|
|
Post by coachmoore42 on Aug 30, 2024 23:36:00 GMT -6
Middle School Game
We were up 28-0 at the half. The opposing coach chose the running clock option. I actually thought it had to be 30. He insisted it was 26. I was cool with the running clock, so I just went with it. (Full disclosure, he was right, it was 26.) Point being, he obviously wanted the clock to run, because even at 26, it was his choice for the 3rd (the 4th is mandatory).
Fast-forward to the 4th quarter, up 36-0 now. We've emptied the bench. They still have starters in. They start to drive on us. They're not running the ball. They're in full two-minute, 4 Verts, air-it-out mode. This end-of-the-bench defense is making them work, but they're moving the ball deep downfield. The clock is going to expire after one more play. They're about 20 yards out. At this rate, I think the subs might be able to keep them out for the one last snap that's coming. Their coach, the one who wanted the running clock, calls a timeout to extend this thing. I send the starting defense back in to preserve the shutout. He proceeds to use all three timeouts and we end up getting an INT on the final play.
Is anyone wrong here?
FWIW, in our halftime locker room talk, we set the goal of finishing the shutout.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachjps on Aug 31, 2024 0:56:29 GMT -6
Nope, D deserves the shut out. Much like you can’t complain if the situation is reversed and they score on last play when they are up big. You don’t like it, do something about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Aug 31, 2024 6:40:36 GMT -6
You won the ball game, you won it big. Who cares if you get a shut out?
Let the scrubs experience the challenge of success or failure in that situation.
Stats other than the score mean nothing but to the answer to some trivia question.
The only thing I remember from my playing days are the players and the context.
I couldn't tell you a single meaningful stat other than we won or lost.
So far as trying to get rid of the zero, again it is in context. Every coach is looking for some positive to use to carry over into next week of practice/next season, or maybe just get Johnny his first TD.
Wrong? I'm not on either sideline, so I can't say. I've been down with time outs and was looking to get to the locker room as fast a possible. I've also been down and tried to erase the zero to get that positive that we might could carry over. I've been up big and lost a lot of shut outs because the hot dog eaters were getting their chance.
Winning but losing the shut out can be a building experience too. You have to decide what fits your team and not worry about the other sideline.
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Aug 31, 2024 7:09:24 GMT -6
Since you asked:
Main philosophy
You coach your team. He coaches his.
But, that still doesn’t mean it wasn’t a douche move by him.
I personally wouldn’t have cared about the shutout, but if you did and your team did, that is fine.
I would definitely have cared about the potential of getting a starter hurt on a meaningless play (as far as the season is concerned) especially since they have been out for a while. That would be my main reason for not putting the starters back in. That and letting the second group get playing more time and some earned trust from the coaches staff.
Final Thoughts
You coach your team. He coaches his.
Everyone else can kick rocks.
|
|
|
|
Post by CS on Aug 31, 2024 8:07:45 GMT -6
Not gonna lie here. Pretty much a douche move on your part. You’re beating that a$$ in a jr high game and put your starters in to preserve a shut out?
Maybe I’m getting wiser these days but unless the other team just acts like a bunch of Jack a$$es the whole game I like to preserve the other team’s dignity if I can.
Now if they can’t score on your scrubs that’s on them but IMO you absolutely should have left your backups in. If only for the reason that they practice there a$$ off for the few snaps they get and you gave them back to the starters for ego.
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Aug 31, 2024 8:29:45 GMT -6
Not gonna lie here. Pretty much a douche move on your part. You’re beating that a$$ in a jr high game and put your starters in to preserve a shut out? Maybe I’m getting wiser these days but unless the other team just acts like a bunch of Jack a$$es the whole game I like to preserve the other team’s dignity if I can. Now if they can’t score on your scrubs that’s on them but IMO you absolutely should have left your backups in. If only for the reason that they practice there a$$ off for the few snaps they get and you gave them back to the starters for ego. Whoops. Missed the part about it being a middle school game. Yeah, that changes a lot. Get every kid that can defend himself on the field and as much playing time as you can. |
|
|
|
Post by raider92 on Aug 31, 2024 8:34:39 GMT -6
Ya unfortunately I think you're probably the jacka$$ here. It drives me nuts when teams give it their all to score against the 2s but everybody does it. Losing teams need to finish out the game with a little bit of optimism.
Shutouts mean a lot more when its a 21-0 over a really good team. The bad teams on your schedule are always going to try and score at the end because that HC needs something good to happen now and then too.
