|
Post by coachks on Oct 28, 2009 9:52:27 GMT -6
Obviously this is a silly debate, because it's impossible to quantify. Well coached, successful teams tend to have more talent. Kids move in from awful schools, they get more athletes out, the kids are more dedicated in the off-season.
It's also very tough to quantify "talent". Looking defensively, you can have an absolute stud who has no discipline, plays confused or is put in the wrong position look "awful" on film. You can have unmotivated players look like they have no talent with the coaches claiming they are "out-manned' when really, they just don't get everything out of their kids.
Our playoff opponent won less than 15 games this decade before they got a new coach. They're an urban school, they play other urban schools. I fail to believe that this poor, public, unsuccessful school stole the talent of their hapless neighbors from bigger schools. They look much, much, much more talented on film than their opponents.
Why? Because the staff is competent and their kids have a sense of their job. Its amazing how much better the kids look when they know what they need to do, and their put in a position to do it.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 27, 2009 17:12:32 GMT -6
I'm just going to play devils advocate (because I believe in the program running the same stuff).....
Does it really matter? Just looking at how many kids play different positions as freshman by the time they are varsity, looking at how often coaches change styles and other details has me question how much it really matters.
Especially when you look at how, uh, not-great so many JV coaches are (atleast in my area). We have kids developing bad habits (DBs watching the backfield, DL not getting hands on ect...) because the JV staff either A) Can't teach it, B) don't really believe in it. Unfortunately, for most schools, getting new JV coaches isn't always an option. Sometimes, they're dad coaches...sometimes they're good guys who aren't that bright (and don't have the time/dedication to learn) or just aren't naturally good teachers.
We spend all off-season teaching the kids the terminology, basics ect.. anyway (I mean, we can't hit anyway) It's not like we just assume they know it. Few kids go all 4 years playing the same position....they grow (or don't), get flipped between O and D, get faster and other factors.
Now, what benefit is provided by running a different offense? Not much, so why not run the same one. I just belief that the idea that players get 8 years, or even 4, running the same system is way overdone.
Heck, most 14 year olds can't remember summer baseball. I really wonder if they retain anything through their senior year.
|
|
|
Styling
Oct 25, 2009 12:57:31 GMT -6
Post by coachks on Oct 25, 2009 12:57:31 GMT -6
I'm a slobs slob and it takes me over half an hour to get ready for game day. Polo, pants+Belt, socks, shoes ect. It may be the only time all week I look in the mirror. Make sure it's tucked in properly, make sure the belt isn't sideways ect ect.
Why? Nerves. I'm in the box, nobody is looking at me but it gives me a little something to do before the game.
I'm sure it's the same for the kids. Play with the gloves, the wristbands, the eye black ect. so you aren't sitting their going stir crazy.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 23, 2009 22:46:35 GMT -6
I think screaming/yelling/undressing a player has a very definite purpose and is, at some level, a neccessity. At some point during the season, alignment issues, blown assignments, stupid penalties and so forth become an issue of focus, complacency and laziness. When the kids have proven they can perform a technqiue, know the front/play ect. and they screw it up as a matter of effort (usually during practice).
I also think, to an extent, the players expect to be yelled at (movies, parents, ect...) and when they don't, they may not understand something was wrong. Usually, yelling also serves as a message for the rest of the team as well, and they need to see a player who is playing poorly get called out to create accountability.
I'm not endorsing verbal assault, personal attacks and degrading players. More that, at some point, a "forceful correction" is a neccessary tool
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 21, 2009 12:45:45 GMT -6
I think the passing game is enhanced in the rain. You can check in dry balls, use towels ect to make passing possible. However, poor field conditons really hurt defensive backs. They can make sharp breaks to drive down on the ball or get themselves into position.
Besides, ball security is an issue in the rain..so why not just chuck it?
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 21, 2009 7:37:19 GMT -6
Our school follows BFS, every sport does it.
I hate it. I fail to understand how the girls basketball team needs to the same weight program as a Varsity lineman. We have kids who follow it religiously who stall out well before their peak. We don't develop enough mass. We don't develop enough leg strength. We don't develop enough explosive power.
It's an all-around program to make better athletes, and it absolutely does that. No question, we have some solid all-around athletes. Since we have great attendance we do see some results because of it. It's better than nothing, sure.
However, for the football program, it leaves a LOT to be desired.
If only I could convince the AD of that....
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 21, 2009 7:31:51 GMT -6
I'm a Michigan fan and I hate Ohio State....
and I still wonder if some people in this thread are as hard on themselves as they are on college coaches (or, other college coaches).
