|
Post by natenator on Mar 12, 2020 14:26:15 GMT -6
Looking forward to the release tomorrow Available tonight at 9:00 PM here. I'll have it up and going by 10 or so depending on install. Mine has already installed I believe. Release doesnt happen until 12am EST so def wont be firing it up then haha
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Mar 12, 2020 13:09:44 GMT -6
MLB the Show 20... gonna turn my son into a major-league outfielder and my daughter into a major league shortstop. Gonna be great if it happens. Looking forward to the release tomorrow
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Mar 5, 2020 16:58:03 GMT -6
I thought their tackling videos were very well done and useful. The analytics thing seems like overkill to me though, but I haven't used it. We did our own "in house" tackling analytics, I'll share how we broke it down in case that's something interesting to you. We broke tackling down into three phases Approach - getting to the ballcarrier Contact - making contact with proper fundamentals Finish - getting the sucker to the ground We then labeled every missed tackle on the year and gave created a column in HUDL and labled them A,C, or F what we found out? about 85% of our missed tackles had to do with approach/leverage. I have no idea what we are going to do with this information, because the sad fact is most of those leverage issues have to do with us being slow and the ball carrier being like way fast. I could stare at the near hip of a jack rabbit all day but I'm not catching the damn thing Since you brought up leverage as the problem and speed differences I would find out what happened to the front side leverage? The idea behind leverage tackling is that you have a force player squeezing the ball carrier back inside to the tackler. Speed differential shouldn't come into play with a front side leverage player. Perhaps that is where to focus some of your efforts? Figuring out what that player is doing and if they are experiencing impediments that prevent them from being effective in helping to secure the ball carrier? Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Feb 16, 2020 22:47:56 GMT -6
Had a kid that wanted to play MLB. And looked ok there during camp and practices as we headed into a scrimmage two weeks before our first game.
We have the scrimmage and are doing film review with players the next day.
He is one of the first ones there and comes beaming into the room asking how he looked on film. I looked at him and said I wanted to slit my wrists. I chuckled, he laughed. We did the film review. After, I apologized to him saying that I was really just joking around.
Glad he took it the right way because it was a stupid thing to say. Thankfully I have a great relationship with him and his parents several years later
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Jul 22, 2019 6:41:27 GMT -6
I don't see how your comparison fits here though coach. You are comparing two different events. Enlarging the field size is changing the environments. If the ball carrier had a wider area in which he was travelling, the safety may not be "flying up" as fast (again, open field tackle) because he is less certain as to where the ball carrier is going. bobgoodman I would have thought a scientist would have recognized that defenders reach maximum striking velocities on the current American field dimensions pretty quickly, and that increasing the field size would not increase THEIR maximum striking velocities, but it would indeed increase the space in which the offense could maneuver. This would likely result in DECREASED striking velocities by the defense. . Canadian football's quick pitches and passes create situations where the ball's in the air and the defender can tee off while the receiver's waiting, as opposed to the runner seeing the defender coming from a long way and juking him. [br You make it sound as though we dont attempt to block defenders in the Canadian game thus allowing defenders to 'tee off' on a ball carrier lol
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Jul 21, 2019 7:03:37 GMT -6
Summer team here in Canada but our offense is spread and most of what we see is 12, 22, 20 personnel with toss, dive, iso, and counter as staples.
Wish we could use our offensive terminology but it wouldnt help much.
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Oct 4, 2018 11:44:09 GMT -6
This thread would be way more entertaining with video
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Aug 10, 2018 14:17:29 GMT -6
Pretty sure that's how TO (and countless others) became what he is. A Hall of Famer? A POS teammate that relates directly to him being given preferential treatment throughout his playing days. Plenty of HOF players were not POS teammates/human beings. I'm glad I dont need wins so badly that I'd be willing to give a player, who hasn't done jack to help the program yet, preferential treatment over guys who have. Color me strange.