With all that said, I'll reiterate that I hate it when teams air it out trying to score on your 2s and I'd probably take a little offense to them using timeouts to do it
|
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Aug 31, 2024 8:54:52 GMT -6
The only time my starters were ever on the field during a running clock was coming out of half, we'd put them in for 1 series out of half so they could warm up and get used to coming out of half. There was one year, we'd have only had starters play in the 2nd half 2 or 3 times if I didn't do that.
As far as a shutout, who cares? Did I get any less satisfaction out of winning 56-6 than I did 56-0? Maybe a little, but not enough to make me risk a starter getting hurt to preserve it.
|
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Aug 31, 2024 8:58:53 GMT -6
With all that said, I'll reiterate that I hate it when teams air it out trying to score on your 2s and I'd probably take a little offense to them using timeouts to do it Once had a guy onside it against my JV in a playoff game so he could score again in the 4th quarter. That irritated me a lot. We led 42-0 at half and my FB and TB never touched the ball in the 2nd half. By the time they onside, literally every kid on the roster had seen the field. Freshmen, kids who NEVER played in JV, heck, we put our girl on the field before the onside. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Aug 31, 2024 10:23:43 GMT -6
Middle School Game We were up 28-0 at the half. The opposing coach chose the running clock option. I actually thought it had to be 30. He insisted it was 26. I was cool with the running clock, so I just went with it. (Full disclosure, he was right, it was 26.) Point being, he obviously wanted the clock to run, because even at 26, it was his choice for the 3rd (the 4th is mandatory). Fast-forward to the 4th quarter, up 36-0 now. We've emptied the bench. They still have starters in. They start to drive on us. They're not running the ball. They're in full two-minute, 4 Verts, air-it-out mode. This end-of-the-bench defense is making them work, but they're moving the ball deep downfield. The clock is going to expire after one more play. They're about 20 yards out. At this rate, I think the subs might be able to keep them out for the one last snap that's coming. Their coach, the one who wanted the running clock, calls a timeout to extend this thing. I send the starting defense back in to preserve the shutout. He proceeds to use all three timeouts and we end up getting an INT on the final play. Is anyone wrong here? FWIW, in our halftime locker room talk, we set the goal of finishing the shutout. I think you made a mistake but I do think "douche move" is too strong. I understand the temptation because it's annoying as hell when you have a running clock and the other guys are trying to win the Super Bowl against our JVs. BUT, Forgetting sportsmanship: A. Your young guys have to learn to compete. B. What if a starter got hurt? To a point I understand the other guy too because I've been there. Sure, he wants to give his guys something to build on and make them competitive but do it against somebody else. I just want to get this over so that I can get to County Grill before the kitchen closes. |
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Aug 31, 2024 10:50:23 GMT -6
I wouldn't put my starters back in. I would yell "watch the onside kick!" loudly, 20 times if they scored. I know that's a douche move, but I'm comfortable with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Aug 31, 2024 10:55:55 GMT -6
I wouldn't put my starters back in. I would yell "watch the onside kick!" loudly, 20 times if they scored. I know that's a douche move, but I'm comfortable with it. When that team lined up in onside down 42-7, I may, or may not have yelled across the way "Are you {censored} serious!?" Also keep in mind that the HC said to me when we were trading film "You know, looking at your schedule, I can't help but thinking we'd be 9-0 right now too." Such an a-hole. |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Aug 31, 2024 11:22:06 GMT -6
Shutouts are a nice accomplishment.
But unless you're only ahead 8-0 (or less), who cares if they score on last play of game?
Let your back-ups play (and find out why they're back-ups, or get experience for when they're needed - even if it's next year).
A win is a win is a win, regardless of score.
|
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Aug 31, 2024 13:09:21 GMT -6
We had a similar situation our first game of the year. We're a pretty decent program (though there's little evidence this year). Played our first game against a team that is definitely in a rebuild with a brand new HC. New HC is a local guy, played HS and college here, NFL training camp guy but didn't actually quite make it to the league. But he's a bit of a "local legend" who plays that up and is kind of a media darling.
