|
|
Post by fshamrock on Dec 14, 2021 13:35:53 GMT -6
Like so many of you guys, it's TESTING TIME in our world. Dudes are benching, running the 40, getting in well trained stances to touch cones really fast, the whole deal.
We will have a points system, people will be motivated, and invariably, there will be guys who score really high that can't play, and some of our better players will not score high. None of this is new.
I'm always reminded though of this one spot where we had a kid that played outside linebacker, would always score way up there on the offseason points, but could never be effective in the game. We all left his Junior year, new staff played everybody both ways, next time we heard about him we laugh "har, har, har"...because he's the starting runningback.
So of course he proceeds to be a complete beast that year and is 1st team all-league
this kind of thing happens all the time, and I hate it, we get into our heads that a kid can't play, and we end up missing on them. Or the inverse, and kids measurables are so great that we keep throwing them out there only to be proved time and again that they can't play.
I think evaluating is the hardest part of the job, and the real problem with it is that you don't really have that much information to go on, because if you are like me, by the time you have decided who your starters are, the evaluation process is pretty much over. The back-ups aren't going into the game, and we all know that you don't get nearly enough from scrimmages, or beating on each other in spring ball.
So let's lay it out there guru's. What's the drill, scenario, cirdumstance etc....that you've found, is a fairly accurate assessment (outside of playing in games) to determine whether or not a kid can play?
something like....in all my years..a kid who would do (this drill) well, could play, and kid who sucked at it, could not
Seems like it would be a nice little reference library for all of us
|
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Dec 14, 2021 14:00:48 GMT -6
fshamrock Maybe you should go back and look at what is being done in drill work. I heard from U Meyer, but the premise was that if you can't find a drill you do on game film then you shouldn't be doing that drill. I used to put DBs through ladder drills and do cone work, and it just ended up being busy work. Now almost everything we do with the DBs is some broken down, reactionary drill that mimics 1 smaller/focusable aspect of the game. Now, I'm not discounting strength training, speed development, agility development at all. There are going to be many different opinions here, but in the offseason 'points workouts' you probably should look at explosive movements: broad jump, vertical jumps, cleans, etc... Also if you look at speed, look at a cross section of say 40 time compared to pro agility/3 come 20 yard, and then throw in a 3 cone L drills for nonmaterial change of direction. And then there's the name taker and are kicker ratio... some dudes just play. Call it the milk drinker vs the whiskey drinker, or The ones who has to know whose got the biggest dyck in the room... these personalities tend to play up regardless of what the numbers say, at least in HS. A type personalities push the issue to the front. Ultimately I related it to who we have to play. The dudes we had at the school I coached at with 200 kids, were not the same type of dudes at the larger school I work now where every Friday night there are multiple D1 players on the grass. We won a bunch of games at both places, but it the same time is was relative.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Dec 14, 2021 14:50:53 GMT -6
I know it when I see it. I also know it when I HEAR it. The pads that is.
