|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 17, 2024 13:56:00 GMT -6
My decision to kick deep when we scored with a minute left and all 3 timeouts after we missed a 2-pt conversion to tie was questioned (loudly) by pretty much every parent in our stands behind me, and even some of my coaches on my own staff. Depending on onside kick rules at the time, this doesn't seem like a horrible decision. One of those "if it works out, great, if not..you are an idiot" things that pops up all the time. This seems like a bad decision from you, no matter how one slices it. Especially given that the time out not used here was simply used to tell the kicker something that could have been said during the change of possession.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 17, 2024 12:46:49 GMT -6
bob...you need to simply the entire offensive plan! Not "the calls". Everyone here is telling you that this is going to be MORE LIKELY to screw things up. You are showing to be incapable of recognizing that not only is your plan not necessary, it is actually detrimental. Trying to implement a system with so much built in flexibility is not only not necessary at 10, it is not appropriate. You keep viewing and arguing things from this perspective, as someone who understands his entire comprehensive system while failing to realize that you will be the only individual with this view. Please for the sake of the kids, listen to all of the advice of individuals who have had FAR GREATER SUCCESS than you have ever been associated with. LET US HELP YOU implement an appropriate sidesaddle T offense for 10 year olds. Then you'd never guess that in almost all cases as an AC, I've been the one asking the other coaches, "Do we really need this? Especially when we need more time practicing, this, here." Seems many of them wanted to complicate things beyond what I had in mind. The biggest problem with that is half-assing things. Some things would be cool to do if enough effort be put into them, but instead they put in just enough to distract from the main thing but not enough to be fruitful. The second biggest problem is not knowing what they're doing! Anyway, BestWeb was acquired by FirstLight and stopped hosting personal Web sites. I pay for an e-mail account with them basically because I don't want to go thru the busy work of re-registering everyplace with my Gmail address. But specifically, as an example of where you think I'm the one trying to put in too much, do you not think it a good idea to have both a straight dive and a trap by the fullback, same hole? Last year HC Tim wound up doing that, but by confusion rather than design. He planned to install trap, but thought it might be beyond our players at the beginning of the season, so he called it "trap" and practiced it for a while as that, then changed it to a straight buck. He never made this clear to the ACs. Then later he decided to change it to a trap, which confused the players as to the call, so he then changed the name of the play to "guard trap", while still keeping a straight play called "trap" -- and it still wasn't clear to us he was keeping both. What I want to do is actually have the choice according to plan. Is that too much? Similarly, is it too much to have both a base blocked and a cross-blocked version of belly? I thought for a while of introducing a count system for the blocking and letting the players figure it out, but have decided for now just to do each separately by call. The tag for both the cross-blocked belly and the fullback trap would be the same: "trap". Same for having the puller kick out the strong end. Is being able to add a "wrong way" motion to some plays too much? How about having the split end on the "wrong" side, and the interior line unbalanced, to induce the defense to maladjust? Especially when the backs' mechanics and almost all of the blocking stay the same? To me these seem like cheap tricks that might have rewards -- especially if we're going to have only one pulling guard and would like to move him closer to the action? The only variation that seems like it might be heavy lifting is direct-snap versions of some of the plays, to gain the quarterback as a blocker. There was a coach named Jack who frequently paraded what he had on youth football forums, and he had not only a lot of formation variations but also direct and indirect snap versions -- which, however, had to be lined up in slightly different formations. I don't think he incorporated snapping thru the QB's legs, without which the idea wouldn't be attractive to me. But all these seem as nothing compared to the dead-end installations I've seen over the years: an ill-suited I formation add-on, "jet formation" to run only jet series (but with reach blocking left in the dust bin), and some crazy stuff I can hardly remember. I will answer more later Bob because I genuinely want to help you out --but to the "is it to much" questions you have asked above, I will state emphatically YES!
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 17, 2024 12:43:27 GMT -6
Bob- don’t you realize that the countless examples of the foolishness you have seen should let you know that you have not really been experienced to the “right way” to do things. The people here are trying to tell you the right way to put together a 10-year-old football program. You seem hell bent on devising something that theoretically should be efficient and practical, and that you as the creator would understand inside and out. Those things are not the same.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 17, 2024 11:36:51 GMT -6
Again, YOU YOURSELF mentioned that YOU as a coach were intimidated and incapable of grasping the passing game concepts being used by another coach. What I sometimes couldn't do in practice sessions was remember which calls meant which route combinations, between when they were called and when they were run. HOW IS THIS - combined with the feedback from those where who have seen far more success than you have--not causing alarm bells !!!!!
