|
Post by dubber on Apr 13, 2010 12:32:34 GMT -6
When I was in high school I looked around the realized that all of my coaches had good-looking wives...even the ugly guys...that was it for me This is hilarious and VERY true. I'm a 5, and football allowed me to marry a 9.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Apr 10, 2010 10:19:11 GMT -6
My LB coach was a guy that I had played with two years before. He was a senior and I was a sophomore. He was also the hardest hitting meanest nastiest SOB I had ever seen on a football field. He was in college and coaching was an elective for him. Anyways, my family split up my senior year and I was able to forget all of that whenever I had pads on. The afternoon of our home opener one of my parents called me after a few drinks and proceeded to tell me how me and my brother and sister were the problem with the marriage, blah blah blah. Needless to say my mind was somewhere else during pregame. That coach took me aside and helped me understand that I had a family that would always be there for me. it showed me a side of him I didn't think existed. I knew right then that I would coach to make a difference like Zach did for me. Thanks, Zach. I would like to think that regardless of the reasons WHY we got interested in coaching, that ultimately we put the ego aside and ascend to the pinnacle of our profession like Coach Zach. Out of some hum-dingers, this is my favorite story so far.........
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Apr 8, 2010 18:30:40 GMT -6
I got into diagrams and schemes after my freshman year. I knew next to nothing about football before then. I found that football wasn't all one and two back offenses like the pros used. When I saw what my high school did (wing-T), I wanted to know what other styles of football were out there. This was a big thing for me too.........the SW blew my mind, because all I knew before that was I-formation and T-tight.........
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Apr 8, 2010 12:00:12 GMT -6
My story is VERY different.......
In my high school, the players were the coaches for our annual powder puff game. My freshman year, I got the opportunity to "coach" my female classmates. I loved the problem solving, the challenges of communication, and the thrill of winning, and it's all I've wanted since then.
The other thing that got me interested was an offensive wrinkle we added that year that was a throw back to the offense we ran from 1967-1991, the Short Punt.
As a double dive T-tight team, we should shift to this formation and run spinner series (including the buck lateral).
I've spent nearly every night since then (basically the last decade of my life) doodling ideas and schemes, learning something and trying to re-create it.
So, the single wing gets credit for first sparking my imagination.
Those 2 experiences in the 15th year of my life have shaped my addiction to this game, and provided me with the only hobby I want.
I want to hear your stories. . . . . .
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Apr 8, 2010 11:22:40 GMT -6
Great stuff......deserves a sticky, imo
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Apr 7, 2010 20:43:35 GMT -6
I saw Indiana University......they are a pistol offense, and it IS more than a formation...........very cool.
The tidbit I stole is how they "over set the OT" on Quick screen.
It's like kick sliding to reach the DE, limiting depth and increaseing width of the DE......really keeps him out of the window.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Apr 7, 2010 20:37:27 GMT -6
now everyone knows I am partial to the USMC for obvious reasons. Why people do not know is the USMC adopted this doctrine many, many years ago. It is called maneuver warfare. small units able to carry out multiple assaults at the same time. a rifle squad of 12 men can be divided into 2 or 3 fire teams. I think the wing t buck sweep is a good example of attacking multiple positions at one time. you attack with the sweep one way, the threat of the trap in the middle and waggle keep by the qb. there is nothing finer then a wing t team who carries out their fakes to precision. it really confuses a defense. Speaking of the military and the Wing-T, these two could be brothers: Patton: What do ya' want to do, Tubby? Tubby: We need to run Trap. Patton: That anything like D-day? Tubby: Yeah, except the whole para trooping thing.......I don't like things to be in the air. Patton: Gotcha. You know, if only the {censored} French could wrong-arm, things would've been easier. Tubby: Hard to sing La Marseillaise and get your run fits............ (And Julien, I hope all that was taken in stride....... )
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Apr 6, 2010 9:27:42 GMT -6
Brophy made a point about the European cats being a valuable (and under appreciated) part of this board, and I tend to agree. I've posted at all times of the day and night. I got on this board in college, so the 2 am post was frequent. Also, you can tell (like Coach Julien) who has internet freedom at work and who doesn't. Brophy and Lochness seem to have a ton of internet freedom at their "work" Also, you can tell Phantom is retired..........