|
|
|
|
Post by cwaltsmith on Dec 14, 2021 15:21:23 GMT -6
The scouts try to make evaluating a science.... it is not. Just like some of this offensive system guys try to sell their system as a fool proof science to calling plays... play calling is not a science. Evaluating talent is an art, and has to be done differently depending on circumstances. I dont think their is a specific drill that can tell you. Some kids just always find a way to make a play and some kids always seem to find a way to mess it up... I know that doesnt answer but that my humble opinion
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Dec 14, 2021 15:51:24 GMT -6
I'm always reminded though of this one spot where we had a kid that played outside linebacker, would always score way up there on the offseason points, but could never be effective in the game. We all left his Junior year, new staff played everybody both ways, next time we heard about him we laugh "har, har, har"...because he's the starting runningback. So of course he proceeds to be a complete beast that year and is 1st team all-league So let's lay it out there guru's. What's the drill, scenario, cirdumstance etc....that you've found, is a fairly accurate assessment (outside of playing in games) to determine whether or not a kid can play? something like....in all my years..a kid who would do (this drill) well, could play, and kid who sucked at it, could not Seems like it would be a nice little reference library for all of us A couple thoughts... 1) Next to QB, I think LB is one of the most difficult positions to learn. Mostly because it requires more mental processing during a play compared to other positions. If you have a kid who tests great but "isn't a football player", I wouldn't put him at QB or LB. RB is more of an instinctive position in my opinion. Sure RBs still need to be coached, but sometimes when you have a gifted athlete at RB, you can give them more freedom to play instinctively when carrying the ball. I think to be elite at DL, you need great coaching as well, BUT I can put a really powerful and explosive kid at DT at the high school level and he will do some damage. 2) As for testing, I see value in many tests. An unconventional anecdotal observation I've made over the years is that kids who can hop over 4 or 5 hurdles in a fast, explosive manner with body control tend to be our better football players. If you have a bigger kid that can do this, it increases the odds of him being a great football player! I'm talking about hurdles that are about crotch height. Seeing how fast they get off the ground between each jump is a key component of this. I will also have athletes "land quietly" and freeze after the final hurdle. The athletes who have enough body control to do this and freeze tend to be our better players. Basically if you have a high school kid that looks like this going over hurdles, more often than not, he's going to be a really good football player: |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Dec 14, 2021 16:06:47 GMT -6
Starting right tackle this year: awkward looking kid who could barely handle 225lbs on squat. But, an all-conference performer for us; he was aggressive, coachable and had exceptional second effort.
Starting left guard this year: absolute weight room warrior and beastly looking kid; 285lb bench, 400lb squatter (etc). Didn't break a 40% on blocking grading all year; the strongest, most "athletic" kid on the OL struggled continually. We were still correcting his stance on the last practice of the year if that gives you any indication of how bad he was.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackknight on Dec 19, 2021 21:05:33 GMT -6
Testing in our program was not about evaluation but about holding players accountable.
I heard that Nebraska, back in the day when they were the gods of strength and conditioning knowledge, beleived the biggest correlation to testing and actually making plays was vertical jump.
|
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Dec 20, 2021 16:55:43 GMT -6
No help here but I think good coaches can just tell most of the time from watching the first few practices in pads. Stuff sorts it self out real quick when the hitting starts. Weights don't hit back, 40 times don't hit back, plyos don't hit back. I have had so many looks like Tarzan plays like Jane guys in my career could probably put together a whole O and D all star team of them since they passed the eyeball test but nothing else.
Some of the best LB's I ever had were 150 lb wrestlers who just got it. There is no science behind it all no matter how much we hear about testing and analytics and all that especially in HS ball. Even at the highest levels of HS ball there are just kids who are players that are way to small and shouldn't be. It's funny how much stock people put into numbers over actual ability.
|
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Dec 20, 2021 18:47:41 GMT -6
It may sound stupid to many, but the 'test" I used to determine if a kid could play for me was squat. Not how much they could squat, or form, but their willingness to do it. Give me a kid who starts his workout in the squat rack and that's a kid who can play for me. That's a kid who won't shrink on 4th and goal in the 4th quarter. I'll find a place for that kid to play. Get kids fighting over squat racks at the start of a workout? You're going to be pretty damn salty.