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 17, 2024 11:29:48 GMT -6
Heck, you already have a huge inconsistency in that “guard over” means something different than ends over. Even worse- you admit that YOU , and adult coach couldn’t follow the previous season’s route combos- yet don’t seem to grasp that what you are attempting to do is likely going to be much more confusing and detrimental. And your plan is to do it with 10 year olds. Actually that's part of the reason I wanted to simplify the calls, which is the reason for this system. If I got the routes mixed up occasionally, when I was in charge I want to fix it so they'd be less likely to. "Guard over" means exactly the same thing as "ends over" as far as the players are concerned. "Over" means "line up on the opposite side of center from the usual". "Guard over" has the pulling guard (we'd have only one) inside the other guard on the opposite side. "Ends over" means the tight and split end each play on the opposite side from usual, so the split and tight sides are the opposite of usual. The only inconsistency is with "coach speak", where "ends over" would mean both on the same side, while my "ends over" might be called "ends trade" in coach-speak. But I don't care about coach-speak when communicating with players. Still, I'll probably sacrifice separate tags for guard and ends, and just have a single "over" call for both together. I'd lose what I seem to recall are sometimes called the 200 and 800 formations (split on sing side), but we hardly ever used those anyway, and we haven't installed them in a few seasons now. The most common formation error over those same years has been ends lining up on the wrong side, and I think the "flip" call will be easier for them to hear than 100/900, because all positions will flip, and if a player is coming to the line in the wrong place, it'll be immediately evident from his teammates. But the main reason to flip will be not having to teach players on both sides of the line the same play. bob...you need to simply the entire offensive plan! Not "the calls". Everyone here is telling you that this is going to be MORE LIKELY to screw things up. You are showing to be incapable of recognizing that not only is your plan not necessary, it is actually detrimental. Trying to implement a system with so much built in flexibility is not only not necessary at 10, it is not appropriate. You keep viewing and arguing things from this perspective, as someone who understands his entire comprehensive system while failing to realize that you will be the only individual with this view. Please for the sake of the kids, listen to all of the advice of individuals who have had FAR GREATER SUCCESS than you have ever been associated with. LET US HELP YOU implement an appropriate sidesaddle T offense for 10 year olds.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 17, 2024 9:10:41 GMT -6
That is why I need the percentages or I can't say STATISTICALLY which one is technically an advantage. If the 50.14% is accurate in the simulations mentioned above, then you gain 0.14% advantage in the entirety of your life. If it happens a million times in your life, you win 501400 and lose 498600. So 2800 wins more out of a million. Technically that means you should take the ball 2nd. I'm not saying you should kick or receive because it seems to be about as 50/50 as it gets. I would assume that 0.14% is probably the odds that the defense scores a TD or gets a Safety when the 1st team gets the ball. All other scenarios are probably split pretty much down the middle. Not gonna hammer a guy for kicking or receiving with that decision. Just like I won't crucify Lions HC for going for it on 4th and short. Statistically if you convert you give yourself a HUGE chance of winning, but percentages are percentages for a reason... there is risk you don't get it. I love the analyzing of the options and that is why I think the 50.14 number thrown out by the computer simulation assumes both teams are equally matched. The true percentages move based on talent, injuries, etc... Fun little though-experiment that I'm sure all 32 NFL teams are going through the process of figuring out what they will do in the future. Just for clarity, I think you misread the info on those stats. If those stats are correct, they were saying that TAKING THE BALL FIRST results in winning 50.29% of the time - which drops to 50.14% of the time if the team getting the ball second has already decided that they will be going for 2pt conversion if they score a TD to tie the game. So Technically that means you should take the ball 1st. But I agree, in this case the math (which I have not seen, so I can not support or refute it) seems fairly even, so other factors such as "my defense just got gashed" or "I feel we have confidence and momentum" etc. should probably factor in more than analytics. As has often been stated, the "problem" with analytic analysis is that it does not factor in differences such as THIS play is more important than others, or THIS game is "more important" than others.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 17, 2024 8:46:26 GMT -6
