|
Post by brophy on Sept 4, 2010 20:59:32 GMT -6
Nothing wrong and there usually is no way to deal with a loss (when you've done all you can).
Perspective may all you need to frame a functional response (that you can live with). What can you change - what can't you?
As far as not trusting the kids - how much do you trust your assistants?
If you're competitive (who aint here?) you can be prone to obsessiveness, so forcing ourselves to adopt moderation is key
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 1, 2010 7:47:16 GMT -6
Be honest - but be specific, not subjective (with unquantifiables) "DEs were misstepping and not getting extension on their 2nd step, causing them to get reached" (rather than just saying you have some horrible DLinemen")
Don't question play calling, just mention execution / things to consider (when running _____ play / what to compliment it with because the defense will be doing _______)
The effort thing is big - he may not even acknowledge it when he watches the film because he "knows" the kids, but be sure to mention the inconsistency there.
I'm sure whatever you can provide, given all your experience, HAS to be beneficial to the guy, so hopefully he will be receptive (because it would help tremendously).
The rest is up to him - he could take it all wrong, but you really can't control that.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 27, 2010 13:40:12 GMT -6
pattern matching can be an example of that because of the way that it causes so much problems for opposing teams when they face it because they are used to playing against different coverages.... but its not a different coverage - just a different technique. If one team's corners shuffle and another's backpedal....it isn't a change in the defense. broph, I would disgree. Buddy of mine stills uses the wishbone, same offense they have been using for 40 years. In a since they became contrarian b/c everybody else changed. The still use the same terminology and blocking schemes from when we were in school. The game adapts....people can chose to use those adaptations or not. Choosing not to doesn't mean extinction, just pointing out that the game/scheme is responsive....it isn't going to act without a response to that action. As pointed out, you play a 6-3.....does it not adapt / respond to 4-5 wides? If you're in a league full of cover 3 1-high, are you contrarian if you run c. 4 2-high? Or would you need to be running some sort of man coverage to qualify? and this would beg the question, WHY are those defenses 1-high? The rationale may be to have an 8-man box, so you could be a 7-man front defense, but how can that accomodate what those other teams have to contend with (that make them special)?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 27, 2010 10:36:16 GMT -6
defense, though, is not offensive.........
defense always has to respond to something - it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Pattern-matching was just a natural selection adaptation to what defenses were doing. Same with 2-high, 1/4,1/4,1/2 ....fire zones.....
Defenses were/are about how to handle what an offense presents. THEN offenses adapt to account for what those defenses just did.
Maybe the discussion is being able to assess where everyone (in your conference) is, and then plotting 2-steps ahead to become that contrarian solution. You're not different, just ahead of the game
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 23, 2010 2:36:06 GMT -6
That's horrible news...
Unfortunately the article is sorely lacking any possible insight as to how a person/program from avoiding this (but sure seems to speculate a lot)
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 20, 2010 9:20:47 GMT -6
Negativity is easy, and it comes natural. You have to beat it for at least a 3 to 1 favor (positive to negative), so the odds are stacked against it. You're gonna have to cram and find creative ways to deliver a positive message. Positive = quantityDoesn't have to be detailed or warranted, just lather it / heap it on as much as possible ("great effort", "we look good", "it is a good day to get better", "bobby, you got better on that rep right there", "how is it gonna feel when we beat City High?") Develop a 'performance' relationship with your playersNegative = quality If you are going to make an unpositive comment make it specific and direct it to the problem (which spells out the solution). (instead of saying, " you dumbshit! you didn't reroute!" try " remember, we need to control the stem of the receiver with the heavy hand, use the hands not the feet" addressing the same action, but one delivered something of substance) Don't reinforce unpositive images. It should never really be personal either. Address the behavior (lack of effort) not the person exhibiting the behavior (" you're better than that, Trey! That effort will get us beat against North High. Lets amp up the intensity and make the plays / be the star you are") great ways to destroy your playersIts all about perspective / how we frame the experience. Coaching/instruction is something we do FOR the players, not TO the players. Be aware that your message isn't just what you SAY. It is the entire package, how you act, the energy you delivery, your body language, and how you interact outside of football
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 19, 2010 7:08:05 GMT -6
I'm really having a hard time believing that it's possible to be a positive coach and a winner, too. where is the conflict? being positive and encouraging isn't the same thing as being a buddy. and being a total prick isn't a sign of contributing anything to player development. The real crux of the issue comes down to the GAME. The GAME isn't a peaceful or nuturing environment. The very nature of the GAME demands your best and if it isn't good enough, you will be run over or replaced. It is a harsh reality and there isn't a lot that can be done to side step that (it sucks, it would be nice if all the kids could play or experience the joys of performing). Its like birth.....its a wonderful, magical experience, but not every baby is going to make it out alive.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 11, 2010 9:10:08 GMT -6
a lot of folks will do the HUDL/ DSV sales reps.....you can never really go wrong with sales (tough racket), because there really isn't much to qualify a person (either you can close, or you can't).
