|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 3, 2022 10:00:48 GMT -6
1. The 20-hour/week rule 2. CFB has become an extremely complex game X and O-wise. Requires a lot of practice-prep time which takes away from Individual (fundamentals).I've known a LOT of HS coaches who fall into this same mentality, who will argue that, "I'm not a drill master" (ie not here to rep fundamentals), who spend the vast majority of their time repping team, who are more into coaching plays as opposed to players. Yes, you can correct fundamentals in whole group situations, but to be honest most coaches look at that as a time to ensure players are in the right place at the right time, as opposed to using proper technique/fundamentals when there. And any correction they give is just telling the kid to do it, as opposed to really working on the fundamental development. Probably because they're projecting the W-L results of work on each, even more on defense than offense. How many times have you looked at a rep and seen that the player's in the right place, but still "doing it wrong", and you know that at least theoretically if his foot is here instead of there, he's in a superior position? And yet you know that some players get good results even with inferior body mechanics, and you know that if you want to improve this player's technique, you're going to have to break it down before you can build it back up -- and what if, by game time, you've gotten only halfway thru that process, and have broken that player's confidence in the old move without building it up in the new one yet? |
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Jul 3, 2022 10:13:45 GMT -6
I've known a LOT of HS coaches who fall into this same mentality, who will argue that, "I'm not a drill master" (ie not here to rep fundamentals), who spend the vast majority of their time repping team, who are more into coaching plays as opposed to players. Yes, you can correct fundamentals in whole group situations, but to be honest most coaches look at that as a time to ensure players are in the right place at the right time, as opposed to using proper technique/fundamentals when there. And any correction they give is just telling the kid to do it, as opposed to really working on the fundamental development. Probably because they're projecting the W-L results of work on each, even more on defense than offense. How many times have you looked at a rep and seen that the player's in the right place, but still "doing it wrong", and you know that at least theoretically if his foot is here instead of there, he's in a superior position? And yet you know that some players get good results even with inferior body mechanics, and you know that if you want to improve this player's technique, you're going to have to break it down before you can build it back up -- and what if, by game time, you've gotten only halfway thru that process, and have broken that player's confidence in the old move without building it up in the new one yet? I think that could be a decent to big factor when you see bad fundamentals at the NFL level. The NFL is VERY transient, between trades, free agency, practice squad, injuries, etc. You could have a guy get signed on monday and he's gotta dress on the following sunday.....There's no way you have time to do the tear down/rebuild with techniques you mentioned. You barely have time to teach them enough of your scheme to be functional on sunday, let alone fix their technique. That raises another issue, how do NFL teams incorporate mid-season acquisitions like that in terms of scheme? If you hire an ILB on monday, there's just no way he can learn, first, all your terminology, then all your coverages, rules, checks, exceptions to the checks, rules, alignments, alerts, etc, let alone actually have all that be second nature. So, how does the NFL DC handle that? Do they just run super simplified base calls when that player is in the game, or still call regular stuff and just understand and accept there will be busts, poor execution, etc until that player gets up to speed? |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 3, 2022 10:22:35 GMT -6
As someone else said, coaching isn’t a meritocracy, depth issues exist, coaching in college is more about recruiting and putting together a talented roster now more than ever. Etc. I would also say part of it is simply because people in general are mistake prone and the stuff those guys are doing at that level us often designed to create more mistakes. I rarely see a HS game with “flawless execution” against equal or greater talent. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen it for an entire game, or even an entire quarter, of HS ball even when it’s a powerhouse beating down the Little Sisters of the Poor. At the college level, where the talent disparity is usually smaller, it’s more likely to stand out. Throw in all the different things everyone is trying to do on each play and some stuff is just going to give. Coach, a lot of it that im talking about is clearly unforced/self-inflicted errors. It's not something the other team did. It's them taking a bad angle, not using proper technique, playing hesitantly. People talk all the time about playing fast, and you want players playing not thinking. Paralysis by analysis. And yes, as i said at the end of the OP, it's definitely not a meritocracy. I just wanted to point out that the three things you mention absolutely can be influenced/caused in part by the opponent. As @coacharnold pointed out, bad angles are often the result of opponents speed. I would bet poor technique could often be blamed on lining up against a physical equal or superior opponent. Drops that seem too wide or short could be influenced by the speed of the receivers putting the defender in conflict as well as how proficiently the QB uses his eyes to manipulate the defense. An OL "whiffing" a second level defender could easily be attributed to talent level of the DL charged with keeping that backer free. Playing hesitantly is likely a result again of the speed/ability of the opponent. |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jul 3, 2022 15:25:25 GMT -6