I believe this is the problem… 1. Fans want the absolute best players they can get, which (at the highest level of CFB, are world class athletes with NFL futures) regardless of where they come from. Alabama fans would rather have a great player from California or Sydney, Australia, than a good player from Tuscaloosa. This makes the games more exciting and increases their school’s chances of winning, but it’s not helping Tommy Tuscaloosa out and the fans don’t care about that. 2. Fans want players to love their school and have the loyalty and passion of Tommy Tuscaloosa when that stud from California or Australia (who doesn’t even know who Bear Bryant is) arrives on campus. A lot of Bama fans are upset at Isaiah Bond, who caught the winning pass against Auburn, bolting for Texas for his own self-interests. But when you sign mercenaries for the sake of winning, expect mercenary loyalty. 3. Fans want players who are legitimate students who are satisfied with programs bringing in untold millions, HC’s making eight figures, and coordinators making seven figures - all off their backs. That’s asking a lot. I also think the world’s changed quite a bit. Tons of high school and college age kids are making bank on social media, etc.,in ways that didn’t even exist a generation ago. Seems unfair to lock high profile college players out of that. At the end of the day, college should benefit the “students.” Let the students make what they can from NIL and if some oil tycoon from Texas wants to “buy” a roster, go for it. That’s no less ridiculous than coaches with nine figure contracts for running an extracurricular activity at an institution of higher learning. The richest programs are going to win anyway just like they have for many years. The bottom feeders can’t afford the staff and facilities of places like Georgia and Ohio State. NIL and the transfer portal aren’t going to change the pecking order. You’re just going to have wealthy athletes that are more transient. This has been a long time coming as TV deals and coaching salaries have escalated exponentially. I wouldn't say this is "the" problem, as in the only issue surrounding college football. But it certainly is one of the issues. Fans want the "fairy tale", and were quite content being "told" that these were student athletes, just like you are/were/wish you had been, and that there was an innocence to the whole system. That these weren't cynical NFL organizations doing it for the money, but rather passionate students doing it "for the love of the game". It has now come to light what many 'knew" but wasn't ever official and therefore could be ignored: college athletics are professional sports organizations just like MLB, NFL, NBA etc- but with a much greater power differential between management and labor. The problem is that nobody ever stopped to ask why Alabama had 56 employees from 4 departments named Crimson Tide Sports Marketing, Crimson Tide Productions, Crimson Tide Foundation and Crimson Tide Hospitality. Why LSU "needed" a tiktock and instagram worthy locker room while their band building legitimately had to put buckets out every time it rained and other buildings on campus are plagued with mold and leaks. www.lsureveille.com/news/lsu-building-plagues-with-mold-leaks-being-remodeled/article_c809c3e6-9896-11ee-942a-bb1b31ccdf64.html Fans (for their own benefit) would simply link the schools and athletic programs as one happy family, just like the "old days" (didn't really exist but was much less pronounced then). Now it is becoming impossible to believe the fairy tale, and people are struggling with the reality. I would say the ultimate underlying problem is that for well more than half a century, some of the parties involved (NCAA and member institutions) evolved into professional sports organizations while at the same time wielding a disproportionate level of power over the other party (the athletes) and proclaimed - Nope you are just like that English Lit Student or Accounting student, with even less privileges or freedoms. For decades the NCAA and member institutions have operated as if Caleb Williams and Jayden Daniels are the same as the 28 members of the UNC field hockey team that split 12 scholarships- while CLEARLY BENEFITING from one group more than the other. The pendulum is swinging back for the first time, in a very forceful manner. What I think is interesting, and may be an indicator for the future, is women's basketball. As a brand, it is starting to outperform mens college basketball in some areas- because of the ability to build on a brand as opposed to a fresh new team every year.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 16, 2024 20:13:57 GMT -6
Absolutely scrap your approach here, and do something more appropriate. I can't access your old post on bestweb about the sidesaddle T offense- otherwise I would offer more specific suggestions for the sake of the kids. Just scrap the thinking that you will be able to call plays during the game like building blocks or code. Your system is legitimately fine. I disagree here, because that west coast "building block" modular multiple plan IS his system. Bob seems to think that he will be looking from the sideline, determine that "hmm, in an absolutely static environment, on the white board right now I would do ________. Fortunately, I have devised a vast system of calls and tags to do exactly that". That is what I believe he needs to correct.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 16, 2024 19:01:45 GMT -6
Most of the coaches I've coached under have given the kids more complicated tools than they've needed. Wasted effort like that happens most seasons, in addition to running drills that don't develop the skills they need. Some have even put in plays that are either illegal generally, or not allowed in that division, because they don't do the research and don't tell anyone else. I even had a HC put in one of those plays after I told him it was illegal, because he didn't trust my knowledge; fortunately these days most of the coaches around me now do trust me on those points. So then why is it that I am the only one who's told here, "That's beyond the kids," or, "That'll never work"? I know some kids are just into memorizing things arbitrarily in whole chunks without the pieces making sense; those are the kids who are always the example to justify the look-say method of reading rather than phonics. But