How relevant to your skill sets does one want to stay, with the economy not being stellar and with employers facing the major redflag ('heres a guy qualified for something else and will likely leave once a position in his profession pops up again"....)?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 10, 2010 6:15:38 GMT -6
Coach Vint is tha man!
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 8, 2010 18:50:08 GMT -6
A kid in MS doesn't have to be explosive or an athletic specimen to contribute, though
CAN the kid be aggressive (and is just suppressing it)?
Or is he just physically incapable of being aggressive (explosive)?
* if he can't, there's nothing you can do - closed subject. * if he can, then the coach can chose to engage the player
The majority of cases you'd find are the former. So, how does the coach allow a player to reach his potential?
Part of it would be understanding the triggers that are shutting down the player from what he could be. How can a coach unleash/unlock/develop the player's contribution?
The puberty years are tough on kids, especially boys as they struggle to find identity. Bigger kids are not going to find many images that reinforce a socially acceptable role, they're just a 'fat kid'. Those fat kids are going to know that the ladies don't want them, that they aren't going to be seen in any positive light, and they know that there really isn't much they can do to 'fit in' in a world where their size isn't reinforced .....point is, they are going to be receiving messages that they are 'alien' and don't fit in....so they'd better not make waves or they'll face ridicule from their peers. You won't find many teens confident/secure enough in themselves enough to be willing to stand out on an (social) island. You'd better go along - get along.
So, what can a coach do?
Reinforce positive feedback. Let that kid know that he is welcome on the field. Just like you do at HS or college, make the unheralded Oline a special unit for praise. Make them important (even when they may not deserve it). The quicker they can identify their own (social) identity with their position, that football is a place that will give them social affirmation, the quicker they will embrace and own their role (and contributions).
Once they own the mental aspect (see themselves as a football player), you can really get them to buy into dedicating technique. When you have technique - you gain the 'aggressiveness' we're all looking for on the field. These kids are scared to make a mistake, or sticking out.....give them something to take pride in, but they've got to own it first
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 7, 2010 12:04:41 GMT -6
Madden has a whole chapter devoted to this in his first book....its just how our society is.
Little guys fighting "that's one scrappy kid....he's trying to keep from getting picked on"
Big kids fighting "he doesn't realize how big he is....you need to be docile".
Big kids aren't encouraged to be assertive or physical, because they will be deemed threatening.
The good thing is....big kids play football because that is about all they can do (can't play Baseball, basketball, track, soccer, etc). Football is/will be the only thing that reinforces a positive message to them about their size. They will identify themselves as a "football player"....they LOOK like a football player. Use this and reinforce to them that they are built to be football players. If they have confidence in their role, they will own their position.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 30, 2010 8:03:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 21, 2010 19:32:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 19, 2010 8:41:41 GMT -6
yeah - thanks, thats exactly what we're getting at.
It isn't a question of "IS 7on7 productive"? (yes, it is)
It is an open-ended question of "can we use that time to be more productive (doing something else)?" (make a bigger impact for the fall)
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 19, 2010 7:59:31 GMT -6
While at an away game, before the game, one of our slappy coaches comes out of the back of the bus zipping up his pants.......... with the (female) bus driver sitting in the back of the bus..... Later turns out that this coach and another slappy got into a [jealous]competition with this same (in-season assigned) bus driver. also, seen a 1-man sled made out of used car parts........ no, I'm not kidding.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 19, 2010 5:48:49 GMT -6
Tradition.
