2 point vs 3 point stance

Recently I've been thinking a lot about 2 vs 3 point stances for youth football. Last year was the first year I actually had my line strictly in a 2pt stance. While our team's success wasn't that great, I don't think it was the stance of our Olineman that was to blame. But this has also caused me to reflect on youth football in general, and how youth coaches have to change how they do things.

(While this is going to be one of those "in my day..." stories, I do realize that my memory is not perfect. If nothing else, I was a child at the time and children don't really pick up what's going on around them as much as adults do.)

In my day (haha), as kids we didn't sign up for sports just to "get out of the house". When we wanted to "get out of the house", we just got out of it. Outside was a fun place. It wasn't dangerous or scary. It was filled with fun and adventure. TV was "super low definition" at that time, and there were only 12 channels, only 4 of which had anything good on ever, and none of that was during the day. Video games consisted of Pong. Okay maybe Pac-Man was around then too, but he only lived in the arcades, not at home. But I digress...

When you signed up to play a sport, it was for one of several reasons:
1) You were already good at it, you wanted to get better, and/or show off how good you were
2) You had no idea how to play, and figured you might like to learn
3) Your parents are forcing you to, most likely because one of them played the sport when they were their age

(Notice that "to have fun" isn't up on the list. Having fun was something you did while doing other things.)

Now, parents seem to sign kids up for sports because apparently it's illegal to just go outside and "play". If you want to play football there has to be coaches and set times for practice. Uniforms, trophies for participation, and of course everyone gets equal playing time during games, because everyone is equal (even though everyone, including the children, know that they are not). We can't fathom the idea of just some kids showing up in the street and playing without the proper schedule and arrangements.

And sometimes, not even one sport is enough! I understand when sport A goes until the 10th, and sport B started on the 1st. Unfortunately the left and right hands don't always know what's going on (and in most cases they are being run by completely disparate organizations). But I seem to get parents who think that little junior can handle playing football, basketball, and baseball at the same time.

But I digress yet again...

So what we now have is group of youth that are here, standing on grass, waiting for me to teach them how to play football. This is the only time they get out of the house, so this is "playtime" to them. They want to do fun things, not hard things. They may or may not be at practice tomorrow (or the next game) because of their other sport. I'm also stuck with them because we surely can't have "try-outs" or "cut" players who don't know what they're doing or who won't pay attention.

Out of these boys, I have to "pick" my offensive line. Let me let you in on a little "untold" secret about youth football and the OLINE. The OLINE players in youth football are choosen because they meet one of two criteria:
1) Size: Most leagues have a "Striper" or "X-man" rule. This means the kid is so big (weight wise) that he has to play on the line because if we let them run the ball no one could tackle them.
2) Ability: Meaning, inability to play any other position

Let me explain #2 a bit more. Football offensive positions usually require you to be fast, and at least able to catch or throw a football. Defensive positions require speed and aggressiveness. So if you can't run very fast, you can't catch or throw, and you're not aggressive, well there really only a couple of positions we can put you at where you won't cause that much damage, and most of them are on the OLINE. It's also a secret that no one really wants to play OLINE, and that it's not a glamorous position. Quick, name a famous offensive lineman?

So back again to the boys on grass. The offensive line now consists of the slowest, biggest, non-aggressive kids who don't get outside to play, believe that this is their "playtime", might not be there tomorrow, and I'm trying to teach a position they don't want to play. The lineup consists of maybe one kid who is the good kind of "big" (meaning proportionally big/strong/in shape), a few who are the other kind of "big" (let's be honest, we're talking about the fat kids here), and the rest are the tiny uncoordinated ones.

Now, we get to the "stance" part of the problem...

For those who don't know what a 3 point stance is, think of squatting down like you're trying to have a bowel movement while camping in the woods. I know it's a disgusting image, but it's the best I can think of right now. While doing this, extend one hand in front of you to the ground, like you are reaching for something in front of you (probably toilet paper). Your back should be flat, and there should be very little weight on your front hand (You should be able to pick up your hand without shifting your weight). Now, hold this stance for about 15 seconds, then immediately and with great quickness, "lunge" out in front of you WITHOUT standing up first (um, maybe a bear is attacking? Or someone is about to steal your toilet paper?).

