|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 7, 2024 23:48:46 GMT -6
In a discussion with a poster in another thread, we came on to the topic of there being no "right" way to do things, and by extension, if you contend this, this means that there are no better ways of doing things than any other method, and that any method is just as valid as another. I do not agree with this school of thought; I was going to use the examples below in the thread, but there's obviously a lot here and the discussion in the other thread was already going off topic. Please understand this is not intended as a dig at the other poster, I already had the outline for this post drawn up for a while and just hadn't had time to flesh it out, just didn't want to clog that thread up anymore than it already is. Below are examples of one possible method, and then in contrast, it is followed by what I argue are better methods. Which of these do you agree or disagree with, and why either way? What are some of your own examples? Edit: As the discussion is unfolding, it's came up about specific situations affecting these. That is definitely relevant and can affect some of these. Many or most of these apply when you are facing either good players, good coaches, or both good players and good coaches. Some of them wouldn't apply if you don't face good players, good coaches, or both. And some depend on what types of offenses/defenses you are facing even if there good players and good coaches, like the run fits example, if you are facing good teams but they are 80-95% run and arent passing and using RPO you can and arguably SHOULD max fit everything, because all you are seeing is run game. One method: Not teaching a man defender playing inside leverage and in the trail on a slot receiver in a middle of the field open coverage, to use “build a fence” technique and keep the slot out of the middle of the field; better method: teaching a man defender playing inside leverage and in the trail on a slot receiver in a middle of the field open coverage, to use “build a fence” technique and keep the slot receiver walled out of the middle of the field. Some might try to say that these two approaches are equally valid, they are not. This is a great example of where good defensive coaches get separated from bad defensive coaches; it’s details like this that make a difference, you add a lot of these details up, and it’s clear to see why some DCs’ defenses get torched and why some defenses are stout. One method: Not coaching the cross runner on Y-Cross to convert to “stair-step” technique vs man coverage, if they keep their original path, it makes it easier for the man defender to undercut the route and knock the pass away, or worse, intercept it; a better method: coaching the cross runner on Y-Cross to convert to “stair-step” technique vs man coverage One method: Spilling to no one on the edge or perimeter vs good offenses that will gash you when you do this; a better method: spilling only when you have a force defender or someone who can at least respond late if it's a 2-high coverage and try to run it down the minimize the damage, and boxing or "denting" when you do not have a force defender or someone to respond late. Notice the caveat is good offenses; if you don't want to teach spill and box but then face good offenses, are you just going to spill to no one and get gashed? Or, do you bite the bullet and teach both and maybe have some hope of not getting gashed. If you try, you might succeed, if you do not even try, you are guaranteed to fail. Isn't that the type of spirit we are trying to teach our players? One method: not minimizing the amount of run/pass conflict that defenders are in vs good RPO and regular pass game offenses; a better method: taking defenders out of run/pass conflict as much as possible vs good RPO and regular pass game offenses One method: Pass rush not matching the coverage; a better method: pass rush matching the coverage. Pepper Johnson, former Patriots and Jets coach on this: “I’m a strong believer of where the pass rush matches the coverage. This was one of the things that I could not get done with the Jets; I could not get the pass rush and the coverage together.” If we are pushing the pocket and the secondary guys are [playing] off, then it’s just pitch and catch [for the offense]. If we’re pushing the pocket and your guys are close, now the pass rush is matching the coverage. If your guys are off and we’re shooting moves, or we’re running pass-rush games, now the pass rush matches the coverage. Because now the coverage is playing for down-the-field passes and we’re rushing the quarterback for down the field passes.” deadspin.com/q-a-pepper-johnson-on-drinking-with-bill-belichick-sp-1828726414One method: trying to max-fit every coverage in your system, where you have one defender responsible for each gap and are not using line stunts, TGOG, Saban jimmy/pony, sling fit, or hard two-gapping (i.e. the two-gapper is anchoring down on their lineman, board drilling the lineman, and taking whichever of his two gaps the ball goes into) to. Specific example of max-fitting Quarters; if you max-fit fit Quarters, from a 4 man DL, DEs and DTs have 4 of the gaps, Mike has the 5th gap, who has the 6th gap? Overhangs need to jam and reroute 2 to help the safety vs good RPO, regular pass game, and play action offenses, if 2 is in a slot split, they are now going to be late to