|
Post by s73 on Nov 9, 2014 14:20:31 GMT -6
Agreed..........from those who are competent to do so. Teenagers? Nope. Maybe we're lucky, but I think our varsity players are competent enough to answer some of those questions honestly. It doesn't mean I'm going to revamp the entire program based on their answers, but I think there is value in hearing what your players are thinking. Are you telling me that you wouldn't even trust the opinions of your senior captains? No. Not telling you that. I speak w/ my senior captains regularly and I have meetings with them and ask them questions about how things are going within the team dynamic, how they are handling week's gameplan, etc. I also feel I have an excellent rapport with them as well as many other players. But.....that's not what the OP asked. I think casual conversation as well as meetings in which we are working and assessing things TOGETHER as staff and captains is much different from what the OP asked as well as what some of the responses were IMO. Absolutely trust the opinions of SOME, but written evals? That's COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS to me. Let's just remember that when you ask for an eval from an impressionable teenager who is not qualified to do so you are probably going to get his opinion as well as the opinion and influence of his dad, youth coach, uncle Johnny, Ol' Mr. Weatherby the cranky neighbor from down the street, his girlfriend, mom and gramps. Basically, I respect them and will even empower them ON THE FIELD to make decisions, but they are still the players and we are still the coaches. I think it's still appropriate to have the "chain of command". I think asking them to evaluate us blurs that line.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 9, 2014 13:28:33 GMT -6
I'm against evaluations from players (e.g. On a scale of 1 to 10 how would you rate my play-calling).
But I'm in favor of getting feedback & constructive criticism from players (e.g. What did you think of our practice format this season? What areas need improvement? What is our programs greatest need or area that requires the most improvement for next season?, etc...)
The ability to accept criticism and use it to reflect and improve is a key component of a growth mindset. Agreed..........from those who are competent to do so. Teenagers? Nope.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 9, 2014 9:08:10 GMT -6
Survey I agree with... What ways could this season have been a more positive experience? Stuff like that... spin it positively with leading questions. The feedback could prove to be valuable. You don't really care about valuable feedback if your intent is to use leading questions. Natenator, Maybe b/c the feedback from 16 year olds isn't all that valuable? I worked in a school district earlier in my career that had every student write a written evaluation about every teacher in the building and they were submitted to the admin. and of course all of them are anonymous. I had a student in class who was being a complete jackass about a week before the review and I called him out. Next words out of his mouth "when's your review coming up" and he finished the sentence by calling me by my first name. You pick kids you can trust feedback from. The rest are ill-equipped. You were really ready to assess a FB program when you were 15 Natenator? Cut the Devil's advocate BS.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 8, 2014 20:11:23 GMT -6
Uh....no.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 24, 2014 15:27:22 GMT -6
Young coaches at most of these places??? No, that's what has me scratchin' my head a bit.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 24, 2014 15:26:55 GMT -6
Everyone is optimistic at this time of year. I was watching some previews our tv and paper did the other day. Every kid and coach was saying "Oh yeah we think we'll be good this year. We worked real hard. We have a great system. We should do real well this year. Blahh blahh blahh" What do you want a coach to say "We'll ya know the left side of our line stinks and we won't get any yards that way. Our MLB takes plays off. Our secondary can't cover. We should win about 3 games this year." Not to mention the media will always try and make everyone look good in those previews. Good point. Just seemed exceptionally "talked up" this year around here. Guess we'll find out soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 23, 2014 19:35:02 GMT -6
I've always tried to stay under the radar in regards to pre-season publicity. Very general in comments to the papers, etc.
After seeing interviews and reading articles about the opponents on our schedule, I either have the toughest schedule on the planet or a lot of teams who are really choosing to be exceptionally optimistic.
Do I believe the hype? Do any of you talk your teams up for psychological reasons?