Anyway, they scored first, we scored the next 48, and they used timeouts to score on our third string guys with under a minute to go to lose 48-14. Some write up after the game said they showed promise on offense by scoring 14 points. Annoyed me a little bit haha.
|
|
|
|
Post by agap on Aug 31, 2024 13:16:01 GMT -6
I wouldn’t have worried about the shutout. The only time we’ve ever kept the starters in was when we played a team the last week of the regular season and they were also going to be our first round opponent, and we didn’t want them thinking they had a chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachdubyah on Aug 31, 2024 13:39:06 GMT -6
I’m sorry I’m in the minority here but when the clock is running all bets are off…Winning team can do what they want. I’ve had the clock run on me before. It is what it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Aug 31, 2024 14:27:49 GMT -6
We had a similar situation our first game of the year. We're a pretty decent program (though there's little evidence this year). Played our first game against a team that is definitely in a rebuild with a brand new HC. New HC is a local guy, played HS and college here, NFL training camp guy but didn't actually quite make it to the league. But he's a bit of a "local legend" who plays that up and is kind of a media darling. Anyway, they scored first, we scored the next 48, and they used timeouts to score on our third string guys with under a minute to go to lose 48-14. Some write up after the game said they showed promise on offense by scoring 14 points. Annoyed me a little bit haha. Had something similar happen to us. They had a great TB and not much else. In the first half it looked like they were saving him for winnable games. He had three touches. In the second half, with a running clock and our backups in he ran wild against 3rd teamers and JVs. We never considered putting starters in because the score was still a lot to a little. He got named player of the week. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Aug 31, 2024 15:56:08 GMT -6
We had a similar situation our first game of the year. We're a pretty decent program (though there's little evidence this year). Played our first game against a team that is definitely in a rebuild with a brand new HC. New HC is a local guy, played HS and college here, NFL training camp guy but didn't actually quite make it to the league. But he's a bit of a "local legend" who plays that up and is kind of a media darling. Anyway, they scored first, we scored the next 48, and they used timeouts to score on our third string guys with under a minute to go to lose 48-14. Some write up after the game said they showed promise on offense by scoring 14 points. Annoyed me a little bit haha. Had something similar happen to us. They had a great TB and not much else. In the first half it looked like they were saving him for winnable games. He had three touches. In the second half, with a running clock and our backups in he ran wild against 3rd teamers and JVs. We never considered putting starters in because the score was still a lot to a little. He got named player of the week. Jeez |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Aug 31, 2024 16:08:33 GMT -6
We had a similar situation our first game of the year. We're a pretty decent program (though there's little evidence this year). Played our first game against a team that is definitely in a rebuild with a brand new HC. New HC is a local guy, played HS and college here, NFL training camp guy but didn't actually quite make it to the league. But he's a bit of a "local legend" who plays that up and is kind of a media darling. Anyway, they scored first, we scored the next 48, and they used timeouts to score on our third string guys with under a minute to go to lose 48-14. Some write up after the game said they showed promise on offense by scoring 14 points. Annoyed me a little bit haha. Had something similar happen to us. They had a great TB and not much else. In the first half it looked like they were saving him for winnable games. He had three touches. In the second half, with a running clock and our backups in he ran wild against 3rd teamers and JVs. We never considered putting starters in because the score was still a lot to a little. He got named player of the week. Up big on a team. We emptied the bench. 3rd team RB is getting hammered vs their starters. We were in spread and they were blitzing the box with 7 vs 2x2. We punt. Get ball back and same thing on 1st down. We call a quick screen that scores. This happens again!! We win 61-12. Word on the street is that their AD is running her mouth the next week that no team should ever score over 50 on someone. Really pissed me off. Just put your backups in or don’t blitz and we would have just run the dang clock out. Ironically/hilariously, they beat a team 52-21 the very next week. Ha. |
|
|
|
Post by 44special on Aug 31, 2024 20:17:08 GMT -6
not a fan of putting starters back in, because of possible injury.
kinda like, never go "just one more play" in practice. thru the years, had 3 starters injured on that "just one more play".
but i learned. finally. if the thought even entered my mind, we instead immediately ended it. occasionally even a play early.
not that the decision was always mine to make, but in a game, i would leave starters in longer, til it got to where we didn't really care what might happen after they came out. once the subs are in, they finish.
just my personal philosophy.
have seen people pull starters too soon, then end up losing the game.
great way to lose not only the town, but your own players. even on the lower levels. ends up NOBODY is happy in that situation.
