|
Post by brophy on Sept 1, 2014 19:27:55 GMT -6
how is it that we think that COACHES, if they are any good, have the ability to will a losing program into a winning top-flight program.....yet, whenever we question the effectiveness of STUDENT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE, we immediately cite parents and administrators as being the only thing that determines if a kid learns a subject or not?
I don't have a dog in this hunt and it is obvious that coaching the right things matters (primarily it is not doing the things that kill consistent performance), I just want to make sure that we don't go erecting any strawmen with a fanciful delusion of what coaching is.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 1, 2014 13:09:30 GMT -6
How much can the coach control? He can control what comes out for football and recruit kids that are enrolled.
If the talent at your school doesn't have close to better athletes than the norm for your district/conference, you're gonna have problems. If the school has a reputation for poor academics / security, families aren't going to invest in sending their kids to the program. If the school has poor facilities it will not help in convincing those on the fence of enrolling.
Lets just be clear (and realistic) about what we think a coach, administrator, a staff can control.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 29, 2014 11:43:52 GMT -6
How do kids have the ability/power to decide whether or not they give effort in practice? I don't think it's actually them deciding whether or not they give effort. I honestly believe they think they are giving a good effort all the time. Maybe not their best effort, but I think they think they are giving good effort. It's getting them to give more effort and eventually their max effort that is the plight of coaching. that's kind of the point, though. " Run your fastest" is different than " run 12 mph" If they are not running 12 mph, it is because we aren't setting the pace and holding them accountable immediately. If a kid is not hustling in practice, its because the coaches allow it. Whether it is practice or on the job, set the standard and expectations and push people to perform at that level and accept nothing less. If they don't, they need to be correctly there and now. If kids aren't busting ass in a drill, stop the drill, and punish the group until the standard is fully understood. If the kids aren't busting ass in TEAM, stop the team, and punish the TEAM until that expectation of effort is acknowledged.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 29, 2014 9:52:15 GMT -6
They come by it honestly really; from not being held accountable by youth coaches and middle school coaches. why does any of that matter, though? If we're setting the pace and expectations as coaches, they may not want to give effort or work hard, but if we are pushing the group and dictating how fast we will work and immediately correcting loafs in practice (not waiting until Friday night), what does it matter?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 29, 2014 9:24:34 GMT -6
How do kids have the ability/power to decide whether or not they give effort in practice?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 26, 2014 17:07:52 GMT -6
you don't need MEAN kids or demonstrative kids or loud-mouths or bullies
You just need kids who COMPETE and give complete effort every down.
Its really that simple
But then again, feel free to find any of the number of iterations of threads in the General sections labelled, "Toughness", "aggressiveness", "Competitiveness", etc
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 9, 2014 9:25:56 GMT -6
Post some film
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 3, 2014 9:49:19 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 29, 2014 17:45:20 GMT -6
Interesting stuff. Starting out, I got my endorsement from FYMF Alliance
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 23, 2014 8:19:30 GMT -6
I'm confused....
Why does the mom care about the kids football number? I'm sure he's got a ton of basketball scholarships to worry about after playing AAU, amirite?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 16, 2014 10:18:33 GMT -6
Is this really that different than the whole swearing issue? I would imagine we would get the same litany of excuses why we don't model this behavior.
Coaching and leadership requires a performance each practice (just like it did when we were players).
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 10, 2014 17:12:38 GMT -6
Fake it till ya make it....
The assistants should really be reinforcing attitude, triggers, and body language. Sure, we should discourage negative self defeating body language with cues ("hands off the knees!", "keep your heads up"), but also need to do a good job convincing them, much like the military reinforcing their themes of PT, killing, working, etc.
ITS A GOOD DAY TO GET BETTER!!!
Repeating positive themes that embrace more work can be mocked and seen as contrived by the kids, but repeat them over and over again.....and your kids won't be able to not repeat it (the same works with any hit pop song).
WE ARE THE HARDEST WORKING TEAM IN THE CITY!!!
Just throw enough Anthony Robbins at the kids to create a culture of aggressive positive thinking (repeat the positive phrase even if you're feeling negative)
Some of the best things I've encountered coaching is forcing kids to be demonstrative in their effort in a positive manner...play it up almost to the point where it almost becomes a joke...particularly when they are tired, at the end of practice. I don't mean rah-rah stuff, I'm talking encouraging their teammates and showing exceptional effort.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 1, 2014 17:59:02 GMT -6
^^^And for those of us that don't have that ability with the kids we coach? how is that possible? youth club?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 1, 2014 17:23:49 GMT -6
I want them to want it. I want to establish that culture.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 1, 2014 13:17:12 GMT -6
yeah, well SCREW YOU, buddy
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 1, 2014 0:19:48 GMT -6
at the places where we didn't script, it was primarily because 1) we never changed personnel 2) we never changed the call, regardless of D&D/scenario.
Being that those were the constants, scripting wouldn't have mattered much
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 30, 2014 17:22:30 GMT -6
scripting.....
OFFENSE session and DEFENSE session.
When it's offense time, you run your plays against what you expect the defense to counter with or to see if you can account for a particular pressure. Also, you're ingraining the situation you'll encounter.
When its defense time, you run your fronts/coverages against what the opponent runs in a given D&D. We would often have a play called in the script (#8 is '3 robber swat') but present a formation that we had an automatic check to, just to make sure the kids account for it.
The whole point of scripting is 1) indoctrinate your players to understand the situation (down, distance, hash, personnel) they'll encounter 2) test your kids against the likely scenario 3) challenge your kids against the worst scenario
The benefit of scripting is it keeps your coaches focused and you aren't out there all day with a "lets run that one more time, coach". You obviously don't tell the kids what the other side of the ball is running (duh). I also liked to include personnel for each rep so you can track how much PT your kids are getting (and don't forget about them).