I've always taken the approach of not putting a target on my back so wondering if these guys are this confident, mind games or just extremely hopeful.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 19, 2014 6:30:09 GMT -6
Jamboree's kick off this weekend for our youth conferences. We still need some fine tuning but are also playing some teams that will block our playoff run. Do we work on what we need against a new live defense or do we keep it one formation with 5-6 plays? Planning on keeping it one formation. We've got talent, but want it to appear like we're all 1st year players. Agree or disagree? I'm that guy. I never want to show anything to anyone when it doesn't count and I will be playing them down the road. I also think that it is sometimes good to spend that time working on your bread & butter. Then it may allow you for more time during practice to work on wrinkles. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 18, 2014 6:03:32 GMT -6
Just so you guys understand, I am a former player turned coach who is very loyal to the HC. He is a good friend of mine and we have a lot of trust in each other. However, a friend/former teammate of mine has joined the staff from the youth program and we began to talk of how the HC has become "soft" over time (even the DC has since then, who was also our coach) especially compared to when he was coaching us. He never had kids back then, but now has two and I believe this is the root of it. I'm not sure this happens naturally, because I'm sure there's coaches out there who started to have kids but still stayed stern and tough. My question is, how do you bring this up to the HC? Especially if you think by him being a little tougher/demanding on the kids would help the team reach their potential? First off. The game has gotten soft. Kids have gotten soft. Second of all. Never question the HC. Sent from my VS980 4G using proboards I don't agree w/ this. Yes, they may take themselves out sooner than we used to, but that's b/c they are being told consistently that if their head hurts it's a concussion and they will wind up a vegetable or kill themselves due to dementia as they age. But the truth of the matter is many of us are old enough to know that when the school year ended we wouldn't hardly see a FB for 3 months. Now kids are competing all summer. Sorry to ruin the "Al Bundy moment of greatness" but kids are bigger, stronger and in some cases tougher, some cases softer. But a sweeping generalization is just that. Plenty of tough kids out there. I know b/c I have to coach against a ton of them. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 10, 2014 6:58:53 GMT -6
Resign.. go be a frosh/jv coach at a legit program.. just what id do But what legit program wants to hire a guy from one of the state's worst, especially when he's the one people blame for ruining their seasons? I spent the past year applying for jobs at other schools. I only got one offer out of that, but I turned it down because the school didn't feel like the right situation to me. I regret that decision now, but it looks like I'm locked in for at least the next year. Coach, Seriously, no "legit" program is going to say an assistant was the cause of another programs woes. LEGIT programs are going to know it starts and ends w/ the guy at the top. I think you're over thinking this. As far as quitting or "letting the kids down" sounds to me like the HC hasn't helped to cultivate much of an atmosphere of respect towards you anyhow. I would have a helluva time coaching kids or for coaches that I felt did not respect me. If what you say is completely true and accurate then it sounds to me as though he may be setting up a scapegoat in case this season goes badly. That really leaves you with 3 choices the way I see it. First, resign (that'd be my move), 2nd find a way to get the oline going and eradicate "your image" (may not be possible unless HC makes some changes), 3rd keep going the way your going and become the scapegoat for a bad leader w/ a worse plan. JMO, good luck. PS - If he came i w/ no pass protection scheme to start with then he won in the past in spite of himself, not b/c of himself.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 9, 2014 14:40:46 GMT -6
Unless I'm reading this wrong you may have 9 different trap plays but only two blocking schemes in each direction. That's right but the different words and numbers confuse them. First off, agree w/ what everyone else has said about your HC. Seems to be a bit of a knucklehead. Also, has put you in a bad spot. Personally, if it were me, I'd walk away b/c this situation stinks. Furthermore, no offense intended at all, but it sounds like based your comments, that the spirit may be willing but you may be a bit over your head in the position right now and shame on your coach for not recognizing that and COACHING YOU on how to coach. Lastly, if you do stick it out, then here's the deal, if they only have 2 schemes and they "get confused" w/ all the words, then that's kind of on you. Simple fix, YOU NEED to emphasize the only words that pertain to THEM & tell them to forget the rest. Fundamentals are HUGE but if they don't know who to block they don't matter. Good Luck, hope it works out for the best.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 7, 2014 13:34:46 GMT -6