except the other team.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Aug 31, 2024 20:20:30 GMT -6
Had something similar happen to us. They had a great TB and not much else. In the first half it looked like they were saving him for winnable games. He had three touches. In the second half, with a running clock and our backups in he ran wild against 3rd teamers and JVs. We never considered putting starters in because the score was still a lot to a little. He got named player of the week. Up big on a team. We emptied the bench. 3rd team RB is getting hammered vs their starters. We were in spread and they were blitzing the box with 7 vs 2x2. We punt. Get ball back and same thing on 1st down. We call a quick screen that scores. This happens again!! We win 61-12. Word on the street is that their AD is running her mouth the next week that no team should ever score over 50 on someone. Really pissed me off. Just put your backups in or don’t blitz and we would have just run the dang clock out. Ironically/hilariously, they beat a team 52-21 the very next week. Ha. Yeah, unfortunately you have to worry about the word on the street but when you start coaching to the word on the street you're toast. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Aug 31, 2024 21:44:51 GMT -6
Up big on a team. We emptied the bench. 3rd team RB is getting hammered vs their starters. We were in spread and they were blitzing the box with 7 vs 2x2. We punt. Get ball back and same thing on 1st down. We call a quick screen that scores. This happens again!! We win 61-12. Word on the street is that their AD is running her mouth the next week that no team should ever score over 50 on someone. Really pissed me off. Just put your backups in or don’t blitz and we would have just run the dang clock out. Ironically/hilariously, they beat a team 52-21 the very next week. Ha. Yeah, unfortunately you have to worry about the word on the street but when you start coaching to the word on the street you're toast. No doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Sept 1, 2024 5:36:06 GMT -6
Not gonna lie here. Pretty much a douche move on your part. You’re beating that a$$ in a jr high game and put your starters in to preserve a shut out? Maybe I’m getting wiser these days but unless the other team just acts like a bunch of Jack a$$es the whole game I like to preserve the other team’s dignity if I can. Now if they can’t score on your scrubs that’s on them but IMO you absolutely should have left your backups in. If only for the reason that they practice there a$$ off for the few snaps they get and you gave them back to the starters for ego. I’m with this guy. Very well stated! |
|
|
|
Post by jg78 on Sept 1, 2024 13:58:14 GMT -6
I don't think either team should have had their starters in the game at that point with a 36-0 score and a running clock.
Coaching defense at the end of a blowout game can be frustrating (although there are a hell of a lot worse situations to be in). Many a shutout has been ruined by backups trying to stop the opposing teams starters. It's tough to watch. Believe me, I understand. Offensive coaches are lucky because they don't take touchdowns off the board no matter how bad your backups suck it up. But unless the game is in danger (and it's very important to sub in a way that it won't come to that because 28-7 can become 28-21 real quick if you sub too freely on D) you need to let them play, IMO, and just live with it if they give up a few points.
That said, I also don't like the team that's losing trying run all over the opposing team's backups the entire second half. Kicking onside kicks with a running clock and all that jazz.
Both teams having their starters on the field on the last play of a 36-0 game with a Hail Mary being thrown to score a garbage TD isn't the way a game like that should end, IMO, especially in middle school.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Sept 1, 2024 14:57:56 GMT -6
Middle School Game We were up 28-0 at the half. The opposing coach chose the running clock option. I actually thought it had to be 30. He insisted it was 26. I was cool with the running clock, so I just went with it. (Full disclosure, he was right, it was 26.) Point being, he obviously wanted the clock to run, because even at 26, it was his choice for the 3rd (the 4th is mandatory). Fast-forward to the 4th quarter, up 36-0 now. We've emptied the bench. They still have starters in. They start to drive on us. They're not running the ball. They're in full two-minute, 4 Verts, air-it-out mode. This end-of-the-bench defense is making them work, but they're moving the ball deep downfield. The clock is going to expire after one more play. They're about 20 yards out. At this rate, I think the subs might be able to keep them out for the one last snap that's coming. Their coach, the one who wanted the running clock, calls a timeout to extend this thing. I send the starting defense back in to preserve the shutout. He proceeds to use all three timeouts and we end up getting an INT on the final play. Is anyone wrong here? FWIW, in our halftime locker room talk, we set the goal of finishing the shutout. the other dude is wrong crush them ohhh, eh jr hi game? I wouldn't have gotten too fired up over it, but yeah, still crush em for doing that doing that at a place that has to do that a lot, and then doing that? gonna get payback |
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Sept 1, 2024 16:21:48 GMT -6
You can’t coach both teams. With that being said, the game was in your control. I do think it was a poor choice to put the starters back in to preserve a shutout. Let your backups get reps and challenge THEM to end the game with the shutout. Or challenge your offense to get a couple first downs and run out the clock.
