|
Post by s73 on Jun 11, 2013 5:25:14 GMT -6
The best part of being HC........ Getting to test your own vision
The worst part of being HC.......Non FB administrative stuff
The best part of being AC........ Not having to do administrative stuff
The worst part of being AC.......Doing the right thing by supporting decisions you don't agree with
The best thing about our program.....We are unified & starting to enjoy some success
The worst thing about our program...... Being a smaller school in a bigger conference
The best part of the off season...... Immediate break following FB
The worst part of the off season......Equipment inventory
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 10, 2013 17:14:26 GMT -6
I honestly couldn't watch this, as soon as I heard Chris Beerman talking I had to turn it off even if it was about Lombardi. I have to agree with others on here that there is a difference in professional and personal success. Being a great coach doesn't make you a great person. I coached with a guy who I would say was probably like Lombardi. In fact his picture is my avatar. I respect him as the greatest football mind and coach I have ever been around (so do a lot of big names in the coaching world). I also know his sons and the stories they have told have inspired me NOT to be like him in my family life. They love and respect their father but you can tell they still have issues related to him. On a side note that some may enter into evidence: deadspin.com/5805957/only-a-jets-fan-keeps-vince-lombardis-grave-from-being-a-neglected-embarrassmentI don't know how anybody else feels, but I think you can be a great man and still have serious shortcomings. He was great to his players and almost all of them will attest to his impact as life changing. I know he was strongly opposed to racism, and in fact stood up to the commissioner of the NFL b/c one of his players wanted to marry a white woman and the commissioner wanted him to dump the player (non star player btw), but he would not and openly supported the man and his wife in the midwest in the 60's, fairly courageous when you have no skin in the game. He was in favor of the civil rights movement and served in his local church. Unfortunately he was a poor father and husband. He still made a positive impact on many lives and for that I would consider him a great, but flawed man. As almost all icons are. Thomas Jefferson and G Washington were fighting for liberty while owning slaves and MLK was rumored to have a drinking problem and heavily rumored to be an adulterer. Muhammad Ali is revered by many as a civil rights hero while harboring many of his own racist views. I would suggest all of these men improved society in one way or another, thus making them great, yet deeply flawed. Just my opinion. PS - If these were not great men then what is the definition of a great man? Outside of Jesus Christ who else qualifies?
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 10, 2013 12:27:54 GMT -6
Have you ever been married, airman? Seriously, I have posted this before, but those of us of an age know that the role of husband-father-provider and relationships between husbands and wives was MUCH different in the middle part of 20th Century than it has evolved to last generation or so. The Lombardis were not all that different than many if not most Americans of their era, although any problems they had probably were exacerbated by the nature of his profession and the national attention he received. Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 10, 2013 11:33:06 GMT -6
IMHO I think this is common place w/ people whose whole lives are made public. I think it is also (sadly) common place w/ people whose whole lives are dedicated to a singleminded purpose. I concur w/ this. With that being said, this sounds like just about every NFL coach I've ever heard of. PS - I still list VL as one of the few people in history I would like to meet and talk with.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 10, 2013 5:56:55 GMT -6
Coach Lombardi is an example of being a very successful man on the outside but very unsuccessful with his inner life. His wife became an alcoholic, he had very poor relationships with people, especially his son and daughter. He was very critical of his son's athletic ability. His son played D 3 football at St Thomas University in Minneapolis/St. Paul Minnesota. His son never got into the coaching end. he became a lawyer. His son however coaches. A quote from his wife. "He seemed preoccupied with football even on their honeymoon, and cut it short to get back to Englewood … 'I wasn't married to him more than one week', she later related, 'when I said to myself, Marie Planitz, you've made the greatest mistake of your life.'"[92] Lombardi's perfectionism,[77][97] authoritarian nature[98] and temper,[92] instilled in his wife a masterful ability to verbally assault and demean Lombardi when he verbally abused her.[36] His children were not immune from his yelling. When Lombardi had not lost his temper, he would often be reticent and aloof.[99] IMHO I think this is common place w/ people whose whole lives are made public. If any of our lives were made public I think we would all show short comings. With that being said, I think he still serves as a positive role model for people in our position and is a great resource on how to approach CERTAIN things. Maybe not fatherhood or marriage but I know I still find him inspiring in terms of football. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 8, 2013 10:43:11 GMT -6
I have a Vince Lombardi movie the I DVR'd from HBO about a year ago and it was excellent! I watch every fall for personal inspiration.