I'll chime in here at "my own risk" (lol). I also think one thing we haven't talked much about in this thread that I feel holds true quite a bit is this: Sometimes good coaches lose or win also based on what they are seeing schematically across from them. For example, maybe a coach is very good at developing his program but has inexperience v. a PARTICULAR type of offense or defense. Maybe he struggles v. something he doesn't see very often, maybe the LB Poly team sees a TON of spread and wasn't real familiar w/ the splitback veer and as a result, they struggled to make the most use of the talent they had IN THAT PARTICULAR game. Doesn't necessarily mean that the LB Poly team wasn't well coached or doesn't do a great job. Just maybe they have less familiarity with that type of scheme. As a result, they did not put their kids in the best spot for THOSE games. Maybe if you flipped the script, and looked at the 2004 game between DLS and Bellevue when Bellevue ended the streak, it doesn't necessarily make the Bellevue staff better than DLS. I would guess talent was comparable or even favored DLS to an extent. But, Bellevue runs a very unique style of wing t FB that many people just don't see very often and as a result, maybe DLS thought they had a great game plan, but again, as we all know, you never quite know until the game is played. This is all speculation of course. I just think that some guys are more comfortable scheming v. certain things v. others. As a result, I think play off brackets are HUGE in the play offs. Sometimes, the best team does not always win. Doesn't necessarily mean the staff didn't do it's job. Sometimes match ups between systems matter when both teams are good. JMO. Sorry for the length. I don't think that scheme has much to do with success when you're talking about experienced staffs. I guess my mindset is that I hear many guys on here talk about how they like to run the wing t or the flexbone b/c it makes them unique to prepare for as they are the only ones in their area who still run that stuff. They feel it gives them an advantage w/ only 1 week to prepare. Ultimately, don't have to beat the experienced staff, just have to beat the kids on the field who have not seen a particular offense/ defense all year. They're the ones that may make the mistakes despite being well prepared. Again, your point is well taken, I just think there's room for error when seeing unfamiliar schemes. Especially w/ teenagers involved. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 7, 2014 12:42:51 GMT -6
I have coached 12 years, won two state titles as DC, state runner-up as an HC, and we were 10-3 last year (losing twice to the eventual undefeated state champion) with pretty much the whole team coming back this year. We are one of the favorites to win it all and will have a good chance against everyone we play. I have had plenty of success too. I'm certainly not sitting here with a 2-8 team every year and trying to make excuses for it. I am proud of what the teams I have coached have accomplished.
But I have also been 4-6 and 5-5 as a DC. I have been 3-7 as a HC. I have been all across the coaching spectrum and back and I know that in the years we have been highly successful we had much better players than in the years we weren't. When I went 12-1 as DC one year and 4-6 as DC at the same school the next year, I didn't forget how to coach. We lost 20+ seniors and almost all of our starters. That's the reason we struggled. When I went 3-7 as an HC one year and 10-3 and state runner-up (losing twice to schools in larger classifications) the next year, I didn't learn anything revolutionary. What mattered most was that we dropped a class and had all of our key players back, plus we picked up a good LB/OG. That was what really made the difference. Our talent (relative to our competition) was much better the next year.
In my opinion, each team has an approximate number of games that it should probably win. A great coach may turn 8-2 talent into 9-1 or 10-0. A bad coach may turn 8-2 talent into 7-3 or 6-4. On average, there's probably a variance of a couple of games each year based on good and bad coaching. But for a program like DLS to put together 150 game winning streak, there's a helluva lot more to that than just great coaching. Maybe they maximized their resources (probably so and good for them) but you could take that same staff and put them at many different schools in the country and they would have hard time even mustering a winning season, much less huge winning streaks.
The DLS coaches aren't just coaching "seasons", they have a program in place. A program they built from the ground up. They were horrible before Ladoceur took over, and he took them from doormats to dominant. How did he do that? Just by having better players? Did they all just happen to show up in 1989 and never leave? The man is a great coach, a great leader and a program builder. The fact is, he COULD bring his staff to 95% of the HS in the nation and do a better job than the group in place.
In 2001 & 2002 DLS played Long Beach Poly home and away. Poly was widely regarded as the favorite in both games due to the fact that they were much bigger and had much better athletes. More D1 prospects, too. DLS won both games by a fair margin. How did that happen when the other team had better individual talent?