Conversely, I never had a kid who avoided squats like they were the plague who didn't flake out in key situations. The worst teams I ever coached were filled with beach workout guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Dec 20, 2021 18:50:55 GMT -6
No help here but I think good coaches can just tell most of the time from watching the first few practices in pads. Stuff sorts it self out real quick when the hitting starts. Weights don't hit back, 40 times don't hit back, plyos don't hit back. I have had so many looks like Tarzan plays like Jane guys in my career could probably put together a whole O and D all star team of them since they passed the eyeball test but nothing else. Some of the best LB's I ever had were 150 lb wrestlers who just got it. There is no science behind it all no matter how much we hear about testing and analytics and all that especially in HS ball. Even at the highest levels of HS ball there are just kids who are players that are way to small and shouldn't be. It's funny how much stock people put into numbers over actual ability. The best 1 tech I ever saw was a 119lb state finalist wrestler as a Sr. Played at about 125. Quick and just one of the nastiest humans I've ever met. My lasting memory is of him getting cut, somersaulting over the back of the OL and bear crawling to sack the Qb. Had never played before his Sr year and ended up an all conference DL at 125lbs. |
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Dec 20, 2021 20:35:39 GMT -6
No help here but I think good coaches can just tell most of the time from watching the first few practices in pads. Stuff sorts it self out real quick when the hitting starts. Weights don't hit back, 40 times don't hit back, plyos don't hit back. I have had so many looks like Tarzan plays like Jane guys in my career could probably put together a whole O and D all star team of them since they passed the eyeball test but nothing else. Some of the best LB's I ever had were 150 lb wrestlers who just got it. There is no science behind it all no matter how much we hear about testing and analytics and all that especially in HS ball. Even at the highest levels of HS ball there are just kids who are players that are way to small and shouldn't be. It's funny how much stock people put into numbers over actual ability. The best 1 tech I ever saw was a 119lb state finalist wrestler as a Sr. Played at about 125. Quick and just one of the nastiest humans I've ever met. My lasting memory is of him getting cut, somersaulting over the back of the OL and bear crawling to sack the Qb. Had never played before his Sr year and ended up an all conference DL at 125lbs. God bless high school football. And I love the squat rack post. Rings very true. |
|
|
|
Post by bucksweepdotcom on Dec 21, 2021 5:08:19 GMT -6
It may sound stupid to many, but the 'test" I used to determine if a kid could play for me was squat. Not how much they could squat, or form, but their willingness to do it. Give me a kid who starts his workout in the squat rack and that's a kid who can play for me. That's a kid who won't shrink on 4th and goal in the 4th quarter. I'll find a place for that kid to play. Get kids fighting over squat racks at the start of a workout? You're going to be pretty damn salty. Conversely, I never had a kid who avoided squats like they were the plague who didn't flake out in key situations. The worst teams I ever coached were filled with beach workout guys. I just posted this to my players. 100% Squats are Man Makers! |
|
|
|
Post by coachjm on Dec 21, 2021 5:27:38 GMT -6
One of my best RBs I have ever had was one of my worst LBs I have ever had, we moved him to FS and he got better (still not great)....
First I believe the goal of our tests and the data we take in is to measure growth and to inspire to work harder. If I am measuring something, keeping data on it, and letting people know (twitter, leaderboard, ect) it is probably going to be important to the kids and they will get better at it. This is important as we want them to strive to get faster, more explosive, agile, and of course stronger.
Defensively, we have always tried to define our players as leverage players or plug players.... In general, I don't care how much my leverage player squats but his ability to change direction matters, and as listed above his willingness to squat matters..... My plug players I don't really care how fast they run a 40 in, but their nastiness in the squat rack and toughness is typically a huge variable in the type of player they become....
The goal is to get all of our players developed a little faster, stronger, tougher then they were last year. Then when the season starts get them better at playing football regardless of the position they play try to help them improve at their fundamentals every day. It sounds simplistic because it is....
So measuring/testing matters a ton, it creates standards that we are trying to achieve at and compete for... Also, many times we have found that when we get a boy in the right spot he becomes better, my strongest fastest senior next year is a really really nice kid, he has played TE, FB, G, LB, DE, DT, OLB, DB in his career he runs so well and is very strong for our program. After all the trial an error and seeing glimpses of his talent at all spots, it is without a question he is a defensive lineman... Sometimes we have to take those back-ups and keep coaching them, other times we have to take them and keep working to find their spot and role... In the end we typically have 16-18 guys actually play on either side of the ball on game night so any boy that isn't in that group we either try to forecast how they may be down the road with graduation or injury or we will try to find a spot where they may forecast in the fact is being buried on the depth chart is never going to inspire a young guy to get better..