I've known a LOT of HS coaches who fall into this same mentality, who will argue that, "I'm not a drill master" (ie not here to rep fundamentals), who spend the vast majority of their time repping team, who are more into coaching plays as opposed to players. Yes, you can correct fundamentals in whole group situations, but to be honest most coaches look at that as a time to ensure players are in the right place at the right time, as opposed to using proper technique/fundamentals when there. And any correction they give is just telling the kid to do it, as opposed to really working on the fundamental development. Probably because they're projecting the W-L results of work on each, even more on defense than offense. How many times have you looked at a rep and seen that the player's in the right place, but still "doing it wrong", and you know that at least theoretically if his foot is here instead of there, he's in a superior position? And yet you know that some players get good results even with inferior body mechanics, and you know that if you want to improve this player's technique, you're going to have to break it down before you can build it back up -- and what if, by game time, you've gotten only halfway thru that process, and have broken that player's confidence in the old move without building it up in the new one yet? I think the first part of your post, about sacrificing teaching techniques based on W-L results relative to knowing scheme, is a short term gain but long term loss in a sense. If a player is able to be successful in spite of using poor technique ("you know that some players get good results even with inferior body mechanics") then he most likely is doing so due to superior athleticism. Eventually, he will run into someone with good enough athleticism/technique that my sacrifices of teaching technique will fail him and his team. I find the second part of your post (refering to not having enough time to instruct a new technique) to indicate that we may do things differently; in which case this may read as apples to oranges. All of the good places I have coached at use proper technique as a foundation- technique leads to responsibility- so we never really were at risk of: " by game time, you've gotten only halfway thru that process, and have broken that player's confidence in the old move without building it up in the new one yet". The technique we want them to use has been repped since the summer (if not the past few years); thats not writing they all are experts in it, but they are proficient at it. So we spend time during the season repping it, allowing us to at minimum remain proficient and most likely continue to improve. I guess that would be different if we were introducing new techniques throughout the season, but that doesnt really work for us. Maybe if we did I would lean more towards your line of thinking. As is, I hold on to the old axiom, 'if you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it again?' |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 5, 2022 11:24:44 GMT -6
And yet you know that some players get good results even with inferior body mechanics, and you know that if you want to improve this player's technique, you're going to have to break it down before you can build it back up -- and what if, by game time, you've gotten only halfway thru that process, and have broken that player's confidence in the old move without building it up in the new one yet? I find the second part of your post (refering to not having enough time to instruct a new technique) to indicate that we may do things differently; in which case this may read as apples to oranges. All of the good places I have coached at use proper technique as a foundation- technique leads to responsibility- so we never really were at risk of: " by game time, you've gotten only halfway thru that process, and have broken that player's confidence in the old move without building it up in the new one yet". The technique we want them to use has been repped since the summer (if not the past few years); thats not writing they all are experts in it, but they are proficient at it. So we spend time during the season repping it, allowing us to at minimum remain proficient and most likely continue to improve. I guess that would be different if we were introducing new techniques throughout the season, but that doesnt really work for us. Maybe if we did I would lean more towards your line of thinking. As is, I hold on to the old axiom, 'if you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it again?' I wasn't assuming the same player was in your charge all that time. |
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Jul 5, 2022 12:48:04 GMT -6