I'll chime in here at "my own risk" (lol). I also think one thing we haven't talked much about in this thread that I feel holds true quite a bit is this: Sometimes good coaches lose or win also based on what they are seeing schematically across from them. For example, maybe a coach is very good at developing his program but has inexperience v. a PARTICULAR type of offense or defense. Maybe he struggles v. something he doesn't see very often, maybe the LB Poly team sees a TON of spread and wasn't real familiar w/ the splitback veer and as a result, they struggled to make the most use of the talent they had IN THAT PARTICULAR game. Doesn't necessarily mean that the LB Poly team wasn't well coached or doesn't do a great job. Just maybe they have less familiarity with that type of scheme. As a result, they did not put their kids in the best spot for THOSE games. Maybe if you flipped the script, and looked at the 2004 game between DLS and Bellevue when Bellevue ended the streak, it doesn't necessarily make the Bellevue staff better than DLS. I would guess talent was comparable or even favored DLS to an extent. But, Bellevue runs a very unique style of wing t FB that many people just don't see very often and as a result, maybe DLS thought they had a great game plan, but again, as we all know, you never quite know until the game is played. This is all speculation of course. I just think that some guys are more comfortable scheming v. certain things v. others. As a result, I think play off brackets are HUGE in the play offs. Sometimes, the best team does not always win. Doesn't necessarily mean the staff didn't do it's job. Sometimes match ups between systems matter when both teams are good. JMO. Sorry for the length.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 7, 2014 10:04:11 GMT -6
Last year our school offered a free heart screening for our athletes. All they had to do was make an appointment. Not sure the actual numbers but I know our AD was very disappointed w/ the turnout.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 6, 2014 18:10:55 GMT -6
Coming off my first year as DC where I was also the DL position coach for most of the season. Had a DB and LB coach. All coaches are volunteer. In reflecting on our season I realized that my position coaches were not detail oriented, allowed loafing, and generally didn't look to coach players to achieve their very best. One even felt that stance wasn't as big of a deal as I was making it out to be (because he misconstrued the words of a college HC). Because it was volunteer and I had my own position group to worry about most of the time there was a lot I started to let slide (even though I was rabid about it early on) and it showed in our play. How hard do you push your position coaches to make sure they are coaching per your specifications? How do you go about enforcing it? Thanks! Personally, I think you have to take this to the HC. If they are volunteers and he wants them on staff then not much you can do. But I would bring my concerns to him and tell him you feel it's effecting performance and then let the chips fall where they may. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 6, 2014 11:11:13 GMT -6
Due to a hurricane one season we had to play the previous week's game on monday. We then turned around and played the Friday of the same week. We had the same situation due to weather concerns. Ironically, we won both games. Then the following week we got absolutely destroyed. I really felt like their was some "hangover" since it was our 3rd game in 12 days. Tough situation.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 6, 2014 8:08:33 GMT -6
Are you sure we don't coach at the same school? LOL About the first 5 sentences above matches my exact concerns. We have physical ability (maybe more than ever) but the mental toughness / FB savvy is very concerning to me. Sometimes I feel like I need a remote control to get these guys in correct position. But when they do it right it looks good. So MAJOR worry ? How often they gonna do it right? I know - I know, that's my job. Sometimes easier said then done when the FB IQ is a concern. My other concern in MONSTER SCHEDULE. But I can't do anything about that so I choose not to worry about it (much). Glad to know we're not the only one. Fortunately, our group is football savvy, but even then we were mentally weak. We've made progress, but you just never know with HS kids. Hopefully your group is athletic. Are your schemes simplistic? Might be the best way to put them in a position of success. Schematics are not really the issue. Our line for example, is very intelligent and actually pretty FB savvy (exception would be TE but our tackles can help him as they are pretty intelligent). My bigger concern is aligning correctly on defense. Seems like when we see something that varies at all from what we expected, guys look a little lost. Also, one of our ILBers drops are sporadic. Then we stop and talk to him & he's all good. Next day, same thing. My biggest concern is my QB. Awesome ability, just seems like he kinda "tunes out" for a series or two. Just kind of periodic ADHD. It's weird. He can be killin' it for an entire practice and then all of a sudden 3 plays in a row just go down the toilet. Weird. But....we're the idiots who put at least a partial part of our livelihoods in the hands of teenagers (LOL). Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 4, 2014 12:28:21 GMT -6
Our team should be much improved from last season with a hard working SR class. We have good skill and are good enough to contend for a championship. However there is a lot of parity among the top teams. So what worries me? 1) Mental Toughness (This group when they were younger had lost some big games at the end of the regular season, snowballed into "choking" in the first round of playoffs). I feel a lot better because we've worked on it ALOT this off-season, but need to see it applied in games. 2) Position questions, specifically at center, ILB depth, and safety. Are you sure we don't coach at the same school? LOL About the first 5 sentences above matches my exact concerns. We have physical ability (maybe more than ever) but the mental toughness / FB savvy is very concerning to me. Sometimes I feel like I need a remote control to get these guys in correct position. But when they do it right it looks good. So MAJOR worry ? How often they gonna do it right? I know - I know, that's my job. Sometimes easier said then done when the FB IQ is a concern. My other concern in MONSTER SCHEDULE. But I can't do anything about that so I choose not to worry about it (much).