|
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Dec 21, 2021 7:42:48 GMT -6
One of my best RBs I have ever had was one of my worst LBs I have ever had, we moved him to FS and he got better (still not great).... Had exactly the same thing. In fact, he was such a terrible defender, we couldn't find a place where he wasn't a liability. Ran for 1500ish yds though. |
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Dec 21, 2021 7:43:27 GMT -6
It may sound stupid to many, but the 'test" I used to determine if a kid could play for me was squat. Not how much they could squat, or form, but their willingness to do it. Give me a kid who starts his workout in the squat rack and that's a kid who can play for me. That's a kid who won't shrink on 4th and goal in the 4th quarter. I'll find a place for that kid to play. Get kids fighting over squat racks at the start of a workout? You're going to be pretty damn salty. Conversely, I never had a kid who avoided squats like they were the plague who didn't flake out in key situations. The worst teams I ever coached were filled with beach workout guys. I just posted this to my players. 100% Squats are Man Makers! That makes me nervous that anyone would quote any of my stupid ramblings.  |
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Dec 21, 2021 7:45:03 GMT -6
The best 1 tech I ever saw was a 119lb state finalist wrestler as a Sr. Played at about 125. Quick and just one of the nastiest humans I've ever met. My lasting memory is of him getting cut, somersaulting over the back of the OL and bear crawling to sack the Qb. Had never played before his Sr year and ended up an all conference DL at 125lbs. God bless high school football. And I love the squat rack post. Rings very true. Kid was a unique human being. Went to a D1 college to wrestle, but didn't last long because he kept picking fights with the football team's linemen. At 130lbs. I never really understood why he didn't get into MMA. |
|
|
|
Post by rosey65 on Jan 5, 2022 9:59:46 GMT -6
Testing was never about grading a kid out or evaluating their play-ability. Testing for us is always about monitoring progress and growth of each kid. Off-season workouts are about teaching kids how to establish a work ethic, show them what it's like to be coached and corrected, etc.
Ladder drills, for example, are a great way to improve footwork, but they were never used to determine which position a kid could play or where he was on the depth chart.
We have missed several kids over the years, placing them in the wrong position. I think that's just something that happens, I'm not sure of a template to use to prevent that from happening.
It happens in Power 5 programs, as well, tho, so it isn't just you messing up. It's not as prevalent, but there are definitely some big names that switched sides of the ball during their career.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachkeating33 on Jan 5, 2022 10:06:59 GMT -6
fshamrock Maybe you should go back and look at what is being done in drill work. I heard from U Meyer, but the premise was that if you can't find a drill you do on game film then you shouldn't be doing that drill. I used to put DBs through ladder drills and do cone work, and it just ended up being busy work. Now almost everything we do with the DBs is some broken down, reactionary drill that mimics 1 smaller/focusable aspect of the game. Now, I'm not discounting strength training, speed development, agility development at all. There are going to be many different opinions here, but in the offseason 'points workouts' you probably should look at explosive movements: broad jump, vertical jumps, cleans, etc... Also if you look at speed, look at a cross section of say 40 time compared to pro agility/3 come 20 yard, and then throw in a 3 cone L drills for nonmaterial change of direction. And then there's the name taker and are kicker ratio... some dudes just play. Call it the milk drinker vs the whiskey drinker, or The ones who has to know whose got the biggest dyck in the room... these personalities tend to play up regardless of what the numbers say, at least in HS. A type personalities push the issue to the front. Ultimately I related it to who we have to play. The dudes we had at the school I coached at with 200 kids, were not the same type of dudes at the larger school I work now where every Friday night there are multiple D1 players on the grass. We won a bunch of games at both places, but it the same time is was relative. love this post |
|
|
|
Post by coachkeating33 on Jan 5, 2022 10:12:21 GMT -6
It may sound stupid to many, but the 'test" I used to determine if a kid could play for me was squat. Not how much they could squat, or form, but their willingness to do it. Give me a kid who starts his workout in the squat rack and that's a kid who can play for me. That's a kid who won't shrink on 4th and goal in the 4th quarter. I'll find a place for that kid to play. Get kids fighting over squat racks at the start of a workout? You're going to be pretty damn salty. Conversely, I never had a kid who avoided squats like they were the plague who didn't flake out in key situations. The worst teams I ever coached were filled with beach workout guys. excellent |
|