Probably because they're projecting the W-L results of work on each, even more on defense than offense. How many times have you looked at a rep and seen that the player's in the right place, but still "doing it wrong", and you know that at least theoretically if his foot is here instead of there, he's in a superior position? And yet you know that some players get good results even with inferior body mechanics, and you know that if you want to improve this player's technique, you're going to have to break it down before you can build it back up -- and what if, by game time, you've gotten only halfway thru that process, and have broken that player's confidence in the old move without building it up in the new one yet? I think that could be a decent to big factor when you see bad fundamentals at the NFL level. The NFL is VERY transient, between trades, free agency, practice squad, injuries, etc. You could have a guy get signed on monday and he's gotta dress on the following sunday.....There's no way you have time to do the tear down/rebuild with techniques you mentioned. You barely have time to teach them enough of your scheme to be functional on sunday, let alone fix their technique. That raises another issue, how do NFL teams incorporate mid-season acquisitions like that in terms of scheme? If you hire an ILB on monday, there's just no way he can learn, first, all your terminology, then all your coverages, rules, checks, exceptions to the checks, rules, alignments, alerts, etc, let alone actually have all that be second nature. So, how does the NFL DC handle that? Do they just run super simplified base calls when that player is in the game, or still call regular stuff and just understand and accept there will be busts, poor execution, etc until that player gets up to speed? Nobody gonna take a crack at this one lol? I genuinely would like to know the answer to this...I know this isnt super relevant to the HS game and that's what we heavily lean toward here on the board, but I am curious |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 5, 2022 13:36:56 GMT -6
Probably because they're projecting the W-L results of work on each, even more on defense than offense. How many times have you looked at a rep and seen that the player's in the right place, but still "doing it wrong", and you know that at least theoretically if his foot is here instead of there, he's in a superior position? And yet you know that some players get good results even with inferior body mechanics, and you know that if you want to improve this player's technique, you're going to have to break it down before you can build it back up -- and what if, by game time, you've gotten only halfway thru that process, and have broken that player's confidence in the old move without building it up in the new one yet? I think that could be a decent to big factor when you see bad fundamentals at the NFL level. The NFL is VERY transient, between trades, free agency, practice squad, injuries, etc. You could have a guy get signed on monday and he's gotta dress on the following sunday.....There's no way you have time to do the tear down/rebuild with techniques you mentioned. You barely have time to teach them enough of your scheme to be functional on sunday, let alone fix their technique. That raises another issue, how do NFL teams incorporate mid-season acquisitions like that in terms of scheme? If you hire an ILB on monday, there's just no way he can learn, first, all your terminology, then all your coverages, rules, checks, exceptions to the checks, rules, alignments, alerts, etc, let alone actually have all that be second nature. So, how does the NFL DC handle that? Do they just run super simplified base calls when that player is in the game, or still call regular stuff and just understand and accept there will be busts, poor execution, etc until that player gets up to speed? What bad fundamentals? As far as mid year acquisitions- 1) it doesn't really happen very much in the NFL. The most common type might be activating someone who was inactive during the year but had previous experience with that club or has lots of NFL experience. As far as getting them up to speed? They just tell the guy what to presnap. They know there will be screw ups. |
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Jul 5, 2022 13:50:33 GMT -6
I feel like in the NFL when there are injuries you frequently see teams go get veterans that have experience playing for the coordinator at previous stops.
|
|
|
|
Post by IronmanFootball on Jul 18, 2022 5:17:36 GMT -6
I feel like in the NFL when there are injuries you frequently see teams go get veterans that have experience playing for the coordinator at previous stops. Great article a while back (decade) about Andy Reid and Alex Smith. Reid's offense was so complex to learn that rookies couldn't play and they had to be selective re FA's, trades, ie could only sign guys that were playing in WCO systems. As we all know, rookies have to play right away or the investment is a waste and you need trades/FA's to come in, or mid-season trades. Smith got Reid to simplify his verbiage and the offense took off. I wish I could find the article but I can't |
|
|
|
Post by IronmanFootball on Jul 18, 2022 5:27:18 GMT -6