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 31, 2010 15:58:43 GMT -6
Our HC is ADORED by the school board.
His best record over 3 season was 6-5, but because of his personal relationships with the board members, he could get away with murder.
As his assistant, I know his job is safe, and that means it will take a Goliath opportunity/offer for me to ever leave.......
We have a good ole boys deal............but we are on the right side of it.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 31, 2010 15:52:52 GMT -6
The "he should play both guys": If you are a spread to pass team and your 2nd and 3rd team QBs are not "go to" guys, do you still play the QB both ways? If he gets hurt, then what? Then they shouldn't be running a spread-to-pass offense that isn't flexible enough that their 2's can operate it. I get what you are saying though, "if the qb is that important, do you increase the risk of injury", and it is a good question. We did it....kid was a 1K rusher and 2K passer...........we had to have him at FREE, so we did it. We prefer not to.......heck I prefer that our OL only have to play one way, but in reality that NEVER happens for us.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 31, 2010 8:53:56 GMT -6
I like letting everyone play.
I also like winning.
I think the later is more important (for the good of the whole program) and it takes precedent.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 31, 2010 8:49:38 GMT -6
If you have no one else, do it.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 31, 2010 8:45:54 GMT -6
1.) This is why football is more important now than ever.
Sometimes, it is the ONLY place were kids are given the privilege of getting knocked on their arse and having to face the question of what to do about it.
Point blank, mentally tough people are successful and happy, and it's our jobs to give our kids the chance to develop this.
2.) With that in mind, true toughness is not physical, it's mental. For football this means that just getting waxed mindlessly does not make you a better person. For the education system, that means just getting more "old school" in PE won't fix the lack of mental toughness/lack of thought (it will just make us a few pounds lighter, but still entitled).
3.) The education system comments are interesting to read. For a teacher, it's hard to encourage real learning (not rote rehearsal) when your only maxim is to prep for the standardize test.
The problem with freedom is lack of responsibility, and the problem with micro-management is lack of initiative.
I would be an educator right now if I were given freedom in the classroom.
4.) Also, let's not let the middle agers fall in love with themselves and how "they knew what it took" stories of yester year.
And yes, that is directed to many of the coaches on this board.
It's not like you made the decision to be tough and this generation choose not to, and oh my God, how much nobler are we?
Recognize this generation and that one are products of their environments. Lifestyles became more and more sedentary, and this is the outcome.
The good news: FREE WILL always trumps environmental influences.
Your students CAN LEARN to be self-sufficient, ask questions, and build mental toughness by overcoming the obstacles/difficulties of the materials.
Not all of them want to, but the BEST teachers I had in high school got most of the class to break free from "just gimme the answer" attitude to actual learning.
And most of the time, by NOT focusing on the standardize tests, and instead focusing on pure learning, we actually did BETTER on the standardized tests.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 30, 2010 9:28:15 GMT -6
IMHO... Coaches go wrong, when they aren't transparent with their criteria for a position. When a coach makes positions appear to be subjective, then the problem occurs. Depending on what you are looking for, tell the kids... they know if they have the goods or not... and they know even better, when another kid is out performing them. Sure a kid may lie to himself, but his team won't. Define the criteria for your team, provide opportunities for the players to demonstrate their proficiency at your criteria, allow your results to determine your players, and keep it moving. When it comes to replacing a kid, for not meeting said expectations, be sure to use the criteria set forth. This is good. This is a thread from the General Offense section, and I'm going to recycle what I posted there, though it applys more to coaches' decisions, and less on coach/player relations: coachhuey.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=genoffense&thread=36863&page=3#364400You run X offense, because you know how to stress and break a defense from it, you know the adjustments, and your philosophy meshes with it.