It doesn't matter if it's Bo, Vince, Woody or anybody else with the whistle. If a kid doesn't want to be coached, there is not a ton that can be done.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 20, 2009 21:07:11 GMT -6
From my point of view...
Pryor was never interested in being coached, so it really doesn't matter where he went, he was never going to progress (until he matured quite a bit). Just watching him through the recruiting process, he soaked up the attention and he fell in love with himself.
This is the same basic issue that exists around the country with these 5 star, future NFL draft picks.
I really doubt that Ohio State can't coach QBs. Troy Smith isn't exactly a distant memory. I hardly believe that they could coach QBs and run the spread in 2006, but they've forgotten since then.
The problem is a shift in coaching at the college level into a talent grab.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 17, 2009 21:42:39 GMT -6
Agreed with CoachD. Those kids had no part of the decision to leave starters in or run certain plays. Why ruin that opportunity for them?
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 16, 2009 12:14:11 GMT -6
I just feel the PAT is too engrained into football to be eliminated. Please, the changes int he use of hands is in no way comparable to a change of scoring. Just at face value, the ley fan can't tell the difference between blocking techniques but a scoring shift would be pretty major. Many (all?) teams have a goalline package. You also selective look at trick plays, while ignoring defensive scores, special teams scores and random luck (DB cramping for instance) which are beyond the norm of scrimmage football. While I don't like the PAT as a kick (because I dont' feel like kicking plays are a logical extension of the football game), I think the extra point should be just that, an extra point. It should provide a bonus for skilled offensive (or defensive). Kicking plays aren't a logical extension of FOOT-ball?
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 16, 2009 12:06:16 GMT -6
What, you think that if it were eliminated now, that someone would go thru all the records and erase those points retroactively? Or do you just mean there's now so much of a mental investment in conversion play strategizing that it would be too great a loss? I just feel the PAT is too engrained into football to be eliminated. Please, the changes int he use of hands is in no way comparable to a change of scoring. Just at face value, the ley fan can't tell the difference between blocking techniques but a scoring shift would be pretty major. Many (all?) teams have a goalline package. You also selective look at trick plays, while ignoring defensive scores, special teams scores and random luck (DB cramping for instance) which are beyond the norm of scrimmage football. While I don't like the PAT as a kick (because I dont' feel like kicking plays are a logical extension of the football game), I think the extra point should be just that, an extra point. It should provide a bonus for skilled offensive (or defensive).
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 16, 2009 9:45:44 GMT -6
Can't disagree more with getting rid of the try. I wouldn't mind getting rid of the extra point and forcing teams to go for two. In fact, I wouldn't mind getting rid of field goals either..... Then you can save on goal posts, count a TD as 3, a safety as 1, and have this 1 extra point by running or passing...but I'd like to know why you couldn't disagree more with wanting to abolish extra points entirely. See if you can answer my argument at users.bestweb.net/~robgood/football/try.txt. Sorry that most of the article is the history of the try up until when I wrote it, but actually reading that history might help convince you of my analysis that the try is a relic that should've been done away with, oh, say 90 years ago. The last few paras. of the article are semi-facetious, but unfortunately seem to convince some readers to jazz up the try even more instead of abolishing it. I'll agree that the try should have been done with 90 years ago, no arguement. Unfortunately, you can't just kill it now. It's impact over the last 90 years is too great to simply do away with. Thought, if you wanted to kill field goals along with it I wouldn't mind I suppose, but I doubt it would ever come to pass. You're arguement for abolishing the extra point is that it produces results not representative of the game. That is, teams have each have 4 touchdowns (Major scoring plays), but the game can end up a 12 point difference (2 touchdown game) because of the 2 pt. conversion). I would argue that the 2 point try is possibly the most indicative of each teams respective talent level. Touchdowns can be scored "cheaply" (DB slips and falls, wide open receiver), special teams, defensive scores, trick plays. That is, not set plays from offense. The try forces teams to execute a base offense for that bonus point. Likewise, it also allows great defensvie teams an extra bonus.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 15, 2009 20:28:13 GMT -6
Can't disagree more with getting rid of the try. I wouldn't mind getting rid of the extra point and forcing teams to go for two.
In fact, I wouldn't mind getting rid of field goals either.....
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 15, 2009 9:57:13 GMT -6
Son, if you run out of bounds you might as well get a nice and comfy because that's exactly whee you are going to stay.