Unfortunately, the last few stops I've been at, we just kinda rolled the ball out there.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 22, 2014 16:49:02 GMT -6
rule #1 - do it right rule #2 - do it better than everyone else
sounds simple, but rule #1 is a killer
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 26, 2014 12:08:53 GMT -6
great, but for anyone to take notice I really need to support this position with a compelling argument to get everyone to pay attention. Pay attention of to what though? That is what I think the issue here is. thats what I'm asking Ted to support....
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 26, 2014 11:26:13 GMT -6
That is the point brophy . I don't think Ted's "football statement" really needs any support. Does ANYONE on this board think that counters, bootlegs, or play action are not valuable plays in football? I assumed Ted had some deeper meaning behind his analogy. His Wild Bunch document is a good read for any young coach to better understand how its all supposed to work. The analogy in this thread either needs more support or was entirely too simple. I could make a comparison that football shares many maxims of cellular evolution, Agile Scrum, or gourmet baking.....great, but for anyone to take notice I really need to support this position with a compelling argument to get everyone to pay attention. We've wasted entirely too much time on the throwaway comment (mouth-breather 'hit somebody' non sequitur). Lets move on / get over it
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 26, 2014 4:39:01 GMT -6
this thread really took off on a tangent.....Ted, perhaps if you could support your position with much more substance/examples (another blog post), folks might be equipped to move past the labels. Right now there isn't much to go off of.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 22, 2014 15:25:38 GMT -6
the challenge here is that we're trying to 'get out of their way' but the problem is....these kids DON'T know the way and they don't understand what they are capable of, so we have to push past to limits they would have imposed on themselves.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 22, 2014 8:36:26 GMT -6
I wonder if that's the same thing he told the L'ville team when he took that job? Strong did it his way then, they won, and he's doing it his way now. They will win. the article was about his Louisville team. He was talking about Kragthorpe.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 21, 2014 10:51:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 15, 2014 11:08:00 GMT -6
to Ted's point, he's specifically talking about Edward Luttwak's "paradoxical logic" I suppose, this Sun Tzu-esque framework, is what he's trying to apply to football (not necessarily the war analogy). That being said, I can't make heads or tails of the content (Luttwak).....sounds like a lot of general ideas that are the result of what we're already doing. I struggle to see how we'd read it, then find some maxim to apply that changes how we do things.... but I suppose that is what Ted is going to explain in future posts?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 14, 2014 7:04:12 GMT -6
this should be interesting. Ted Seay is an active mind and his previous works can stimulate a lot of deeper reflection.
I know the whole war analogy with football is common and convenient for most. I wonder whether or not its valid,though, because after you take more than a passing glance at the two and dig just a bit deeper, in my mind, the similarities fall apart because other than the classical military doctrine of engage/avoid, they don't share much in common, particularly in this day in age.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 13, 2014 16:24:04 GMT -6
much respect for your dedication and great outline for everyone. Just a footnote, though.....you're under 30 and have no kids For the demographic we're really talking about (HS coaches), it makes a BIG difference The key will be a nutrition plan/prep for most everyone because it usually means early mornings and late evenings, unless you have an athletic period and even then, running around the field for 2 hours may seem like 'exercise', but all I've found it does is just wear me down before my evening workout where it is the intensity counts (not duration). So, essentially, you kinda have to get a short weight session in when you wake up and then burn down at the end of practice with some cardio (45 min).
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 13, 2014 6:23:48 GMT -6
obligatory
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 12, 2014 11:01:47 GMT -6
The problem isn't that "our side" is wrong. It's that the "other side" has better writers. It doesn't take freaking Mickey Spillane to simply stay on topic. For what its worth, that debate was a circus. Gladwell was all over the place, too and spent most of his time arguing for NCAA unionization rather than brain trauma Our position is discounted, our credibility is shot, our parents distrust us, our players resent us when we selfishly lie. There is a TON of data to support that football is a great sport that benefits everyone that gets involved with it. That has zero bearing on how the body deals with trauma. We kind of had these discussions as representatives of the game 20-30 years ago, when we were facing a rash of ligament injuries (mainly knee), so maybe that is why some of these talking points are so convenient, because we've used them before. Football (physical) injuries can be argued/justified based on the value of the sport. "Sure, you may get injured and may face pain.....but it is the process that creates the value, that makes that risk worth it in the end". That doesn't hold sway when we are in the discovery phase of an issue. We're trying to identify if brain injuries cause irreparable damage. Discounting the hypothesis before all the evidence has come in, only hurts our position. Misstating our position for the sake of misguiding the discussion is only hurts us in the end.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 12, 2014 10:14:33 GMT -6
The points that I saw in the book, all of which I agree with include: 1. Professional football does indeed entail long term health risks BUT that the media has overblown them to give the popular impression that almost everybody who plays will be either a mental basket case or dead by 60. 2. Despite the lack of evidence that football below the professional level entails the same long term health risks as professional football, the media has left the impression that it does, and has frightened many people away from the game despite the fact that youth football has never been safer 3. That the toughness and self-discipline of football are important because they help boys grown into men. 4. That today's society has become overprotective, which is why the media attacks of football have become so widespread. 150% agreement on all those points. And 0% actually address ANY facet of the concern du jour of CTE/brain trauma, which is why our job as ambassadors of the game need to honestly focus on the true issue/argument. In the other thread on this, there was a "debate" between Whitlock/Tim Ryan vs Gladwell, where football supporters did the exact same thing. Its like arguing that smoking feels good therefore the scientific studies that show it contributes to lung cancer is invalid.
|
|