the run fit, if you make one or both of them responsible for one of the the 6 gaps, you have one open gap vs regular run and RPO, and two open gaps vs option and QB run. The safeties have to be ready to play 2 vertical, same thing, if you try to make one or both of them responsible for both 2 vertical and one of the 6 gaps, they are now late to the run fit, and you have an open gap vs regular run and RPO, and two open gaps vs option and QB run A better method than trying to max-fit every coverage in your system: tailoring run fits to specific coverages. Yes, this takes more learning and work on the coaching staff's part, and yes, you probably don't need to do this if it's worked for you for 20 years and worked for the HFC before you in his previous 25 years. Specific example: Ball-fitting Quarters using tactics like slow-playing the Mike instead of charging into the line, this way he can see which of his two gaps the ball declares in and then attack that gap, stunts to keep the ball carrier from accessing the open gaps, etc, sling fit vs RPO, etc. One method: Using regular Cover 1 Lurk on 3rd down; better method: using Cover 1 Cross (a Saban coverage, others may do it, too) on 3rd down; in Cover 1 Cross, start in 2-high shell; ILB is locked on RB (no fiddle on the RB like in regular Cover 1-fiddle is two defenders are sorting out who has the RB and who is the low hole defender based on which direction the RB releases); one of the two safeties drops down to the sticks looking to aggressively cut the 1st route to break inside around the 1st down line, playing them inside/trail as the route’s man defender will likely be outside/trail (not playing vision and break on the Q); the safety dropping down lets any routes that are more than 1-2 yards short of the first down, go, as we are not worried about a completion to them as this coverage is mainly being used for 3rd down. One method: Reading fade to seam down to checkdown vs Cover 3 on 4 Verts; a better method, at least for the average HS with an average HS QB (situation and level is key): reading seam to seam down to checkdown vs Cover 3 on 4 Verts (I know the Air Raiders will want to throat chop me for this one, which is hilarious because I first really got into football because of the Air Raid). To make sure we are clear, I will say this one is a bit more debatable, because the Air Raid guys have had success with 4 Verts using the former approach. However, the latter seems to be a better approach, especially without a QB with a strong arm, and in my experience is fairly common; perhaps the best approach though if you were to have the practice time, is to use both methods, tag the read onto the playcall like Dan Gonzalez does with his system, and change them up based on gameplan or throughout a game to keep changing how you attack the defense with 4 Verts. The three advantages of seam to seam to checkdown over fade to seam to checkdown, are that 1) with fade to seam to checkdown, you have to teach some type of conversion by the fade receiver vs Cover 3 like the Air Raid guys did, this requires a lot of practice investment to get good at (a RnS Streak Read is a reasonable compromise) that could be spent on other parts of the offense, whereas if you work seam to seam to checkdown vs Cover 3, not as much practice time is required to get the two seam runners and QB on the same page; and 2) in Cover 3, the two seams put the deep middle defender in a bind and making him choose between the two seams, whereas in Cover 3, you aren't really putting the deep outside third defender nor the deep middle defender in a bind with the fade and the seam to the same side; and 3) a seam is an easier throw for a QB arm strength wise than a fade, this is especially pronounced to the field with the average HS QB. Some of it probably depends on the situation as far as comparing the methods, which is no different than what I have been talking about with Quarters and QQH vs good RPO and regular pass game offenses. I'm open to counter thinking on this, so if you have something to share, please do. This is just where I stand on this currently, like I said this one is debatable. I know there are some people who do fade to seam to seam to checkdown, or even fade to seam to seam to fade, but I don't know how realistic either of those are, mainly the second one, especially in your average HS situation. One method: Running Air Raid 91 Shallow, with Dig and Shallow starting on opposite sides, leading to the QB not being able to scan out in front of and into both the dig and the shallow, which can lead to interceptions and knockdowns by lurking low hole defenders in man coverage; a better method: Running the Drive concept, and running 91 Shallow with the dig route replaced with a deep pivot route that ends with the #2 who started opposite the shallow going in the same direction as the shallow instead, both of which allow the QB to scan into both the shallow and the other route. The deep pivot and shallow in 91 Shallow ends up looking like this (Y's angle is steeper in reality and he hooks up over the ball in the first hole after his break vs zone, and pivots out of the break and begins running outside vs man) _______ \ \ <---- QB's vision -----------------------> \ H O O C O O Y Shallow Deep pivot This is so the QB can scan into both routes and see out in front of both of them (which he cannot do in original 91 Shallow, typically the