Ghost Coaching....sending it home

With limited practice time and with having players going both ways, cramming extra coaching points and ideas into player's heads has become more challenging. More so than ever, I have been experimenting with video cutups on DVDs to send home with the players by position.

This can be real simple or pretty in-depth. I have sent out a total of 6 different DVDs since April to my positions with the benefit of;

1. a better visualization of technique and concept is formed
2. repeated viewing (= conditioning message)
3. tracking curriculum covered

The first DVD was a consolidated collection of NFL/NCAA cuts of our coverages (1,2,3,4) for the DBs to get a understanding of how to play, how players fit within that coverage (run & pass), what breaks a coverage, and playing route patterns.

The next DVD was a break-down of our first intrasquad scrimmage, both OL and DBs.

For the Oline video, I included NFL/NCAA cuts of our zone and 90's vertical set protection for the players (since OUR footage was not a good example to use), illustrating individual work (2 steps), group work (6 steps), and team work (game film) of what these concepts actually look like (what's important).

For the DBs, since alignment was crucial to many of our technique work, I included a 45 second prelude of pre-snap snapshots of our scrimmage. This made sure we highlighted how and where we align based on our coverage rules. This was done for the corners, then the FS. Lastly, I wanted to make sure we covered one of the most important concepts that we struggled with, which was handling the smash concept from C3. I included all the clips of 4 verticals and smash so it could provide a clear picture of what we did versus how we should be responding.

For both of these DVDs, I recorded a voice-over narration from a Sansa voice recorder and my Blackberry, piecing the audio and video together with Nero.

I will probably do this during the season, as I do not anticipate us doing much real film time or providing coaching points from film (so the DVDs will suffice for that).

When the season comes, I hope to be able to use more team footage than NFL/NCAA cuts.

A gimick I've used in the past (with printed handouts) is to put an 'easter egg' within the video to gauge who is actually consuming the material. With handouts, I'd give a reward to anyone who could spot 3 spelling errors. First one who brought it to me would get $10. This can be fun when you are taking a long bus ride on those summer tournaments (plus, spelling errors are my biggest pet peeve). With video, I suppose I'll bury a break 10 minutes into a video, claiming the first player to call me gets $20. We'll see how that goes.

Minimize Liabilities (Defending Formations)

There are smarter people than I to get into detail, but my experience (shaping the philosophy) has shown.......

Nothing set in stone, but generally speaking;

even formation = even shell support

• 2,4 immediate vertical threats (twins, doubles)


• Cover 2, Cover 4


• wings are not considered vert threats (slots are)

odd formation = odd shell support

• 3,5 immediate vertical threats (pro, empty, trips)


• Cover 3, Cover 1, Robber C6


• ** C6 is the loaded zone that bridges the gap between C3 & C2 for (me)

WHY?

...because the whole point is to contain the gimme-candy shots (easy), bottle it up and let our players play for the most part (keep their roles simple). If the candy is gone, then now earning those yards becomes a little more challenging.


Game planning by Areas of the Field:

out of the 10; momma! (open it up, because their back is against the wall)
out of the 20 - 35;C3 / Robber - keep you from running / work the perimeter game
between the 35's; more C2 / C4, but the entire playbook is open for both the off & def - love fire zones here
inside the 35; C3 - C0, more pressure is required (with less emphasis on the deep threat)
inside the 20; C2 the vertical threats have been truncated
inside the 8; C0 gap 8

Now the EASY part.........the front.
What fronts can you support from these coverages?
Just fill in the freaking blanks
1) Coverage is dictating who your force players are (flat player)
2) Coverage is dictating your alley player is (Curl, Deep hole)
3) Coverage is dictating who is removed from immediate run support (deep halves / deep 1/3 / ANY 'man' player)
4) fill in the blanks with kooky alignments based on immediate run responsibilities (gap)

Just make sure you call them really cool names so people will think you are awesome

An example;
The formation below, is it an odd or even formation? 1,2,3.....odd

Cover 3, Robber puts you in a real good spot to take care of both those threats.field position is essentially trumped by the formation (for me at least), which is why we (players) are keenly aware of what formation is presented (whats important NOW).

There is nothing 'bad' about C2 to pro, and I really like it (against any set).It comes into the amount of 'stress' you put on the deep defender.