Knowing all that, the REAL DIFFERENCE is not in the X's and O's, but in WHOM YOU HAVING PLAYING CERTAIN X's and O's.
When my X comes to block your O, there is certainly a technique involved (how we scrape, how we read, how we block, leverage, etc.), but more importantly, there is a "stud" factor involved, and that will determine who wins that battle, and ultimately how far the ball is advanced on that play.
So, in selecting your scheme, the larger question is not WHAT YOU RUN, but WHERE you put your STUDS.
You understand your scheme best when you know that A position requires more talent/size/speed than B position. And if Johnny is GREAT B, we will move him to A because that is more important.
In our schemes (4-4 and spread), we know where studs need to play (and here's the important part) over certain other positions.
Our second best DL kid last season was a shut-down DE, and a hellish 1 tech. Really, if we had 3 kids just like him to build around our monster 3 tech, we'd be in business.
However, we DID NOT have anyone step up and play our 2nd ILB spot, and we know from experience that while we can make it with inferior DL guys, we cannot make it without two ILB's that can make plays.
Even though this kid was a better DE than he was an ILB, we made the move, and got MUCH better as a TEAM defense.
On offense, our QB is the most vital position, but because we are modular in our approach from year to year (alter the toolbox), we can get by with a less athletic kid, but he must be SMART.
That being said, if we do not have someone to play QB, we will find someone and move them there, regardless of their prowess in their current position.
It's also knowing what you can and cannot get by with........
My OT's can get by with being mediocre run blockers, but they MUST be able to pass pro.
Our 1 tech can get by with being smallish, but not slow
Our SE's can get by with being slow footed, but not with poor hands.
Knowing this is what makes an offense functional from year to year.
Of LESS IMPORTANCE is "dry erase board" land or even "we're gonna drill em' til' they get it" land, thought both carry importance.
If you're going to be successful, you need to spend most your time in "where do we need Billy to play" land.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 26, 2010 8:46:53 GMT -6
That, is cool. Here you go coacher:
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 26, 2010 8:33:01 GMT -6
Let me get this straight........he was your fastest player?
We have a kid exactly like that.......and we don't let him play defense except in a NICKEL situation. He's a Deion Sanders, only a worse tackler.
We just leave him on offense.
Next year, during any defensive period, he and the QB will just go throw......
The getting off Jam's thing is a technique thing, not a strength thing, per se.........
And hell, you can't get jammed on Jet Sweep.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 26, 2010 8:28:24 GMT -6
In Indiana, EVERYONE makes the playoffs......we have 5 classifacations, and about 320 some odd teams.
9-game season, plus 6 more games if you make state.
I would like to see a playoff format. But, having everyone make it generates a TON of revenue for schools.
I don't think it's a soccer mom thing-----it's an economic thing.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 25, 2010 12:38:31 GMT -6
Is it obvious to anyone else that the reporter didn't play football growing up? When COACH is lecturing you, shut the hell up! Talking back...........I swear I'll get sued some day for Power Bombing a kid in practice over that crap.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 25, 2010 12:27:50 GMT -6
lol... with all the doctors and everyone coming in and out, and the fact that we were there for 4 days, they made me take a break to get out of there for a while. That's why we both work and coach... If we were together all day every day we would probably kill each other. What did you all have? Everyone healthy?