progression is shallow to dig-he's scanning out in front of and into the shallow, but he's not scanning out in front of and into the dig, this can lead to interceptions and knockdowns because he may not see a lurking low hole defender out in front of the crosser ________ LB | | <---- QB vision -----------------------------> | H Y Shallow Dig QB is scanning into the shallow but not the dig, making it harder for him to see the lurking low hole defender out in front of the dig. A video of this is in action can be found at this link: gonzalezpassinggame.weebly.com/blog/from-my-qb-manual“Most of the time I watch film, the QB has no idea where Mike is when the dig and drag are opposite each other." coachhuey.com/thread/69018/drive-concept-timing-footworkOne method: Installing Saban's Rip/Liz Cover 3 when your opponents are 80-95% run and their QBs are not capable of consistently being a threat in the pass game; a better method: Scrapping Rip/Liz and running spot drop cover 3 instead; I'm arguing this a better method when your opponents are 80-95% run and QBs are not capable of consistently being a threat in the pass game, because Rip/Liz was invented specifically to address teams that could hurt you in both the run game and the pass game, and because it has moving parts that you have to rep, those are wasted reps if you don't even have a need to run the coverage, reps which could be better spent getting really good at spot drop cover 3 and other parts of your defense. One method: “Some coaches only tag the route that the quarterback throws. Doing that only gives the staff one-fifth of a chance of understanding the opponent’s intent. If the route was a fade by the “X” receiver, then yes, this system works. Often, only tagging the passing strength or one receiver gives the defense an incomplete view of what’s going on." www.hudl.com/blog/scrap-the-pass-chart-these-four-columns-give-you-a-better-picture-of-your-opponents-passing-game; a better method: being more detailed and comprehensive in your breakdown; also: From the same article that the quote above is from: “In my book, Breaking Down Your Offensive Opponent, I illustrated that some offenses use a split-field, full field, or targeted (one-route) approach to their passing game. The breakdown should be able to handle that.” www.hudl.com/blog/scrap-the-pass-chart-these-four-columns-give-you-a-better-picture-of-your-opponents-passing-gameOne method: “i love it when guys on the hs level say ' play more coverages' but don't understand that very well may involve manipulating or changing the technique of your front. They install the coverage and don't understand the whole package and can't stop anyone” coachhuey.com/thread/86520/sabans-reasoning-installing-cover-quarters; a better method; fully understanding how each coverage along with the front, run fit, rush, and defenders’ eyes/reads are all interconnected, and how all this combined for each coverage, connects to the same for all the other coverages in the system. If there's anything in here I talked about that you are unfamiliar with terminology wise, please let me know and I will explain further.
|
|
|
Post by CS on Aug 8, 2024 4:14:06 GMT -6
Good post, but me personally I would rather you break it up into smaller ones
Just a quick thought on the pass breakdown article. If you’re not doing a spray chart on the opponents passing game you’re missing the boat. I already do those other things but the spray chart is my favorite
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Aug 8, 2024 13:57:56 GMT -6
There's hardly ever just one right way in football, but frequently there are some clearly bad ways and then some others tied for equally good.
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Aug 8, 2024 14:28:09 GMT -6
Lots of ways to do stuff...
I can explain how and why I do everything I do, but I also don't mind understanding that someone else may be willing to live with different + and - with those decisions.
Example that I still see very often...
How do you label defensive alignments on a TE? For me and the kids I have coached, calling 7, 6, 9 when it is 2i, 2, 3 on the guard and 4i, 4, 5 on the tackle confuses the crap out of them, so we use 6i, 6, 7 on the TE (which also allows us to use 8i, 8, 9 vs. offenses that give you a 4-man surface). But I'm not gonna say anyone is an idiot for using the 7, 6, 9 method because they both work as long as the kids in your program all use the same setup.
I am known (both on this site and around here where I coach) for being very anal on HUDL columns, how to enter them, only certain terms in the columns, and WHY. We are now using 95 columns in our HUDL. Some are only for practice, some are literally only for watching film with kids, and we never use all 95 on any particular play, but we have a system for entering each of those columns and I can run reports and use filters that make our lives MUCH EASIER to gampeplan, sort film, find clips when we are looking for them, etc... You do NOT need to do all of that to win games and you won't lose if you don't, but when I'm calling plays on Friday nights, I have a lot of tendencies memorized because of the process we use to come up with them.
I am teaching all the new guys on our staff all the HUDL process tomorrow as our scrimmage is tonight and our week 1 game is next Friday. It's a process, and it isn't the only way to do things, but it is the way we will do things.
