|
Post by jrk5150 on May 29, 2018 9:53:36 GMT -6
Follow the money - odds are that the trail begins and ends with the honorable profession of law (dripping sarcasm).
Attorneys are paid to put together these training programs that are necessary because...the same attorneys say they are. If they fixed the legal system/profession, a whole lot of bullsh*t we all deal with would go away.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on May 29, 2018 9:34:21 GMT -6
Yeah, what's that even mean in that context? So what you're saying is ordinarily all spots aren't open? That's not the right message. Especially when all spots aren't open even when you say they are. I get what you're trying to do, and it certainly could be received how it was intended, but it could kind of blow up in your face too.
If you have to vent, I'd say something more like "if this is the effort and focus we're going to get, we'll have to re-evaluate where some guys are playing, and move guys into the lineup who will give us that effort and focus". And then maybe make an example of a couple of dogs.
I played for a bad D2 basketball team, and our coach did that once or twice over my 4 years, where he made starting decisions mid-season based on effort vs. talent. These kids could still walk and chew gum, but they weren't scholarship basketball players, definitely weren't D2 starter caliber talent-wise, but they worked their asses off and contributed. It served its purpose, and elevated everyone's play. We still sucked, but a little less than we did before that...
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on May 7, 2018 10:10:13 GMT -6
We don't. You want film sent out, we send it out. I'm not about the tell a kid what he should or shouldn't dream. I'll let the college not responded if they don't think he's good enough. We may educate about the process, provide information or speak honestly when asked, but I'm not crushing the dream. Love this answer. Just remember - every college roster below the power 5 has at least one kid who could have played at a higher level, but wasn't recruited/offered (I mention power 5 as there isn't a higher college level). Every college roster at every level has recruited kids who can't play at that level. Every year there are multiple busts in the NFL draft, and undrafted FA's who start. In other words, the guys whose livelihoods depend on making these calls don't always get it right.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on May 2, 2018 14:10:29 GMT -6
I've used Epic sports online a few times, never a problem, and great prices. I bought them for youth, but they have adult.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Apr 12, 2018 7:44:10 GMT -6
Yes, that's something I've learned when designing/implementing employee programs.
If you want people to value something, they need to have skin in the game. We get a much bigger bump in morale when we have employees pay a small/nominal amount for something than if we offer it for free. Free gets taken for granted.
Consultants can come in and say the exact same thing that your internal manager/trainers were saying, but because they come in from the outside, they are perceived to have greater expertise.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Apr 12, 2018 7:39:50 GMT -6
I know you'll get some great answers, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate, and say be very careful of "non-negotiable" rules. That smacks of "zero tolerance", and I HATE zero tolerance policies - they're for the intellectually lazy who don't want to be held accountable for making decisions.
Every situation needs to be judged on its own merits. What probably can/should be non-negotiable are the values you carry into the decision, but you have to be prepared to account for subtle differences that should be considered.
Please note, that doesn't mean you don't end up with something resembling a non-negotiable rule in certain situations, but that would be based on your values, not a rule/policy. Having respect as a value might mean you'd tend to come down on someone who is late - they aren't respecting you/the team enough to be on time. But making value based decisions allows you to consider their individual circumstances, which might just mitigate an individual occurrence of being late vs. if you have a "non-negotiable" policy on tardiness.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Apr 10, 2018 10:01:16 GMT -6
Am I crazy for having a problem that a coach is getting $ for private training when he should have told them to go do track as well? Is that not a huge conflict of interest?