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 4, 2014 8:31:18 GMT -6
That's one way of looking at it. I would suggest a 2nd way of looking at it is to say that BB is not sophisticated enough to require a wrist coach. hence less coach intensive b/c again, their are only so many things you can do in a sport that only has 5 dudes and rules that restrict you from physically restraining movement of the ball DIRECTLY. In other words, their aren't nearly as many "concepts or situations" to handle. By your thought process soccer is also more coach intensive than football. Same with hockey, etc. I struggle to believe this to be true. Of course you struggle to believe this is true. You are a football coach. Read through this board...we think the sun rises and sets on us I don't know enough about soccer or hockey to comment on those specifically , but regarding basketball, I will say that reading threads and listening to football coaches here talk all about "packaged plays" and option routes being so brilliant one has to realize basketball has had "packaged plays" for damn near its entirety. Multiple options, that stem from multiple options and lead to even more multiple options....all based on what the opponent does, and all must be performed on the fly and in synchronization with your teammates. If the wing makes an In cut, you then go through this progression, and each of the 4 or 5 steps of the progression has 3 to 4 potential responses...if he screens instead of the in cut, you go through THIS DIFFERENT progression, and again each of the potential steps has 3 to 4 different responses..etc. The ability to be micro managed is not the only determinant of sophistication. Like I said, just a perspective. Coach, I've been coming on this board for a few years now and have read many of your posts. I don't think I would be saying anything earth shattering or offensive to suggest you kind of thrive on the "devil's advocate" perspective at times. With that being said, I don't feel FB is more intensive to coach b/c I'm a football coach. I think it's more intensive to coach b/c of MATH. More players = more space = more rules = more details = more coaching. No different than flag football being easier than tackle to coach. No different than 3 on 3 BB would be easier to coach than regular BB. Again, it's simple math coach. The less moving parts, the easier it is. FB has the most moving parts, requires the most teamwork and is the most detail oriented. Maybe the reason SOME of us think the sun rises and sets w/ FB is b/c we see it as the ultimate strategic challenge rather than "just b/c" as you seem to suggest. Oh well, I've been on here long enough to know you will not concede your position as devil's advocate so I will move on. Thanks for the debate.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 3, 2014 22:09:09 GMT -6
Very few breaks in action to make adjustments That is precisely my point. In basketball, the coach has the opportunity to teach the players how to handle these situations and have the players internalize these concepts and apply them within the flow of the game on their own as opposed to looking on his wrist coach and doing what it says on blue 3. Now, if you backtrack to the days before coaches called plays.... you would have a similar situation, with all of the variables you discussed. That's one way of looking at it. I would suggest a 2nd way of looking at it is to say that BB is not sophisticated enough to require a wrist coach. hence less coach intensive b/c again, their are only so many things you can do in a sport that only has 5 dudes and rules that restrict you from physically restraining movement of the ball DIRECTLY. In other words, their aren't nearly as many "concepts or situations" to handle. By your thought process soccer is also more coach intensive than football. Same with hockey, etc. I struggle to believe this to be true.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 3, 2014 21:26:52 GMT -6