phonics make sense for most kids who are not hearing-impaired. You're right, there will be kids who'll be confused by my method; meanwhile other kids will be confused by other methods. No method will ever work for all of them -- but no method has to! If I have different kids tackling with different form, I'm not going to tell some of them their way is wrong. I'll work on bad form, but not try to fix different form. We already have cases in our club where the word is sent from on high to do things one way, and it's a perfectly fine way if executed perfectly, but meanwhile we do it that way only when the observer from on high is there, because we have our own methods that we know work and may be more forgiving of sloppiness. And we snicker because we know the way they told us the previous year was different from the way they're saying now. Bob- you ask why is it that You are the only one who's told here..., the reason is likely you are the one asking. I have seen other coaches post ideas that many members here thought were poor, and that message was indeed conveyed. I think your analogy using phonics is not applicable, because what you are proposing -a very modular approach so that you can have numerous ways to attack various holes with multiple motions, snaps, formations, tags etc- is not only not required for the task at hand (10 year old football), it is not developmentally appropriate. Again, YOU YOURSELF mentioned that YOU as a coach were intimidated and incapable of grasping the passing game concepts being used by another coach. To me, the lesson gleaned from that should be "I am going to be extremely simple, and very good at what we do". Are you doing this for your own personal "glory" , or for the kids sake? What exactly is the outlined plan for your offense? There is a wealth of knowledge on this board, and if you truly want success for yourself and your kids running the sidesaddle T, plenty can help you put together something of high quality. Do yourself and more importantly the 10 year olds who you are about to lead a favor. Absolutely scrap your approach here, and do something more appropriate. I can't access your old post on bestweb about the sidesaddle T offense- otherwise I would offer more specific suggestions for the sake of the kids. I again refer you to the post regarding the Wing-T offense in this thread. That is the template you should be looking to use. A play to the strong side (Bucksweep) A play up the middle (trap--but could be wedge) A misdirection to the weak side (Counter). A play action play with a run pass option (waggle), and QB sneak. If you were an I formation person, the template could be FB Dive (or trap or wedge just go with one). TB toss sweep. TB lead (for when you can't reach the DE sweep). QB bootleg, or QB keep. Double Dive. If you were SBV you could run called dive, called keep, WB counter/Reverse. Pop Pass, RB screen pass. QB sprint out pass. The actual plays I listed are not important, but the concept behind them is the key. Just a few things, done well.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 16, 2024 6:57:09 GMT -6
What is the actual probability of a given teams offense actually scoring a td? And the probability of their opponents offense also scoring a td? It seems in this discussion that is the only outcome that’s being accounted for. Maybe because that’s the most interesting and/or worst case scenario for making decisions.
There has to be some variance in that teams plan to and will stop the opponents from scoring. How does that affect any decisions? I think the highlighted part of your post is due to several of the posters advocating the take the ball 2nd strategy have done so with the assumption that "Mahomes will clearly get it done, so you gotta take the ball second" Your first two sentences are definitely part of what those saying "take the ball first" are factoring in. That from a game theory perspective, one has to factor in more than just the first 2 possessions.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 15, 2024 20:49:19 GMT -6
jmo- (another one; i have lots, and a lot of them aren't popular) seems to me that with the general public, if a gametime decision works, it was a great decision, bordering on genius. if it didn't work, it was a stupid decision, and makes you wonder about the guy that called it. if he isn't an andy reid, kyle shanahan, etc... then he should probably be fired, or at least on the hot seat. again, jmo. Very much so. Imagine a scenario where the coin turned up HEADS. KC wins and kicks. 49ers kick a FG. Cheifs get a 4th and 7 from say the +25 or so. They are kicking the FG right? Then 49ers drive and kick another FG and win in sudden death. "Why on Earth would Reid give the 49ers an extra possession??? They had been getting stuffed all day, having only just found a little rhythm at the end of the game. What was he thinking??" As I mentioned above -- I think that it is quite possible that the post season rules just eliminate the sudden death element. I know people like the "walk off" dramatic element, but all of the permutations being discussed here might just convince the rules committee to explore that option.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 15, 2024 20:45:45 GMT -6
Cost benefit analysis. If you go for two and miss it, then they kick the extra point for the victory. I could be wrong. I just can’t see going for two if you score first. Along with that analysis the team that gets the ball first likely has to assume the opponent will go for 2 if they get the chance. If not, then the team kicking off is at a fairly large disadvantage based strictly on the rules because if the initial kicking team simply matches the receiving team--that team with the first possession gets the ball in sudden death and will always have an attempt to win without the opponent getting a matching possession. I think that in the next year or two, because of the discussions being had here, it is very possible that the overtime just becomes a 15 minute period. Maybe even 2 10 min quarters. Something where the clock matters and not the game theory regarding sudden death scenarios.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 15, 2024 20:26:11 GMT -6