According to the movie (if accurate) VL won 6 consecutive state titles at St. Cecilius HS as his first coaching job, often times beating schools w/ 10x their enrollment.
He also won 1 basketball state championship even though he never played or coached the sport previously. He learned the game from a book he rented from the library. The movie said the book was old and outdated and still referred to the mid court jump after every basket. He had to learn on his own that that rule no longer existed once his season started.
They also interview several of his HS players that are still living and they cannot praise him enough. They said nobody motivated in life better than him.
If the movie is accurate then that is obviously incredible. I watch and always tell myself if he can do all of that the LEAST I can do is give my guys a shot to win year in and year out.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 8, 2013 6:59:41 GMT -6
We have 12 on the varsity staff for 80-85 players: HC/STC/TEs Asst- OC/OL Asst- Asst OL (GA) Asst- QB Asst- RB Asst- WR Asst- DC/OLB Asst- ILB Asst- DL Asst- CB Asst- Assoc HC/Recruiting/Safeties Asst- Kickers (usually only stays an hour, older guy who does a great job) We'll have around 5 or 6 coaches on the frosh staff. Practices are 2 1/2 hours, with an hour on each side of the ball. I usually like to have the JV guys first (defense) and finish with the varsity guys. We also have a Facilities/Equipment/Quality Control guy and he has 2 assistants that have been around 5+ years. It's a great staff where all of the young guys on staff played there and all of the older ones have been at the school 15+ years, with 8 of the varsity staff on campus (rare in California). Wow. Is your mascot the Golden Bears by chance?
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 6, 2013 13:55:40 GMT -6
I guess I would question #1 somewhat. If by flexible and evolving you mean that they have a sound system that they can "tweak" to capitalize on their personnel then I agree wholeheartedly. But if by flexible and evolving you mean changing systems to cater to personnel, I have seen that work but it's more the exception than the rule at least in my area.
Most guys in this area who are successful have an identity and are going to do the same or very similar things year in and year out regardless of who they graduate. They have great feeder programs and beat teams w/ the excellence of execution.
So if intended the 1st way, agree completely. The second way, not so much IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 6, 2013 5:32:51 GMT -6
I think film can be very useful. But I think the vast majority of us misuse it (myself included).
I think it can be useful when you cut it up into a few segments of just their 4-5 best runs and passes and maybe a special team coaching point here and their.
Unfortunately most staffs just kind of run the film and talk about everything. I think this is a lot like giving a kid a test on a 300 page text book. Maybe a little too much information overload v. the cliff note version.
I was as guilty of rambling on during film as anybody w/o much scope or focus. Then I would light a kid up when he was dozing off. That's why I love hudl. I can make comments on hudl, particularly about their performance. I think this is something they tune into because it's about them.
I also LOVE the idea somebody else mentioned on this thread about being more interactive with it by having them respond back. I am definitely stealing that at least for my QB and maybe some Oline and defensive positions. I have to give it some more thought but will definitely be implementing.
Great stuff.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 5, 2013 15:59:02 GMT -6
Three years ago I gave everyone one. Found a lot of them on the floor, or stuffed in lockers at the bottom at the end of the year. Won 4 games. Second year, I made them optional. Made them available to kids that wanted one. Found fewer stuffed in lockers. Won 6 games. Last year, didn't give them out to any kids. Won 10 games. Now, I'm not making a correlation with lack of playbooks=more wins, but I don't think 90% of your kids even look at them. I look at it as I'm trying to make the world greener. Exactly. Closest thing I do is put blocking rules on a wrist coach for my line.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 5, 2013 13:49:15 GMT -6
We are 9-noon, 9-11 on the field and in the weight room 11-12. Has worked well for us. Our staff meets at 830 to discuss practice or handle an equipment issue for a kid. We don't worry about the heat as we feel they will have to play in those conditions at some time.
Just curious, any of you 6 am guys meet before practice? If so, what time?
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 5, 2013 6:34:51 GMT -6
We have 4 varsity coaches and 2 sophomore coaches (JV, whatever you want to call it). So what has helped us is that since their are 6 total guys I have designated 3 of them as just offensive coaches (myself included) and 3 of them as strictly defensive coaches.