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 25, 2010 12:24:09 GMT -6
Great article! I always chuckle when I read about these offensive coaches who spend endless hours figuring out what to run on 1st and 10, 2nd and 7, 2nd and 5, 2nd and 3, etc. etc. etc. etc. In the HS game, I think that's a bit much. For the most part, we do the following: Script 5-10 opening plays to look at defensive alignments, adjustments, etc. to our various looks Script 3rd down stuff (3rd and short, 3rd and med, 3rd and long) Script goal line and short yardage stuff... That's about it...and even then, when I'm calling a game, I'm going more off of "feel" and the rhythm of the game (and how our individual match-ups are working out) than anything else. For the most part, my "call sheet" is more divided by CATEGORIES of plays (ie: series, misdirections, unbalanced, highlights for certain athletes, etc.) That's basically what we do. I read somewhere that Missouri will script 30 some plays to be ran consecutively when it is first or second down. Then, they have a 3rd down script based on distance. THAT, makes the most sense to me. Talk to Power-T guys. Ask em' what they run on 3rd and 8+.........the most common answer I get is TRAP. What's more, it actually works! The defense expects a pass, hell.......that's the perfect time to run. So, 1st and 2nd down should be totally random (on 2nd and 10 EVERYTHING is still in the playbook), and then 3rd down is that kind of "controlled randomness". I know the goal is to make every 3rd down a short conversion, but the idea is the randomness accomplishes this the best. I'd also add that randomness takes a back seat to execution, especially when you are in special situations like GL and Coming Out. You want to still be unpredictable in these areas (bootlegs, etc.), BUT the premium is on extreme familiarity with the plays that will be called in this situation...............at least imo.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 24, 2010 10:58:16 GMT -6
smartfootball.blogspot.com/2007/01/rock-paper-scissors-edgar-allan-poe-and.htmlAnother nugget from Chris Brown's old site. Rock-Paper-Scissors, Edgar Allen Poe, and Play SelectionDespite the lofty title, this post focuses on the narrow topic of calling the right play in a football game. Coaches spend an enormous amount of time studying film, determining tendencies, creating gigantic scouting reports for each opponent, and then distributing them to their other coaches and to players who do not read them. Barely sleeping is a badge of honor, particularly at the highest levels, we are sure that more work equals more success.
This is surely true, but how is time best spent? And how should the entire idea of "play-calling" be thought of? Despite all the time spent on preparation, when asked most playcallers, such as Notre Dame's Charlie Weis, say that playcalling is "more art than science." If so much of it is gut feeling and chance during the game, then maybe the better strategy is to get some sleep during the week. I'm kidding, as I put a high premium on preparation, but can active playcalling do more harm than good? And what are the boundaries to knowledge and insight into what the other guy is going to do? Is it ever better to pick your call or choice randomly? Don't we already do that quite often?
Poe's Purloined Letter
In Edgar Allan Poe's the Purloined Letter, a character recounts a story of a young man who excels at game called "odds and evens," more popularly known as "matching pennies." The game is a two-strategy version of rock-paper-scissors: Each player secretly turns their coin to heads or tails and then both reveal their choices simultaneously; if the pennies match (both heads or both tails) then one player gets a dollar, if they do not match then the other player gets the dollar. As told in the story, the young man quickly sizes up his opponents, gains a psychological advantage, and amasses a fortune by outguessing his opponents.
I suppose all playcallers think themselves like the young man, but most are probably more similar to the suckers. But here's the rub: The suckers could nullify the young man's psychological advantage.
How?
By choosing randomly. If the suckers put no thought into whether they chose heads or tails, they would do better than if they tried their best to outthink him. They would break even--a fantastic result against the world's greatest matching pennies player--an unnatural genius who, according to the story, would go through lengthy Sherlock Holmsian deductions to determine if his opponent was going to choose heads or tails.
This is a breath-taking result. But it is also scary--would I be better off picking my plays entirely randomly?
Rock-Paper-Scissors and the Bend-But-Don't-Break-Defense
Playcalling, at least oversimplified, is a lot like matching pennies, or--for a more common game--rock-paper-scissors. If I choose rock and you choose scissors, I get a first down. If I choose rock and you choose rock, I maybe gain a couple yards. If I choose rock and you choose paper--whoops, I just got sacked and maybe fumbled too.
A lot of football games come down to who has the bigger rocks and scissors (more talent), but tough, highly competitive games really do come down to whether you picked paper vs. his rock or vs. his scissors. But how many supposedly great calls were just luck? Probably a lot. We try to make educated guesses, but there's something to be said for going random.