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Aug 9, 2018 21:05:50 GMT -6
So your starting 11 shouldn’t work out or condition? Isnt the point for each player to be their best? You aren’t just trying to start or be the best at your school, you are trying to beat other schools, and, if you want to play college, you are in competition with every player in the country. How is making the kid do bear crawls after practice or whatever going to make him a better athlete? That ship has sailed. He missed the summer. There is no "make up" for that. That's two months of work. When's the first game? A week or two? if this kid is as good as wiscoach says he is, then the coaching staff and the players should get down on their knees, shout a collective "Hallelujah" and give thanks to the football gods for such a generous gift. Pretty sure that's how TO (and countless others) became what he is.
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Aug 3, 2018 15:17:52 GMT -6
No you really cant coach. In this case you need to vote for leaders to fill the school board. That's not what we do, we vote for people we "like". Not people who have the stones to say no, or to call out bad performance. Its easy to just make a blanket rule. We don't like truth tellers, we want feel good people....
Leadership can be taught, but that doesn't mean it can be learned. I taught it to young Marines, some learned some did not.
Instead of dealing with the actual problem, they take the easy road and make a blanket rule. Happens all the time in schools. I spent 8 years as a Public Safety director of a D3 school, I could tell you stories about just how you cant fix stupid.....not if you want to keep your sanity and liver in tact, cause this stupid will drive a man to drink....
you hit a lot of things I figure into my line of thinking. That should scare Klaby lol
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Jul 23, 2018 17:35:46 GMT -6
I'm on episode 3... I found it comical how the HC blew his own horn about his ability to recruit, then refers to his recruits as "_- sticks" as if he forgot who recruited them. He constantly reminds his 5-star guys of their screw-ups at past schools...I'm thinking to myself...no {censored}! If they hadn't screwed up they wouldn't be playing for your dumb ass in the middle of nowhere! The QB coach is not remotely ready to handle the kinds of players they are recruiting. He can't seem to connect the dots between the lack of respect he gets and the fact that he hasn't earned any. The HC referred to himself as a "savant" as a play caller but couldn't get a first down through 3 quarters in the opener. It's entertaining as hell and I do appreciate it's rawness for what it is but it's also pretty pathetic. I will be shocked if it doesn't end up a full blown grease fire. I’ve been around a coach who referred to players he has recruited as ‘chitbums’. My retort was: what does that make you as the coach who helped recruit them? he didn’t seem to find the insinuation very funny. I thought it hilarious
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Jul 22, 2018 6:54:10 GMT -6
Because it is fun? It is a fun game to play. But make no mistake that other fun activities can provide those redeeming qualities you mention. I am pretty sure that there are kids with low socio-emotional function, poor Socio-economic opportunities or other situations in countries that do not play American football. I am pretty sure there are females here in the US with low socio-emotional function and poor socio-economic opportunities that don't get to play football. I am pretty sure there are males here in the US with low socio-emotional function and poor socio-economic opportunities that aren't good enough football players to play football. Football is a fun game, which also provides some other desirable learning opportunities. It is not a panacea for social ailments nor is it the only (or even best) avenue for those lessons. Trying to paint football as anything other than that invalidates an argument. You are coaching it because it is fun. Because it is fun. Since you mention "young boys" are you suggesting that young girls have no opportunities to mature and live up to their highest capabilities? Should be we getting rid of young girls all together then? Are boys who do not play football doomed to remain immature and never live up to their highest capabilities? So, obviously you can anticipate that my answer to your question is : because it is fun. This isn't a global geopoltical situation where the lives of millions of citizens hang in the balance. There is no need to make a Patton-esque speech here. Also, keep in mind that one thing that nobody is forcing changes upon football. These are things that different organizations are doing on their own. Keep in mind here that ultimately we are discussing a matter of degree correct? I think if asked "are repeated blows to the head a good thing" most individuals would answer "no". If asked "do you think repeated blows to the head may increase the risk of medical issues stemming from brain trauma" I think most would say "yes" So what we are doing is discussing the degree of risk. Just as there is a degree of risk in most life long activities. Becoming hysterical like some here on this board (not you) or like Fedora seemed to do doesn't help instill confidence in the profession with regards to the professions ability to handle these potential increase in injury risks. Again, I think the analogy to tobacco companies fits very well here. As a sensible person, do you think that was handled properly for the past 5 or 6 decades? Hopefully the evidence comes out that the risks of football are less than smoking. amazed you are still coaching! Surprised you haven't been sued while still teaching bite the ball and 3 points of contact.
