|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 15, 2024 15:23:48 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.
|
|
|
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 bobgoodman on Feb 15, 2024 19:59:15 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!
|
|
|
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 rsmith627 on Feb 16, 2024 5:32:33 GMT -6
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. 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. This is what I was picturing precisely. Also it's bizarre to come in to solicit opinions, be told by several people that this might not be the best idea, and triple down and say you're doing it anyway. It's fine if you're hell bent on doing it, but why solicit opinions then?
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Feb 16, 2024 12:05:17 GMT -6
Bob, your stated objective is to use this system to impress the league leadership into giving you a head coaching job. I don't think that'll happen. I think that they'll see your system as far too complicated for kids who, after all, only want to have fun playing football. They don't need more homework.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 16, 2024 13:17:52 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.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 16, 2024 13:34:21 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. Ok, Has to be said. What in the ever loving F are you talking about it?
|
|
|
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 silkyice on Feb 16, 2024 20:10:36 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. Run 21 trap. Have 21 trap pass. Hell, even have the OP play (call it something different). But only have about 4-6 more plays. At most. (Due to coaching 10 year olds). Only what you can rep and rep and rep successfully at practice. And when you get to game 4 and are having success and truly execute your base plays, maybe add a tag the next week in practice. If you go with that, do me one favor. For real. Name the long named play "CoachHuey". And when it scores, please, please post it on here. I promise that I will be wildly happy when this happens for you and your kids. When we add plays during the season for a special reason we almost never call them by what our system would call them. They literally get named something weird like "Baha Blast" or "Tangerine". Our standard go to is to name it after our opponent's school name or mascot. Springville is still the name of our reverse flea flicker because 40 years ago some coach ran it against Springville. We scored in the state championship game on a trick play (uncovered an eligible tackle) named "Kingwood" because I saw a team named Kingwood run it and stole it from them 10 years ago. How we lined up, shifted, the play, the cadence, etc, was all just called Kingwood. It would have been an 18 word name otherwise. And we practiced it every week for 16 weeks to run it at just the right moment.
|
|
|
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 silkyice on Feb 16, 2024 20:57:45 GMT -6
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. Agree. I guess what I was saying that his terminology is fine. Nothing wrong with 21 trap. And 21 trap pass.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 17, 2024 11:04:52 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.
|
|
|
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 bobgoodman on Feb 17, 2024 11:29:56 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. Oh, pshaw. I wasn't intimidated, I grasped the concepts just fine, and they all made sense. 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. The "on" side was coded by color -- Red or bLue -- but there was an exception, and some other details I've forgotten. What I thought was wrong overall was having both twin-twins and trips setups, given that our completion percentage wasn't that high. Under previous HC Adam we had trips as our only spread package, which I thought was appropriate for how useful overall our passing attack was. My experience with kids back in the Bronx has been that trips is OK because one of the trio you don't expect to catch passes but the opponent doesn't know that, but with twins to both sides, you can't hide the non-threat easily.
|
|
|
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 bobgoodman on Feb 17, 2024 12:26:52 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.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 17, 2024 12:38:27 GMT -6
Bob,
They are 10
Have an inside play. Off tackle play. Outside play. Have a counter.
Be able to throw deep when they aren't covering back there. Be able to just throw in the flats somehow because that is probably easy money if you can consistently throw and catch it.
That is 6 plays x 2 if you do them both directions so 12 plays. That might be too much!!
Get the ball to your best player. Get the ball to your fastest player. If they are the same player, get him the ball A LOT!
Don't do things that beat you. Like not lining up right. Like jumping offsides. Like being confused. Like missing assignments.
By game 4, if you are able to execute those 12 and you want, tag one of those plays.
