Hustle To The Line!

Having been raised on teams where you were required to run to the huddle and then run (well, jog) from the huddle to your position, it drives me crazy to watch our team break from the huddle and stroll to the line. If I ever become an offensive coordinator or head coach, that is what I am going to teach my boys.

Not just because that’s what I was taught, but because:

1. By practicing it, we increase the tempo of our practices and get more reps in.
2. More reps for your defense in practice, too. Plus it teaches your D to be ready faster.
3. Also more reps in the game, and a faster hurry-up mode.
4. It may intimidate the opposing defenses.
5. It puts your players in the right frame of mind, and gives them a mental edge.
6. It teaches your players good habits.

Enh, maybe I'm making too much of it, but I don’t think it takes that much time to teach your kids to hustle to the line, and I think the time spent teaching it will, at worst, be made up by the extra few reps in practice.

Don’t Be A Control Freak

This morning, on a sweep around the right side, our running back got caught behind the line of scrimmage by about three opposing players. In his futile struggle to resist the growing tide of players converging on him to bring him down, he tossed the ball to his blocking back, who was then free to run 80 yards down the field for a touchdown. Great play!

But was it? The players showed great initiative to turn such a busted play into 6 points, and we all congratulated them for their terrific heads-up play. But what if the toss had been off target – after all he was in the process of being tackled – or if the second RB had missed the ball? We would be getting on his case for trying such a risky maneuver. We had certainly never taught him to do that!

So he took a risk and it paid it off, but it is not a risk we want our players to take, because more often than not, it ends poorly, sometimes in disaster. Should we reward process or results?

If we decide to reward results rather than process, then we send a signal to our players that it is OK to ignore the coaches’ advice (orders) if you think you can do better.

Well, you certainly don't want to punish a player who makes the play but did it by not playing his position correctly. We are not control freaks. So that means you're going to reward (and punish) based on results. That is, you're going to wait to get on your DE’s case about abandoning his containment responsibilities to pursue the play until he gets burned. Which is too late.

But there's no teacher like experience. I think it is OK to let your kids go “off the reservation” now and then, even if it does come back to bite you in the end. Let them experiment. Youth football isn't that important, and the lessons they learn from getting burned in youth football will serve them well when they are older, playing in high school, when their split-second on-field judgement can draw on this experience.

Be forgiving when your kids don't do what they're supposed to. It cuts both ways: sometimes they do the wrong thing and it turns out great, and more often than not, when they do the wrong thing, it turns out badly. Best to make those teachable moments, when you explain to your players what they did wrong and why you tell them to do it differently in the future.

When Should You Take A Knee?

We took a knee this morning on a PAT attempt late in the 4th quarter. It would never have occurred to me to kneel down on a PAT, but that’s because I've never seen it before on TV. I certainly would have taken a knee at the end of a game when we are leading and have the ball, but that's because you see that all the time on TV.

Youth football is not TV football.

So that got me thinking, When, if ever, should you take a knee in youth football?

On Tuesday, we were losing 6-0 in the closing seconds of the game, Robertsdale had the ball. They took a knee, we called our last timeout, and they would be able to run the clock out and take home the W. That’s how TV football works, so I guess we figured that was the script they were working off. And we were OK with that, if a little disappointed in the loss. As it was, that was not the script Robertsdale was working off. They were faking us into thinking they were, and then, on the last play of the game, they ran a wedge play that carried 50 yards before the ball carrier was chased down at the 10. As the coach jogged down the field watching his player run down the field, he was heard muttering, “Icing on the cake, baby. Icing on the cake.” In a league where margin of victory can be a tie-breaker in the playoff seedings, a case could be made for always trying to score – for running up the score for that matter. But our league specifically does not use the score as a tie-breaker (says so in bold print on the standings sheet published every week), presumably to avoid teams running up the score. So it would appear that the opposing team’s plan was pointless. Scoring would not have helped his team any, but it would have made our kids feel bad. What was he trying to teach his kids?

You could make various arguments about teaching your players about never giving up, about never showing mercy, or some such, but I do not find those arguments convincing. People are naturally pretty cruel, and I don't think kids need to be taught to rub in their victories. If the kids are gracious winners, it is not because they are naturally that way, but rather that their parents have taught them that way. Who are you, a volunteer youth football coach, to undermine the teachings of a child’s parents?