|
|
|
Post by CS on Aug 8, 2024 15:04:23 GMT -6
Lots of ways to do stuff... I can explain how and why I do everything I do, but I also don't mind understanding that someone else may be willing to live with different + and - with those decisions. Example that I still see very often... How do you label defensive alignments on a TE? For me and the kids I have coached, calling 7, 6, 9 when it is 2i, 2, 3 on the guard and 4i, 4, 5 on the tackle confuses the crap out of them, so we use 6i, 6, 7 on the TE (which also allows us to use 8i, 8, 9 vs. offenses that give you a 4-man surface). But I'm not gonna say anyone is an idiot for using the 7, 6, 9 method because they both work as long as the kids in your program all use the same setup. I am known (both on this site and around here where I coach) for being very anal on HUDL columns, how to enter them, only certain terms in the columns, and WHY. We are now using 95 columns in our HUDL. Some are only for practice, some are literally only for watching film with kids, and we never use all 95 on any particular play, but we have a system for entering each of those columns and I can run reports and use filters that make our lives MUCH EASIER to gampeplan, sort film, find clips when we are looking for them, etc... You do NOT need to do all of that to win games and you won't lose if you don't, but when I'm calling plays on Friday nights, I have a lot of tendencies memorized because of the process we use to come up with them. I am teaching all the new guys on our staff all the HUDL process tomorrow as our scrimmage is tonight and our week 1 game is next Friday. It's a process, and it isn't the only way to do things, but it is the way we will do things. I desperately want to talk to you about this
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Aug 8, 2024 22:14:50 GMT -6
There are absolutely worse methods, and if there are worse then there has to be better. That being written, there is NOT one single method that is best in all situations. For some situations and teams Method A may be the superior choice, while for others it may be Method B
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Aug 9, 2024 0:51:24 GMT -6
I desperately want to talk to you about this Hit me up coach. PM me or reach out at cqmiller.football@gmail.com I'm always down to go over stuff.
|
|
|
Post by cwaltsmith on Aug 9, 2024 12:12:44 GMT -6
I can't stand guys that think their way is only way. Now, I do feel there MUST be only 1 way for your team once you leave the meeting room. cant be multiple ideas outside... get on the same page. But for someone to say that "their way" is the only way anyone should be coaching something is just crazy to me.
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 9, 2024 13:01:54 GMT -6
I can't stand guys that think their way is only way. Now, I do feel there MUST be only 1 way for your team once you leave the meeting room. cant be multiple ideas outside... get on the same page. But for someone to say that "their way" is the only way anyone should be coaching something is just crazy to me. I get this to some extent coach, as far as it being a "my way or the highway" thing. In the first example, I didn't say these examples were the only way, I just argued that they are better ways. I'm fine to hear alternate takes, I'd just like to hear why specifically someone thinks that any of them are not better, or even why another way might actually be better. With what you said, what would be your take with the first example I gave in the first post, with the build-a-fence technique by an inside/trail defender in middle of the field open coverage? You can teach him to play without build-a-fence technique, but then you are setting him up to getting beat in the middle of the field. One of the key things we are supposed to do as coaches is try to put our players in a position to be successful. I don't want to sound haughty, but that one to me is a no-brainer, I don't see how someone could look at that one realistically and say that not teaching an inside/trail defender in middle of the field open coverage to use build-a-fence is just as good as teaching them to use build-a-fence. Again I'm open to an alternate take, I'd just like to know why someone thinks it's just as good. What about some of the other examples I gave (as I mentioned in the first post, some of them are more debatable, like the QB progression in 4 Verts)?
|
|
|
Post by CS on Aug 9, 2024 14:40:58 GMT -6
I can't stand guys that think their way is only way. Now, I do feel there MUST be only 1 way for your team once you leave the meeting room. cant be multiple ideas outside... get on the same page. But for someone to say that "their way" is the only way anyone should be coaching something is just crazy to me. I get this to some extent coach, as far as it being a "my way or the highway" thing. In the first example, I didn't say these examples were the only way, I just argued that they are better ways. I'm fine to hear alternate takes, I'd just like to hear why specifically someone thinks that any of them are not better, or even why another way might actually be better. With what you said, what would be your take with the first example I gave in the first post, with the build-a-fence technique by an inside/trail defender in middle of the field open coverage? You can teach him to play without build-a-fence technique, but then you are setting him up to getting beat in the middle of the field. One of the key things we are supposed to do as coaches is try to put our players in a position to be successful. I don't want to sound haughty, but that one to me is a no-brainer, I don't see how someone could look at that one realistically and say that not teaching an inside/trail defender in middle of the field open coverage to use build-a-fence is just as good as teaching them to use build-a-fence. Again I'm open to an alternate take, I'd just like to know why someone thinks it's just as good. What about some of the other examples I gave (as I mentioned in the first post, some of them are more debatable, like the QB progression in 4 Verts)? I will say that I agree with most of your post. The some guys get torched and others are stout isn’t valid. All defenses get torched at some point. Even saban. I also don’t agree with your take on running a shallow opposite of the dig That being said I feel like there are definitely some things in football that are best practice. While someone may have success with a sub optimal way of doing things that doesn’t mean it’s schematically sound. The best example I can think of are run fits Run fits are misunderstood by a lot of DCs and you see it mostly with guys who are multiple