We practice 3 hours at beginning of season. So for 1.5 hours, the soph team goes defense with their 3 coaches and the Varsity goes O with their 3 coaches and then the players/levels switch sides of the ball halfway through but the coaches stay the same.
This has maximized my coaching numbers, has solved buy in issues b/c I write one common practice schedule and the connection prepares the lower level for varsity FB b/c they are working w/ varsity coaches learning our schemes and verbage for 3 years instead of 2.
Let me 1st state that my staff has been great and buy in has not seemed to be an issue, but if it were it would be difficult to deviate since again I write the practice schedule for all 6 of us as we practice together. Both levels learn the same concepts, drills, strategies, etc.
It's also nice for evaluation purposes since I get to coach younger kids on a daily basis when the soph team switches to O. Also, the younger guys never slow down the varsity team as we practice opposite sides of the ball.
It also helps younger coaches perfect their craft since they get to specialize on one side of the ball, one position, etc.
If your situation is similar then this might help. Just a suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 4, 2013 12:01:12 GMT -6
I'm wondering do some of you guys like coaching or like the guys you coach with? ? I don't see how you wouldn't want to watch the game you just coached. Our entire staff gets together after the games on friday and watches our film and the news. I'm anxious to see all the work we have put in. I always have the guys come over after the game and watch the film on Fridays. We just don't remember it between beers.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 4, 2013 5:43:28 GMT -6
And honestly, the older I get I feel like the kids don't need to come in at all. I am really starting to agree with this. The fact is after a Friday night game we don't leave the school until after 10, usually 11 if it is a far away game The kid's go out with friends, or at the very least get a bite to eat... I would be amazed 3/4 of them were home before midnight, let alone asleep then we bring them in really early the next morning, after they beat themselves up (or got beat up) the night before Their attention span is almost nothing, most of our coaches haven't adequately reviewed film, it is hard to watch film with the entire team at once because each position needs it's own separate emphasis and meeting in my opinion. It is something we do, but I think it is one of those deals where the grinders out there decide to do it thinking it gives an advantage at the elite level programs, watching a ton of film probably does win/lose games, but I think for 90% of us WE put way too much stock in to it compared to what the kids really get out of it and from a coaching perspective having 7 day work days all season long starts to grind on you... I can't imagine doing the saturday and sunday meetings if I had a wife at home nagging me The fact of the matter for ME is similar to what you are saying. Earlier in my career I brought the kids in b/c that's what you're "supposed to do". At least in my experience anyway. Not taking issue w/ anyone who does this at all, just felt like it wasn't working for me. The main problem I had w/ bringing kids in for film was really 3 fold. First, if we lost, I would eventually blow up during film b/c some kid or position group would do something they were told not to do all week. Now, low morale from losing would be even lower. Or.... we would win and the kids that were not comatose from the night before would be giddy and not paying real close attention b/c they would be making comments about this highlight or that highlight, and eventually I'd end up yelling b/c they weren't paying attention. Now, they're getting yelled at after a win and morale would feel weird b/c they played well and still got yelled at for not FOCUSING during the film session. Or... worst of all, a kid who doesn't play b/c he's flat out not good enough regardless of how much film he watches is falling asleep b/c the writings on the wall that he ain't gettin' in and I'd get upset w/ that kid, but what can you do? Punish him for not watching himself stand on the sideline? Again, no issue w/ those who feel team film is important. This is just MY perspective. Now, we don't bring kids in, make honest comments and assessments amongst our selves b/c no kids are there to hear them, and I feel like they get the sleep they need after a long night. It also keeps morale high and the "fence riders" (kids who were on the fence about playing FB in the 1st place, but bodies you need out there) generally stick it out. Furthermore, since we stopped bringing in kids and shortening our work load for coaches, we have been more successful. I find this to be most important. It will not work for every staff and respect others who do it differently, but this works for us. What we don't get done me and my DC take care of separately and make sure it is done by Monday. PS - Before hudl we still stopped bringing kids in but OUR workday was much longer. Again, I respect all who do it differently.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 3, 2013 15:46:23 GMT -6
We go 9-noon on Saturdays as a staff. Together we break down opponents and discuss defensive game plan. I develop offensive game plan on my own during/ between college games/ napping and mauling available snacks.
Staff & myself are on our own to break down our game and expected to do so before Monday (cards and all).
No kids either day. I find them distracting. They have film watching requirements by Monday as well.