Coach, a lot of it that im talking about is clearly unforced/self-inflicted errors. It's not something the other team did. It's them taking a bad angle, not using proper technique, playing hesitantly. People talk all the time about playing fast, and you want players playing not thinking. Paralysis by analysis. And yes, as i said at the end of the OP, it's definitely not a meritocracy. I just wanted to point out that the three things you mention absolutely can be influenced/caused in part by the opponent. As @coacharnold pointed out, bad angles are often the result of opponents speed. I would bet poor technique could often be blamed on lining up against a physical equal or superior opponent. Drops that seem too wide or short could be influenced by the speed of the receivers putting the defender in conflict as well as how proficiently the QB uses his eyes to manipulate the defense. An OL "whiffing" a second level defender could easily be attributed to talent level of the DL charged with keeping that backer free. Playing hesitantly is likely a result again of the speed/ability of the opponent. I always go back to Fergus Connolly. Does X player have the ability to do Y job in the 4-quadrants: Physically- Does the player have the physical ability to perform the task? Strong enough, powerful enough, fast enough, 'quick' enough reaction time (OODA Loop) Psychologically- Multi-faceted; what's going on in their lives outside of FB? Confidence to accomplish tasks? Task specific Mental Toughness? Mature enough to stay in control during game? Technically- Dude prob won't run a good slant if they have no idea how. Terrible footwork as an OL leads to wasting time, bad tackling technique gets the player ran over, poor at taking angles / judging space and speed Tactically- Do they even know what they're being asked to do in the scheme? Understand how to play the position and where it fits in the 11 man side? Can they remember the plays/calls and read/react fast enough? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2022 22:32:27 GMT -6
I think that could be a decent to big factor when you see bad fundamentals at the NFL level. The NFL is VERY transient, between trades, free agency, practice squad, injuries, etc. You could have a guy get signed on monday and he's gotta dress on the following sunday.....There's no way you have time to do the tear down/rebuild with techniques you mentioned. You barely have time to teach them enough of your scheme to be functional on sunday, let alone fix their technique. That raises another issue, how do NFL teams incorporate mid-season acquisitions like that in terms of scheme? If you hire an ILB on monday, there's just no way he can learn, first, all your terminology, then all your coverages, rules, checks, exceptions to the checks, rules, alignments, alerts, etc, let alone actually have all that be second nature. So, how does the NFL DC handle that? Do they just run super simplified base calls when that player is in the game, or still call regular stuff and just understand and accept there will be busts, poor execution, etc until that player gets up to speed? Nobody gonna take a crack at this one lol? I genuinely would like to know the answer to this...I know this isnt super relevant to the HS game and that's what we heavily lean toward here on the board, but I am curious The NFL pays these guys a lot of money to already know their techniques. It’s expected. NFL players will often work with personal coaches and trainers to stay sharp and improve there (prime example: Tom Brady). The players are expected to invest in themselves to get (and keep) the big contracts, which is why “work ethic” is a huge deal at that level. Also, they do have scouting and private workouts/tryouts to screen and make sure each signee is at least competent at the job he’s being hired to do. They’re not going to hire somebody and find out he can’t do what they need when he shows up to practice. If that does happen, they cut him and get someone else. They will overlook “bad” or “sloppy” fundamentals in a pinch if the guy can just somehow get the job done. Most of the mid-season acquisitions are there to fill out the bottom of the depth chart with special teamers, and if they see any action within a few days that’s where it is. Those guys have a couple of simple jobs for the most part while they *maybe* study the offense or defense they are technically a part of on paper. Occasionally, these players may be called upon to fill a *very* specific role in the scheme, like serving as a Dime defensive back, 3rd TE, or a 5th WR. The same idea still applies: limited role=less to know to be game ready, so they work. Sometimes you will see a situation where a big time player is traded a few weeks into the season or is signed after being cut for some reason. In that case, they will usually build a package around the guy and what he can do, giving him like 5-15 things he needs to know in specific situations where he is subbed in. The longer he is on the team; the more they expand his role as he learns things. |
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Jul 19, 2022 13:48:31 GMT -6
Nobody gonna take a crack at this one lol? I genuinely would like to know the answer to this...I know this isnt super relevant to the HS game and that's what we heavily lean toward here on the board, but I am curious The NFL pays these guys a lot of money to already know their techniques. It’s expected. NFL players will often work with personal coaches and trainers to stay sharp and improve there (prime example: Tom Brady). The players are expected to invest in themselves to get (and keep) the big contracts, which is why “work ethic” is a huge deal at that level. Also, they do have scouting and private workouts/tryouts to screen and make sure each signee is at least competent at the job he’s being hired to do. They’re not going to hire somebody and find out he can’t do what they need when he shows up to practice. If that does happen, they cut him and get someone else. They will overlook “bad” or “sloppy” fundamentals in a pinch if the guy can just somehow get the job done. Most of the mid-season acquisitions are there to fill out the bottom of the depth chart with special teamers, and if they see any action within a few days that’s where it