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 9, 2024 14:58:45 GMT -6
I get this to some extent coach, as far as it being a "my way or the highway" thing. In the first example, I didn't say these examples were the only way, I just argued that they are better ways. I'm fine to hear alternate takes, I'd just like to hear why specifically someone thinks that any of them are not better, or even why another way might actually be better. With what you said, what would be your take with the first example I gave in the first post, with the build-a-fence technique by an inside/trail defender in middle of the field open coverage? You can teach him to play without build-a-fence technique, but then you are setting him up to getting beat in the middle of the field. One of the key things we are supposed to do as coaches is try to put our players in a position to be successful. I don't want to sound haughty, but that one to me is a no-brainer, I don't see how someone could look at that one realistically and say that not teaching an inside/trail defender in middle of the field open coverage to use build-a-fence is just as good as teaching them to use build-a-fence. Again I'm open to an alternate take, I'd just like to know why someone thinks it's just as good. What about some of the other examples I gave (as I mentioned in the first post, some of them are more debatable, like the QB progression in 4 Verts)? I will say that I agree with most of your post. Appreciate it, coach. Oh for sure every defense gets torched even the best, when I said that, it was in the sense of it happening to a defense on a regular basis vs a defense being solid on a regular basis. I wasn't saying good defenses never get torched. Why is that? I could see one argument Air Raiders might have against my take is that the pivot route doesn't get the overhang where the shallow is going to turn outside like an outside release dig does, that's a major coaching point for the Air Raiders in my experience. I like the way you put that on best practice.
|
|
|
Post by hlb2 on Aug 9, 2024 16:07:08 GMT -6
Isn't "best" a frame of reference to the user? That's like asking what is the "best" defense, offense, car, insurance plan etc. I get there are best practice methods, but I think best rests soley in the user. We do some things here that I know are not the "best" on paper, but they're the best for our guys through my perspective. If you put a hundred football coaches in a room and asked them the best way to do things you'd get consensus on some things, but for sure there would be some tactics and techniques that you'd damn near get 100 different answers.
|
|
|
Post by CS on Aug 9, 2024 16:52:16 GMT -6
Isn't "best" a frame of reference to the user? That's like asking what is the "best" defense, offense, car, insurance plan etc. I get there are best practice methods, but I think best rests soley in the user. We do some things here that I know are not the "best" on paper, but they're the best for our guys through my perspective. If you put a hundred football coaches in a room and asked them the best way to do things you'd get consensus on some things, but for sure there would be some tactics and techniques that you'd damn near get 100 different answers. By universal best I mean things that every defense or offense has to have to be sound. No matter what defense you run you have to have an overhang to both sides. How that plays out depends on the coach
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 9, 2024 16:56:52 GMT -6
Isn't "best" a frame of reference to the user? That's like asking what is the "best" defense, offense, car, insurance plan etc. I get there are best practice methods, but I think best rests soley in the user. We do some things here that I know are not the "best" on paper, but they're the best for our guys through my perspective. If you put a hundred football coaches in a room and asked them the best way to do things you'd get consensus on some things, but for sure there would be some tactics and techniques that you'd damn near get 100 different answers. It can heavily depend on your specific situation, because in some places, you CAN max fit everything for example, because you aren't seeing good RPO, and you won't have a need for Cover 2 Man (which is about the only coverage that you cannot max fit even vs old school run teams) because no one can threaten you with the pass on 3rd and med-long. Like you said there's some things you do that make sense where you are. Note that I said better, not best. There could be a better method than those I suggest in the first post, I just argued that they are better than the methods that I wrote preceding the better methods. Out of the examples I gave, which ones would you say I can't make the argument that the "better" methods are better than the methods that preceded them?
|
|
|
Post by CS on Aug 9, 2024 17:06:41 GMT -6
I will say that I agree with most of your post. Appreciate it, coach. Oh for sure every defense gets torched even the best, when I said that, it was in the sense of it happening to a defense on a regular basis vs a defense being solid on a regular basis. I wasn't saying good defenses never get torched. Why is that? I could see one argument Air Raiders might have against my take is that the pivot route doesn't get the overhang where the shallow is going to turn outside like an outside release dig does, that's a major coaching point for the Air Raiders in my experience. I like the way you put that on best practice. I just like it both ways. I think it’s hard for kids to keep discipline with crossers going in opposite directions
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 9, 2024 18:04:50 GMT -6
Appreciate it, coach. Oh for sure every defense gets torched even the best, when I said that, it was in the sense of it happening to a defense on a regular basis vs a defense being solid on a regular basis. I wasn't saying good defenses never get torched. Why is that? I could see one argument Air Raiders might have against my take is that the pivot route doesn't get the overhang where the shallow is going to turn outside like an outside release dig does, that's a major coaching point for the Air Raiders in my experience. I like the way you put that on best practice. I just like it both ways. I think it’s hard for kids to keep discipline with crossers going in opposite directions Wait so do you prefer both crossers headed in the same direction? If so, that's what I was arguing is the better method in the first post. I went back and edited it with some diagrams to hopefully help explain that better.
