|
Post by brophy on Sept 10, 2012 19:50:44 GMT -6
As far as game breakdowns, doesn't ESPN website do this already, where you can get play-by-play breakdowns of all those categories you mentioned (that way you don't have to do the hard work)? Here is a template....its geared for HS/NCAA hashes, but you can move them docs.google.com/open?id=0B3p5wkumv513eXBCM2lETTZfZU0F-all that noise of drawing by hand!!!! If you can make a template and print it out, you may as well use that same template and create the plays in the same manner.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 9, 2012 19:31:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 30, 2012 6:34:14 GMT -6
if a player doesn't follow instruction (the game plan / responsibility) how is he getting any playing time?
I've seen guys that who are both mentally and physically limited and (it seems) no matter how many drills you do with them and explain their assignment, they just never build up enough of a competency to warrant EVER seeing the field. Those guys you have to help them orient themselves to a different supporting roles (usually kids out to just be a part of something).
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 28, 2012 18:54:09 GMT -6
board sub-sections make sense, but only serve to add a layer of unnecessary complexity and impede a flowing discussion. I see boards that are broken up with 3-5, 3-4, 4-3, 4-2, 5-3 sub boards in defense that GET NOWHERE because football isn't that neat and precise. Huey's was designed with that in mind because so much intertwines.
Just a thought, but if you're coaching / teaching all the time and are in the business of telling kids what to do without question ("you'd better not question why I told you to do this....") when do you develop a need to justify what you're doing? Also, is there so much of a dynamic where coaching is tied to your teaching position that there is a business hierarchy that is never challenged (the coordinator can fire the assistants or politically make their teaching gig miserable)?
My point is, if you don't have someone on staff that is challenging you and breaking you down and forcing you to justify it on the napkin....then why wouldn't you know better?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 27, 2012 19:58:42 GMT -6
by no means do I think any of us want to discourage posting (and I'm certain that isn't deuce's point), but I think what deuce is getting at is that some of the questions come off as lazy like the person hasn't filtered their thoughts before hitting "post" (did you really stop and think that through before you posted that?). The one thing that baffles me, personally, is some of the basic questions that are coming from guys who hold a COORDINATOR title.....I'm floored at how guys get these gigs without having been through some kind of crucible where they would've galvanized the what-fors BEFORE getting the gig.
There is also the issue that we're all travelling at different speeds and are at different levels. Not good or bad, its just the way it is. Some of the best stuff happens when the guys with high post counts just stop posting/responding. Let other coaches have a run, give the board a different flavor. Its okay to not respond to every thread. If there is one thing this board will hold as gospel, is that no one coach is greater than the rest and that one person's opinion shouldn't be seen as the Truth outside of the merits it's logic is based on.
Folks, keep posting, keep digging deeper - lets let this thing grow
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 27, 2012 19:21:40 GMT -6
just throwing this out there.... but how much (probably not much) of the really germane / silly questions could be discouraged/answered with the whiteboard function? I'm not suggesting it as 'the answer', but I think guys early on learned (and had to be prepared to think on their toes) when stuff when you entered the whiteboard
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 26, 2012 10:54:45 GMT -6
not 100% effort during a play. If you watch film and a player isn't sprinting to the action.........its a loaf
WHOLE unit pays when one guy loafs (particularly if you have depth). There is a speed in which the game must be played and the kids have to be held to that standard because it isn't natural.