I would change the rule about 1 knee being down. Down and touched is a better rule. Watching a returner field it on a knee, or a receiver catch a short pass on a knee and not being able to run is pretty silly. IMO.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 15, 2009 9:50:00 GMT -6
Refs blew the call though. The holder picked up the ball while he knee was still on the ground. No. If you would have read thats what the other team claimed, we dont know for a fact that is what happend. It is more than likely not the case though. If the kick was blocked I cant imagine the kid is still on his knee and picks up the ball. I also dont believe the officials blew the whistle like the other coach claims, we don't even know if the official raised his hands to signify a score. Sounds to me like sour grapes on the part of the team who blocked the kick... Just watch the video, they zoom in on the holder when he picks up the ball and you can see his knee still in contact. Not exactly the worst call I've ever seen, but it's still a missed call. Would be a mute point if the defense knew the rules.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 14, 2009 10:57:44 GMT -6
Refs blew the call though. The holder picked up the ball while he knee was still on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 14, 2009 7:35:09 GMT -6
We do the same as Coachwoodall, just less elaborate.
Draw up the plays on a sheet of paper (Computer paper), throw them in a notebook with page protectors and show them in the huddle. For the lineman this usually works out great (I mean, they can only block in 2 directions). The backs usually mess some things up (spacing/timing), but it happens.
We also try and use as much of our own terminology as we can, and we'll modify some little details so our kids can do it better.
Defensively, we also use a lot of half line. The ineptitude of our scout teams (Lack of talent, scout team coaches going off script, general poor play) forced us to lineup backup defenders in a half life for our inside run game. We get a better look with backup DL pretending to be OL because 1) They never confuse the blocking rules (they know down block/base out, we just tell them every play), 2) With only half a team, they never get to take plays off without a coach noticing 3) They tend to like contact a little more than the offensive guys.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 13, 2009 10:45:08 GMT -6
This is sort of a spin off the other thread, but I suppose with a different outlook and circumstances.
As coaches, most of us (if you're on a message board, you almsot certainly aren't stipend hunting) do not coach for money. You don't enter teaching to earn the big bucks and you certainly don't coach because that 4,000 is so inticing .There are easier ways to earn that amount of cash.
The call to coach isn't about the money.
With that said, money is certainly nice. As we all have an existance out-of-season (no matter how much we spend in the weightroom), we do all need money (unless you're a traveling monk).
So my question is this, is it unethical to leave a job for a better paying one. Or even further, is it unethical to leave a volunteer job for a chance to be paid.
Consider the case of so many college coaches (Saban, Rodriguez and others) who are villified in the media for jumping around between jobs. Their loyalty is questioned, their character is questioned and their integrity is bashed. Why? Often because they simply took the same job, just with a higher salary.
How should salary effect a high school job? If you are being paid, say 55,000 to teach a full load and be the header, you're successful and a bigger school wants to pay you 80,000 with a lighter load, is it unethical to take it?
What if you're an assistant making 1,000 and another school wants you to do the same job for 4,000?
Does that make coaching "about the money".
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 11, 2009 21:16:48 GMT -6
I think it's really important that the staff is able to handle good-hearted ribbing/teasing at each other (and yes, this means the header). If anybody has an ego that is too big to handle that sort of thing, conflicts will ensue. Some inside jokes and little sarcasm goes a long way to creating a positive atmosphere and keeping football enjoyable during marathon film sessions, tough losses, poor performance by a position group/side of the ball and so forth...
And the players definately respond to the mood of the coaches
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 10, 2009 19:35:23 GMT -6
Buy field turf.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 8, 2009 18:12:07 GMT -6
I can tell you that I'm NOT interested in articles who's sole purpose is to get me to buy the DVD at the end.