|
|
|
Post by CS on Aug 10, 2024 4:57:40 GMT -6
I just like it both ways. I think it’s hard for kids to keep discipline with crossers going in opposite directions Wait so do you prefer both crossers headed in the same direction? If so, that's what I was arguing is the better method in the first post. I went back and edited it with some diagrams to hopefully help explain that better. I like both
|
|
|
Post by 44special on Aug 10, 2024 7:45:25 GMT -6
Lots of ways to do stuff... I can explain how and why I do everything I do, but I also don't mind understanding that someone else may be willing to live with different + and - with those decisions. Example that I still see very often... How do you label defensive alignments on a TE? For me and the kids I have coached, calling 7, 6, 9 when it is 2i, 2, 3 on the guard and 4i, 4, 5 on the tackle confuses the crap out of them, so we use 6i, 6, 7 on the TE (which also allows us to use 8i, 8, 9 vs. offenses that give you a 4-man surface). But I'm not gonna say anyone is an idiot for using the 7, 6, 9 method because they both work as long as the kids in your program all use the same setup. I am known (both on this site and around here where I coach) for being very anal on HUDL columns, how to enter them, only certain terms in the columns, and WHY. We are now using 95 columns in our HUDL. Some are only for practice, some are literally only for watching film with kids, and we never use all 95 on any particular play, but we have a system for entering each of those columns and I can run reports and use filters that make our lives MUCH EASIER to gampeplan, sort film, find clips when we are looking for them, etc... You do NOT need to do all of that to win games and you won't lose if you don't, but when I'm calling plays on Friday nights, I have a lot of tendencies memorized because of the process we use to come up with them. I am teaching all the new guys on our staff all the HUDL process tomorrow as our scrimmage is tonight and our week 1 game is next Friday. It's a process, and it isn't the only way to do things, but it is the way we will do things. just curious - you mention using 6, 6i and 7 on the TE in your system. what is the difference in a 6i and a 7? to me, that would be the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Aug 10, 2024 9:33:20 GMT -6
For us: 6i = Inside shoulder of TE 6 = Headup on TE 7 = Outside shoulder of TE
Other method: 7 = Inside shoulder of TE 6 = Headup on TE 9 = Outside shoulder of TE
We try to keep it uniform so it's easier for kids to remember (in my opinion) 0 = Headup on center 1 = Outside shoulder on center 2i = Inside shoulder on guard 2 = Headup on guard 3 = Outside shoulder on guard 4i = Inside shoulder on tackle 4 = Headup on tackle 5 = Outside shoulder on tackle 6i = Inside shoulder on TE 6 = Headup on TE 7 = Outside shoulder on TE 8i = Inside shoulder on wing (4-man surface) 8 = Headup on wing (4-man surface) 9 = Outside shoulder on wing (4-man surface)
All headup are even All outside shades are odd All inside shades are the even number with i
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Aug 10, 2024 9:34:06 GMT -6
Lots of ways to do stuff... I can explain how and why I do everything I do, but I also don't mind understanding that someone else may be willing to live with different + and - with those decisions. Example that I still see very often... How do you label defensive alignments on a TE? For me and the kids I have coached, calling 7, 6, 9 when it is 2i, 2, 3 on the guard and 4i, 4, 5 on the tackle confuses the crap out of them, so we use 6i, 6, 7 on the TE (which also allows us to use 8i, 8, 9 vs. offenses that give you a 4-man surface). But I'm not gonna say anyone is an idiot for using the 7, 6, 9 method because they both work as long as the kids in your program all use the same setup. I am known (both on this site and around here where I coach) for being very anal on HUDL columns, how to enter them, only certain terms in the columns, and WHY. We are now using 95 columns in our HUDL. Some are only for practice, some are literally only for watching film with kids, and we never use all 95 on any particular play, but we have a system for entering each of those columns and I can run reports and use filters that make our lives MUCH EASIER to gampeplan, sort film, find clips when we are looking for them, etc... You do NOT need to do all of that to win games and you won't lose if you don't, but when I'm calling plays on Friday nights, I have a lot of tendencies memorized because of the process we use to come up with them. I am teaching all the new guys on our staff all the HUDL process tomorrow as our scrimmage is tonight and our week 1 game is next Friday. It's a process, and it isn't the only way to do things, but it is the way we will do things. just curious - you mention using 6, 6i and 7 on the TE in your system. what is the difference in a 6i and a 7? to me, that would be the same thing. In his system (a better and more logical system I might add), The even number is head up. The "i" is inside shade. The odd number is outside shade. So 2i, 2, 3 on the guard is 2i inside shade 2 head up 3 outside shade So on a TE 6i inside shade 6 head up 7 outside shade in the older and more universal system, on a TE 7 inside shade 6 head up 9 outside shade So a 6i in his system is a 7 in the older more universal system. By the way, even though the 6i system is better and more logical, I use the 7, 6, 9 system because that is what everyone knows even if they don't use it. I actually switched to the 6i, 6, 7 and I got tired of every conversion I had with another coach having to explain the nomenclature or check and see which one he used or teaching new coaches. So I literally gave up and went back to the 7, 6, 9 nomenclature.