Anymore there is no "need" for 2-a-days. We condition year-round, we install parts of the offense/defense in the summer....
And what you do in 2 practices can be done in 1 (slightly longer than normal) practice
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 17, 2010 21:59:28 GMT -6
Good points, and is essentially the premise behind the thread question. We do it because we do it. We've got to do something. Other teams are doing something, so if we aren't doing something, then what are we doing? So it become something akin to 'missle gap'n where we're just chasing ghosts. If there is no real difference that can be seen in mid-September, then what difference does it make? If what we invest X amount of time/money in ____ but don't see any significant impact (where it matters), are we losing anything by not doing it? Now this may not be a fundamental truth - it may be something great for your program. I'm not against 7on7 at all. I get the 'experience with the system' / competition argument. *so spare me the "when the machine breaks down, we break down" type of rebuttal I was just wondering if there might be a better investment to be made in the summer months to - address player burnout/sport fatigue - something, anything that benefits the TEAM success in the season. What's the worst that could happen by not doing it? If the impact isn't significant, could that energy be directed elsewhere? -
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 16, 2010 9:29:07 GMT -6
nobody is slamming 7on7.
I think I said........"i love 7on7" (and yeah, I don't understand/endorse the immediate dismissals of the 'oh, we'll never see this...this isn't a real offense/defense')
Just an open-ended question.
If we spend 2-3 days or one long day and a substantial amount of cash running a sloppy version of our offense/defense, and at worst running backyard ball, would it be a better use of resources to just get the kids together and hone 1 skill?
Would getting (all) your kids together and spending that $300 on a slip n slide and pizza to lure them to have a good time and get them to focus on repeating one skill set for 2 hours (and team build), than going out and reinforcing poor mechanics.
Now, I think you can make 7on7 like a competitive practice and really hammer technique. The OP was going over how, in the last 3 or 4 years, I haven't seen anyone doing that (focusing more on 'just win' than 'how you play').
But then, maybe technique isn't / shouldn't be that high up on the list of needs for a season. I dunno. You can be a great technician and still lose, so I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 16, 2010 8:49:34 GMT -6
I was spending a few hours yesterday afternoon just soaking up a major 7on7 tournament locally and couldn't help but wonder if the time (and money) couldn't have been used better. Now, there was some pretty good competitions, a good time (entertainment), and kids got to be active and, I suppose, get better acclimated with their systems, but......... I saw very little good/winning technique being reinforced. The guys who actually were using/impressing with solid technique probably were getting something out of the snaps (2 quarterbacks out of more than a dozen), but for the vast majority of players, it was a sink-or-swim-I-don't-care-how-you-do-this-just-don't-get-beat approach to playing. The guys mentioned using technique (and excelling on the field) certainly learned these mechanics and honed them at a camp or something........not at / in 7on7. For the rest of the 'country coverage' and slop 2-man being played and tight bunch (2 yards from the ball spot), and receivers split to 1 yard within the sideline......... I don't see what this did to develop the players or build them for anything meaningful with the game. Could it be argued that (perish the thought) that a team forgo a heavy 7on7 schedule, and better use those $300-$800 program expenditures on bringing the kids in for some fun (team building) activity and devote 2-3 hours on hammering home one or two simple, fundamental techniques? Whether it be stance and starts, or receiver releases, or man technique.........I wonder if you wouldn't be a better all-around team if you were solid at doing one thing, rather than throwing a mash of stuff against the wall and hope something sticks? Now, I'm all for 7on7 and like it. Any time we can justify spending with our players is a good thing. However, when it comes to making an investment in your season, does a heavy 7on7 schedule (or $$ use) not a wise cost-benefit?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 15, 2010 9:22:32 GMT -6
interesting question and, yeah, Bobby Johnson's situation is actually a POSITIVE one (despite what you might hear on BooYah Network).
I'm taking this year off, myself, and realistically plan to take a few seasons off. Personal (having my son full-time) and professional (non-faculty coach, I'll be swamped for the next 8 months on my current project) reasons help justify my *emotional (has turned into a 'waste of time' in my opinion at the last program) rationale for stepping out for Fall 2010.
*with the emotion thing (investment), when you've been a header, or coordinator, or serious position coach, and come on to a completely new staff, it can be rough trying to do all the stuff you've done before and investing a great deal of time/effort/resources if the program isn't wired to work at that pace.