is. Those guys have a couple of simple jobs for the most part while they *maybe* study the offense or defense they are technically a part of on paper. Occasionally, these players may be called upon to fill a *very* specific role in the scheme, like serving as a Dime defensive back, 3rd TE, or a 5th WR. The same idea still applies: limited role=less to know to be game ready, so they work. Sometimes you will see a situation where a big time player is traded a few weeks into the season or is signed after being cut for some reason. In that case, they will usually build a package around the guy and what he can do, giving him like 5-15 things he needs to know in specific situations where he is subbed in. The longer he is on the team; the more they expand his role as he learns things. Oh for sure on the technique On the assignments/scheme, I get that to some degree, but at the same time, there are calls, especially at the NFL level, that require all 11 guys to be on the same page and be up to speed on it, where you cant just partition the newcomer's assignment from the rest of the call, both pre and post snap, and make it simpler than everyone else's |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 19, 2022 13:52:59 GMT -6
Nobody gonna take a crack at this one lol? I genuinely would like to know the answer to this...I know this isnt super relevant to the HS game and that's what we heavily lean toward here on the board, but I am curious The NFL pays these guys a lot of money to already know their techniques. It’s expected. NFL players will often work with personal coaches and trainers to stay sharp and improve there (prime example: Tom Brady). The players are expected to invest in themselves to get (and keep) the big contracts, which is why “work ethic” is a huge deal at that level. Also, they do have scouting and private workouts/tryouts to screen and make sure each signee is at least competent at the job he’s being hired to do. They’re not going to hire somebody and find out he can’t do what they need when he shows up to practice. If that does happen, they cut him and get someone else. They will overlook “bad” or “sloppy” fundamentals in a pinch if the guy can just somehow get the job done. Most of the mid-season acquisitions are there to fill out the bottom of the depth chart with special teamers, and if they see any action within a few days that’s where it is. Those guys have a couple of simple jobs for the most part while they *maybe* study the offense or defense they are technically a part of on paper. Occasionally, these players may be called upon to fill a *very* specific role in the scheme, like serving as a Dime defensive back, 3rd TE, or a 5th WR. The same idea still applies: limited role=less to know to be game ready, so they work. Sometimes you will see a situation where a big time player is traded a few weeks into the season or is signed after being cut for some reason. In that case, they will usually build a package around the guy and what he can do, giving him like 5-15 things he needs to know in specific situations where he is subbed in. The longer he is on the team; the more they expand his role as he learns things. And, at that level do the techniques really differ much from team to team? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2022 14:34:03 GMT -6
Oh for sure on the technique On the assignments/scheme, I get that to some degree, but at the same time, there are calls, especially at the NFL level, that require all 11 guys to be on the same page and be up to speed on it, where you cant just partition the newcomer's assignment from the rest of the call, both pre and post snap, and make it simpler than everyone else's Yes, and those plays go on the QB's highlight reel if he's a DB or on the DL's reel if he's a RB or OL  Honestly, that's what often happens if he is actually forced to be on the field for offense or defense, which is why teams *really* try to avoid playing a guy they signed of the street that week by gameplan, though they will have him start learning a small portion of the playbook and expand from there. If it means they don't use a package they signed him for in his first week on the job or only use it very, very little, it's not the end of the world. Again, they are paying him a lot, but with no guarantees of continued salary. While they will give him a small package of football things to know, he will be expected to learn and know everything in that package that he'll see on Sunday. Hopefully they'll have a leader on the field to help keep him from screwing up too badly if he has a brain fart or gets lost. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2022 14:40:43 GMT -6
And, at that level do the techniques really differ much from team to team? At that level, does anything really differ much from team to team? The Baltimore Ravens are one of my favorite teams to watch just because they like to use heavier packages and run the ball, but there is really no major difference from what they do compared to any of the other NFL teams. |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 19, 2022 15:28:10 GMT -6
At that level, does anything really differ much from team to team? The Baltimore Ravens are one of my favorite teams to watch just because they like to use heavier packages and run the ball, but there is really no major difference from what they do compared to any of the other NFL teams. As former NFL player Bernard Pollard said, no big-time WRs want to play for Ravens because of Jackson-their scheme. Like trying to recruit 5-star pass catchers to a CFB team that runs option football as their base. |