|
|
|
Post by 44special on Aug 10, 2024 10:15:13 GMT -6
oh, ok. thanks.
i had heard of some using 7 for what i would call a 9, because of the 3 and 5 techs, but i had forgotten about it.
i (vaguely) remember thinking of using it, but i had many years of that being a 9, and i don't do change very well. and everybody i ever ran into coaching knew what a 9 was, so no problem.
the oilfield company i just retired from seemed to have a philosophy of "if it ain't broke, fix it", so change was constant. didn't care much for that, and i stayed confused about a lot of stuff because of it.
now i can just stay confused about normal stuff that probably won't kill me.
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Aug 10, 2024 10:51:24 GMT -6
oh, ok. thanks. i had heard of some using 7 for what i would call a 9, because of the 3 and 5 techs, but i had forgotten about it. i (vaguely) remember thinking of using it, but i had many years of that being a 9, and i don't do change very well. and everybody i ever ran into coaching knew what a 9 was, so no problem. the oilfield company i just retired from seemed to have a philosophy of "if it ain't broke, fix it", so change was constant. didn't care much for that, and i stayed confused about a lot of stuff because of it. now i can just stay confused about normal stuff that probably won't kill me. This is education in a nutshell, but professional educational higher ups have to justify their existence somehow, so they have to keep coming up with new stuff and justify everything with proclamations of 'best practices'. I've come to learn that this is most every industry though. Money is in the treatment, not the cure.
|
|
|
Post by 44special on Aug 10, 2024 10:58:31 GMT -6
i suspect you are absolutely right.
there's a current experimental cancer treatment that pharma is fighting tooth and nail. would cut greatly into their profit margin.
i know you're right about education.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Aug 10, 2024 11:07:35 GMT -6
This is education in a nutshell, but professional educational higher ups have to justify their existence somehow, so they have to keep coming up with new stuff and justify everything with proclamations of 'best practices'. I've come to learn that this is most every industry though. Money is in the treatment, not the cure. I recently read that a district I worked at many years ago is implementing Block Scheduling and "Project-Based" education. We did that there 30 years ago. Took us two years and a lot of time-money (In-Services, Professional Development etc.) to get it implemented. Several years later district had to abandon it because it did not improve Standardized Test scores (which is all that matters, right?) and wound up costing more than a "normal" daily schedule. But there were some people making a lot of money selling that stuff.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Aug 10, 2024 11:08:59 GMT -6
oh, ok. thanks. i had heard of some using 7 for what i would call a 9, because of the 3 and 5 techs, but i had forgotten about it. i (vaguely) remember thinking of using it, but i had many years of that being a 9, and i don't do change very well. and everybody i ever ran into coaching knew what a 9 was, so no problem. the oilfield company i just retired from seemed to have a philosophy of "if it ain't broke, fix it", so change was constant. didn't care much for that, and i stayed confused about a lot of stuff because of it. now i can just stay confused about normal stuff that probably won't kill me. I think that this is one of those things that bother coaches more than it confuses players. The TE doesn't care what you call a 2-i and a guard isn't worried about a 7. Maybe once a year a kid'll ask me and I'll tell him, "I dunno. It's just what they came up with back in the '40's.". He says, "Oh, OK." and starts worrying about something else. I'm not arguing for or against it. Doesn't matter what you call anything within your program. Just keep the generally used terminology when you're communicating with other coaches. We've had discussions here that went on way too long before we found out that, to them, a 7 was an outside technique.