It is tough to go through coaching withdrawal, especially after you've been so hard-wired in teaching skill sets.
It does help not being so fixated on making it through the week-by-week ("if we can just get everything in for this week..." and repeating that for 16 weeks) season, to be able to take a bigger picture look at other things going on. For one, I never really get time to watch Sunday football when coaching because I spend so much time game planning, practice planning, etc.
I do think you can't just have a void there, though. You do need to be engaged in something constructive / competitive, even if it isn't as serious as coaching. I think this off-season, I'm going to explore stand-up comedy.
But with Friday/Saturdays free, you have a lot of flexibility on what all you can do in a week...let alone a month.
I think another great thing that happens stepping away is that I find my dogmatic, clenching to the vest attiude regarding scheme loosens up significantly. In all honesty, I'm not all that receptive to looking at doing things radically different than what we're trying to get better at during the season. You can look at the game from many different perspectives and see why certain folks do what they do (differently).
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 9, 2010 18:49:49 GMT -6
One of our slappy coaches (routinely late to practice....though he doesn't teach a class at the bldg / often skips practices.....MIA in the off-season) got into an argument with my (former) header this week. This asst coach is the same coach that suggested running veer out of empty last year
The guy says, "you know, I am not the worst coach. I am in just like Brophy. He can't be there in the summer."
I am a non-faculty coach, but when I was coaching I didn't miss anything the entire year, even weights....
Point is, I resigned 11 weeks ago.
This coach was comparing himself and his contributions with someone who isn't even on staff......(Classic)
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 4, 2010 13:33:04 GMT -6
"Americas Game" -Michael MacCambridge
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 25, 2010 12:08:11 GMT -6
I think its worth it.
Cut it up and show them specifically what you're talking about "THIS is what gets you beat" (not necessarily the players, but HOW they played)
["if we didn't do THIS, we would be winning"]
This will provide a rationale for why you will be doing things differently (specifically for hustle/effort) This also provides tangible evidence (within reach) on how y'all are going to win (now).
I think it illustrates that the school isn't cursed to be losers, so long as they take care of fundamental technique.
Do you plan on showing clips (maybe of your other stops) where those little things being done correctly (lead to wins)?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 18, 2010 10:20:42 GMT -6
one of the 'issues' becomes that if you don't do something, then (your kids) will do something else.
out of sight out of mind. I can totally see kids getting burned out, but we really don't let kids 'be kids' like it used to be, so if WE aren't doing something with them, then basketball, church groups, baseball, bowling, golf, wrestling, track, etc will be engaging them with something to do to stimulate them.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 18, 2010 6:35:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 17, 2010 12:22:16 GMT -6
Colin Sandeman - Iowa #22 simply because we just couldn't do anything to stop him with the kids we had.
Others that were good (or better than him); Brett Greenwood (Iowa) played QB/WR/RB/FS in High School Gavin Webster (Southern) - STEEEE-UD! at QB
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 11, 2010 4:48:05 GMT -6
Non coaches keep recommending 'Gridiron Gang' to me, but from what little I saw (10 min) of Johnson and Xzibit 'coaching' in the movie, it seemed to bring up all the same cliched 'bada55' coach personas of yelling at kids......I didn't bother to watch the rest
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 2, 2010 18:59:45 GMT -6
Do you go to clinics?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 28, 2010 12:25:12 GMT -6
OC, simply because it requires you to really manage a bunch of nuanced people together and execute precision.
OC is like an engineer (trying to build something extraordinary in the midst of tons of things that can go wrong), a DC is like a manager of saboteurs (just blow $#@ up).
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 28, 2010 12:19:10 GMT -6
Low income and low education tend to go hand in hand. People that don't care that much about school tend to pass that on to their kids and also tend to be unemployed or emplyed in more menial jobs. Parents that do care, tend to pass that on. There are so many factors to look at, but generally speaking it's a chicken or egg argument. Affluent areas produce more kids that excell academically. Lower income areas produce less. Lots of ways to look at why that's true, and I'm sure you could fashion a study to say just about anything you wanted about it. you missed it because that had zero to do with the article thanks for not reading but replying
|
|