So if you're leading and victory is yours, should you kneel down in the final seconds and walk away like they do on TV? Or should you keep playing, knowing that the win or loss is less important than the kids getting more experience? And I mean your subs and MPP’s. If all you're going to do is run your best players, then you're no better than that Robertsdale coach we met last week.

If you do decide to run your subs through a few plays, there are a few landmines you need to avoid: you should not give the appearance of running up the score if you are way ahead. This means conservative high-percentage ball-control plays. If the game is close and you choose not to kneel down on it, emphasize to your subs who are going to run the ball to hold onto the ball at all costs. The last thing you want is for a sub taking his chance to impress the coaches (and his friends and parents) and coughing up the ball to the other team, which then scores a winning TD as time runs out. If you choose not to kneel on the ball in this situation: (1) make sure the ball carriers know the importance of holding onto the ball, and know that the enemy will be doing everything they can to strip the ball; (2) if the worst case comes to pass, make sure everyone knows that it was not the fumbler’s loss, it was the coach’s, who made the conscious decision not to take a knee. Take responsibility for your decision.

This is my opinion: you should never take a knee. The only purpose of the kneel-down is to preserve a victory (unless you're that Robertsdale coach and you're using it to lull your opponent into a false sense of security before you try to run up the score), but there are more important things than winning a youth football game: namely, improving your players. Put on your subs and your MPP’s and let them run some plays. It is not only for their enjoyment, but also (and more importantly) for their experience.

Question: Does this policy change during the playoffs? (Answer: Yes, but not because of the importance of the game, but because playoffs are win-or-go-home. If your objective is to get your players more experience, a win is the best/the only way to do it in this case.)

How To Win Big

(Given the title, this will probably be my most-read blog post, but this article is not about what you think it is about.)

We won this morning 31-0. So when you're up 25-0 late in the 4th, what do you do? We played our subs, our MPP’s (minimum play players); we let players who do not usually carry the ball carry it more. And we still scored a late touchdown. We were not trying to embarrass the other team, but you can't give the ball to a player who does not often get it and tell him not to try; he's needs to impress the coaches to give him more playing time and more carries.

After the touchdown late in the 4th to go up by 31 points, do you try for two? (In our league, you are awarded 2 points for a successful PAT by passing.) Certainly not. But if not, do you go for 1 at least, or is that unsporting? As it was, we took a knee, something I would never have thought of, but it’s a decent thought.

So if I ever have a team of my own, I’ll need to formulate a victory plan. At what point do I start pulling in my MPP’s for more than the minimum? What plays do we run/not run, bearing in mind we want to give our backups experience, but we also do not want to appear to be running up the score. One of the lessons for your players is how to be a gracious winner. You might think of running low-percentage plays (e.g., pass plays) to get your players game experience, but if they’re successful, it looks like you're running up the score. I think, rather than getting your better players practice on your more difficult plays, you are better served getting your subs more game experience with your basic plays.

How Do You Want To Lose?

Nobody wants to lose – nobody plans to lose – but if you were going to lose, how would you want it to happen? Would you rather fall behind early and never manage to catch up? Or would you prefer to hold the lead for most of the game only to give it up at the end?

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.

Having lost our first game on a last-second 4th-and-10 defensive break-down, I'm pretty sure that’s the worst way to lose. At least if you get soundly defeated, you can console yourself with the knowledge that the other team was just plain better. But if you lose right at the end, it's not because they were better, it's because they beat you. You got beaten. You let them beat you. If you get an early lead, the best that can happen is you completely crush the other team, which is a hollow victory. If you don't completely outclass the other team but still hold on for the win, well, that's good. But the worst that can happen is that you blow the lead and lose, and that's the worst thing that can happen.

On the other hand, if you give the other team the lead early on, then the worst that can happen is you end up losing at the end. But if it’s close, your team will likely be playing hard to the bitter end, which is good. And the best case scenario in this case is a glorious come-from-behind victory. The further you fall behind, the more glorious the comeback! And that's the best thing that can happen. Not only will you have the win, but your kids will have learned to never give up.