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Mar 19, 2018 12:33:55 GMT -6
" Showing the players you can disagree & still work together is the better lesson to teach them." Moreover, by telling them that you disagree it comes off as you wanting to disavow responsibility from the technique in case it fails or is in anyway attached to failing. What's wrong w that? Nobody should take the blame for somebody else's mistake. Doing so makes it less likely mistakes will be fixed. One of the problems with your line of thinking here Bob is that kids are not mini-adults. They don't think like adults. They don't process like adults. They don't see all of the different sides of things like adults. It can be beyond them to understand that wrong in this doesn't necessarily mean wrong in that and the other thing as well. They tend to see things more black and white. If you question the HC in front of the kids, they aren't going to understand the context and limitations of that questioning, they are liable to apply it to EVERYTHING the HC does. Been there, done that. Not pretty. Made a mistake with my son in 8th grade. I was not a fan of some of the things his coach was doing, and expressed that to my wife (NOT to my son). Unfortunately my wife then openly discussed it in front of my son. Driving home from practice one night, he starts blasting his coach, and most of what he was saying was dead wrong. After I read him the riot act, it dawned on me that my wife talking sh*t about the coach caused my son to apply that to everything the coach did, and basically come to not respect him. He simply didn't have the experience and maturity to understand the context of what was being said. I have to say - I had really bad coaching in pretty much every sport I played in HS. Rural area, pre-Internet, no big clinics, they were just guys coaching. I am really, really glad in hindsight that I didn't know how bad they were. I couldn't have done anything about it, and in this case ignorance was blissful.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Mar 1, 2018 14:04:25 GMT -6
There is a user on here named CoachDP (I think that's his username anyway). He has put together what he calls his CAL program (pretty sure it stands for Character and Leadership) - and it's very well developed. He's implemented the program at both the youth and HS levels with tremendous success. I personally know coaches who have implemented his program with success as well. He doesn't sell it, he'll give it to you.
If you're interested, he's the kind of guy who will bend over backwards to help you with it. He doesn't post on here too much, but pretty sure I saw him comment on something in the past week or two, so he should have an active account. If you can't find him, PM me, I have his contact info.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Feb 16, 2018 12:17:28 GMT -6
The Superintendent's statement - wow. That's really unusual, and without saying it a pretty powerful condemnation of the school board.
I'd be interested in the story, but my guess is it will be same old same old - a parent got in somebody's ear. Would be awesome if I was wrong...
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Feb 14, 2018 13:50:47 GMT -6
I would definitely poke around his youth coaching reputation. I wouldn't look at "success" per se, I'd look at what his reputation is. Most of us know who the Daddy ball guys are, and those kinds of coaches aren't going to change their stripes.
And by the way - if the parents all like him, that should be a pretty solid positive indicator. Many parents see daddy-ball even when it's not happening - so when they don't see it, I'd be inclined to believe it's a complete non-factor.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Feb 13, 2018 17:13:28 GMT -6
As a youth coach who's seen all kinds of youth coaches, including more than a few dads coaching their sons...
It all depends. Do you really need another coach? If you need a guy, and he seems the best qualified, I'd poke around his youth experience. What is his reputation in the youth program? Was he a daddy-ball guy, or a solid coach? I've seen both. Is he in it until the kid is done, or is he interested in more than that? I've seen both.
I would imagine any time you have a someone potentially coaching their kid the deck should be stacked against it, but that doesn't mean it's an absolute no. Plenty of guys have navigated that just fine.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Feb 13, 2018 14:54:06 GMT -6
Look, I'm one of the guys who thinks BB royally screwed the pooch here.
But that said, he actually addressed this MORE than he usually does. He's never really commented on why guys do/don't play. In this case, he went so far as to say he respected Butler's willingness to compete, and he understands that Butler and other guys on the team thought he could make a difference, but he felt he made the best decision for the team. That's like a friggin novel coming out of BB's mouth.
Also said it was a football decision and then, which is rare for him, reiterated it to the same reporter when he asked the follow up. He hardly ever does that either.