Similar situation from a state championship game around 20 years ago. Legendary coach is up big (his teams won 3 titles). Team they are playing has the at-the-time state’s all-time leading rusher. Against legendary coach’s starting defense, this kid was absolutely smothered. Complete nonfactor. Was averaging less than 2 yards a carry.
In the 2nd half, legendary coach starts liberally subbing to the point that he basically has his entire frosh-soph team on the field. Opposing coach keeps his star RB in. Kid rips off a 90-yard TD run against legendary coach’s frosh-soph team. This puts him over 100 yards and substantially improves his YPC and gives him a TD for the state title game.
Legendary coach puts all of his starters back in the next series and proceeds to score a TD. He keeps his starters on the field until losing coach finally starts taking his starters, including star RB, out of the game.
Legendary coach’s team ends up winning 50-12 with a running clock.
|
|
|
|
Post by cwaltsmith on Sept 4, 2024 7:56:20 GMT -6
Well I don't think your wrong for wanting to get goal you set, but leaving your young guys out there might give them more ownership which might make them practice harder. The biggest thing I would have been and always do worry about is INJURY... if your starting LB gets hurt on last play but you preserve the shutout... Was it worth it???
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Sept 4, 2024 8:05:23 GMT -6
The opposing coach was a dipchit; leaving his starters in against your bench was bush league. With that being said, I would've left the bench in the game for a few reasons. One, it sends kind of a bad message to pull those younger kids when they've been playing pretty well for most of the game. Secondly, those younger kids need to be placed in those high pressure situations. Think about how cool it would've been for the whole team if those younger kids stopped 'em on the goal line. Finally, I wouldn't have risked injury when the game was in hand.
We were up on a team 63-0 at half in a high school game. We emptied the bench, left them in all game and ended up winning 70-28. The opposing team left their starters in most of the game. I was on the local radio show the following Monday morning and one of the broadcasters stated "Well, they gave you guys a run for your money in the second half." My response: "Nope, our freshman and sophomore got some quality experience in the second half."
|
|
|
|
Post by CS on Sept 4, 2024 8:11:51 GMT -6
The opposing coach was a dipchit; leaving his starters in against your bench was bush league. With that being said, I would've left the bench in the game for a few reasons. One, it sends kind of a bad message to pull those younger kids when they've been playing pretty well for most of the game. Secondly, those younger kids need to be placed in those high pressure situations. Think about how cool it would've been for the whole team if those younger kids stopped 'em on the goal line. Finally, I wouldn't have risked injury when the game was in hand. We were up on a team 63-0 at half in a high school game. We emptied the bench, left them in all game and ended up winning 70-28. The opposing team left their starters in most of the game. I was on the local radio show the following Monday morning and one of the broadcasters stated "Well, they gave you guys a run for your money in the second half." My response: "Nope, our freshman and sophomore got some quality experience in the second half." Every team getting skull drug in a game leaves their starters in. I’ve never seen one sub. They are trying to score to have something good to talk about with the team. I actually have no problem with that at all. The time out calling is annoying but I get it. Bottom line is when you have a sh!t team you are grasping at straws to find something that keeps morale up |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Sept 4, 2024 8:49:05 GMT -6
The opposing coach was a dipchit; leaving his starters in against your bench was bush league. With that being said, I would've left the bench in the game for a few reasons. One, it sends kind of a bad message to pull those younger kids when they've been playing pretty well for most of the game. Secondly, those younger kids need to be placed in those high pressure situations. Think about how cool it would've been for the whole team if those younger kids stopped 'em on the goal line. Finally, I wouldn't have risked injury when the game was in hand. We were up on a team 63-0 at half in a high school game. We emptied the bench, left them in all game and ended up winning 70-28. The opposing team left their starters in most of the game. I was on the local radio show the following Monday morning and one of the broadcasters stated "Well, they gave you guys a run for your money in the second half." My response: "Nope, our freshman and sophomore got some quality experience in the second half." Every team getting skull drug in a game leaves their starters in. I’ve never seen one sub. They are trying to score to have something good to talk about with the team. I actually have no problem with that at all. The time out calling is annoying but I get it. Bottom line is when you have a sh!t team you are grasping at straws to find something that keeps morale up If you change the word "Every" to "Most", I can agree. |
|