Hudl has saved much time IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on May 25, 2013 19:31:09 GMT -6
The problem I have seen is the legality and the students' "rights" when it comes to alcohol and drugs. Many schools used to have an "altered mental state" policy in their student handbooks. Kids that came to school under the influence of drugs or booze (without actusl proof) could be called to task for it. Mom and dad were called in and they had a discussion with the administration about their child's behavior. You couldn't outright accuse a kid of using but you could send them home for the day because they were in an "altered state". I had a kid show up in my room high as a kite one day and he smelled like weed. He was staring at the walls, giggling and being an idiot so I sent him to the office. Mom was called, had a pow-wow with the principal and was sent home. Under the school policy, it was the same as shipping a sick kid out but the student and the parents got the picture; Lil Johnny is high and we're not going to have him here. But, this was a private school where things could be handled in a firmer matter. That doesn't fly in public schooks around here because parents brought lawyers into the situation. No allegations or accusations were made in the office but apparently the school was violating the student's "right to an education". The best you can do now is search the kid's locker when he comes in stoned. They can even stink like booze or weed and there isn't anything you can do unless they're really off the wall and disruptive. Life sure would be a lot easier in schools if the kids had the same repercussions they'll have in the work force. Show up to work stoned and you're gone, PERIOD. One route we've gone on this is if they smell like weed or we suspect some other "influence" we bring the school nurse in to test the vitals. Your vitals such as BP and heart rate really elevate as well as pupil dilation particularly when weed or coke are involved. Then we compare current vitals w/ their school physical vitals. When they are way higher in pulse and BP we tell them they have 2 choices. You can tell us what you used OR if you want to stick w/ the story that you're not on anything, then that means your vitals are out of control and something is medically wrong w/ you and you will be going to the hospital via ambulance on your parents dime. This has worked every time but once this year and we sent the kid. The other thing we have decoded as a district is let them lawyer up. We have a district lawyer on a retainer and they don't have the money the district has.Also, school insurance covers most of the fee anyway. As a result, we've had a few threats but no follow through. Most kids and parents just know now "this is how it is". Last 2 dog searches showed nothing in school and parking lot. Theirs still a problem, just much smaller IN SCHOOL. I feel very fortunate to be working w/ the admin. I do.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on May 24, 2013 17:54:30 GMT -6
Personally, I have found simplicity improves discipline. Mostly b/c the less we're working on scheme the more we as coaches can pay attention to details such as discipline, fundamentals etc.
Just what we do.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on May 23, 2013 15:15:51 GMT -6
I liked everything Fantom said.
Also find it VERY INTERESTING that some posters were very critical and cynical regarding the report I posted but then threw opinion and theory out as factual. Like the "fact" that kids are using alcohol before weed. Actually that trend is reversing and already has in many areas. Weed has become more accessible in many areas b/c you don't need a fake ID.
Or the theory about legalize everything and it will eventually all work out. Again, a theory. It could also be a total CLUSTER. I posted something actual and got more debate then guys posting opinion and fiction. That seems more like agenda to me.
Back to the OP - I don't expect a guest speaker to work. I also don't expect myself to dissuade a ton of kids. I also don't expect their parents to dissuade them. I also don't expect my captains to get through to them.
With that being said, 1/3 of the kids are doing drugs no matter what, 1/3 of the kids will never do drugs no matter what and 1/3 of the kids are "fence riders". If a guest speaker, proactive parents, positive peer pressure and RESPONSIBLE coaches emplore them not to use drugs/alcohol, then we should be able to save SOME of the fence riders. That's the objective in my mind and I think that is worthwhile.
That's why I have such a negative reaction to many of the posts on here. It's our job to GUIDE kids in a positive path. No matter your stance on this subject, I think most people would agree that not using weed is better for kids than using it. So don't MINIMIZE it and win the fence riders. That's the least we can do IMHO. Use a multitude of sources and save the "fence riders".