Does that sound difficult? It should. It's not a very natural position. You have to balance on both feet while your head is about level with your waist. Note that I can do this in my sleep, and I practiced it for at least 100 hours before my first game at that position. I was an adult at the time, and I really really wanted to be good at it. Given all this information, how long do you think it's going to take the boys above to learn a 3 point stance? Correctly? Well, I spent at least 100 hours as an adult, so how long will it take an unmotivated "I just wanna play" youth?

Contrast that with the two point stance. Stand with your feet about shoulder width apart, maybe wider if that's more comfortable. Put the palms of your hands on your knees. Now, "hunch over" a bit more, so that your arms are either bent, or that your upper arm/elbows are now on your knees

That's it. No seriously, you're now in a two point stance. No bowl movements, toilet paper, or bears. Now try to move. It should be very natural for you to step left/right/forward/backward. If you had to grab or shove someone in front of you, you should be able to do it quickly and with good force. There is no nagging need to stand up first, nor this sense that whatever your doing, it's not natural.

Back again to the "it's play time", unmotivated, big/non-agressive/slow boys on the grass. Raise your hand if you want to teach them the woods bowl movement toilet paper stealing bear stance?

Exactly. I've come to the conclusion that I'll probably never teach a 3 point stance to a youth team again.

I'm all for fundamentals, but I don't believe the 3pt stance to be that fundamental anymore. Most NFL teams don't even use a 3pt stance anymore unless it's a goaline/short yardage situation. Many of the successful NCAA teams are now based on spread or west coast, which use 2pt stances. High schools are running the spread, and it's the "flavor of the month" in our youth league as almost every team we faced was going 3-4 wide on every play.

That being said, I think there are many other examples of how youth sport coaches have either had to or should change their methods based on the youth themselves. We all try to tell ourselves were training the younger generation for the next level, but who are we kidding? The largest portion of these kids will never play even at the high school level, let alone college or the pros. So I'm not going to worry about what little Johnny needs to know to play int he NCAA, I'm going to focus on what makes him at least somewhat successful in the 7th grade.

"King of Bain" review

So I decided to watch this "King of Bain" "documentary" about Mitt Romney and what he supposedly did at Bain Capital. As I watch it I'm going to comment on it and mark where I am in the documentary as it goes.

2:30ish - This is not just some plain old documentary. This was made by a real filmmaker and lots of editing/post processing was done on it.

4:57 These front line worker sure seem to know a lot about business. Are you sure that you'd still be making machines today if "Bain" hadn't come to town? Why would the original owners sell then? Aren't they the greedy ones?

7:15 Did they pick these people up at an Occupy rally? "They could never get enough, no matter how much they had". I think I saw that on a sign somewhere...

10:00ish What is strangely missing is actual numbers on anything except Bain's profit margin. Or any sort of real facts. There are also lots of unflattering adjectives. Romney caused the greatest job loss since WW2? Really? That's amazing.

11:40 Wait why did DDI's stock crash? Were their products no good? Where are the financials? Are they suggesting that Bain has the ability to completely crash a company by unloading some stock?

12:20 "Managing member" doesn't mean he was in on the deal. Means he was (at least on paper) still in a leadership role at the company.

13:01 Ok seriously, did they hire people from the Occupy movement to make this?

14:15 I missed on Romney's resume where he was the CEO of Ampad.

16:16 Again with the "ran up debt". How? What debt are we talking about?

17:28 First mention that they were unionized. Really? Didn't want to bring that up earlier?

20:22 So if you go to a McDonalds, and the hamburger was undercooked, it's the fault of the CEO of McDonalds?

22:00 Oh good we got Anderson Cooper's take on it. Is that Ed Schultz too? Why don't we just get Obama's opinion as well.

22:48 So he's built a largely successful business? Is that a bad thing?

25:42 Now NPR is in the mix.

26:12 Alan Colmes too?

26:52 Ok seriously those have to be Occupy people. "Wall Street greed"?