MORE DRILLS, I don't need any more schemes, and I definately don't need two plays of a series and a DVD offer.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 8, 2009 9:19:04 GMT -6
wouldnt want to tell the kid they were wrong. might hurt their feelings. Nope, we hurt their feelings plenty during practice. We want to keep our film sessions between 20-30 minutes, assuming we have 12 minutes of game tape (defensive) that doesn't leave a ton of room for rewinding. I also feel its easier for a kid to recreate a technique if he see's it done properly. If our 3-tech can see himself squeezing and spilling a trap block, it'll be easier for him to do it again. He knows it works, he knows he can do it and he can mentally picture how it should look when he's on the field.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 8, 2009 9:04:49 GMT -6
I know a bit of what is going on here, and I know Trimble personally, and I can assure you, there is no need for Jenks to cheat to win. I have been a close observer of that program for years now and they win with kids they grow. They don't get a lot of transfers, and the ones they get aren't typically the level of this kid. He moved in last year with his mother because of a job change, as I understand it. Players who transfer typically trade up to go to Union, or Jenks, but Jenks doesn't get a lot of them, and the ones they get, don't always pan out. They really grow them - it is an uncanny development of players they have. This process has a number of layers involved and Trimble did what he did for reasons that had nothing to do with gaining an unnecessary advantage. I don't know all the ins and outs, but one of their coaches is on my staff, so the little I do know doesn't support advantage. This guy wasn't even factor that much last year, and they didn't win the championship. He transferred out before the season began this year. He is trying to protect the kids from a great deal of serious attacks from outside. I guess you win as much as they have, they are going to draw fire for anything that looks strange. The thread title says it all - "He suspended himself" BTW, the "coach" in question wasn't a coach, but gray becomes black and white when people want heads to roll. Not suggesting things didn't go wrong, I don't know everything, but I know the men, and they are as genuine as they come. For my part, I will believe the best. Not sure how this will play out, but Trimble is the real deal. One of the few I have met that genuinely and humbly pursues the best he can for the kids, and it is evident by how hard those kids play for each other. I know there are many who will only see the outside and judge, but knowing the situation and the man to the degree I do, he is seeking to absorb as much of the hit as he can, so the kids don't have to take it. Not sure if that will make a difference, but he is trying to protect the season. Just my two cents. Not everything here is at it appears. I guess I'm still seeing a logical gap between a player from virginia living with a coach from Oklahoma. I obviously don't know all the facts, but since you know more perhaps you can explain. There may be a very rational explanation for it.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 7, 2009 10:44:53 GMT -6
We feel like Phantom this year. Great group of athletes, but a relatively poor attitude and work ethic. A bit overconfident, a tick lazy and their a bit cliquey (Those who were studs as freshman really resent the late-bloomers/juniors and sophomores).
We take steps to combat this, but, well, you can't save 'em all. I have no doubt they will eventually realize how these factors are hurting them, but it might not be until they're in college.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 7, 2009 10:11:52 GMT -6
I have a better test. I mean, money isn't an issue for everyone, how can we really test their commitment.
If they aren't willing to lose a finger (Ronnie Lott style) they can't coach for me. I only want guys who will cut a finger off to coach. If that's not you, there isn't any room for you.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 6, 2009 21:33:21 GMT -6
airraid77,
what are you talking/ranting about?
Do you want to know what people would do if you pulled their stipend? TA lot of us would walk. Not because we coach for the money, but rather, because it's very insulting. If my job is worth x amount in 2009, and you're telling me its not worth a thing in 2010, it's pretty obvious how you value me.
If you're asking what would happen if you didn't pay your assistants, that's a different quesiton. My initial thought is that you will have a tough time brining people in, because if one school values my work at x amount, and you're school doesn't think it's worth anything, I do like money.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 6, 2009 12:10:58 GMT -6
If you take somebody from a paid position and make them unpaid, you're slapping them in the face. I can't imagine there are many coaches who would be alright under those conditions.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 6, 2009 9:13:12 GMT -6
I've really begun to use film to reinforce positive rather than negative this season. We'll hamer effort. We'll fix any repeated screwups (anything done consistantly wrong).
For the most part we'll show good technique and how that helped. Corner comes up as the force player we'll spend as much time talking about that as when our nose gets driven off the ball. Not a ton we can do about a kid getting driven off the ball (unless it's an effort issue), but we can atleast emphasis technique.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 5, 2009 18:15:02 GMT -6
Call me cynical, but a D1 recruit changing states and moving in with a coach just sounds fishy.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 5, 2009 9:48:42 GMT -6
I am not defending the NFL rules. I hate them as much if not more. My point is that it is still football.I think their is going to be revolt by NFLPA at some point. You heard it from ray lewis...your hearing it from the legends......They agree with you and I, its getting rediculous. But it really is bad football (from a fundamentals standpoint). And considering the options I have on a sunday... Big Ten Network Mountain West Network ESPNU CBS College Sports I'm finding myself watching more replays from Saturday than new games on Sunday. Yesterday I watched two halves of games. The Lions/Bears followed by the Steelers/Chargers. The Bears game blew because the refs made a noticeable difference in the game. So many automatic first downs, 1st and 25s ect. ect. I only watched the first half of the Steelers game, but it hit a nice groove because the refs weren't noticeable. Pittsburgh could drive because they weren't calling holding every other play. The Steelers D made stops becaue San Diego didn't get a constant barage of PI and hitting the QB and illegal contact. At some point the NFL needs to just eat the whistles.
|
|