|
|
|
Post by s73 on May 23, 2013 7:19:08 GMT -6
s73- My post is 100% NOT a cop out. It is 100% FACT ( a word you keep throwing around but aren't using correctly in all places) I have no children. I have also never used an illegal recreational drug in my life. I am 100% anti drugs. I don't disagree with ANY of the spirit of what you are saying. My point was, it is you can't prove correlation vs causation when discussing gateway drug use. Did little johnny's pot use turn him into a drug addict (gateway theory) OR was little johnny the type who would become a drug addict, therefore he CHOSE to use pot. You are proving my point. It's a dice roll. I won't take that chance. It's not okay. Furthermore, I am the only one who took the time to cite something. What if it is true? Just what if? I am not attacking as much as just bewildered that you are willing to error on the side of "theirs no proof" rather than say, we're not sure so maybe we should error on the side of caution. that seems much more sensible to me. Again, as a Dean, I deal with these kids all the time and their parents MORE OFTEN THAN NOT are a mess. They say things like "I can't do anything about it". That's the type of cop out I am talking about. YOU ARE THE PARENT. YES YOU CAN. Too many parents taking the easy way out b/c they're doing it to. Not attacking, but that's how I see some of what you are saying. If you really feel weed is not a big deal (again, not attacking just trying to reason) then state this publicly to your parents and admin. at a banquet or meeting. My guess is that you would not and that you find even my suggestion of doing so ridiculous. My reasoning behind making the suggestion is b/c if you have beliefs that you are not willing to express publicly then maybe you have to re-examine that. Again, not attacking just trying to make a case as a father concerned about the challenges my kids ARE GOING TO SEE in a very short amount of time. I know I get "my Irish up" on this board sometimes and regret it at times. But this is not something I am willing to back off of. It's too important. I don't know what the answer is, but softening on the issue does not seem very courageous to me.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on May 23, 2013 6:46:17 GMT -6
Coach D5085, your post is another cop out on this thread.
That's quite an assumption w/o even reading the report. Do you have children? If so, let them use whatever they want and see how that turns out for you.
We clearly have a drug problem in this country. They started somewhere. Not all of them skipped right to the hard stuff out of the blue. Not saying every little Johnny who smokes a blunt occasionally on the weekend turns into a drug addict. But I know he has a better chance than those who don't. Would you be wiling to take that chance with your own kids?
What about the kids who drink and drive? if they are willing to drink and drive despite being told not to a million times (auto accidents the #1 killer of teens) then don't you agree they are certainly willing to smoke and get behind the wheel? Don't you think this happens? Is this safe? And they are sharing the road with families.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on May 23, 2013 6:20:03 GMT -6
Alcohol is far worse than marijuana. Alcohol ruins lives, families, kills people everyday. Marijuana should and eventually will be legal here in the US just like alcohol. There is no data that backs up that marijuana is a gateway drug. Thats been a fact for years. I laugh when speakers or teachers still say that. They lose credibility with me. That being said, high school kids are not 21 so we cannot condone either action. Kids are gonna drink and smoke no matter what we say. You just have to hope the possibility of them being getting caught and thrown off the team is a big enough deterent to be smart about it. No using before or at school events, keep it out of your car and off your body in public, etc. Gotta always tell them "Don't be stupid!" Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using proboards A man named Dr. Lynsky did a group/ team research project between America and Australia and published their findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The article tested all twins, nobody else. Why? Because twins have the same socio economic background, homes, school environment, family history and almost identical genes if they are identical. The report FOUND that any twin who chose to use weed before the age of 17 was 2-5 times more likely to abuse alcohol or drugs in adulthood. The ones who had no family addiction were 2x as likely as their twin who did not use weed before 17, if addiction was a family trait they were 5X more likely while their twin who did not use before the age of 17 was not. Furthermore, all twins who were hard drug users (heroin/coke) reported using cannabis as their 1st dug of choice while their twin has few if any issues. I'm sorry if those who say it is a gateway drug lose credibility in your eyes, but THEIR IS plenty of PROOF to corroborate this if you actually are INTERESTED IN FINDING IT. The bottom line is whether it is, or is not a gateway drug, you are rolling the dice. The bigger question is why does someone use drugs or alcohol? If many feel they NEED to do so, then their is an underlying issue. All I know is this: I have been in the American high school for almost 20 years now, and I can almost TO A TEE walk down the halls and pick out kids by sight who smoke weed regularly based on appearance alone. More often than not they look messy and disheveled. Their attitudes change over time and their grades MORE OFTEN than NOT suffer. They also are usually fighting with their parents. I know this b/c I am the Dean at our school and almost w/o question kids who we suspect sooner or later screw up and get caught and I am often the one doing the catching. Unfortunately, many times it's kids who as freshman look like great kids with a sparkle in their eye and by senior year they look tired and worn and act disrespectful and rebellious. I HAVE SEEN THIS TIME & AGAIN W/ MY OWN EYES and I know I'm not the only one on the board who has experienced the change in kids using weed or other drugs over a 4 year period. As for legalization? Not in it's current form it shouldn't. It would have to be greatly reduced in terms of THC, or else it will be a HUGE issue. PS _ You say alcohol destroys lives but weed not so bad? You are neglecting the fact that if kids are willing to use weed they are most likely to use alcohol as well when they have access to it. Not always so the other way around. That's kind of important to note.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on May 22, 2013 21:42:42 GMT -6
