mostly going to be based on how well we can do our things than they are on any other factor.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Apr 6, 2022 17:24:32 GMT -6
It always struck me as extremely hypocritical, first, that schools gave diplomas to kids who were-would've been ineligible for athletics. And second, if eligibility standards are such effective motivation for improved academic performance, why aren't they applied to ALL Extra-Curriculars (music, drama, clubs, etc.)? Having eligibility rules higher than your state's (or school's) seems unnecessarily punitive and exclusionary. The assumption would be that sports participation was the cause for poor grades when in fact the opposite is true - studies have shown for decades that kids tend to do better academically when they are involved in athletics. This is exactly why I really hated the school rule that kids under a 2.0 couldn't even be on the team. I guess the logic was that having less structured time after school and fewer adults around them would give them more time for homework and studying.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Apr 6, 2022 17:21:28 GMT -6
Our state requirement is a 2.0 in the previous semester. State rules allow kids who don't meet that requirement to stay on the team but they aren't eligible to compete until a 9 week grade check. A previous school I was at had its own school rule that if a kid didn't meet that 2.0 requirement then they couldn't even be on the roster. It put us in a position where we always had 3 or 4 (and way more for JV) kids working through summer school right up until the end and we didn't know whether or not we were even going to have them on the roster that season until they finished the summer class. Something we did that worked really well for us was put in a program requirement that said to be a starter you needed a 2.5 GPA in the previous semester. All of the kids that would previously hover around a 2.0 would suddenly hover around a 2.5. So now our summer school "will he or won't he finish the class" guys weren't going to be kicked off the team if they didn't follow through, they just "couldn't be a starter", and we got to decide what that meant. It absolutely kept kids in the program for us. Doesn’t not being a starter mean, you can’t start the game? Seems pretty straight forward to me. But out of curiosity what did you guys decide it meant? We decided it meant the first two series.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Apr 6, 2022 12:40:03 GMT -6
For whatever it adds I hated our school rule that kept ineligible kids off the roster.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Apr 6, 2022 12:27:31 GMT -6
Our state requirement is a 2.0 in the previous semester. State rules allow kids who don't meet that requirement to stay on the team but they aren't eligible to compete until a 9 week grade check.
A previous school I was at had its own school rule that if a kid didn't meet that 2.0 requirement then they couldn't even be on the roster.
It put us in a position where we always had 3 or 4 (and way more for JV) kids working through summer school right up until the end and we didn't know whether or not we were even going to have them on the roster that season until they finished the summer class.
Something we did that worked really well for us was put in a program requirement that said to be a starter you needed a 2.5 GPA in the previous semester. All of the kids that would previously hover around a 2.0 would suddenly hover around a 2.5. So now our summer school "will he or won't he finish the class" guys weren't going to be kicked off the team if they didn't follow through, they just "couldn't be a starter", and we got to decide what that meant.
It absolutely kept kids in the program for us.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Feb 7, 2022 19:21:30 GMT -6
Has ANY coach with a braggadocios nature and overconfident statements EVER been successful? I mean even Charlie Weis and his "decided schematic advantage" he promised Notre Dame flopped (relative to the expectations) Kiffin maybe? Though he might not fit the description. I consider him more of a public smart-ass than public bragger.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Feb 7, 2022 13:47:47 GMT -6
I tried to correct a “coach” on how to block midline once on Twitter. He blew me off and then I found out he hadn’t even graduated high school yet…fukin amazing I just read a thread on twitter about teaching LB's how to drop. A coach replied saying "It makes me happy on offense when that is what LB's do" as if he would just score at will on them. I decided to look up his program as it was in his twitter bio. They went 0-10 and averaged about 20 ppg while giving up over 40 ppg. Amazing Maybe because when they drop like that they aren't ripping his QB's head off.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Feb 4, 2022 12:22:21 GMT -6
The coaching Twitter world is 95% self-promotion. A lot less of that here, thankfully.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Feb 1, 2022 20:53:23 GMT -6
I guess the issue of when the Giants knew Daboll was accepting the offer is a huge one.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Feb 1, 2022 20:42:45 GMT -6
I'll be curious too to see if and how this turns out different legally from something like say, Gibbs coming out of retirement to coach Washington several years ago. That seems like an example where a team identified their guy and hired him, and all other interviews were likely just a formality. Gruden to the Raiders, Kelly to the Eagles, maybe Meyer to the Jags all have a similar feel.