Let me backtrack for a moment. John Wooden, the best basketball coach ever, talked a great deal about focusing on his team. Norm Chow, now offensive coordinator with Tennessee, mentioned how very often he really does not know what the other team is even running right then, and it would be hubris to act like he always knew. When a playcaller says that it is more art than science, he's really just saying that he's out there making (educated) guesses, but guesses nonetheless. Wooden's insight about focusing on his team is that time is best spent byfocusing on what you can control: developing your own talents and self-scouting--to avoid situations where you do become predictible.
The message? When you're scouting you're looking for sure things. Times when you know the other team is going to blitz, or is going to run that one screen pass they like or whatnot, and the best thing you can do to win games is make sure that you don't have any of these true "tendencies" that your opponent can act on. The fact that the other team knows you run it 37.4% of the time on 3rd and 4 1/2 on your own 43 is simply not useful information because it doesn't materially narrow their decision-making. If they know you only run it 3.74% of the time, that is material.
To carry the metaphor, you help yourself the most by preventing your opponent from ever knowing that if you lose twice in a row, you always shoot rock. You may still lose three in a row, but you've given him no advantage. Again, this is powerful. Even if you are playing the world's greatest playcaller or rock-paper-scissors champion, you can still break even, and then wait for those rare times when you know they are going to blitz, or come out with scissors, and hopefully carry the day.
So what's that about the bend-but-don't-break? Imagine: You are playing rock-paper-scissors. Whoever wins gets $1, if you shoot the same no one gets anything, but if rock wins over scissors, the winner get $10. What will this do to the game? Anyone with any sense is going to try to play rock more often than anything else and rarely, if ever, play scissors. If you shoot scissors you can win $1, break even, or lose $10. If you shoot rock you can lose $1, break even, or win $10.
This is the theory behind the bend-but-don't-break defense (and to some extent the more wide-open offenses). The idea is that if you play a gambling type defense, you may win more than you lose, but when you guess wrong, you give up a TD or a big play. The bend-but-don't break will concede by giving up many short passes and runs, and hope not to give up the big play. I am not saying this is a superior strategy, and in fact may be a long-run loser, but it's important to understand the theory. The person practicing that defense recognizes that they will probably be wrong more than they are right, but they think it will be worth it in the long-run--the risk is acceptable to them.
Application
This "mixed strategy" thinking is not meant to supplant gameplanning. (Offensive Coordinator: "Sorry Coach, I'm not doing any work this week, Chris's website told me to just go out there and 'wing it.'" Head Coach: "You're fired.") Indeed, much of gameplanning should fit into your estimates of what will and won't be successful, and then you can engage in a bit of the decision to run or pass I detailed in this post.
What it does is it gives you a place to start. You should have a general equilibrium strategy based on your talent and what you emphasize going in week to week. You can hope to be a 50/50 run/pass on 1st and 10 team, with focuses on quick and intermediate passes and power runs. This is your so-called "identity" and your practices will focus there because it is what you do the most. Then you "kink-it," or skew your weekly plan to the things the defense is weakest against. Who do we run against? What coverages will we see the most? Do they blitz a lot?
Another important application is the "intelligent" mixed-strategy. For example, you face a team that runs the gamut of coverages: Cover 1, 2, 3 and 4 and man and zone and every kind of blitz and they also drop 8 guys into coverage sometimes. But you notice that if you line up in a "trips formation" they will only play Cover 1 or 3, then you have significantly improved your chances. You still don't know for sure if they will be in Cover 3 or 1, or if they will or won't blitz, but you r mixed strategy has been narrowed to a better range of possibilities.
Yet, most teams know their own weaknesses. Most defenses match their weakest defenders with their strongest, not content to let half their defense get run over every week. Further, you get into that neverending mental game: I want to throw quick routes because he likes to blitz. But he knows I know he likes to blitz, so maybe I will throw off deeper drops because his defenders will be looking for my quick passes. But then maybe he knows that I know that he knows that I know he likes to blitz, and thus will blitz anyway countering my counter. And so on. Do I have any special proficiency for this? What if the defensive coordinator is straight out of the Purloined Letter? Remember Norm Chow: if you are so certain of what the other team will do or you have a true read on the opposing coach, it's probably just you being arrogant.