You have an issue because you have stupid drug laws. If you want to dive the problem get your drug laws changed. As it stands I would rather have every player in my team smoke pot rather than drink because the potential for harm is far greater with alcohol. (For the record bit a drug user myself just educated) We have the same issues in the uk but our laws aren't quite as bad. We still kill people every day with our drug laws and educational methods. One word....Ridiculous. As a Health teacher for 15 years I can tell you FOR A FACT that the THC content of a marijuana cigarette is almost 17 times the amount it was in the 60's and the smoke inhalation damage is equivalent to smoking 5 tobacco cigarettes simultaneously. Furthermore, THC stores itself for a month after one use in the brain and testes. This causes short term memory loss, lack of concentration and the possibility of infertility in ADULTS, let alone adolescents that arent even fully developed yet. The human brain in males doesn't even finish growing until 19-23 years old and marijuana adds THC to the biological mix. As for your comment about preferring kids smoke pot rather than drink? I would rather they do NEITHER. You sound like a teenager. Your post is a cop out. I assume you are a grown man (although difficult to decipher based on post, just sayin') as a grown man you have the right to make your decisions, but to act as though smoking weed is okay for kids is ridiculous. Furthermore, if a kid wants to be under the influence and he can't score weed, guess what? He's going to use alcohol or some other substance. He's not going to wait for the weed. It is a proven fact that addiction is hereditary. So, maybe you can handle smoking weed and not messing yourself up. Many kids CANNOT. They have genetic predisposition to addiction. Do you think all drug addicts on heroin STARTED w/ HERION? Are you really going to tell me that little Johnny who never used before is going to start with that? It's a progression! It will only be a stepping stone for them into much more. Even if just one kid gets messed up on this stuff your condoning of it is partially responsible and your stance on this matter represents FAILURE in my eyes. I cannot in good conscience say anything other than that even if it's not PC to do so on a forum like this. Furthermore, you mention being from the UK. As a parent I politely ask that you stay there. Don't "subject" yourself to our "stupid laws" that have us #1 in the world in technology, science and medicine. The only thing I see wrong w/ this country is we decided for some strange reason to FOLLOW European influence. That's like asking the the last place team in your conference for advice. Maybe this was harsh, but as a parent of young ones I would not want you anywhere near my kids.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on May 22, 2013 10:27:36 GMT -6
We've played ours both ways for the last 7 years w/o a problem. We are an option team so our mentality is that our QB is a LB who plays QB. Or a RB that throws the ball. B/c of our offensive scheme, he is usually one of our top 2-3 athletes and we need him.
Just how we've done it, it's not for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on May 21, 2013 16:09:53 GMT -6
We don't change anything. We rarely take to the ground anyway so nothing changes.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on May 21, 2013 5:51:54 GMT -6
We're dealing with this. Lotta potheads in the graduating senior class, synthetic form of heroin is on the rise in the area, pretty scary, tbh. Step 1 has been educating them on drug use and it's consequences for them not only as people, but as athletes. Step 2 has been trying to encourage positive peer pressure regarding staying clean and staying out of trouble. Step 3 actually came from the school/district in that they've begun random drug dog sweeps of the school to discourage that kind of stuff from appearing on campus. I'm mixed on this one because the message has been "Keep this stuff away from campus", not "Stay away from this stuff". The program has laid out a pretty simple message in that players who get mixed up with drugs won't be part of the program for long, but it's hard to take meaningful action without some sort of evidence via the school's discipline office. I agree with this. Our school has taken steps. We have a discipline code that is non-negotiable and out of my hands. If they get caught I have no say in the matter. They have to follow the steps. One thing we are doing, next fall we are having a guest speaker come in and the meeting is mandatory for players and PARENTS. He is discussing the effects of drugs, alcohol and poor nutrition on the body. He is a nationally recognized speaker and an athlete CANNOT participate until they and their PARENTS attend the lecture. We are offering 2 live lectures and 3 more dates they can come in and watch it via streaming. Unfortunately, I suspect in SOME cases, the parents need it as much as the kids. Very unfortunate, but a sign of the times I guess. The lecture is being offered before the season and the kids cannot practice after a certain date until they and their parents attend a lecture. It is being enforced for all athletics every season.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on May 21, 2013 5:30:49 GMT -6
We just have a shorter regular practice and discuss some things in the gameplan mostly on the fly. Our offensive rules don't change so to me a defense is a defense. I might take a pause to reinforce some things but that's about it.