Completely agree that coaching matters more in football than in any other sport I CAN THINK OF. The rules and guidelines for this sport make this so. It's the only sport I can think of where the coach tells the players between every snap to "run or pass the ball to point A". We literally have the power to control the action of the most valuable object on the field...IF... our kids can execute it. Hence, making coaching in FB very valuable IMO. That's also what makes me so passionate about this sport. We have a lot of say on what happens out their. Actually, I always thought this aspect DEVALUED coaching in some respects, and Increased it for sports like Basketball as it put more importance on the teaching process Wow...interesting viewpoint. Cannot agree with it in any form or fashion but interesting. 22 guys v. 10, defending or exploiting 90 feet v. 100 yards of space. TONS of alignment rules v. none, ball handling eligibility by number v. no rules on who can handle the ball. Guys can actually physically destroy the ball handler, hence TEACHING your boys on how to protect the ball handler v. have to touch the ball only and not the ball handler. Very few breaks in action to make adjustments v. 120 + possible breaks to not only make adjustments but have to counter act adjustments. Free throws v. nothing is free. One team of 5 playing both O & D v. a group playing O - D - KO - KOR - Punt - PR - XP & XP Block. The shear numbers of people on the field combined w/ alignment rules alone make for an almost infinite number of strategies to both move and stop movement. Just not seeing your POV my friend. But I am willing to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 3, 2014 20:15:14 GMT -6
While I think talent is the most significant factor, I believe coaching matters more in football than it does basketball and baseball. To a reasonable extent, maybe. But coaches aren't miracle workers. Completely agree that coaching matters more in football than in any other sport I CAN THINK OF. The rules and guidelines for this sport make this so. It's the only sport I can think of where the coach tells the players between every snap to "run or pass the ball to point A". We literally have the power to control the action of the most valuable object on the field...IF... our kids can execute it. Hence, making coaching in FB very valuable IMO. That's also what makes me so passionate about this sport. We have a lot of say on what happens out their.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 3, 2014 19:41:21 GMT -6
I don't make any rules on top of what the arlthletic code has in it. It would be really hard for the staff to break my rules. As far as the athletic code is concerned, there were some things i disagreed with. I told the principal and we, along with the other coaches agreed to change them. That I agree with. You don't like something try to change it rather than go on the sly.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 3, 2014 14:25:47 GMT -6
Consistent talent IMO helps to develop confidence in what you're doing b/c you tend to win more often. As a result, you stay away from the gimmicky garbage b/c your stuff is proven on the field.
Some of us struggle b/c we don't win as often as we'd like which always leaves the "door cracked" to doubting what you're doing even if what you are doing is sound, we can't always prove it on the field. As a result, people "fish around for the next big thing" and get themselves into trouble. Talent prevents a lot of "fishing" and getting off track IMO.
Talented programs tend to "stick to the script" and run the same stuff & polish the fundamentals year after year. They get a chance to perfect their craft.
I think these type of circumstances tend to make the more talented teams seem better coached (which they may be) but sometimes it's b/c their circumstances are less challenging, making their plan easier to follow then the guy who just doesn't have the horses.