|
|
|
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 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 21:30:45 GMT -6
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! It doesn't surprise me at all Bob- as your stories have revealed that you have been apart of several subpar, disjointed and disorganized youth football enterprises. You clearly aren't unintelligent, and your education and work background have probably honed some deductive reasoning skills. Unfortunately, you don't seem to see that you are attempting to do the same thing. However, since you are the "creator" the unnecessary complexity and pitfalls don't seem apparent. No I do not think it is a good idea to plan for this day 1 install. What is wirse in my opinion is that the foundational idea you seem to have is to implement a system to have multiple ways to attack the same hole. It seems for example that your thought process is “I want a way for the “A” back or “2 back” or whatever to attack the A gap with a straight dive, a trap, and maybe even an influence block. But I will also want the “B” back (or 3 back whatever ) to be able to do the same things. And sometimes I will want to do this with this type of presnap motion. And sometimes I will want to use a different pre snap motion. And sometimes I will want the QB handing the back the ball, but sometimes I will want to deceptively have the center direct snap to the back while the QB gives a false key. Now for the B gap…. As I have mentioned multiple times, I don't know what your offense is "supposed" to look like. Some google searches have come up with your name on forums showing a sidesaddle single wing style offense, but I know you have consistently said you want to run the sidesaddle T. I have also come across some footage of Ron Jaworski at Youngstown running his sidesaddle offense (a youtube video fairly certain you have seen after reading through comments) Since it focuses on Jaws, not much of the intracies of the offense are highlight there either. So, what are you trying to accomplish? Obviously you want to use the Sidesaddle position as a deceptive tool, much like snapping to the upback in the single wing. Please explain how you are looking to attack the defense? What is the offense going to look like? So yet another example of an experience you have been a part of that seems to be very subpar. There is a reason why "coaching trees" are a thing. I would say most likely YES!! TOO MUCH, in totality. You keep looking at things compartmentalized. Again, I have taught over 10,000 students around this age, and I am telling you that just because to you it seems like cheap tricks with rewards, it is absolutely going to just be a net negative. One of if not THE biggest struggle kids that age have is multi-step processes, and decoding what inputs are needed and which aren't. Put a sentence or two of absolutely irrelevant and extraneous information into a straightforward word problem and the % correct will plummet. Create a multi step problem where 5th graders needs one computation to build into another and watch the misery ensue. I absolutely understand your point of view. In fact I am going through something similar on my end, having come out of "semi retirement" to help out at a Jr. High. After having spent the last 2 somewhat unsuccessful seasons helping run the DTDW with a very knowledgeable DTDW coach who isn't returning, I am kicking around different ideas if I choose to return. There is DEFINITELY a danger of trying to chase some ghosts, and thinking "oh, but if I do this...then I can ... and if I do THAT...than I can...etc. etc." But when we come back to reality, here is the deal- If the kids block better and get off blocks better then it really doesn't matter. So what are you trying to accomplish?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 18, 2024 9:13:43 GMT -6
Rather than quoting so much stuff, maybe I should start the story over and explain more about the circumstances. 2023 was a tough one for us. Tim hadn't coached football since his mid-season stroke (which he suffered at an unusually young age) in 2021. However, our 2022 HC (whose ideas were more in line with mine) had retired as his son graduated into high school, and we were able to put a "Varsity" division team together using an unusually large proportion who were either rookies or hadn't played in a few years. I had wanted to be HC that year, but I'd just had an atrial ablation procedure from which recovery took a long time, so I couldn't commit to coaching until the last minute, when the team and most of the rest of the staff had been formed.
Tim last said he planned to go down a couple of years in age to coach another son of his.
I've been frustrated over the years with practice sessions I've thought were inefficient and boring. But it seems everyone's afraid to break out of the mold of warm-up run, stretching, general agility drills, sprints, and oh, yeah, somewhere in there some football skills. Plus too much time with some things and not enough with others. So I'd like to be a HC to fix that with at least a team.
For offense systems for kids, I like both single wing and wing T. Sidesaddle T is a ready-made combination of both, but I wouldn't expect to install it here. I want to meet them at least halfway by looking mostly like the wing T program they've been, but not with the attitude of "because that's how they do it at the high school -- including shotgun packages now". So no tight line splits as in sidesaddle T, no wedge blocking, and no sidesaddle quarterback. But instead of shotgun, have some plays snapped thru the QB's legs, and pick a QB largely for his blocking ability, and either a HB or FB -- preferably the HB -- for his passing.
I wouldn't half-ass jet series the way they've been doing, and I'd add rocket as well. Either of these might wind up getting pruned away with experience, but I want to teach the kids how to hook the end. I want to teach multiple blocking tools.
On defense I want to introduce stripping the ball as an almost equal object to stopping the runner. I want to practice not only recovery, but scoop-and-score. Last season we got away from the various block-beating tools we used to teach. I want our kickoff receiving teams to actually play football instead of just being glad to recover it -- and sometimes failing at that.