And that's the end

My overall take is that this could have been easily produced by Michael Moore or MoveOn.org. It has the same sense of misleading information and only showing a sliver of information about a subject. It's actually scarily similar to "Roger and me", where front line workers blame all their problems on top level management. It's similar to a child who blames their parent when it rains on their birthday.

Look I understand what it's like to lose your job. From November 2009 to December 2010 I worked 3 different jobs for about 6 of those 14 months, one of which required me to live without my family in another state. Although I disagree with the managers decisions that resulted in my job loss, I don't blame the CEO of those companies. (I feel it was actually the result of several managers making what I felt were bad decisions, but I digress).

What I don't understand is why a GOP candidate would put this out. This is going to hurt the Republican party more than it's going to help any one person.

An open letter to....

This is an open letter to any installation or serviceperson who comes to my house. Specifically, the people from DirecTV and Comcast that came this last week at our new house.

First, welcome to my home. I appologize that I couldn't be there to steer you in the right direction. While you are no doubt a professional at what you do, please realize I am as well. I have modified everything in my home to suit my desires (especially when it comes to technology). Your first clue should have been the Cisco routing equipment or the HP server that sounds like a jet engine. Have you seen any of these any anyone else's house? (And if you have please tell me so I can buy more nerdy computer equipment, because let's face it I don't want anyone to show me up in the nerdy computer equipment department.)

Getting back to the matter at hand, my wife is a wonderful woman. However I did not marry her because she "knew technology". I married her because she was hot and a good kisser. So, before any serviceperson such as yourself comes to our home, I give my wife phrases and key words to tell you in hopes that somehow it will be magically translated correctly and you'll actually do what I want you to do.

What this means is that when my wife says something like "Just turn it on at the DEMARC and we'll take it from there...", she has no idea what a DEMARC is. So telling her that you can "help" and "set it up this way" doesn't mean she's really going to understand the difference between what you said and what I asked for . Honestly, she doesn't really like you at all and wants you out of our house as fast as possible. Don't take this personally, she doesn't like the mechanic, the lawn guy, or the mailman either. She also didn't marry me because I "knew technology" either.

So please just do what my wife says. If you don't understand what she said, ask her to call me. Or ask for my phone number and you can call me. I know it may sound like some sort of 1950's stereotype that the "little woman" doesn't understand and that you need to "call the husband", but in this case the stereotype fits. My wife isn't going to feel inferior or embarrsed anymore than you would if you're wife/girlfriend/whatever was in a similar situation concerning make-up or handbags.

Feel free to also admit you're impressed by the nerdy computer equipment as well...

TSM Script

So I just created this TSM script to show copy pool status. It only works in 6 and higher becaused of the gimp SQL implementation in lower versions.


select cast(copy/primary as decimal(10,2)) as copy_status from (select (cast(sum(logical_mb) as decimal (10,2))) as copy from occupancy where stgpool_name in (select stgpool_name from stgpools where pooltype='COPY')),(select (cast(sum(logical_mb) as decimal (10,2))) as primary from occupancy where stgpool_name in (select stgpool_name from stgpools where pooltype !='COPY'))

Couple of cavets
It takes the data from all storage pools that are not copy pools and compares it all copy pools. If you are making mulitple copy pools from one primary pool or you have primary pools that you are not making copy pools of, then the results will be skewed.
The result will be in a decimal form, so a result of 0.15 means 15%. A result of 1.00 means your pools are perfectly synced.

The Ant and the Grasshopper

I'm reposting this from a post on www.theblaze.com about the O'Donnell story that is on there at http://www.theblaze.com/stories/odonnell-regrets-witch-ad-reveals-halloween-costume-plans/

OLD VERSION . . .

The ant works hard, in the withering heat, all summer long.
He builds his house and stores supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks that the ant is a fool.
He laughs, dances and plays the summer away, preparing nothing for the coming winter.

Winter comes, the ant is safe and warm.
The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

edit - The version I remember is the ant is charitable and shares with the grasshopper, but whatever...

The moral to the story being: BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOURSELF!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NEW VERSION . . . (sad but true)

The ant works hard, in the withering heat, all summer long.
He builds his house and stores supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks that the ant is a fool.
He laughs, dances and plays the summer away, preparing nothing for the coming winter.