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 10, 2024 12:25:07 GMT -6
Wait so do you prefer both crossers headed in the same direction? If so, that's what I was arguing is the better method in the first post. I went back and edited it with some diagrams to hopefully help explain that better. I like both Oh ok, I got you
|
|
|
Post by CS on Aug 10, 2024 17:55:53 GMT -6
This is education in a nutshell, but professional educational higher ups have to justify their existence somehow, so they have to keep coming up with new stuff and justify everything with proclamations of 'best practices'. I've come to learn that this is most every industry though. Money is in the treatment, not the cure. I recently read that a district I worked at many years ago is implementing Block Scheduling and "Project-Based" education. We did that there 30 years ago. Took us two years and a lot of time-money (In-Services, Professional Development etc.) to get it implemented. Several years later district had to abandon it because it did not improve Standardized Test scores (which is all that matters, right?) and wound up costing more than a "normal" daily schedule. But there were some people making a lot of money selling that stuff. PLC and essential standards are the new buzz words around here. 15 years ago when I started it was called collaborative learning environment and scaffolding. It’s the same sh!t with a different name
|
|
|
Post by hlb2 on Aug 11, 2024 7:05:17 GMT -6
Isn't "best" a frame of reference to the user? That's like asking what is the "best" defense, offense, car, insurance plan etc. I get there are best practice methods, but I think best rests soley in the user. We do some things here that I know are not the "best" on paper, but they're the best for our guys through my perspective. If you put a hundred football coaches in a room and asked them the best way to do things you'd get consensus on some things, but for sure there would be some tactics and techniques that you'd damn near get 100 different answers. It can heavily depend on your specific situation, because in some places, you CAN max fit everything for example, because you aren't seeing good RPO, and you won't have a need for Cover 2 Man (which is about the only coverage that you cannot max fit even vs old school run teams) because no one can threaten you with the pass on 3rd and med-long. Like you said there's some things you do that make sense where you are. Note that I said better, not best. There could be a better method than those I suggest in the first post, I just argued that they are better than the methods that I wrote preceding the better methods. Out of the examples I gave, which ones would you say I can't make the argument that the "better" methods are better than the methods that preceded them? No, I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that better or best is completely in the user's hands IMO. There are certainly things we do where I'm at now that might not be considered better, but they are what my kids and coaches can handle and we make them work. The max fit example being one of them. Rarely, if ever are we in any lighter of a box than a 6 man box. We use coverage instead of DL technique or stunts to max fit the run. Why? We see very little to no good RPO teams. They claim they run it, but it's just playaction IMO, the kid's being told where to go w/the ball. So we keep a max fit model vs. 2x2 and 6 in the box. For years we've taught our CB's to shuffle in 2 read. Not a lot of coaches agree w/this, and if I had "better" athletes at the position I might do something different. Is there a better way? Here no, where you are, more than likely. Again, better is a form of perspective. It's really akin to the old which is better, Ford, Chevy or Dodge? You could run polls in various places in the country and sure, you might get an overall consensus, but in certain places Ford would be considered better, elsewhere possibly Dodge, etc. Perspective matters when talking about better or best. IMO it all boils down to what works best for you to get the job done. If the end result works, then what's the issue? I don't really see one. So in the end, are there better methods, heck yes, but your version of better and my version of better may or may not coincide based on where we are located, who we are coaching, who we are working for and a myriad of other factors totally out of our control. In a vaccum, yes, you could certainly say there are better methods universally, but we don't coach in vaccums. Most certainly a great post, but coming from a guy that has probably coached more bad athletes than elite, I think whatever you can do to get your players to play, be competitive and productive, is the best method for where your two feet currently reside.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Aug 11, 2024 7:25:24 GMT -6
A related question-consideration (especially for HS coaches):
How much is too much?
Saban may have THE best way to defend say, RPOs or Shallow Crosses for example. More variations-calls-adjustments, ifs and checks.
But there is only so much practice time in a day and no sense in trying to do more than you can do well.
|
|
|
Post by 44special on Aug 11, 2024 8:03:55 GMT -6
A related question-consideration (especially for HS coaches): How much is too much? Saban may have THE best way to defend say, RPOs or Shallow Crosses for example. More variations-calls-adjustments, ifs and checks. But there is only so much practice time in a day and no sense in trying to do more than you can do well. absolutely. and big schools who can 2 platoon have the opportunity to implement much more than small schools. and there are other factors. at one small school, i had a very good defense. this was a class A school, about 98(?) kids in hs. we had 45-48 out for fb. but roughly half of my defense was special ed. we ran our base front, base coverage, and a goal line look with man coverage. but we ran them very well. won district, when we weren't supposed to, by beating the top team at their place.
|
|