Conventional game theory says you should play to avoid the worst case, so all things being equal, you should play to give the lead up early rather than late. This is not just academic theorizing. In a league with minimum play rules, you will be required to play your scrubs for a certain number of plays. Most teams start their starters – that's why they're called starters – but game theory would tell you to start your replacements. Let's look at a grid with our choices:

	Play subs early	Play subs late
Other team much better	After giving up some big plays early, the team managed to slow the other team's momentum.	The team struggled early on, but then seemed to lose hope as they opened the floodgates to a rout.
Other team slightly better	After struggling early, the team put together a comeback that just fell short.	An even match in the beginning, the team blew it in the end.
Other team slightly worse	After struggling early, the team never gave up, and put together a glorious comeback for the ages.	The team led early on, but let the other team chip away at its lead. After the other team threatened a comeback, our team held on for the win.
Other team much worse	The team took its early lead and only built on its own momentum.	The team took its early lead, and although its momentum slowed, the outcome was never in doubt.

In every case except possibly the last one (when you completely dominate the opposition) playing your subs early presents a better outcome. This tells me I should start my subs – the worst go first – putting the better players, who are more capable at mounting a comeback or preserving a lead, on the field at the end.

What if when you play your subs affect the outcome?

My assumption so far has been that your timing of your substitutions will not affect the outcome; they will just affect the “story” of the game. What if this is not true?

Well, certainly from an operational point of view, it may be disruptive to pull players on and off the field after only one play. The players are going to wear themselves out running to and from the sidelines, and they will be unable to learn from and build upon their experiences from the previous play. I like to keep offensive subs in for a whole drive, which is self-limiting of the poor combinations: if a personnel package isn't working, the drive will be short and the subs will come off quickly; if the package is doing well, then they get to play more as the offense drives down the field. On defense, the opposite is true, but I still wouldn't want to pull a player out after just one play. I'd say leave him in at least three or four.

But this post is more about the strategy of the timing of your substitutions, particularly with respect to the play of your MPP’s (minimum play players). Earlier I had advocated getting their play time over with early in the game so that your more capable players could take the field to clean up the mess. But if you're using your MPP’s to give your two-way starters a break when they get tired, then playing them before your two-ways even get going does not serve this purpose. However, I still think it is important to get all your players their minimum plays in the first half if possible, or by early in the second half, rather than the current common scheme of trying to put multiple MPP’s on the field at the end of the game because they have not yet met their quota.

9/25 Practice Report

Rapid fire offense! We lined both our first-string and second-string offensive backfields up next to each other (with first- and second-string centers) and had them alternate running the same play: first the first string, then the second string. We did it quickly – as soon as one of the squads completed their play, the other squad ran its immediately, and the first squad had to hurry back into position to be ready as soon as the second squad was done. It meant both our starters and their relievers got lots of reps and were able to practice some plays until they got them down good. (I won't say perfect, because 7-8 year-olds don't do perfect.)

I also liked that drill because it got our players hustling. I hate to see players just walking back to their positions after a play. I want to see them move with a sense of urgency! If nothing else, we’ll get more reps in at practice.

Hindsight Bias

With 1:15 left in the first half of today's Saints game, Drew Brees threw an uncharacteristically off-target pass to a wide open uncovered Pierre Thomas who, after falling to the ground to scoop up the errant pass, was able to get up and run the remaining 4 yards untouched into the end zone for a touchdown. The referee then went under the hood for several minutes to determine whether Thomas used the ground to assist his catch. At the time, I watched the instant replays and decided that it was unclear whether he used the ground to assist his catch. When the ball reveals itself, it is safely cradled above his hand. The commentators themselves could not decide whether there was sufficient justification to overturn the call on the field (catch and touchdown), and announced that whatever decision the referee announced would be as good as any. In the end, the referee reversed the call on the field: there was sufficient evidence to overturn it. Only after the decision did I view the replays and say to myself, “Yes, there! There you can see the ball move as it touches the ground.” What was unclear to me just seconds ago had now become crystal clear: the referee had clearly made the right decision based on the video evidence.

What I was engaging in is what is called hindsight bias. The end result inevitable because, well, it happened. In retrospect, the result that actually occurred seems to have been inevitable, even if it wasn't at the time. This is an important evolutionary trait that allows us to draw conclusions about cause and effect apply lessons from the past on our actions in the future. However, it also means that it is easy for spectators to criticize you in retrospect. Even when you look back on your own performance in retrospect, you may conclude that maybe you shouldn't have gone for it on 4th down, or maybe you shouldn't have called the play you did.

When a parent criticizes you after a loss, it may just be that he or she is engaging in hindsight bias.