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Jul 19, 2022 15:36:19 GMT -6
The NFL pays these guys a lot of money to already know their techniques. It’s expected. NFL players will often work with personal coaches and trainers to stay sharp and improve there (prime example: Tom Brady). The players are expected to invest in themselves to get (and keep) the big contracts, which is why “work ethic” is a huge deal at that level. Also, they do have scouting and private workouts/tryouts to screen and make sure each signee is at least competent at the job he’s being hired to do. They’re not going to hire somebody and find out he can’t do what they need when he shows up to practice. If that does happen, they cut him and get someone else. They will overlook “bad” or “sloppy” fundamentals in a pinch if the guy can just somehow get the job done. Most of the mid-season acquisitions are there to fill out the bottom of the depth chart with special teamers, and if they see any action within a few days that’s where it is. Those guys have a couple of simple jobs for the most part while they *maybe* study the offense or defense they are technically a part of on paper. Occasionally, these players may be called upon to fill a *very* specific role in the scheme, like serving as a Dime defensive back, 3rd TE, or a 5th WR. The same idea still applies: limited role=less to know to be game ready, so they work. Sometimes you will see a situation where a big time player is traded a few weeks into the season or is signed after being cut for some reason. In that case, they will usually build a package around the guy and what he can do, giving him like 5-15 things he needs to know in specific situations where he is subbed in. The longer he is on the team; the more they expand his role as he learns things. And, at that level do the techniques really differ much from team to team? Techniques maybe, but scheme? There's definitely some variety there, especially in the passing game (run game pretty much everyone is zone and power/counter). Have you ever seen a breakdown of the Patriots' offense? I don't think there's too many other teams in the NFL running the same offense as the Patriots. It's notoriously difficult for newcomers to the team to learn. Not to get all facemeltery on you...But: If you look at their offense, in terms of skill spot groups (all their WRs and RBs have to learn all 5 skill spots, so X, H, F, Y, and Z), formation sets (they move those spots around in different formation sets, and will carry up to 20 different 3x1 formation sets into a game), and 2 man, 3 man, and full field passing game concepts (with those concepts ran to the left and right). So for example on Stick Left out of 3x2, Edelman had to learn the routes of X, H, F, Y, and Z. And then the same on Stick Right. So that's 10 total routes he had to learn and rep (obviously some of those get recycled in Stick from 2x2 spread, 3x1 spread, etc), just on Stick Left and Stick Right. And they run it all, Shallow Cross, 2 Verts, Fade/Seam, 4 Verts, Hitch-Seam, Curl-Flat, 2 man Snag, 3 man Snag, 2 man Stick, 3 man Stick, 3 man Flood, 2 man Switch, Curl/Corner read, 2 man Levels, Slant-Flat, Fade-Out, Follow, Drive, Post-Dig, etc, and at least a few of those have option routes, conversions, etc. And, some of those plays are very expensive to get good at, and that's just with all your guys learning one spot. On top of that, they are having to learn those expensive plays from all 5 skill spots and with the plays to the left and right. |
|
|
|
Post by teachcoach on Aug 1, 2022 20:08:16 GMT -6
And, at that level do the techniques really differ much from team to team? Techniques maybe, but scheme? There's definitely some variety there, especially in the passing game (run game pretty much everyone is zone and power/counter). Have you ever seen a breakdown of the Patriots' offense? I don't think there's too many other teams in the NFL running the same offense as the Patriots. It's notoriously difficult for newcomers to the team to learn. Not to get all facemeltery on you...But: If you look at their offense, in terms of skill spot groups (all their WRs and RBs have to learn all 5 skill spots, so X, H, F, Y, and Z), formation sets (they move those spots around in different formation sets, and will carry up to 20 different 3x1 formation sets into a game), and 2 man, 3 man, and full field passing game concepts (with those concepts ran to the left and right). So for example on Stick Left out of 3x2, Edelman had to learn the routes of X, H, F, Y, and Z. And then the same on Stick Right. So that's 10 total routes he had to learn and rep (obviously some of those get recycled in Stick from 2x2 spread, 3x1 spread, etc), just on Stick Left and Stick Right. And they run it all, Shallow Cross, 2 Verts, Fade/Seam, 4 Verts, Hitch-Seam, Curl-Flat, 2 man Snag, 3 man Snag, 2 man Stick, 3 man Stick, 3 man Flood, 2 man Switch, Curl/Corner read, 2 man Levels, Slant-Flat, Fade-Out, Follow, Drive, Post-Dig, etc, and at least a few of those have option routes, conversions, etc. And, some of those plays are very expensive to get good at, and that's just with all your guys learning one spot. On top of that, they are having to learn those expensive plays from all 5 skill spots and with the plays to the left and right. |
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 1, 2022 20:46:01 GMT -6