Well you might not have a choice if you get the ball first or not. If you are forced to have the ball first, I think it eliminates your option to go for two. Why?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 15, 2024 20:22:57 GMT -6
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that since you came up with it, it is not good. I am saying that since you came up with it, you will undoubtedly underestimate the difficult others may have relating to the information and processing it. You just had several grown men who have dedicated large portions of their lives to football tell you- Eh, this seems too verbose. If you choose to continue down this path with 10 year olds, I just don't see it working out. Then probably I should've worded the question differently. Instead of presenting the longest possible string of words our play call could be and asking whether that would be too much, I should've just asked, "How many words in a play call is the most you think the average 10 YO can remember?" Because my aim is to implement a modular play call system, and it's just a matter of advice as to what's the maximum number of tags that could be expected to put on a play, so I can determine just how long to attempt. I'm not scuttling the idea of a modular play call system, since others have done it, just determining its limit. I'm not taking "0" for an answer! Good luck to you. Again I would ask though, why would you be willing to "F up" the season for a bunch of innocent 10 year olds and create a frustrating and potentially miserable football experience for them when it is not necessary? Just to serve your ego/curiosity? To show that you are more clever than the other coaches? It isn't a science experiment man. It is an experience for a kid. One you seem hell bent on screwing up for no apparent reason other than your own ego. To be more direct to your question-- it shouldn't be "how many words in a play call is the most you think an average 10YO can remember". It has to be "How many words in a play call is the most that my WORST PLAYERS, my LEAST INTERESTED PLAYERS, my LEAST ENTHUSED PLAYERS will be able to hear and process in a manner that they can have success so that they just don't start hating the game?" I would say maybe 4. But it isn't about remembering. It is about being able to process and execute, and I am telling you with 100% certainty that just because it makes sense to you, and just because to you it is as simple as "This word means this. Anytime you here this word just do this... That word means that. Anytime you hear that do this. These words apply to you, you and you...the others can ignore. And these words apply to you you and you- the other words you can ignore" it will NOT play out like that for the kids. Heck, you already have a huge inconsistency in that “guard over” means something different than ends over. Even worse- you admit that YOU , and adult coach couldn’t follow the previous season’s route combos- yet don’t seem to grasp that what you are attempting to do is likely going to be much more confusing and detrimental. And your plan is to do it with 10 year olds. You are definitely “rube goldberging” this. The problem I have is that it doesn’t just affect you. It affects the kids. The above video (you will probably have to click on it) is Chris Simms...a grown man from a football family showing you what it will look like.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 15, 2024 17:23:10 GMT -6
bobgoodman As someone who has taught over 10,000 students ages 6-12 and coached athletes ages 6-Div 1AA NCAA football, I think you are on the wrong track. It makes sense to YOU..because you are the one who came up with it. This is almost invariably always going to be true. Trust me on this. What will ultimately happen is the kids and coaches will struggle, and you will stand there exasperated and say "what the heck is wrong with you people, this is so simple". Ask yourself this-- what are you truly trying to accomplish? Are you looking for the kids to have success? If so, the playbook mentioned above is the way to go. What you seem to want to do from the outside looking in, is to "prove" your idea, as opposed to helping the kids have a successful football season. If I thought those goals were incompatible, I wouldn't do it. But I never had the mindset my father had which was that if I came up with it, it couldn't be good! In 2015, my 6th year with that club (and 8th year overall coaching) I installed an offense with a system I had to reconstruct because I could hardly find any materials on it: the sidesaddle T. My other coach seemed to like it, the kids seemed to like it as much as anything else they'd been doing, and we had a winning regular season record. Not only that, but thru correspondence online I spurred a small revival of sidesaddle T by youth and adult amateur coaches. The next year I was asked to become a head coach but turned it down because I anticipated the likelihood of moving to NJ, which it turned out I did. When I resumed coaching in 2017 it was as the new guy here, and I've been in that pigeonhole since. Also, all I meant to discuss with this is devising a way the plays are called. There's already a discussion in the all-ages "offense" section here about wing T play naming/numbering, and it's not like anyone there's saying everyone's going to struggle with whatever changes people come up with. Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that since you came up with it, it is not good. I am saying that since you came up with it, you will undoubtedly underestimate the difficult others may have relating to the information and processing it. You just had several grown men who have dedicated large portions of their lives to football tell you- Eh, this seems too verbose. If you choose to continue down this path with 10 year olds, I just don't see it working out. Again, as someone who has coached a lot of football, and worked with far more 10 year olds than you will likely ever encounter in your life- do THEM and yourself a favor. Choose a different path than the one you seem to be trying to establish (very multiple, very modular approach). You can probably still implement the sidesaddle T if you wish. I am not very familiar with it, but I am assuming it will have one or two base plays, one or two counters off of them etc. You don't need to try and create a system where you as the coach can always try and dial up exactly what you want to do by having a modular system at this age. Get them to block more physically than their opponents, get them to shed blocks more physically than their opponents and chances are you will win the league.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 15, 2024 17:08:55 GMT -6
I don't understand why I can't get this point across. Or at least it feels this way. If we accept the fact that Mahomes is always going to get it done, then the 49ers have to score a TD and get a 2 point conversion. No matter if they get the ball first or second. So that is irrelevant. But if you go second, you now are giving Mahomes and extra possession to get it done!! But if you take the ball first and score and get the 2, then Mahomes can go and score and get 2, and then you can just go kick a FG and win!! The game is over. Mahomes doesn't get a second chance. Doesn't this depend on whether the Chiefs would go for one or two if they have the ball first and score? I know they've said they were going for two if they they got the ball second and scored, but have they said what they would do if they had it first? Because if you kick to them and they score and go for one, then you aren't giving Mahomes an extra possession if you decide the game on your two point attempt. What silkyice is describing is the scenario that some here have put forth: since Mahomes would undoubtedly "do what it takes" to win (even though the Chiefs had been a rather pedestrian offense all year), they obviously would be going for 2 after the first possession TD. Essentially Silkyice is trying to point out to those who have taken a stance that clearly the most concerning issue was Mahomes would not and could not be stopped, and everyone (except apparently Kyle Shanahan) knew this- then the only way to succeed would be to give him the ball first, and "hope" they only kicked the XP instead of going for two. Because clearly, if he would not and could not be stopped- the Chiefs certainly would go for two on the first possession. Right?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 15, 2024 14:56:32 GMT -6
bobgoodman As someone who has taught over 10,000 students ages 6-12 and coached athletes ages 6-Div 1AA NCAA football, I think you are on the wrong track. It makes sense to YOU..because you are the one who came up with it. This is almost invariably always going to be true. Trust me on this. What will ultimately happen is the kids and coaches will struggle, and you will stand there exasperated and say "what the heck is wrong with you people, this is so simple". Ask yourself this-- what are you truly trying to accomplish? Are you looking for the kids to have success? If so, the playbook mentioned above is the way to go. What you seem to want to do from the outside looking in, is to "prove" your idea, as opposed to helping the kids have a successful football season.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 15, 2024 14:27:55 GMT -6
I think some of this discussion has kind of gone sideways based on a belief that there was a phonebooth on the sideline and that Mahomes would without question step inside, come out with a cape on, and not be stopped. Also I think some of you are missing silkyice 's point that if such a phonebooth existed and Mahomes would obviously not be stopped--then logically the ONLY chance you had is to stop him by rule--meaning 49er offense scores, KC offense scores, 49er offense gets ball back and scores...game over. Because as silky has pointed out, many here have ordained it that Mahomes and the Chiefs were automatically scoring. So in that case, kicking it to the chiefs gave them the automatic win, as Superman I mean Mahomes would automatically score twice and by rule that would end the game. Clearly the only possible answer for the 49ers would be to have run the dbl wing or flexbone offenses.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 15, 2024 14:22:28 GMT -6
Which would not be a bad choice. Do you give it back to him not knowing the possibility, or do you say, our best chance is to go for 3 yards with what some think are better players (49 offense was most of the talk) for a chance at a championship? Bottom line is I get the final choice as to how this game is decided with the best part of my team able to decide it. But that is simply not true, because there are no guaranteed possessions after the first set. It is very possible, in fact it may be probable, that the sequence of events would have been 49ers, 5 plays and a punt...chiefs 6 plays and facing a 4th and 7 on their own 40... All that kicking does in the NFL post season is allow you to know what is necessary on your only guaranteed possession what the situation is .