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Jul 21, 2018 21:37:47 GMT -6
fb doesn't need us mortals yapping our gums to teach life lessons. Somewhat serious...have you been drinking all day? Yesterday too lmao
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Jul 20, 2018 20:45:54 GMT -6
Again, this is one of the chief issues. Your arguments/comments go from chest thumping "here comes the cavalry" to "I won't change my mind" to "I honestly don't know if repeated blows to the head increase the risk for injury" to "well, if you think there is risk, why are these other sports legal?" To answer dubber 's question, being all over the place certainly is NOT the best way to help ease the concerns individuals might have over risks and football. None of these represent cogent arguments. Rather than just spouting out things, it would probably be better to recognize the risk. From a public relations as well as persuasive point of few, claiming "fake news" as Fedora seems to be doing probably is not the best form of the argument, particularly when you have Legends of the game that people admire saying "hmm.. I am screwed up. Maybe this is why" Remember simply saying that this is misplaced hysteria is giving a big middle finger to a lot of men who brought the game where it is today. It seems to me that a better form of the argument is to recognize potential risk, recognize the data, but also bring about some other points that I have seen on the board many times : --There seems to be many more ex football players, particularly ex HS football players who aren't experiencing these symptoms than there are those falling victim. --It is hard to control for other factors given the research designs for much of the data presented. --There are risks in life. Driving is more dangerous than sports. Especially given the increase in distracted driving. However, the benefits gained by driving outweigh the risks. Highlight benefits, starting with the enjoyment of the sport of football. I think this is critical, because I don't believe arguments stating football is the only way to learn certain traits will work (particularly because I myself don't believe those. You can learn teamwork, hard work, perseverance, overcoming obstacles etc through many activities. So just focus the argument on enjoying life and the sport itself. flip them all the bird. Tell them when you see hard comprehensive evidence, which they are lifetimes away from having, to come talk about the safety of contact sports. Internally, fb should do everything it can to rid of people who denigrate the game of football. But this cowering to " public pressure" by changing the game of fb at its core? F--- that. If kids no longer want to play? Fine. If parents come to the conclusion that fb is to dangerous? Fine. I can deal with market forces saying fb is no longer, but for fb to cower at accusation with no real evidence is banana land. I don't want to convince people to play This is a dangerous and violent game. I am not interested in making it for everybody. Do you still do Oklahoma drill and have full contact live practices on the regular? Do you teach bite the ball? Do you teach 3 points of contact for OL? If you don't: why not?
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Jul 20, 2018 15:30:29 GMT -6
But this is about changing EVIDENCE over time, and discrediting evidence that is used to help people make up their minds (that you won't change) That is the problem. The EVIDENCE should be used to change minds and minds should change based on evidence. Keep in mind that at one time, the Earth was thought to be the center of the universe and flat. The idea that "I am not about to change my mind " is counter productive if not outright dangerous. If someone approaches you with concerns, and your reply is "do what you think is best" I don't think you will reach your desired outcome with a good success rate. The facts are this : 1) The brain rattling around in the skull or direct impacts to the brain increase chances of brain injury. 2) Life features activities that can lead to #1. 3) Football is one of those activities that can lead to #1. Thumping ones chest and saying that attempts to address these facts will lead to the downfall of the country (still not sure what that means) certainly doesn't seem to be an example of the cavalry. The other thing to keep in mind is that your attitude seems to be counter productive to your own desired outcome. Saying that these changes don't matter essentially is saying football is so dangerous that nothing can be done. As you mentioned in another thread, it seems like you support the idea that football just be banned, because it is hopeless. We have no idea what football does Again hysteria. Do you believe repeated hits to the head will lead to positive, negative, or neutral health outcomes in those who experience such trauma?