Techniques maybe, but scheme? There's definitely some variety there, especially in the passing game (run game pretty much everyone is zone and power/counter). Have you ever seen a breakdown of the Patriots' offense? I don't think there's too many other teams in the NFL running the same offense as the Patriots. It's notoriously difficult for newcomers to the team to learn. Not to get all facemeltery on you...But: If you look at their offense, in terms of skill spot groups (all their WRs and RBs have to learn all 5 skill spots, so X, H, F, Y, and Z), formation sets (they move those spots around in different formation sets, and will carry up to 20 different 3x1 formation sets into a game), and 2 man, 3 man, and full field passing game concepts (with those concepts ran to the left and right). So for example on Stick Left out of 3x2, Edelman had to learn the routes of X, H, F, Y, and Z. And then the same on Stick Right. So that's 10 total routes he had to learn and rep (obviously some of those get recycled in Stick from 2x2 spread, 3x1 spread, etc), just on Stick Left and Stick Right. And they run it all, Shallow Cross, 2 Verts, Fade/Seam, 4 Verts, Hitch-Seam, Curl-Flat, 2 man Snag, 3 man Snag, 2 man Stick, 3 man Stick, 3 man Flood, 2 man Switch, Curl/Corner read, 2 man Levels, Slant-Flat, Fade-Out, Follow, Drive, Post-Dig, etc, and at least a few of those have option routes, conversions, etc. And, some of those plays are very expensive to get good at, and that's just with all your guys learning one spot. On top of that, they are having to learn those expensive plays from all 5 skill spots and with the plays to the left and right. Were you trying to post something, coach? Nothing showed up on our end other than just a quote of my post |
|
|
|
Post by tog on Aug 2, 2022 13:27:02 GMT -6
it has become all so much "my guy is better than yours" instead of sound
makes me sad
degradation of the game
|
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Aug 2, 2022 18:16:16 GMT -6
I had a conversation with a youth coach today, he didn't know I had coaching experience. He started telling me about how bad fundamentals were at the high school level, why they are bad, how they don't teach them to play right, etc.
This guy was basically just being a blowhard and figured he could hold court by talking about how much better he could do things than those perceived to be better.
It got me thinking, if a bunch of college coaches were to read all this, would they feel the same way?
|
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Aug 2, 2022 18:19:28 GMT -6
I had a conversation with a youth coach today, he didn't know I had coaching experience. He started telling me about how bad fundamentals were at the high school level, why they are bad, how they don't teach them to play right, etc. This guy was basically just being a blowhard and figured he could hold court by talking about how much better he could do things than those perceived to be better. It got me thinking, if a bunch of college coaches were to read all this, would they feel the same way? I'm sure they would. A majority of the college coaches I ran into were some of the most egotistical humans I've ever met. But, so were HS coaches. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Aug 3, 2022 6:05:47 GMT -6
I had a conversation with a youth coach today, he didn't know I had coaching experience. He started telling me about how bad fundamentals were at the high school level, why they are bad, how they don't teach them to play right, etc. This guy was basically just being a blowhard and figured he could hold court by talking about how much better he could do things than those perceived to be better. It got me thinking, if a bunch of college coaches were to read all this, would they feel the same way? Of course they would. It is called cherry picking data. A high school coach only needs to see bad fundamentals on one play a week to make this claim. The dudes playing are still human. Of course they aren't going to do it right every time. Side note: watch NBA shooters. Many have great technique. Some don't, but still can knock it down. Same with Major league baseball swings or pitchers. What is the fundamental and most effective way for most, is not necessarily what is best for all. I think this goes for everything. When it comes down to it, do you get the job done or not? If you do, you play. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Aug 3, 2022 6:24:06 GMT -6
I had a conversation with a youth coach today, he didn't know I had coaching experience. He started telling me about how bad fundamentals were at the high school level, why they are bad, how they don't teach them to play right, etc. This guy was basically just being a blowhard and figured he could hold court by talking about how much better he could do things than those perceived to be better. It got me thinking, if a bunch of college coaches were to read all this, would they feel the same way? Yes college guys would feel the same way. And truth be told- I bet the youth coach’s assertion was likely more accurate than this thread |
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Aug 3, 2022 8:39:03 GMT -6
When the college guy messes up its because he's not being coached correctly. When my guy messes up, well we've repped it a 1,000 times but he just won't listen  |
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Aug 3, 2022 14:16:47 GMT -6
Is there any chance that at least part of the answer is that playing football really well, and really fundamentally sound... is hard? It's hard to coach, hard to execute, even for major college/heavily recruited studs and for professionals? (Also, it's a sport where physical traits can sometimes compensate for poor/mediocre fundamentals, unlike, say, throwing darts or maybe even golf?)