Versus C3 the FS can nullify the Y and the CB can nulify the Z.

Versus C2 the FS has to manage the Y attacking MOFO or the Z going vertical - it puts considerable stress on his ability to do his job.

I'm not saying it is impossible or unfavorable based on certain matchups - just a general rule of thumb.

Is there a real nead to re-route (+1) the X inside (+1) AND cover him over the top deep (+1)?

Or can you get away with just covering him deep with only 1 defender and a support player in the curl (curl-to-flat) player?

Is one player worth 3 defenders or 2 defenders?

It just boils down to the 'economics' of the numbers....how much are you willing to spend (in player numbers) to pay for defending each side of the field? How do you justify the cost?

The bottom line becomes an algorhithym of;

1. Defend the end zone
2. Defend the field
3. Defend the formation
4. Defend the personnel
5. Defend the tendency
6. Attack the tendency
7. Attack the personnel
8. Attack the formation
9. Create a takeaway
10. Score

And follow that basic calculus in simple, modular concepts to play FAST

Coverage Determines The Front

this is something I learned from a GA years back...but its nothing new...this ain't rocket science

When you run a defense on a given play, what are you defending?

Are you lining up just to line up in a kooky front, or are you legitimately trying to defend the gaps by the alignment of the offensive players?
......defend each element of the offense first.

First thing they present is a formation.....if you already outflank yourself based on the offensive formation, how realistic is your defensive concept for that play?

Defend the formation (what are the vertical threats of the formation?) with a coverage.

it's as simple as....
A.Coverage
B.Run support (force & alley)
C.run support gap fits

I have seen way too many coaches holler and scream at their players...but the fact is, they have assigned 3-4 different assignments to a player (there is no realistic way that player could be right all the time).40 technique linebackers that are supposed to play flat....Cover 3 corners who are supposed to be primary run force AND deep 1/3 safeties.All 11 players have to tie-in together ............realistically.

What do I want to do?

1. 8 man front (because most conferences are dominated by the run)
2. strong side load (play cover 2 strong...because most teams run to the TE the majority of the time)
3. use the weak OLB as my deep 1/2 safety to keep the reads / alignment consistent for that SOLB -- and keep the FS oriented to the TE side/key

It just happens that everything I want to do from a coverage standpoint (and the fact that I prefer a 4 down rushers) equates to the 42. ( or whatever you call it.....have no problem doing the same out of a 3 man front...and run exactly the same thing).

Also, last caveat, I am a former college DL......I do not get off on this 'philosophy' because it is my comfort zone...but because it is the tried-and-true acid test for a Team Defense.

What kind of defense you 'really' are is what is your base coverage?
44, 42, 43, 52, 53, 61, 62, 33, 34, 35, 18, 551, whatever....you've got 11 guys on defense (12 if you're lucky) and you're playing a coverage.

Coverage determines your run support, which determines your front......finito.

I equate it to;

• A tortilla filled with beef and cheese open faced = Taco
• A tortilla filled with beef and cheese and rolled = burrito
• A tortilla filled with beef and cheese, rolled and covered with chile sauce = enchilada
• A tortilla filled with beef and cheese that is fried = chimichanga
• A tortilla filled with beef and cheese that is fried, baked inside a pizza, wrapped with bacon and smothered in gravy, and served with four shots of Jagermeister = 42 Defense

Call it whatever you want, but you end up with essentially the same things (depending on your coverage)

Scouting with MS Excel (Pivot Tables)

I get asked about this quite a bit, so I figure I will throw it up here for an easier way to share this information.

This is a real sexy (and cheap) way to make it look like you actually know something.

There are several Football applications available (for purchase) to consolidate tendency information for use with scouting opponents (or yourself), but if you're cheap like me (or have no school budget), we can accomplish the same darn things with software everyone already has (free).

HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF USING EXCEL FOR SCOUTING, THEN CONSOLIDATING THE INFORMATION WITH A PIVOT TABLE....





click the data you want to include (it MUST have a header in each row)

Click Data>Pivot Table

just click "finish" at the wizard and start dragging the columns (of info) you want to look at

here's the fun part - start dragging the column headers in the order you want over to the left side of the pivot table.....include a unique identifier like "yards gained" or "play number" in the 'Data Items' field

BAM! You're done.