Conclusion
Imagine you are a wing-T youth coach, and you have only three plays: the dive, the bucksweep, and the waggle (bootleg). You can win a lot of games simply by selecting those three plays practically at random; each perfectly counters the other. Then, every so often, you'll see that moment when you know that the waggle will be there. The corners are coming up for the run, the receiver has a mismatch, you know the QB will break contain, so you call it--TD.
Simplified, this is where gameplanning, play-calling, and deception all intersect. Although I've focused on play-calling from the sidelines, I recognize that in modern football playcalling differs from rock-paper-scissors in that it is not a static, simultaneous "now show it" game.
In football you call the play, then show a formation--thus narrowing the range of possibilities--then the play begins, and with good recognition both the offense and defense can react to what the defense is doing and put themselves in position to win. Many very good offenses try to "cheat" on good playcalling by calling everything from the line of scrimmage, and the run and shoot and the triple option try to "cheat" even further by putting a premium on "reading the defense" to make themselves right all the time. Many good defenses operate on similar principles. The important thing to remember for now is that deception and duplicity are your best weapons to prevent this kind of targeting, and once you've done that, you tilt the advantage back in your favor, and the "mixed strategy" reemerges as your best course. And again, if you can limit their strategies by formation or design, then you can improve your mixed strategy by being able to choose the things that defeat their known range of possibilities, rather than than having to be totally random. I think this is a great way to approach "who has the chalk last" battles from a practical (useful) standpoint. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 23, 2010 15:23:15 GMT -6
Wish my players could be as tough as my wife! She's starting hour 59 of labor and taking it like a champ! Just wanted to say thanks to all of you guys on here who have helped my wife and I during the last year. Fbdoc & Casec11 for showing us around Miami on our honeymoon, jgordon for all the help with everything, and a lot of others. Thanks guys! Let me get this straight: 1.) Your wife is in her 59th hour of labor......as in, she has not delivered as of posting of this thread. 2.) You are taking time to post this thread, WHILE she is still delivering. Did I miss anything there? Because, uh, I know my wife would become a single mother very quickly........and she wouldn't need an attorney to do it. Congrats coach........let us know how it turns out.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 5, 2010 22:21:06 GMT -6
Jesus H - www.hanover.edu/docs/athletics/hfb09-frkl.htmThat's F'in rediculous - 995 yds of total combined offense??!!! BTW - 28 of the 92 plays were bubble - which is only about 30% of their total plays. LOL. Actually by the stat sheet, I didn't comb through it thoroughly, I do not see how Franklin scored 42, let alone be up 28-7 at half. Part of the deal was two picks by Hanover..... Also, I think the writer of this story made an error that gives us insight. Hanover's QB passed for over 300 yards, but the Team stat line only has the Panthers for 200 yards. Could be a typo.............or, it could be the guy writing this story and keeping his own stats took an NFL approach to it and counted Sacks against Team passing yardage. At any rate, I submit Hanover put themselves into some longer 3rd down conversion situations, and that made the difference. flexoption91, I responded in a previous post about why 6.12 yards a reception is bad and counter-productive.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 5, 2010 7:57:29 GMT -6
My #1 question is - Can they beat us with it? Yes - then I'll do something about it pretty quick depending on how often they run it and how many/easy they are getting the yards. No - then they can have it all day. But I will also say, as a DC, I'm not typically inclined to react to quickly even if a play is costing us 7-10 yds a time, so long as they aren't just running it over and over and over. It's been my experience that most OC's will go away from it. Too many toys in the toy box. This is perfect insight into the defensive side of patience. It's on the offense to execute, so MAKE THEM DO IT. If I were to play a spread team, I'd give them (to an extent) the bubble. They can throw it when my apexed LB is just a little too much inside, and I will give them their 4 yards, because trying to take it away opens up so much else. However, when we face a team that thinks their 2 versus our 3 is going to work (vs. trips), we will be garnering enough yardage to make the exercise productive.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 4, 2010 20:44:32 GMT -6