A few seasons ago I saw our players start to get bored with practice halfway thru the season. I don't want to see even a hint of that again.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 18, 2024 12:04:49 GMT -6
Rather than quoting so much stuff, maybe I should start the story over and explain more about the circumstances. 2023 was a tough one for us. Tim hadn't coached football since his mid-season stroke (which he suffered at an unusually young age) in 2021. However, our 2022 HC (whose ideas were more in line with mine) had retired as his son graduated into high school, and we were able to put a "Varsity" division team together using an unusually large proportion who were either rookies or hadn't played in a few years. I had wanted to be HC that year, but I'd just had an atrial ablation procedure from which recovery took a long time, so I couldn't commit to coaching until the last minute, when the team and most of the rest of the staff had been formed. Tim last said he planned to go down a couple of years in age to coach another son of his. I don't see what this has to do with any of the discussion. Are you trying to provide context you feel explains the o-fer season? This seems sensible. I believe THIS is where you should be spending your time right now. What is your practice plan template? Have this down to the minute, including transition times, water breaks, etc. What skills will you teach? What will the scope and sequence of your instruction be? How will you teach the skills? What EXACTLY will the drills look like, meaning where will people be, what will everyone be doing (other coaches, kids, etc). Who will be doing the instruction? What are the key cues necessary? How do you plan to coach the coaches? Do you plan on demonstrating to the whole group? How will you ensure that the kids get reps against the most equivalent competition? How many reps do you feel will be necessary- How long will that take based on the other answers you have given here etc. etc. ? Last things first, I think that plan for 10 year olds on a team you have never led (you have never led any team have you) is likely trying to be cute for the sake of trying to be cute. So you want to be Wing T? Perfect. Pick a Series BUCK-- Bucksweep, Trap, Waggle, Crisscross (WB trap/counter) OR (not and) Belly - Belly weak/strong, HB Counter, Belly Keep/Pass - and I would probably add in Rocket OR Jet to this. On both passes, have 1 deep route 1 short route. Progression is deep, short, run. Add a simple drop back pass and QB Sneak. It will take you much longer than you think to actually get proficient at these. If your kids down block well, kickout well, protect the football- your offense will be fine. On defense rep "get off" and pad level, Violent contact (either forearm or hands), attacking down hill and maintaining leverage. Tackling. You will be fine.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 19, 2024 6:29:07 GMT -6
Rather than quoting so much stuff, maybe I should start the story over and explain more about the circumstances. 2023 was a tough one for us. Tim hadn't coached football since his mid-season stroke (which he suffered at an unusually young age) in 2021. However, our 2022 HC (whose ideas were more in line with mine) had retired as his son graduated into high school, and we were able to put a "Varsity" division team together using an unusually large proportion who were either rookies or hadn't played in a few years. I had wanted to be HC that year, but I'd just had an atrial ablation procedure from which recovery took a long time, so I couldn't commit to coaching until the last minute, when the team and most of the rest of the staff had been formed. Tim last said he planned to go down a couple of years in age to coach another son of his. I don't see what this has to do with any of the discussion. Are you trying to provide context you feel explains the o-fer season? No, trying to provide context for why I've made this decision now. Indeed that's what I was working on next in my top-down outline. First the plays, then the skills needed for them, then the drills to teach them, then a Gantt chart from which I'd derive a practice schedule. Over the time I've coached, only in a few seasons have I been provided with weekly practice plans, and some of those plans were "a joke". In a few cases there was a plan that was supposed to be used club-wide, but if anything that only got in our way or confused matters. When team HCs have provided plans, they've been about 50-50 as to whether they were useful or just scrap paper.
|
|
CoachDP
Sophomore Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by CoachDP on Feb 22, 2024 0:16:13 GMT -6
We tag:
The Formation (IF it's something other than our base). Motion and motion-type (IF we're using it). If the QB tosses the ball. The ball-carrier and the "running hole." Who is pulling. The blocking adjustment (if we use one on that play).
So for "Power Right," our call could be as short as: "36 Larry." Or as long as: "Flex Lee Orbit 36-Toss Larry GaTE Switch." Our most common verbal description is found somewhere in the middle, as: "Lee 36-Toss Larry."
We use identical play-calling with youth as we do with high-school. Certainly, we go deeper into the description tags at the high school level because we have access to our players and can teach them year-round, generally have them for more than one year, and our opposition scouts us more thoroughly.