So believe him or not, he did address this more completely than he usually does. Still maybe not enough, but he'll never do that.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Feb 9, 2018 10:13:12 GMT -6
I think this was a huge TROLL job on the COLTS for that exact reason. We will never know but I believe he was never going to INDY While we don't/can't KNOW, I don't buy this at all. Primarily because of the two assistants who signed with Indy to work for McD. Regardless of how you view this situation, you can't disagree that to some extent he screwed those guys over, and I doubt he'd do that just to troll the Colts. And given the fact the Pats won the Super Bowl last year, I think they got over deflategate. Heard an interesting take on this - apparently BB basically does not entertain discussions about the future until the season is done. When he has AC's interviewing to be HC's, he outlines his expectations around those interviews, and that's it - no further discussion, everything else is about the next game. So it's possible if not likely that the first time McD sat down with Kraft and BB to discuss the Colts was this week, which led to him changing his mind. McDaniels has been wishy-washy about leaving the Pats for years. I think he wants to be a HC, but he doesn't want to leave his current situation. There was discussion last off-season about this when he declined to be a serious HC candidate, that he was aware he had a finite timeline to be considered for other jobs - say no enough and people stop asking. I think this Colts thing was ALL about that - he felt like if he doesn't strike now, he may not get another chance. And I think the Pats are giving him that chance, with a wink wink agreement (if not outright assurance) that he will legitimately be in consideration for their job when BB leaves. The bit about BB opening up the vault for McD, so to speak - that supposedly happened in 2008 as well. He turned down interviews after the 2007 season with BB promising to prepare him to be a HC during the 2008 season, which then led to him getting the Denver job. So I don't know how much weight I'd put on that. I think it was more about ownership sweetening the pot $-wise and telling him look, you're part of our long term plans, we can see a future with you, Jonathan Kraft and Nick Caserio (who Josh is close with) running this show for a long time after Robert and BB step down. I think that made it easy for him to do what he wanted to do, which is stay here.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Feb 6, 2018 13:59:05 GMT -6
This is the NFL, not HS or college football, and this is a guy who coached LT in the coked up 80's. Give me a break. If that was Brady, nothing happens. Ultimately the players are responsible for their performance. You want to send a message? Fine - sit him for a quarter, max. You don't screw over the other 52 or whatever players on the roster and cost them a ring because you want to send a selective message about your selective rules. You put him out there and let the chips fall - if he fails, you rip him a new one publicly. But you don't cost your team the championship, not at this level.
I totally agree that, if what's out there is true, Butler was being a selfish POS - he was sick, had a bad week of practice, then he's out Friday night getting hammered and bringing women into his room after curfew (implied by Brandon Browner). Dumb. But it's still the NFL, and ultimately performance rules.
As for the Kraft/Belichick thing - I think it was overplayed in the media, but we'll know soon enough. If Kraft did what was reported, there's no way BB stays. And if he's not staying, what would be the point of sending a message to Butler? At that point, just get the ring...
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Feb 5, 2018 15:09:04 GMT -6
Rowe said post game that he wasn't told until pretty much kickoff that he was in there for Butler.
BB said it was a "football decision", and then explicitly denied it was disciplinary - which I'd tend to believe, I would think he'd just no comment the whole thing if it was.
Butler said he wasn't give a reason - again, not the behavior you'd expect if he was being punished for something.
There's a story behind it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't make much sense to anyone but BB. Seems like he makes at least one controversial personnel decision every year without explanation. He usually gets away with it, but this one just might have cost him a ring.
My guess - it's as simple as he decided he'd rather lose with guys he liked/trusted than put Butler in. Doesn't explain why Butler played almost every snap during the year, but again, a lot of these decisions don't make sense from the outside.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Feb 5, 2018 12:50:45 GMT -6
If he has time, the Pats would have won their sixth Super Bowl in 17 years. The Philly DL ate that NE OL up all night. Philly made a play when they needed it and the Pats did not. I wouldn't say they ate up NE's Oline. That D gave up 600+ yards lol. Brady had to rush a few times, but 1 sack all night isn't eating them up. Just think - they make those two kicks, and Brady doesn't drop the ball all alone with no defender within 20 yards, and it's possibly if not likely a completely different result. And the Philly D had no bearing on those three plays being missed, they were simply unforced errors by the Pats. I give Philly credit that they really only had the one - the missed PAT. That's the difference - the Pats can usually count on the other guys making more errors. Didn't happen, they lose.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Feb 5, 2018 12:44:57 GMT -6