I didn't say he averaged 6.12 yards on bubble. He averaged 6.12 yards a reception. That is not very good/productive........ espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/player/_/stat/receiving/sort/yardsPerReception/count/401/order/falseThe 341st ranked receiver in the NCAA in terms of yards per reception averages 10 yards a catch. You have to go to the 412th ranked reciever in this category to find a player with a lower average than what this receiver had in this game. A runner averaging 6 a clip is fantastic, because everytime we call a run play, we know we are going to playing into that average, because we are 100% sure that the ball will be in a player's hands. Receptions, however, are not garnered everytime we call a pass. In fact, we are do extremely well if we fail to gain yards on only a 1/3 of our pass plays. So, they have to count for more than 6 yards. 10 plays for 62 yards is a nice drive, but you almost never have that drive go: -Pass for 6 yards -Pass for 7 yards -Run for 5 yards -Screen for 7 yards -Run for 6 -Run for 5 -Pass for 7 -Pass for 8 -Run for 6 -Pass for 5 That almost never happens. Most 10 play, 62 yard drives include at least one play where you gained 12 yards or more. An offense needs the patience to not force the big play. On the flip side, good defenses will limit your big plays, because an offense that doesn't garner a big play (runs +15, passes +18), will probably be unable to string back to back medium gainers together.........
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 3, 2010 15:16:23 GMT -6
I can believe y'all found me, I thought I could sneak out the back and nobody would know. Now, not only that, you see what I look like and that is really bad. Y'all probably thought that I was a handsome young Tom Selleck look-a-like, now everybody knows that I'm just some old guy. Tampa, look forward to being able to drop by down there and actually learn something about defense. Look forward to it. You gonna' go down to USF Spring this year? I've had a great time, just need a little time off I think. Hey, maybe I can do one of those coach Meyer retirements, what ya' think? I already feel better. OJW Who is Tom Selleck? Congrats.......you'll be back at it in 2011
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 3, 2010 10:23:50 GMT -6
We never time the 40.....or anything else.....
It's not like little Johnny's 40 time is going to get him a start over little Billy.......we are solely concerned with production.
If we were to evaluate, I would be far more interested in T-test and L-drill times.....
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 2, 2010 20:51:35 GMT -6
And I am probably nit-picking with this particular game, but don't you see what I'm driving at?
I mean, we are a team that will bubble screen you to death, but as soon as we consistently start getting less than 7 yards a pop, we do something else.
I know what someone reading this is saying "well coach, even if you just can keep getting 3 yards on bubble just keep running it".........
In real life, where penalties happen, where drops happen, where a blown block and we get dropped for a loss happen, etc.......
Alarms should be going off when you are taking what they give you (by alignment) and not getting "the defense is out of position" yards (7+).
It is fair to assume the assignments have changed (whether it is schemed or just defender's cheating), and you need attack that.
This is the reason PA passes average the biggest chunks of yardage.
Averaging 6.12 yards a reception is ultimately counter productive......kind of like the running back that averages 3.2 yards a carry.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 2, 2010 20:48:49 GMT -6
I agree fast/bubble screens are a great control for the reasons airman mentioned. I don't think it is ALWAYS that simple, but a great control nonetheless. However, at some point, does "taking what they give you" ultimately become counter-productive? www.hanover.edu/athletics/men/football/hfb09_franklinThis kid had 25 catches for 153 yards (6.12 yards a reception)..... They were down 28-7 at half, and did a nice job gettting 3 scores in the second half, but for them to really have a chance to win, they needed more possessions, which means scoring faster......which means finding a way to get bigger plays.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 2, 2010 9:12:13 GMT -6
Head Coach 101 = Assistants get the beer Yeah, we have a couple JH coaches that go to clinics with us now, so I get to be a CBB (clinic beer biotch) coordinator..... .....I have so many people who helped me get here I want to thank...........
|
|