Those are probably all considered bad hires looking back (maybe not Kelly) but I'm curious if there's a legal distinction between those processes and what just happened with Flores.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Feb 1, 2022 19:26:36 GMT -6
Obviously we don't know much about how the Giants interview actually transpired, but on the face of it I don't think bringing in other candidates even though the Giants were pretty confident in who they wanted to hire is doing anything wrong. Dabol may have been their number one choice, but what if they didn't end up being his number one choice?
Or, how different is it than a team with the number 1 pick in the draft bringing in 5 or 6 prospects for interviews before the draft?
Now the actual content of the interview may have made it obvious that it was a sham designed to satisfy a rule and if that is the case then that changes my view on this part of it.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Jan 30, 2022 18:56:28 GMT -6
Sounds like a smart move. If he gets his way he'll win the fan base over even more than I imagine he already did as a player.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Jan 29, 2022 10:05:48 GMT -6
But anything first and goal from the 9 or closer was better than the 11-15.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Jan 29, 2022 10:02:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Jan 25, 2022 13:15:39 GMT -6
This is interesting to me, 5-10 years ago I would think that kicking it short to allow a return (but run time) would be a bad idea. My thought being that the team getting the ball had a better chance of breaking a big play on a KOR than they did in a snap from scrimmage. I don't know about this anymore though, or maybe this is just a HS thing where we tend to have a few sieves on KO coverage. I imagine if Buffalo kicked a returnable kickoff that was housed, or returned into FG range, the narrative would be, "you gotta put that ball through the back of the endzone and make them march down the field, not let them return it with the craziness of a special teams play." I agree. I am not sure, but was Tyreek Hill back there to return the kick? I suppose you could kick away from him. And I suppose if you squibbed it to around the 25 or so he wouldnt be the returner and clock would run. But I agree in general I would think there is a better chance at a big play happening on a KOR than against your set defense I agree, I don't think it was a bad call to kick and I don't think a squib would have necessarily solved the problem, which I've heard a lot of people on sports radio suggesting. The clock wouldn't run until the returner fielded the ball, so if they immediately kneel and end the play, I don't think it would have been a much different result than the touch back was.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Jan 21, 2022 19:08:51 GMT -6
I don't know what the numbers would look like if you looked at coordinators and position coaches, but I wish the discussion in the media didn't present this as if HC is the only NFL coaching job there is. 3 OCs and 9 DCs. I don't know how many are vacant and what percentage of currently-filled positions that represents, but its still not a big number obviously. I'm definitely not trying to dismiss the issue and I think there's a clear issue. My point is just that those may not be HC jobs but those are very important, well-paying, and I would guess in every case they would be considered "leadership" positions. I think it's worthwhile to know what the hiring landscape looks like for those spots as well, thanks for doing the research.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Jan 21, 2022 15:59:22 GMT -6
I don't know what the numbers would look like if you looked at coordinators and position coaches, but I wish the discussion in the media didn't present this as if HC is the only NFL coaching job there is.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Jan 17, 2022 10:33:52 GMT -6
It definitely seems to make it closer to basketball recruiting where the number of scholarships available on a year by year basis changes and is a big part of the school's recruiting strategy each year. And also must involve some level of projection regarding who will probably transfer out, who might declare early, who is going to be a super-duper senior and leave school with a doctorate when they're done playing football, etc.
We only had one real recruitable kid in this class and he had no issues with his scholarship still being available on signing day. Another kid in town was committed to one school for months and signed somewhere else, rumor is that the original school told him they would honor the scholarship they offered him but that he should probably look elsewhere. No clue if the portal was a factor in that or not.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Jan 7, 2022 20:31:26 GMT -6
It might not be "for the masses" but the narrower the topic the better so, you can go into real depth on technique, drills, trouble shooting, etc.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Dec 24, 2021 13:15:12 GMT -6
Can you imagine what a sh!t show that would be from a motovational standpoint? It is an interesting question though.