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Feb 25, 2018 17:51:42 GMT -6
Anyone who thinks arming teachers is a good idea have clearly never seen The Wire lol
One of them punks would use it on the teachers lol
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Feb 17, 2018 16:41:02 GMT -6
as a gym and weights teacher - we have taught our kids to protect themselves. If a shooter comes in, throw what ever you have at him. Basketballs, tennis rackets, dumbbells, medicine balls, bats whatever to distract or disarm him.. And run away- zig zag preferably! And we have talked about what options you have as where to run to. If we're in the locker room we know where to hide but we also know how to get out the windows when that is the thing to do. I always thought it was inefficient that we always did lockdown drills in the middle of class and always let the teachers know when it was going to happen. We should have drills during passing periods and during lunch. The shooters know when these times are. The Florida shooter pulled the fire alarm to get more kids in the hallways. I'm retired now and the day after the latest shooting I had to deliver something to one of the teachers. I was shocked and disappointed that I was able to walk through the front door (usually you have be buzzed in by someone in the office) then walk through the cafeteria all the way down the hallway without being stopped by anyone. It can happen anywhere. Sounds like the ALICE method?
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Feb 16, 2018 6:21:12 GMT -6
I am not saying the science can’t change (especially since if you look at this article and see the 30 year difference between Time covers) but current science says that high fat diets, including butter have significant health benefits. I am not necessarily all in on a full time ketogenic diet but a lot of science is showing that lowering carbs and eating fat is improving health. www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/fat-your-friendI am 100% with you on the processed food part. I’ve read that article and numerous other ones. Remember I said I researched the diet because a coach on staff was telling me about it one day. And I’m not sitting here saying fat is the enemy but butter isn’t healthy if you’re eating it all the time. In moderation it has benefits. My biggest concern with this diet is the fact that it passes off harmful foods as “ok” because studies have shown that saturated fats aren’t as bad as we once believed. The coach on staff told our kids that bacon is good for you...it’s not. To clarify, I realize that eating these things every now and then is as dangerous as smoking a cigarette once a month. It’s not going to kill you today. But if you tell the average person they can eat all this sh!t food because it’s low in carbs and it’s healthy they’re going to. You see bacon or cheese on that list and have a snap reaction without understanding the configuration of the actual diet. Tell me what is bad about this meal plan: Meal #1: 4 whole omega 3 eggs 8 or 1 cup egg whites Meal #2: 50 gram (2 scoops) whey isolate shake 2 TBSB cold-milled ground flax 1/2 TBSB natural almond or cashew butter Meal #3: 6oz cooked chicken or white fish 1/2 TBSP olive or coconut oil 1-2 cups steamed broccoli, Brussel sprouts, or green beans Meal #4: 50 gram (2 scoops) whey isolate shake 2 TBSB cold-milled ground flax 1/2 TBSB natural almond or cashew butter Meal #5: 6oz cooked lean steak, ground beef, or salmon Large green leafy salad with 1 TBSP omega 3 oil and lemon vignette What on this is unhealthy? Answer: Absolutely nothing. Add a bit of bacon to meal #1 or to the salad with meal #5 Every now and again and it's still just as healthy. Keto done right will leave a person with less inflammation, more energy, better body composition, and improved bloodwork long-term. Negatives: It's difficult to stick for most people without strict planning and very minimal eating out (tough to find keto friendly options) and the constipation that can occur even with there being a lot of fiber in this diet.