If a kid is loafing in a game....its the coach that really needs to pay because if a kid has more than 3 loafs in a game, that kid shouldn't be playing / starting
The challenge is when you have studs that are going to play and never really come out and, technically, they don't have to effort as hard on a play. You can't fire them, you depend on them to perform at "their level", but you have to hold them to a higher standard and leadership.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 25, 2012 8:20:54 GMT -6
i dunno, maybe it has more to do with personnel, silkyrice
I get where you're coming from and understand your argument, but I've seen quite a few 2x2 gun teams running QB lead over and again and gash defenses successively. The same is true with speed option and verticals
is 'imposing our will' only a matter of the run game / Oline play?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 23, 2012 7:06:09 GMT -6
is there a defense that can't? It would seem this is why defenses exist i suppose....but thats just nickel. If you use a linebacker/DL differently do you have a new defense? Put the best 11 on defense and you can call it whatever you want (particularly in HS) this is rhetoric. What OJW is saying is that you dont have to be passive and you can package looks/pressures to pressure an offense. Thats just aggressive defense and you can do it in any 'scheme'
There isnt much of a foundation in those statements to declare nickel as the truth....its just a necessity in today's game. These would be true statements if we view defense as a boilerplate template that is run with no real thought to what you're defending (and there are guys that do that). If you see defense in terms of "we're an 'Under' team" or "we're a 3-3 team" then the nickel application DOES appear to be the most versatile and adaptable.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 21, 2012 2:04:14 GMT -6
The problems that would create the solutions had yet to come around. I disagree; a stacked box selling out to stop the run is a problem. Stacked boxes selling out to stop the run were a common feature of defenses 40 years ago because most offenses ran the ball. eh....he was referring to the fact that for nickel to commonplace, there needed to be an offensive 'problem' to adjust to (i.e. one back gun/no TE). The defensive front only exists to match the offensive run strength (formation). As a point of clarity, the main pushback you're getting throughout this thread ultimately is.the result of making a handful of unsupported assertions in the OP. You have to make a legitimate case (supporting argument) to claim that both playbook flavors represent the bleeding edge of evolved football. The 'personnel' line is a no-true-scotsman throwaway argument.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 17, 2012 10:50:15 GMT -6
Why not skip all those years of development, especially with GP's defense? I do understand that it does not work that way, but I just don't see coaches were not doing this kind of stuff 30, 40 years ago. Not to be glib but you're really not.thinking this all the way through WHAT (coverage,front,packaging) do you see Patterson doing on defense that is so different? I can assure you teams have been doing WHAT that defense does for decades. If you're concerned about nickel (full time personnel), look up Barry Alvarez when he was working for Lou Holtz in the 80s You're effectively asking "the 2012 Cadillac CTS uses the same technology that existed since 1963. Why didnt they create it sooner?" As far as tempo goes, why havent all basketball teams run fast-break since the 90s?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 15, 2012 2:57:13 GMT -6
The OP here is basing so much of this off a flawed premise that does not factor in why air raid and nickel evolved to their current form from the 90s. Neither exist in a vaccuum, both are a response born out of decades of trial and error AGAINST other factors.
Take a deep breath and water down some of that kool aid
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 11, 2012 3:23:24 GMT -6
not to dogpile, but all these complaints sound self-inflicted.
You don't have the numbers? What did you guys do to prevent it? Did y'all make the effort to visit their games as 7th and 8th graders the past few seasons? Did you visit with their PE teacher in the spring of last year? Waiting for kids to come to you seems like a recipe for heartbreak.
Don't have the athletes and no "football players"? Get to work - Make them. Teach these kids how to play for each other and build them up. It isn't about YOU and YOUR RECORD, its about giving the kids who want to play football (the guys you have now) the tools and confidence to compete.
You may not have the BEST athletes, but you can still have the best TEAM. It doesn't help the scoreboard, but as a coach, I'd rather have a group of kids who will learn and improve than a bunch of guys that just roll the ball out for the annual studs to do what they want with it.
You're out-gunned? Yeah, well, we've all been there and losing sucks, but if you're resigned to losing the season already it sounds like you've given up. Maybe you ought to put all your chips on the table and go all-in with the kids you have and find the "WINS" each play at a time.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 1, 2012 21:02:18 GMT -6
Good to be back ya'll. I am crawling out of my hole again!
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 1, 2012 17:28:48 GMT -6
Just be PREPARED and know what you are going to be doing and how to thoroughly explain what you want from the kids. The kids will be great....you dont need their affirmation, just encourage them and be clear with what you want from them
Oh and above all else......BE YOURSELF
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 29, 2012 13:11:56 GMT -6
what does "tough" mean, though?
Are we assuming he means grueling or could it be with a team whom you expect more, you pace them and challenge them more with competitions/pressure situations?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 15, 2012 21:23:13 GMT -6
personally, I think another element that is important to recognize when dealing with degenerative brain conditions in athletes is the way you end up wiring yourself when you compete......
The compulsive, thrill-seeking, adrenaline-junky stuff that leads contributes to many of these former athletes depression and self-destructive behaviors when they leave the sport (that may compel someone to mind altering substance abuse)
I'm not suggesting that brain trauma doesn't contribute to neurological damage, that leads to physio/psychological issues, just that there are also other factors that at play (because highly-competitive physical athletes aren't necessary trained to function in everyday Dick and Jane society).
I DO think we ought to embrace people advocating for the safety of the sport. Otherwise, you end up with knee-jerk NFL types that part-and-parcel eliminate large chunks of the game that make it impossible to actually "play" it.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 15, 2012 15:26:02 GMT -6
The other element to differentiate is that just because someone critiques the sport of football there is no real reason to personally internalize that opinion.