--Dave
|
|
|
Post by 44special on Apr 7, 2024 7:35:45 GMT -6
Picking the longest I could construct for this system: Flip, guards over, and ends over are formation calls: Flip: Mirror the formation left-right. Everyone flips. The opposite of "flip" is no tag. Guards over: The pulling guard (there's only one, keeps 2-point stance) plays inside the other guard on the same side. No tag means the line's balanced. No "tackles over" tag. Ends over: The tight and split ends trade. I just thought "over" could be said a little faster than "trade" in a signal call even though it's an extra syllable.
Rocket is a motion call. It sends the tailback into rocket motion to the strong side. There'll be "fly" and "blimp" calls for the wingback. Maybe "glider" for the quarterback. The "r" and "l" in the words mean "right" and "left" respectively, but just the opposite if "flip" is on. We expect to flip only a minority of the time.
Direct tells the center to snap between the quarterback's legs.
20 series mostly tells the quarterback, fullback, and tailback what to do. It's an extension of the wing T 20 series. However, with "direct" the quarterback isn't going to be taking his usual steps, though the fullback does, and "rocket" is already telling the tailback what to do.
1 is where the play is going -- the point of attack. The hole numbers flip with the players left/right.
Trap tells the pulling guard what to do. In this case it's "trap the opponent past the 1 hole", which really means the guard is the outside blocker on a sweep. We'll call any pull-and-out block a "trap". If the POA is from 2 thru 8, it's telling the other linemen to block down or away from the play direction.
Pass tells ineligible receivers not to go downfield. This tag will be the way of calling play-action passes, but there'll also be a "pass" series that'll mostly be about the routes.
One is the snap count, calling out that actual word. The cadence will be, "Ready, set, go, one, two, three...." "Go" starts the motion. We can snap on anything but "ready"; if we snap on "set", the whole line will be in 2-point, otherwise the line except the pulling guard will be 3-point. If we snap on "go" of course there's no motion.
All this may be preceded by a personnel tag, though that'll be called first and in advance of the actual play call, so nobody will have to keep it in mind once the right players are on the field.
The advantage of the long play call is that the players don't have to memorize much once the play starts. They'll have blocking rules, and they should line up knowing what to do without having to remember a list of plays. The disadvantage is that whoever gets the signal and relays in the play in the huddle is going to have to remember this long list of words during that interval. Keep in mind that most play calls will be shorter, like "24 on go".
I've thought about adding an overall description at the end of the call, but I don't want to have a redundant name like that for every play.
haven't really read all the replies to the original question, but- i figure i'm probably about the same mentality now as a 10 year old, so -yes. it's too long.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Apr 7, 2024 9:35:59 GMT -6
Picking the longest I could construct for this system: Flip, guards over, and ends over are formation calls: Flip: Mirror the formation left-right. Everyone flips. The opposite of "flip" is no tag. Guards over: The pulling guard (there's only one, keeps 2-point stance) plays inside the other guard on the same side. No tag means the line's balanced. No "tackles over" tag. Ends over: The tight and split ends trade. I just thought "over" could be said a little faster than "trade" in a signal call even though it's an extra syllable.
Rocket is a motion call. It sends the tailback into rocket motion to the strong side. There'll be "fly" and "blimp" calls for the wingback. Maybe "glider" for the quarterback. The "r" and "l" in the words mean "right" and "left" respectively, but just the opposite if "flip" is on. We expect to flip only a minority of the time.
Direct tells the center to snap between the quarterback's legs.
20 series mostly tells the quarterback, fullback, and tailback what to do. It's an extension of the wing T 20 series. However, with "direct" the quarterback isn't going to be taking his usual steps, though the fullback does, and "rocket" is already telling the tailback what to do.
1 is where the play is going -- the point of attack. The hole numbers flip with the players left/right.
Trap tells the pulling guard what to do. In this case it's "trap the opponent past the 1 hole", which really means the guard is the outside blocker on a sweep. We'll call any pull-and-out block a "trap". If the POA is from 2 thru 8, it's telling the other linemen to block down or away from the play direction.
Pass tells ineligible receivers not to go downfield. This tag will be the way of calling play-action passes, but there'll also be a "pass" series that'll mostly be about the routes.