So if you're going to ban youth football for safety reasons, you'll justify risking the safety of HS kids for the FEW who get scholarships out of it? My local HS's entire league doesn't even see one football scholarship per year. They have kids playing at the next level, but not on any kind of ride... Heck, fellas...USA Hockey & USA Soccer limit checking and heading, respectively, for 13 and under...they don't BAN. They adjust an element of adult sport to responsibly allow proper development of the youth athlete. Grow Up. Grow up a whole bunch. Quit your sky is falling tantrums and GROW UP. EVOLVE. BEND OR BREAK BECAUSE TIMES ARE A CHANGING WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. HS 'Presents Opportunities'...I mean...four five six fellas, you really think this is the thread that unravels every HS sporting outlet? Limiting tackling for under 14 all of a sudden equates to NO SPORTS. PERIOD. Ridiculous. Y'all are off yer rockers. What are you talking about? First you mention hockey modifying rules, but this is a thread about banning the sport below age 12, not "modifying the rules". And who is saying anything about "NO SPORTS. PERIOD." in HS? What on earth are you talking about? I also can't believe anyone would ever point to youth hockey as support for anything resembling reasonableness...the only thing youth hockey is good for is to point out how screwed up adults are when it comes to youth sports. Being in Boston I have a front row seat to that madness.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Feb 2, 2018 14:35:40 GMT -6
Why should HS football exist if youth football isn't allowed to? What's the argument to do one but not the other? And note - those places where youth football doesn't exist, I would imagine that isn't because of legislation, it's because of interest. No issue with that. If you can't get kids out to play, you shouldn't have the program. Youth Football isn't a means of acquiring post secondary scholarship...like all other youth sport...but HS Athletics DOES present these types of opportunities. So if you're going to ban youth football for safety reasons, you'll justify risking the safety of HS kids for the FEW who get scholarships out of it? My local HS's entire league doesn't even see one football scholarship per year. They have kids playing at the next level, but not on any kind of ride...
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Feb 1, 2018 12:23:10 GMT -6
We will see with what now seems to be a serious crossroads, 2 or 3 of top assistants are leaving, He could very well ship Brady off to the browns(this day is coming even though it might not be Cleveland). Not a chance that's in the cards, or he wouldn't have moved JG. That trade to SF guaranteed that Brady is finishing out his career here. Belichick thought he had the next guy, and he traded him. Whether or not Belichick stays depends on how that whole JG trade went down. If Kraft "forced" that trade in any way, then I'd expect Belichick's resignation next week. There are a number of things about this trip eerily similar to the 2005 SB when they played Philly. Including both coordinators being on their way out the door with nobody obvious in line to replace them.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Feb 1, 2018 8:21:56 GMT -6
Why should HS football exist if youth football isn't allowed to? What's the argument to do one but not the other?
And note - those places where youth football doesn't exist, I would imagine that isn't because of legislation, it's because of interest. No issue with that. If you can't get kids out to play, you shouldn't have the program.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Jan 31, 2018 10:05:55 GMT -6
But I still think high school football has real-life value ... and I can't wait to get to next season. Here's part of the problem. This implies that the value of football only applies to HS kids? What about my kid, who had TERRIBLE HS coaching, and gained pretty much nothing of value from HS football? He gained a lot from football, just all before he hit clown college in 10th grade. The problem with being okay with this law (and I'm not saying you are, this is more a general comment) because it won't impact HS football is that you're saying football isn't valuable until HS, so the kids who play youth but don't play in HS don't matter. There are plenty of outstanding athletes who play both youth football and soccer in the fall, and eventually pick soccer as they hit middle school or HS. Those kids are better for having played football, and if left until 12, they probably would have never played.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Jan 29, 2018 17:14:50 GMT -6
If something like this actually comes to fruition, they're coming after HS football next. There is simply no logical argument you can make based on the limited medical knowledge we currently have that would favor no hitting before 12 and hitting from 13-18. If they take it away before 12, it won't be long before they look to take it away up to the age of 18. Your only hope is that the people who vote will be as irrational in favor of HS football as they were against youth football...
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Jan 26, 2018 13:19:07 GMT -6
Tough subject. Considering the fact we're on a HS football coaching forum, I assume everyone here is pretty well sold on the positives that football brings to the table, so no need to go through them all.
I tend to agree that, from a HS football perspective, starting the game at age 12 or even 14 is probably a reasonable idea. The vast majority of the kids who get on the field with you guys on Friday night would get on the field regardless of when they started playing. Could it hurt numbers? Some say yes, I'm not convinced. I think the kids who start playing earlier than 12 now and stay with it would still sign up at 12 if that's the earliest they could.