The ad hominem against Bradshaw or Dave Pear or anyone else advocating player health in a game that has risks is short sighted. These critiques should compel us to just examine how we can improve the game (not necessarily eliminate the contact) to focus on the real issue (not just knee jerk our way out of focus)
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 27, 2012 16:50:30 GMT -6
I think more to my derailed point is how we can / should reframe player's perspectives of the game. The kids are constantly being sold on the idea of 'getting something' out of the game that by the time their season is up (and it goes by quick) they've missed the reward that was there's to have. So, yes, we can tell kids that they will never be a scholarship athlete or that they won't be playing anywhere else, but there is a bigger lesson to provide (and it really helps reminding your guys that ARE D1 guys what is more important)
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 27, 2012 6:02:50 GMT -6
I still struggle with the appropriate way to talk about playing in college with the players. It will be different for each kid and just because a kid doesn't get a D1 scholly doesn't mean he can't keep playing ball after high school. Football is a great way to transition to undergraduate studies. Personally I didn't start enjoying the game of football until I played in college, so if kids show interest in the game and they actually could contribute to some program at 19 or 20, why not encourage them to think ahead?
Its in the way we talk to he kids about it I suppose, because we have to over emphasize that playing after high school is not the end (it can be a means to an end.....a distraction towards the path of their degree).
Now the main points of this thread are 1) over inflated self assessment and 2) hypocondriac caution [not really related to my hijack above]
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 26, 2012 18:08:43 GMT -6
The kids we're talking about are most often kids that either by family (most of these come from an overzealous uncle/father) or by sheer fandomhave deluded themselves into thinking they will be the lost gem Terrell Owens that recruiters find when scouting anotherplayer. If rational thought entered their way of thinking this really wouldn't be an issue...but think about reasoning with a 17 year old boy when he finds a girl that...eh...pleases him. Not really thinking well.they're young, they dream big. Heck I wanted to be a rock star at that age, did you want to be a teacher at 17?
What I find interesting is that when I've seen this in kids (seen it quite a bit) its on a team that DOES have D1 players, so its not like they don't know about what a D1 specimen physically is.
One thing our HC does that I think helps deliver the message is he explains to all the kids how to use HUDL and how to easily tag your own highlights. Kids realize maybe they aren't all that much of a superstar when they can only find 4 plays in a season
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 26, 2012 11:56:19 GMT -6
Wait, you're high school offers football as a class? What state are you in? Is this common in other parts of the country? I'm in the north and have never heard of that but would love it. welcome to the South, Yankee
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 26, 2012 8:44:19 GMT -6
Trainer or not, mom will take that kid with a swollen knee to their PEDIATRICIAN or most likely the ER where the attending physician will provide the canned text Tx "rest for 2 weeks"
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 26, 2012 8:31:08 GMT -6
I think the underlining theme is that for every action there should be a 'payoff' (some Shakespearean formula of do X and you'll live happily ever after). That simply isn't how life really is. Whether it is work 30 years and 'retire' or thinking you're going to make one good rap song and then get a fat contract..."D1" is supposed to mean that you're such a good HIGH SCHOOL player (pause for that thought) that you will be the next Reggie Bush.
In reality, if you ARE "D1" the work is just beginning for you ( you haven't 'arrived' anywhere yet). What can you do today (win or lose but you've got to do/contribute/create something)?
The real focus for kids (D1 kids especially) is enjoying the time together, not the payoff.
As far as injuries are concerned, I don't blame the kids that much. Adults shelter them throughout life and keep them from any type of physical risk not to mention the bombardmentof sports stories about maimed athletes. They simply don't know any better
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Nov 28, 2011 8:09:30 GMT -6
probably the WORST time of the year for many coaches in college, because football IS YOUR JOB, it always makes for a very stressful holiday season because the insecurity of bringing in a new Header at this time through spring is always a day away from getting the axe (now what?).
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Nov 7, 2011 12:01:15 GMT -6
I don't think I'm anywhere near as qualified as a sports psychologist is why! Duece neither is this guy the program structure that I've seen from 'Bama isn't anything ground-breaking. Its just introducing outcome-based, forward-thinking, positive-decision processing to your kids....just like teaching them visualization techniques for athletic performance
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Nov 7, 2011 11:15:59 GMT -6
Because Nick Saban has Alabama money.
I don't see where self-efficacy is about bringing in motivational speakers or psychologists. If you do leadership training in the off-season or do spiritual mentor/discipleship, this is the same thing. You're teaching how to organize, process, and mentally train yourself for successful outcomes. Its presenting a future / outcome that consists of a bigger picture than just 'right now'
You COULD bring in someone, but why would you need to?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Nov 7, 2011 7:39:21 GMT -6
How would the high school coach go about looking into this, seeing as most of us would already be limited in who we could hire and funds etc.? Duece why would you need to hire anyone?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Nov 5, 2011 22:33:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Nov 5, 2011 22:02:03 GMT -6
there are a lot of online journals documenting self-efficacy (which is what Bama's program is founded under)
|
|