JMO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 3, 2014 13:15:14 GMT -6
Coach, I get what you're saying here but.......you are basically saying you are going to do what you want to do even if you know you're not supposed to & your boss wouldn't approve. Furthermore, you are essentially encouraging former players to be somewhat deceitful. Would you except that behavior from your assistants if they were doing things they knew you wouldn't want them doing? Would you encourage current players to be deceitful? I get it, better to ask for forgiveness than permission, but to openly encourage deceit is a bit "dicey" IMO. I think that type of stuff is why admin don't always trust us then a bunch of us get on here and complain about the admin. being unreasonable. That relationship cuts both ways. Just sayin'. Deceitful is a bit of a stretch don't you think? Do you consider counter or a reverse deceitful because it misleads someone? Look, if I truly believe that a rule is stupid or wrong or bad, then no, I have no problem telling a player or anyone else to ignore it. As far as my assistants are concerned, as long as they do their job and don't involve the kids in whatever it is they do outside of the team setting, I don't give two craps what they as adults get into. Personally, I find it funny when coaches complain about admins just wanting to CYA when they only reason they even know about the situation is because you told them to CYA. Unless there's a fence around your school with only one gate in and out, 90% of all administrators in America have absolutely no idea who is or isn't at practice or what's going on out there. Not sure how the term "deceitful" is a stretch here since your advice to the OP was to tell former players to help but pretend like they are not helping if admin. shows up. As for the counter/ reverse analogy, yes it's deceiving, isn't that the point of FOOTBALL ? Aren't we trying to strategize v. our opponents? The football field is an appropriate venue for such tactics. Not so sure I can say the same for the lives of our players. As for the "I have no problem telling players to ignore rules I think are stupid" I can only say that I hope their parents are in agreement w/ your values. My point about bringing up your assistants was exactly for the comment you made above. What if you have a rule you expect to be followed but your assistants think it's dumb & tell your players they don't have to follow it unless you are around, then pretend to do so until you leave? Would you like your assistants pulling that garbage on you? Very subversive line of thinking you are promoting here. JMO. PS - For the record, I too think the rule is dumb, but encouraging young men in our care to ignore rules they don't agree w/ is irresponsible at best. If you approach kids that way then how are you going to correct them when they violate any of your rules they find dumb? Again, JMO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 2, 2014 12:28:31 GMT -6
I don't post it but as my assistants run warm ups I tell the team what they are doing first before warm ups end so as soon as warm ups end, they know where to go immediately so as not to waste anytime.
After that each assistant is responsible for telling his group where they are going next before breaking them out. Then the kids have about a minute to get some water and get their. Has generally been pretty efficient.
If I had kids care enough to ask to see it then I would post it.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 2, 2014 11:00:58 GMT -6
Simple solution- ask the kid to come help and on the off chance the principal comes out to practice the kid is just there watching practice on a day back in town. Side question- If you only want the kid the to help for an hour or two, why does your administration even know they're there? Your response will probably be that you want them to know to cover your butt in case they get mad or something happens that could risk your job, but you're complaining about the principal basically trying to cover his? Coach, I get what you're saying here but.......you are basically saying you are going to do what you want to do even if you know you're not supposed to & your boss wouldn't approve. Furthermore, you are essentially encouraging former players to be somewhat deceitful. Would you except that behavior from your assistants if they were doing things they knew you wouldn't want them doing? Would you encourage current players to be deceitful? I get it, better to ask for forgiveness than permission, but to openly encourage deceit is a bit "dicey" IMO. I think that type of stuff is why admin don't always trust us then a bunch of us get on here and complain about the admin. being unreasonable. That relationship cuts both ways. Just sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jul 23, 2014 5:19:53 GMT -6
We have a senior on our roster who's been our hardest worker, has been our leader in the offseason and was a starter last year at T and OLB, but he's way undersized for OL and just isn't very good at LB. He keeps the other players focused and is one of the few seniors we've got who's shown any leadership. Now we've got a bunch of new players who've just shown came out this year, as well as some kids who quit and have now decided they'd like to play again. Realistically, this puts our hard worker in a spot where he's probably not our most talented player at any position if these other kids put in half the work he does. We've made a pulling G out of him this year, which fits his skillset better, but we have 3 bigger, stronger, and more athletic (and lazy) kids who've just been "demoted" from FB to OL. They may or may not quit. Two of them have already quit and came back, while the third got kicked off for grades and is now back. If they stick and put forth any effort, they will probably outplay this kid. Defensively, he's now running second team as a LB. He was the (distant) 3rd best last year and we have the 2 others back, as well as 2 newbies who are just better than him. Athletic limitations and talent at other positions rule him out there, too. So what would you do? I think the worst thing you can do is give the quitters the job and they turn around and burn you by quitting again, now you put the original kid back in but he's now bitter b/c he knows you were going to replace him. I would suggest you keep splitting time and see how committed the more talented kids are when they are clearly in a battle for a position. If they grow and mature into kids willing to work and compete for the job by showing regularly then make it a late decision. On the other hand, if they start to falter and don't earn your trust then play the kid you trust. The other thing I would suggest is to be point blank & HONEST w/ all of them about what you are truly thinking. Tell the quitters you think they could start but you don't trust them. Tell the leader that you trust him but he's got to step it up a bit and see what happens. If they all know where they stand then I believe in time the guy who's truly the best for the team will surface. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jul 13, 2014 19:03:03 GMT -6
I graduated in the 80's. We lifted 3 x a week. Our coaches gave us some computer program and kicked their feet up and read the paper. NO TYPE of teaching how to lift. We all quarter squatted and probably did many other lifts w/ almost no range of motion. We could bench though No Olympic lifting of any kind. Then the 1st day of the season we did some old school fitness testing and our scores indicated how much "extra conditioning" we had to do during 2 a days. No football drills at all what so ever until season started. Seemed a bit more like "high school" back then.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jul 3, 2014 15:05:17 GMT -6
I think many of the coaches have given reasons as to why one would script practices. One reason many OC's script their openers for the game is that they want to see how the opponent reacts to things such as : Shifts, formations, overloads, motions, trades, Perhaps they script openers because they want to make sure they are doing some things, and don't want to risk missing something when the 25 second clock is running. Maybe some coaches do the script as their final part of preparation. With the recent thread on Civility, I want to make sure this doesn't come off as derogatory, but I think it is important that coaches recognize that there are different "levels" of football, even within high school. One of the cool things about Louisiana is that (up until last year) you could sit in the Superdome and watch all 5 class' championship games in a two day span. Doing so it becomes quite evident that the football between the enrollment levels is in many cases different, and not just the talent levels. You can quickly see the difference between the 1A (smallest class) school coached by 3-4 coaches with 35 kids 9-12 in the program and 8 two way starters, and the 5A squad with a staff of 7 or 8 coaches (for just the Varsity sometimes) dressing out 65 Jr's and Seniors and that run a "365" program. Obviously there is often a level of polish and sophistication in the Larger program's play that is a cut above the smaller schools due to the greater resources available. It might be beneficial when posting for coaches to remember these things, and what may seem like a waste of time for some coaches might be quite useful for others. Agreed that people are dealing with different circumstances and programs and situations from program to program. I also think it's the same game regardless of level. I know that I could coach the GAME exactly the same at 8A here in Illinois as I do here in 2A. Scripting or not. My biggest issue with coaching at that level would be the outside crap I would be expected to do as a HC, but that is a different discussion. I don't begrudge anyone for scripting. I'm not calling them idiots or lazy or whatever, I just think it's a waste of time. I think as a HC I don't want to script every second of Individual periods because I have assistants that I trust to do their jobs. During indy time I put 2-3 things I want them to work on like Stalk Blocking or Play Install in the period and let them devise how they do it. I don't script my first 10-15 plays because after the first play of the game, I really don't know what I want to call or will call. They may play something totally different than what we see on film (seems to happen pretty frequently to us) or the situation I scripted for may be thrown out the window immediately by something outside. I think scripting for a game is exceptionally wasteful because you can't predict what the game is going to look like before it happens IMO. Probably one of the most successful plays in our recent 3 year run was suggested to me by our wing as he was running onto the field for the first play of the game. Went 75yds for a TD and we were on our way to routing our first state ranked opponent and our first conference championship. But I'm sure that's probably just because we had more talent than them. Call it lazy, call it whatever you want, but sitting around for hours coming up with detailed little plans for everything, like I know how a game is going to ebb and flow before it happens is ridiculous. I know what I want the game to look like, but that can be thrown out the door as soon as we step on the field. I don't do play charts with down and distances, I don't do scripts, I don't make 7,000 page scouting reports, I don't do any of that stuff. To some of you that may seem like we just role a ball out because I'm just to lazy to do the work, but I assure you that isn't the case. The way I understand it, and I may be wrong, but I heard Bill Walsh was one of the originals to script his plays for a game. With that being said, and again I may be way off but my understanding of his script was NOT that he necessarily called these plays in order, but it was rather a SITUATIONAL THING. More of a fallback in case the "stress of the moment" got to him. In other words, in 3rd and 6 he defintely wanted to run such and such, as a result he scripted several things for varying situations as a reminder. Not as a I must call this in this order type of thing. At least that's what I heard anyway. I think he scripted 10-15 plays for multiple game situations, not one to follow the other.
|
|