But I have two issues with this proposed regulation/the line of thinking that says no football before age 12 or HS or whatever.
The first is general - youth football isn't about HS football, it's about youth football. Those positive attributes of football apply to an 8 year old as well as a 16 year old. I'm not sure it's a good thing to deny those kids the opportunity to learn the lessons that football teaches. I know they can still play at 12, but for a variety of reasons 12 is when we tend to start losing the kids that aren't planning to play in HS. Many (most?) of those kids may still try it out at 12, but they'll play a year or two and drop. And I don't believe they will reap the same benefits from football as a kid who starts at 7 or 8 and plays until he's 12 or 13.
The second is more specific, and more personal. There are kids who only continue to play at 12 and beyond because of what they learned playing at younger ages. Some kids need time to learn the game when things aren't quite as fast and violent as the game gets at 12. Not many, so I don't know that if I was a HS coach I'd particularly care, but I care because one of those kids is my son. He's 20 and on a D1 FCS roster. He started playing Pop Warner at 7 (ironically against my wishes). And I can say now, without any reservations, that youth football changed his life for the better. He would not be who he is (and he's a pretty damn fine young man) without having played youth football. Not HS football - frankly that was a mixed bag for him. He's on the mild end of the autism spectrum, and he really struggled finding his place socially. Football was a lifeline for him, all of those positive attributes we talk about were times ten for him. And I'm pretty confident that, had he been unable to play until he was 12, he either never would have played, or he'd have played a year and dropped. He needed those years from 7-11 to learn and get his feet under him. In fact, those were the life-changing years for him. By the time he was 12, he was pretty locked in as far as who he was and his "social standing" so to speak as well.
So I personally think this is a horrible idea. Especially given that there is NO, NADA, ZERO evidence that it would make a difference for CTE. In fact, the little evidence there is would point towards banning football AFTER 12 years old. This is just a knee-jerk reaction that ultimately won't help anyone, but will in fact hurt a relatively small handful of kids who really could benefit from football.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Jan 26, 2018 11:22:45 GMT -6
The current thing we get is the kids who tuck their shirt sleeves up over their shoulder pads to get a "sleeveless" look. Just a few kids tend to do it. Usually kids that play in the backfield, LOL. They did it in practice, can't remember if they did it in games of if the refs put the kibosh on that.
I don't remember because I couldn't have possibly cared less. I care about focus, effort, and execution. But a coach from the next age level up was hanging around before our practice talking to them about how that sh*t wouldn't fly next year, blah blah blah. He's an idiot anyway.
Frankly, I think our kids got it from girl's sports. I know a lot of girls' basketball and soccer players have been doing that for a while.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Jan 18, 2018 14:42:16 GMT -6
Kid like that, telling him you don't want him is probably a guarantee to get him to come out for the team.
Ignore the kid. THAT'S what he won't like...
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Jan 11, 2018 15:24:20 GMT -6
Pretty simple - if you don't practice it during the week, you cannot expect your kids to execute on it (whatever "it" is) on Friday night/Saturday afternoon/Sunday. That goes for all levels from youth to the NFL.
Patriots/Belichick have gotten a lot of press over the past 4-5 years for the level of detail they build into practice. Was just watching some of the Youtube stuff that pops up watching those clips above, a lot of footage about how Belichick is always throwing different situations at them to make sure when it happens in the game, the other guy is the one puking on his shoes.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Dec 27, 2017 7:26:20 GMT -6
I don't even understand the play design - I mean, receiving teams are usually all over those gunners to try to block them. Who has a fake going to them?!?! You usually see one of the up-backs/protectors sneak out, they're hardly ever covered.
Seemed dumb on multiple levels.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Dec 18, 2017 13:58:15 GMT -6
Cracks me up that he can't keep a straight face during the "translation". He started laughing a couple of times.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Dec 5, 2017 18:04:37 GMT -6
I bought wrist coaches from them, probably 2-3 times over the past 3-4-5 years. Never an issue, but that's all I've ever bought from them.
|
|