Pivot tables work because they are simple when you're exploring a few different (about 6) categories.

If you want an expanded report based on seven or more different variables, you are better off just importing your data as a table into Access or some other database compiling application, and writing queries.

For me, I just basically want to get a good understanding of what a team will do out of what formation, based on D&D.......if you want to worry about hash, score, weather, what color socks the team is wearing, etc.- then you'd better throw it in a database and write a query.

Pivot Tables get what you want done in a manageable fashion, without "losing" information like a filter would do (all a filter does is just hide the data).

Let's say you want to know all the plays that were
PRO RIGHT
1st & 10
<40>

Lets say you just want to get a general idea of your data......

From the data, I could see their big-hitting plays on 2nd down and the bad calls on 3rd down (yardage average)
Now I want to know ONLY 1st down plays based on field position

 Now let's say I want to see ALL the plays that featured Trips Right (I'd double-click on the count of the formation of Trips Right)

Successful Football: Contrary to (blind) 'Faith'

With a generous hat tip to Carl Sagan and Dr. Michael Shermer here......

When we first start out, we can be rather credulous, and willing to believe or accept just about any idea we encounter, especially people in authority, former coaches, professional players, sportscasters, or the Internet. With a sea of information coming at us from all directions, how do we sift out the misinformation, bogus claims, right and wrong, and get down to the truth?

Often times we believe things because our brains are wired to find meaningful patterns (see last month) to help us with recognition (TT + lots of points + exciting + DI football = "I need to run air raid to score points" or "43 teams can stop the run, therefore only the 43 can stop the run"). Many patterns are real, and its good to know what those patterns are - that's called learning. We connect A to B (often times A really is connected to B). The problem becomes that a lot of patterns we see everyday are false (superstitious,emotional, not real).

Naturally, we look to find safety/comfort/confidence in the routine condition that we've always known or admired. The more reputable or esteemed the speaker or presenter, the more awestruck we may likely be to adhere to those ideas without question.

But how do you know if State U's schemes or philosophies or techniques are right or wrong?

You don't.

You shouldn't believe anyone based on authority, records, charisma, or whatever position they hold.


Here are ten challenges we should present ourselves with when encountering a new or old idea towards the game.

How reliable is the source of the claim?
Holes or liabilities are expected, nothing is bulletproof in the game. However, if the errors are all in one direction or lay heavily on one area, then we should think there is more than meets the eye here.
You'll find claims being made to always support a particular belief, an inherent bias.

Does the source make similar claims?
You likely find 'conservative' play-callers carry this thinking over into ALL phases of the game (or vis versa). Adhering to a mindset simply because it is a mindset, rather than following supporting data to determine their thinking. Be open enough to accept new ideas, but not so open that your brains fall out.

Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
Has it been vetted elsewhere? Can the results be replicated with other variables?

Does this fit with the way the real world works?
Think Nigerian Prince emails (use Jump Bands and your kids will turn into DI athletes). Does it pass the smell test? How fanciful is the belief and how much does it prey upon our desires?


Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
What is the counter argument? What other (ancillary) factors could be involved to explain the asserted results? What does a critical eye think of the claim?

Where does the preponderance of evidence point to?
Does it point directly to the claim, or somewhere else? What about the other evidence out there (does it explain it directly)? Much like solving a crime, does the evidence build a strong enough case for conviction?

Is the claimant playing by the fundamentals of the game?
Is logic and reason and real-world applications being utilized or are they just trying to 'make a case' for their particular claim?

Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
Are they providing reasoning for their conclusion or are they just denying evidence of the "other" way of thinking? ("Wing-T is sooo old school, no one wins with that anymore...")

Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
Anyone can find a few anomolies in the current way of thinking, but is there anything more than just basing an ideology off of the deficiencies of the former ("the 53 sucks against trips,...therefore you should never have a 5 man front"). Can this 'new' way provide an answer for the former holes and more?

Are personal beliefs (or insecurities) driving the claim?
Is bias the driving force behind the idea? Are pieces of data being ignored/amplified to satisfy ego?


Question EVERYTHING!
Shoot holes in your program so your opponents can't

Being skeptical isn't lacking faith, and faith (in that which is unchallenged) is not confidence