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Feb 15, 2018 13:47:20 GMT -6
Red meat bacon poultry seafood spinach, broccoli, other green veg (cauliflower, brussel sprouts, asparagus, cabbage, etc) avocado full-fat salad dressings eggs cheese everything is cooked in oil and/or butter snack on olives, pork rinds, salami slices.... and thats only when im hungry. Im not NEARLY as hungry as I used to be Only hard alcohol, no beer So, no legumes (beans, peas, etc.)? I might be able to do this. Beans and lentils are fine within reason BECAUSE they don't illicit a very big insulin response and because their fiber content lower net carbs.
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Feb 15, 2018 13:44:35 GMT -6
Red meat bacon poultry seafood spinach, broccoli, other green veg (cauliflower, brussel sprouts, asparagus, cabbage, etc) avocado full-fat salad dressings eggs cheese everything is cooked in oil and/or butter snack on olives, pork rinds, salami slices.... and thats only when im hungry. Im not NEARLY as hungry as I used to be Only hard alcohol, no beer Also, this sh!t cannot be healthy for you in the long term. Just eat real food like someone said and workout anyway you’re able You should probably educate yourself. Fat is not the enemy you've been lied to about. In fact it's essential for optimal body function - just like salt. Supplement with proper fiber at each meal and it's perfectly fine long-term.
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Jan 4, 2018 13:48:45 GMT -6
Film room was cool but I was very disappointed in the discussion on tackling and 2 of them saying they were old school and still preferred head across tackling.
Very irresponsible in today's climate.
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Dec 4, 2017 11:41:54 GMT -6
I understand why people do that kind of stuff such as championship belts, chains, etc. But whatever happened to doing something good because it was good for the team? And coach and teammates giving him a slap on the helmet and saying "Good job" Those days are long gone
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Nov 16, 2017 18:07:59 GMT -6
Common excuse among the team I have been helping out is: family issues
As someone who went through "family issues" the last place I wanted to be was at home and practice (whatever sport) was a great way to release some of those frustrations.
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Nov 14, 2017 8:18:43 GMT -6
It all depends on where you are. When I was up north we rarely saw them. In Texas, most schools have one. If they don't they run through a sign. Some have both. MOst have either a helmet or a giant mascot. Whether we have one or not has no bearing on performance on the field. Ours is small and not as fancy as anyone we play. If the size of the run through helmet or tunnel helped you win we would buy the biggest one we could get. If it made us lose we would get rid of it. It has no bearing either way. He's not just the President of the no fun zone, he's a member, too.
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Sept 29, 2017 9:20:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Sept 29, 2017 9:19:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Sept 19, 2017 16:39:45 GMT -6
Curious what you mean by this statement? It doesn't appear as if the journal is published through a reputable site. Especially given the fact that they are talking about serious medical issues. I would have more faith in the study if it came through The American Journal Of Psychiatry or The Journal of Psychiatric Research. And, again, the researchers are making a huge jump in their article. They are not only stating that there is a statistically significant correlation between football and a variety of mental health issues but they are basically saying it's "cause and effect" (football=mental health issues). They are violating Rule Number 1 in research; there is no such thing as "cause and effect"; there is just data that shows a relationship between the variables. Now, I imagine if they cross-referenced their findings on those batteries of tests with other variables (such as drug/alcohol use) they would find a "statistically significant correlation" as well. Fair enough. Though, its impact factor is not as high as AJP, Translational Psychiatry is ranked 22 of 142 in the Psychiatry category. So not entirely pure crap. That said, Nature sets a pretty high standard for published research. Your critiques of the study are certainly valid.
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Sept 19, 2017 15:07:19 GMT -6
But, what do you expect from a journal that publishes itself via the website "nature.com"... Curious what you mean by this statement?
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Sept 19, 2017 8:33:19 GMT -6
I hate to break it to you but a concussion is classified as a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and rightfully so.
Just because we don't like that term or what it implies for this sport does not make it incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Sept 15, 2017 8:07:31 GMT -6
I think the title of this thread shows where the problem is.
Personal life getting in the way of coaching? Sounds more like coaching is getting in the way of personal life and everyone, but you, recognizes it.
|
|