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 14, 2024 15:27:16 GMT -6
Not enough data to know how it shakes out... I would need to know score-rates from different locations on the field. In HS, both teams get the ball at the 10 yard line, so the scoring % is VERY high for both. If you kick a field-goal, you have to weigh your probability of making the field-goal vs. the probability the other team scores a TD on 1st and Goal. This is why I think defense 1st gives you an advantage. You KNOW whether a FG wins it or not, which makes decisions easier to manage. In college, both teams get the ball at the 25 yard line, so the scoring % is still very high, but the TD% is lower. Now your FG probability has to be weighed by their FG probability and their TD probability. Again, being on defense makes it easy to decide whether to kick FG or go on 4th down if you stop the other team 1st. With the NFL rule, I look at it as pretty much the college rule, but with much LOWER probability of scoring a TD. 99% of all kicks are touchbacks, so you really have to go 30 yards on offense to have a realistic shot at kicking a FG, and a full 75 to score a TD. Really, they should just turn off the clock in the playoff OT system because the clock is not a factor at all. Both teams will get 1 possession in the 15 minutes, so it is irrelevant. Does anyone know the % of drives starting at the 25 that result in successful FGs and successful TDs? If I had that data, we could figure out which one is the higher advantage. It does make me think I'd MAYBE lean toward kicking first because now even if you give up a TD, you can still go down the field and score and decide to go for 2. Don't think there is enough data with it only being a year old and their first reaction is what they have studied with the older OT rules. My guess is that it probably bumps the win % back to advantage to be on Defense first, but it isn't going to be as high as the college or high school % because of the distance needed to score. If anyone has those basic stats, we can do some of the probabilities and figure it out within a decent accuracy. My guess it would maybe shift from Team receiving over 50 by I think it was 3% last I saw, to defense by 1%. Yes, I mentioned the points you make in your first two paragraphs earlier in the this thread, and those things, combined with a guarantee of equal possessions makes taking the ball 2nd a pretty solid tactical advantage. But I don't think what I highlighted above is accurate, because unlike the HS and college rule, after the first 2 possessions, there is no more guarantee of possession. In HS and College, each team is guaranteed an equal amount of possessions in the overtime period. Not so in NFL postseason- which I think adds another level of complexity if one is strictly trying to calculate "the analytics". There is going to be a mathematical component to being the team most likely to possess the ball first in a sudden death situation. Under NFL postseason rules, there needs to be consideration for events AFTER the first two possessions, which is not really necessary in HS or College because of the guaranteed possessions. Your comments about kicking first, and going for 2 on the second possession are apparently exactly what the Chiefs had planned.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 14, 2024 14:51:06 GMT -6
In HS and college... always go defense first. Knowing how many points you need is an advantage. You know you are in 4-down scenarios and things like that. NFL rate is higher than 50% probability for whoever has ball 1st winning. It is high enough that people think the OT rules should change because it gives unfair advantage to the team that has the ball 1st. NFL I take the ball with all the possible outcomes... College & HS I still play Defense 1st. Is that the NFL rate for playoff rules or for regular season rules?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 14, 2024 14:39:03 GMT -6
Eh- if those guys don’t have input into the situation does it truly matter. Kind of surprised yes, but does it realky impact the game? I am much more surprised and shocked by the amount of HS coaches that post here on Huey that don’t know rules such as the scrimmage kick rule (aka “tee punt” ) I have seen lots of reporters and talkibg heads try to frame this as “look at any reid being such a great coach”. Eh maybe. But in 2008 his starting qb didn’t know the regular season overtime rules Do you think that maybe Andy Reid said "You know what in 2008 my starting qb didn’t know the regular season overtime rules, so I am going to make sure that all my teams from now on know the rules" I think that is very likely what happened.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 14, 2024 11:14:28 GMT -6
Making physical contact with another human in anger is unacceptable. Regardless of judgement on the situation at-large relationally between the two humans here in Reid and Kelce. I draw a hard line at physical confrontation..it's unacceptable, even if by accident. The consequences can be debated, but to say it is nothing or inconsequential, I just can't get my mind wrapped around that. Had the questionable judgement of verbal confrontation been avoided, then there would have been no accidental physical confrontation. And Kelce has already said as much. Which makes it "nothing"
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 14, 2024 11:10:10 GMT -6
brophy the videos you showed are not what happened. What happened was that Kelce misjudged his distance and bumped into an off balance man while yelling at him. I do agree here. That the bumping was accidental. While the bumping wasn't 1st degree bumping, it was 2nd degree bumping. HA And without the bumping- it was just a heated exchange from guys who have worked with each other for almost a decade in pressure packed high stakes endeavors. And the guy already said he was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 14, 2024 10:37:09 GMT -6