A couple years ago we defeated a team in a playoff game who had a big-time QB, he's playing at a top 10 program now. On the following Monday him and his dad showed up at our practice asking if there was any way he could become our scout team QB for the rest of our season so he could get exposed to some different offensive schemes before college. I'm not the HC so I don't know if there was a rule against it or if our administration just decided it wasn'ta good idea, but he didn't join our scout team.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Dec 15, 2021 23:15:50 GMT -6
I don't want to sidetrack this, and I'm also not being a smartass, but I'm curious when you use the phrase "back to amateurism", is there a year you can point to where you feel like major D1 football was "amateur"? When players, by policy, were not allowed to be compensated? Although, amateur isn't really the best word for my thoughts. I would rephrase it "For those who want to go back to paradigm where once a player signed his NLI, the schools held almost all of the "power"' ... That is a bit better way to put it. My point is that those crying that things such as the transfer portal and NLI are "ruining the game" are simply exhibiting hypocrisy at a world class level. It isn't a game, not for those who are whining. It is a multi-billion dollar business. Period. And as with any labor/management situation when labor gets some concessions, management gripes. In this case, management is griping because they don't want to struggle with additional labor freedoms. OK I understand now. I misunderstood and thought you were longing for the days when the game was amateur and the coaches were paid the equivalent of 150k per year, which didn't resonate with me. I get it now, and agree completely.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Dec 15, 2021 21:38:13 GMT -6
It won’t affect the rankings, beyond concentrating talent even more at the top with NIL money, unless a school like Syracuse or Rutgers somehow taps into the NYC metro media market I’m saying it’ll just make it even tougher on the less than stellar programs to build. When they do luck into having a true stud, he’ll be gone in a year instead of 3-4. It’s just going to stratify the game even more and make it even more corporate. You won’t see things like Josh Allen developing at Wyoming or Khalil Mack becoming a star at Buffalo. You probably won’t even see a Drew Brews becoming a legend at Purdue. Those guys will be one and gone to OSU, Texas, Notre Dame, or USC. Essentially, college football is about to become like the NBA due to NIL combined with the transfer portal. “Big market” teams will dominate through the potential for NIL money while “small market” teams like Iowa, Nebraska, etc. will become jumping off points for overlooked studs to show off their skills before bouncing to Los Angeles and USC a year later. The highly touted washouts from those elite schools who transfer out are going to be interesting to watch, though. I don't know. I agree it seems likely, BUT as I mentioned, it isn't really that different than what has been happening the last 60+ years of college football. Hell, the last five years, its Bama, OSU, Oklahoma, Clemson, and UGA. Plus, one of the top recruits in the nation just choose an HBCU. I will say that I honestly don't have a problem with it. At least not as much of a problem as I have with Dabo Sweeney and Lane Kiffin whining about it. In the current college football environment, the University of Miami/boosters just paid $8+million to buy out Manny Diaz, then another $8+ million to pay off Christobal's buyout clause, and then another $8 Million to pay Christoball. Scott Woodward just paid Ed Orgeron $16 million to not coach, and Brian Kelley $9+million a year. These middle aged men are part of a professional sports organization. I have no problem with the players being compensated as they are. For those that want to go back to amateurism (I am one of them), then I say pay Kelly, Saban, Sweeney, Jimbo and the rest $150,000-$200,000 a year. Pay the ADs $110,000. Funnel all the revenue BACK into the university. If those guys want more, hey, I bet the Jaguars job is opening up soon. I don't want to sidetrack this, and I'm also not being a smartass, but I'm curious when you use the phrase "back to amateurism", is there a year you can point to where you feel like major D1 football was "amateur"?
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Dec 14, 2021 16:43:18 GMT -6
Skip the slide where you explain that you chose XYZ Scheme because your team isn't blessed with big linemen year after year and all of your opponents are.
90% of clinics have that slide and it drives me insane.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Dec 9, 2021 22:58:05 GMT -6
Especially "social media coaches." We get it, you're a coach. Put your phone down and do your job.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Dec 7, 2021 19:43:32 GMT -6
Fire that douche. And possibly sue that douche.
|
|