I tend to think the fundamentals in the NFL are on the whole quite good -- though there can be clear markers between well coached teams/long term veterans, versus rookies and less well coached teams -- and similarly to college, though the different in fundamentals and technique between college and the pros is pretty stark, for very logical reasons (mostly experience/seasoning and time on task).
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Aug 3, 2022 18:30:08 GMT -6
Is there any chance that at least part of the answer is that playing football really well, and really fundamentally sound... is hard? It's hard to coach, hard to execute, even for major college/heavily recruited studs and for professionals? (Also, it's a sport where physical traits can sometimes compensate for poor/mediocre fundamentals, unlike, say, throwing darts or maybe even golf?) I tend to think the fundamentals in the NFL are on the whole quite good -- though there can be clear markers between well coached teams/long term veterans, versus rookies and less well coached teams -- and similarly to college, though the different in fundamentals and technique between college and the pros is pretty stark, for very logical reasons (mostly experience/seasoning and time on task). some of it sure but a lot I mean a lot of idiots came through my 5a TXHSB school to recruit and didn't know {censored} about anything there were some darn good ones though, darn good ones |
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 3, 2022 18:48:22 GMT -6
Is there any chance that at least part of the answer is that playing football really well, and really fundamentally sound... is hard? It's hard to coach, hard to execute, even for major college/heavily recruited studs and for professionals? (Also, it's a sport where physical traits can sometimes compensate for poor/mediocre fundamentals, unlike, say, throwing darts or maybe even golf?) I tend to think the fundamentals in the NFL are on the whole quite good -- though there can be clear markers between well coached teams/long term veterans, versus rookies and less well coached teams -- and similarly to college, though the different in fundamentals and technique between college and the pros is pretty stark, for very logical reasons (mostly experience/seasoning and time on task). some of it sure but a lot I mean a lot of idiots came through my 5a TXHSB school to recruit and didn't know {censored} about anything there were some darn good ones though, darn good ones Coach, I think what you talked about here may have been in the back of my mind when i made the OP. I have seen coaches over and over on here over the years talk about this, where dudes they were talking to did not know jackchit about anything, but they had their job because of their recruiting ability or because of "who they they know" (college coaching in particular is probably one of the worst professions in america when it comes to croynism, probably second only to politicians 😄) |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Aug 3, 2022 20:47:21 GMT -6
some of it sure but a lot I mean a lot of idiots came through my 5a TXHSB school to recruit and didn't know {censored} about anything there were some darn good ones though, darn good ones Coach, I think what you talked about here may have been in the back of my mind when i made the OP. I have seen coaches over and over on here over the years talk about this, where dudes they were talking to did not know jackchit about anything, but they had their job because of their recruiting ability or because of "who they they know" (college coaching in particular is probably one of the worst professions in america when it comes to croynism, probably second only to politicians 😄) I would say maybe second to coaching in the NFL. |
|
|
|
Post by veerwego on Sept 7, 2022 11:46:06 GMT -6
Somebody said earlier about the idea of simplifying your HS schemes to make sure your best players can understand what to do. Made me think of the old Texas story. Vince Young apparently was amazing during the spring game and Mac Brown comes in afterwards and is just raving about his talent and how good he is going to be. The offensive staff tries to let him down gently and let him know that Vince just doesn't have the mental capacity to run their offensive schemes and make the reads and checks etc. Coach Brown says well I have a solution for that: change your offense to one he can run or you are all fired. 2 years later they win the NC over USC.
Also, going fast can take care of a bunch of this. A few years ago we went to study some stuff at Clemson and Jeff Scott had pulled some film for us of things he said he would do if he went back to coaching HS. They did the same stuff out of the same formations and motions over and over again, many times per game. We asked him about this and he said that they play so fast it doesn't matter, the defense doesn't have enough time to recognize the formations and adjust. Unfortunately, they have gotten away from this.
|
|