brophy the videos you showed are not what happened. What happened was that Kelce misjudged his distance and bumped into an off balance man while yelling at him.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 14, 2024 9:10:33 GMT -6
ahaha..... I'm gonna lose spatial awareness all over your face! There are two dynamics with this incident: 1 - players demonstratively usurping leadership. Players doing more than "disagreeing" with coaches, but losing control and lashing out. I've seen this more than enough at the HS level. Obviously, there's really nothing you can do at the moment and only re-educate, reset expectations for that kid later after they've cooled off. During games, you can send them to the locker room if they can't be redirected. There's all types of knuckleheads out there, so I suppose just focusing on STARTERS that act out like this is worth discussing. 2 - player power vs coaching authority. This may have a parallel in the classroom than the playing field, because in the classroom you can't pick and choose the participants you're dealing with. Kids KNOW they have all the leverage and there's nothing you can do about it, which means they're more inclined to engage in power thrusts. In the NFL/NCAA playing field, when you're a star player YOU what matters, not the coaches. When they know this, it takes a special maturity to continue to work amicably is the coach/coach relationship different than player/coach (I think so)? Who hasn't been MF'ed to death and fired four times during a game? The coach/coach relationship is not very different than many of the player/coach relationships in the NFL, where as someone mentioned earlier it is often a peer/peer relationship between men 30+ years of age. Kelce has probably called Reid "Andy" for the last 5-6 years, and has worked with him for the last 9. The only reason that incident is applicable to anyone posting on this board is simply because as people see things, people do things and it will invariably lead to #1 above. And not for nothing, he got called out nationwide by his big brother on it anyway and Travis announced that he regretted it. Moving on.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 13, 2024 13:05:09 GMT -6
The biggest problem has been since the enacting of Title IX. And first let me say I'm for Title IX because I'm father of two daughters, glad that Women's Sports have been expanded-got on equal footing. College athletes have been getting "paid" through scholarships for a long time. At universities like Michigan, Alabama, Ohio State etc. the scholarships, facilities, equipment, travel, coaches' salaries - not just for women but all "Non-Revenue" sports - get paid for by Football (and in rare instances Basketball). The Football schools can only fund all their sports (Ohio State has I think 36 total for ex.) if the Football team wins-brings in TV revenue and ticket sales. Thus they must win. So they have to hire a HC that can - and pay him the "market value." That's why coaches' salaries have exploded. Even if Nick Saban was making $10 million a year at Bama that wasn't big for what he was doing for the university's athletic program as a whole. And college scholarships are not cheap, either. Those "student-athletes" don't leave with the student loan debt most will even if they don't get a red cent of NIL money. This is only a problem when the athletic program becomes a professional sports organization that can not be funded through the university like extra curricular athletic programs could be.
|
|
|
OT Choice
Feb 12, 2024 18:50:17 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 12, 2024 18:50:17 GMT -6
www.foxnews.com/sports/49ers-players-admit-unaware-overtime-rules-super-bowl-lviii-surpriseThis blows my mind. 49er players saying that they didn't know the rules and the Chiefs' player that caught the Super Bowl winning TD didn't even know that won the game. I get they all have second jobs as plumbers and all, but you would think someone would explain new rules and situations with them at some point during the 18 week season. I get there are restrictions on how much they football they can do in the NFL like 8 hour days max and having Tuesday off and all, but surely at some point they could go over this stuff. Maybe like during a 5 minute water break or something like that. Asking a lot, I know, I know. Eh- if those guys don’t have input into the situation does it truly matter. Kind of surprised yes, but does it realky impact the game? I am much more surprised and shocked by the amount of HS coaches that post here on Huey that don’t know rules such as the scrimmage kick rule (aka “tee punt” ) I have seen lots of reporters and talkibg heads try to frame this as “look at any reid being such a great coach”. Eh maybe. But in 2008 his starting qb didn’t know the regular season overtime rules
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 12, 2024 18:01:50 GMT -6
Absolute nothing burger. It was only noticed because Kelce somehow lost track of his space. This is the NFL. It is a professional organization. The dynamics are nothing compared to schoolboy football. Don’t agree it was a nothing burger. It was at least a small order of fries. Nah. It was just an intense man being intense in an intense environment - but losing his spatial awareness made it look much more aggressive Anyone trying to make anything of it is simply digging for attention or "clicks" as they kids say.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 12, 2024 16:33:44 GMT -6
Absolute nothing burger. It was only noticed because Kelce somehow lost track of his space. This is the NFL. It is a professional organization. The dynamics are nothing compared to schoolboy football.
|
|