Defensively we might take 10-15 minutes to discuss their staple plays but otherwise, it's pretty much regular practice just shorter. We also work our pass game a great deal on Mondays.
One thing that has helped w/ the monotony of practice (and I know this is definitely not for everyone) is at a certain point in the season we start going in just uppers and shorts. We usually have less kids than a lot of our opponents b/c our school enrollment is smaller than most, so in order to keep them fresh and healthy about 1/3 to 1/2 way through the season we start going in shoulder pads and shorts and IN OUR CASE that has breathed new life into the kids. It's like Xmas the first time I make the announcement. It also saves $ on an already VERY tight budget b/c we are making some of our practice gear last quite a bit longer.
Again, realize it's not for everybody but it works for us.
PS - I should add that after a couple of weeks we'll have a lazy/ lifeless practice and then I make them go full gear for about a week and then when we go back to "pro-pads" they remember how much they appreciate it and we rarely have a poor practice again. I reiterate, that I KNOW THIS IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on May 8, 2013 21:02:50 GMT -6
Yes, generally speaking.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on May 6, 2013 6:01:18 GMT -6
But obviously defensive coaches are smarter. Haven't you heard all the Coach Dad's in the stands? Apparently every offensive play call was "@#$%#$% stupid". - and that gentlemen is universal. haha.That is just brilliant You don't have golf at your school?when i coached in MA..the golf coach (and I SWEAR I am not making this up) made the same as the football coach, made the same as the tennis coach..all sports were equal..the tennis coach and (again I SWEAR I am not making this up)would go on vacation to Italy every year for a week during his season..never got fired That sounds about right. Our golf guy played football both in high school and collegiately, and when I was hired, he helped to interview me. Asked a bunch of football questions, mentioned in my interview that his dad was a coach for 30+ years in football and basketball, etc. When I get hired, I ask him if he wants a spot on the staff and he says, "no, I love football but the practices get in the way". Sure enough he's coached golf for a long time now.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on May 4, 2013 19:02:20 GMT -6
I'll be blunt here; applying the concepts of KISS is just proper teaching and coaching. It doesn't matter what setting you're working in; limiting what your players/students have to learn so that they can master it is just common sense for me. I'll take this off of the football field and give a classroom example. My 7th grade students are learning square roots and applying them in the Pythagorean Theorem in class right now. There are several aspects that I skip in these math lessons; estimating square roots is one of them and I'm supposed to take a full day on it. What's the point of going through the process of estimating them (which is time consuming) when I can get a more accurate answer on the calculator? I also combine the lesson on the Pythagorean Theorem with the one involving the distance formula (coordinate plane) because it's the same friggin concept. In making these two adjustments, I can get through the basics of the concepts quickly so we can spend the majority of the period applying them. Coach couldn't agree more with you when you say limiting what players learn so that they can master it is just common sense. TOTALLY AGREE! However, in my 40 + years on this planet I have come to one very big and disturbing conclusion. COMMON SENSE IS NOT COMMON. I started the post b/c the notion that "it's not what you know it's what you can teach" seemed to be validated by what I read. I am still stunned when I meet really smart guys who still seem to believe this game is "won on paper".
|
|
|
Post by s73 on May 4, 2013 10:39:41 GMT -6
You don't need to shrink the playbook. You can be as multiple as you can coach it. What you have to do is limit the teaching to only a couple techniques per position. Then you can mix and match them as you can. It's on the coach to fit the pieces. Too many guys want to just draw stuff up and put learning it on the players. I agree with this satement. I guess a better choice of words, would be to shrink the number of concepts or teaching objectives. Good point.
|
|