One is the snap count, calling out that actual word. The cadence will be, "Ready, set, go, one, two, three...." "Go" starts the motion. We can snap on anything but "ready"; if we snap on "set", the whole line will be in 2-point, otherwise the line except the pulling guard will be 3-point. If we snap on "go" of course there's no motion.
All this may be preceded by a personnel tag, though that'll be called first and in advance of the actual play call, so nobody will have to keep it in mind once the right players are on the field.
The advantage of the long play call is that the players don't have to memorize much once the play starts. They'll have blocking rules, and they should line up knowing what to do without having to remember a list of plays. The disadvantage is that whoever gets the signal and relays in the play in the huddle is going to have to remember this long list of words during that interval. Keep in mind that most play calls will be shorter, like "24 on go".
I've thought about adding an overall description at the end of the call, but I don't want to have a redundant name like that for every play.
haven't really read all the replies to the original question, but- i figure i'm probably about the same mentality now as a 10 year old, so -yes. it's too long. What's the maximum number it should ever be? I already decided to ditch "ends over" and "guard over" for just plain "over" to mean both.
|
|
|
Post by 44special on Apr 7, 2024 14:35:28 GMT -6
hard to answer that.
first of all, i know nothing about youth football, and i never coached 10 year olds. second, i don't know your offense, formations, etc... figuring out good ways to simplify it would require some familiarity. what could work in one system might not help in another system.
looks like you already figured out one way to shorten it. i would say, keep thinking of other possible ways.
one of the problems i see might be eliminated simply because of my unfamiliarity with youth football. do you send the plays in? does the qb have to call it?
or is the coach in the huddle at this level to call the play? having a qb that can handle repeating that call at that age, and kids that could take the play in to relay the play call without screwing it up would be pretty unusual, i would think. it needs to be something they can easily remember and repeat. our jh kids at any school i coached at could not have done that. our hs kids couldn't either.
i would think - formation, (tag if needed), play (tag if needed), snap count. and the formation and play tags would not be all that frequent. so usually, the call would be formation, play, snap count. unless you just planned on using a particular formation or play tag a lot for that particular opponent that week, to take advantage of something they do. and that may be what you're doing. again, those are things i don't know.
and, just my opinion - if you have all that in your offense, it sounds to me like way too much offense for that age. i would suggest throwing a lot of it out. again, that's just me. i operate on the kiss principle.
also, keep this in mind- my earlier reply was mostly just me being a smartass and poking fun at myself, because i'm retired and bored. you may have a lot better suggestions in all the other replies, but i couldn't stay awake reading thru all of them.
but you almost never go wrong going the simple route. regardless of the level you're coaching
|
|
|
Post by rsmith627 on Apr 7, 2024 14:37:06 GMT -6
hard to answer that. first of all, i know nothing about youth football, and i never coached 10 year olds. second, i don't know your offense, formations, etc... figuring out good ways to simplify it would require some familiarity. what could work in one system might not help in another system. looks like you already figured out one way to shorten it. i would say, keep thinking of other possible ways. one of the problems i see might be eliminated simply because of my unfamiliarity with youth football. do you send the plays in? does the qb have to call it? or is the coach in the huddle at this level to call the play? having a qb that can handle repeating that call at that age, and kids that could take the play in to relay the play call without screwing it up would be pretty unusual, i would think. it needs to be something they can easily remember and repeat. our jh kids at any school i coached at could not have done that. not sure our hs kids could have. i would think - formation, (tag if needed), play (tag if needed), snap count. and the formation and play tags would not be all that frequent. so usually, the call would be formation, play, snap count. unless you just planned on using a particular formation or play tag a lot for that particular opponent that week, to take advantage of something they do. and that may be what you're doing. again, those are things i don't know. and, just my opinion - if you have all that in your offense, it sounds to me like way too much offense for that age. i would suggest throwing a lot of it out. again, that's just me. i operate on the kiss principle. also, keep this in mind- my earlier reply was mostly just me being a smartass and poking fun at myself, because i'm retired and bored. you may have a lot better suggestions in all the other replies, but i couldn't stay awake reading thru all of them. but you almost never go wrong going the simple route. regardless of the level you're coaching He’s just gonna argue with you and do it his way. Doesn’t really matter that your points are good.
|
|
|
Post by 44special on Apr 7, 2024 15:32:57 GMT -6
could be. but i'm bored.
|
|