Winter comes, the ant is safe and warm.
The shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and fed, while others are cold and starving!

CBS, NBC, ABC & CNN show up to provide pictures of shivering grasshoppers, next to a video of an ant in his comfortable home, with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast! How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer this way?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah, with the grasshopper. Everyone cries when they sing “It’s Not Easy Being Green”. Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house, where the news stations film the group singing “We Shall Overcome”. Jesse then has the group pray for the grasshopper’s sake, and reminds the group to contribute to his group, so that he can “continue the fight” for grasshoppers, everywhere!

Ted Kennedy & John Kerry exclaim, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, that the ant has gotten rich, off the back of the poor grasshopper! Both call for an immediate tax hike, to make the ant pay “his fair share”! Finally, the EEOC drafts the “Economic Equity For Grasshoppers Act”, retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire the proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his house is confiscated by the government. Hillary Clinton gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper, in a defamation suit against the ant. The case is tried in federal court, with a jury comprised of unemployed welfare recipients.

Surprise! The ant loses the case!

The story ends, as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food, while the government house he lives in (which happens to be the ant’s old house) crumbles around him,
due to lack of maintenance!

The ant has disappeared in the snow. The grasshopper is found, dead, in a drug-related incident. The house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders, who terrorize this once-peaceful neighborhood.

Attention parents who put their kids on youth teams

I have had a real problem with parents this week and I just can't stop being angry about it. So I have decided to write this "rant" so to speak from a coach's perspective.

First, please remember you paid money for this. I'm not sure how much it costs for soccer but I know basketball and football are usually pretty expensive. Why then can't you get your kids to practice consistently? And on time? Not only are you ripping yourself off, but you're ripping off the team. I can't practice with only half the team. Your child needs to be at practice so that his (or her) teammates can work together to get better.

And stop signing your kids up for two sports. I don't care how good of an idea you think it is. Pick one. Even if it's not mine.

Second, this takes a lot of time for me to do. Not only am I speaking of the time at prat ice but the time working on planning practice, preparing for game day, researching the sport and ideas, etc. I'm also a parent just like you, so I have other kids to raise, not just the one I'm coaching. Please don't waste my time by not bringing your child to practice and not telling me about it. If I know I'm not going to have half the team I can cancel practice and save everyone some time. I can't cancel practice AFTER practice is supposed to start because of attendance. So that means I have to still attempt to run some sort of 2 hour practice when all my plans are shot because I don't have enough players.

Third, don't complain to me about your kid not playing quarterback or running the ball or whatever. This is pretty football specific, but if "Little Johnny" can't run, can't throw, weighs 80 lbs (in a league where the average weight is over 100lbs) and is scared of getting hit, he's not going to be playing quarterback. It doesn't matter how much I work with him, I can't give him aggression and 20 lbs of solid muscle. I'm also not a personal trainer, so don't count on his 20 yard dash time improving because he came to football practice 3x a week for 2 months. You want your kid to play quarterback, then YOU need to work with him all year long.

Another thing to consider is that there are 11 players on the field in football. If 1 player is running the ball, 10 players are blocking. So if your kid is on my team, even if he is the quarterback, he's going to be blocking.

Finally, don't complain to me about the offensive or defensive scheme I run. I know you watch a lot of college and professional football and can probably tell me about all the "plays" you remember from last weekend. Or even the plays you ran in high school. As soon as they invent a 12 year old quarterback who can read a 5 receiver pattern, look off a safety, and know to put a ball on an inside shoulder or an outside shoulder depending on the coverage, I'll put in the spread offense. As soon as a 12 year lineman old can hold a pass block for 5 seconds without holding or being down field illegally I'll throw the ball more. As soon as they invent a 12 year old receiver who can read the safety and linebackers to tell if it's man coverage and correctly adjust his route to compensate, I'll put in the "double move". Until that time, we are going to run the ball 99% of the time, even if it's "not working".

Going after the "Sacred Cows"

So I'm listening to various people talk about healthcare and what's bad about it and what's possibly good and I can't help but be upset with all of them. This has led me to believe that in order to have any real change every person who wants to be free is going to have to kill their own "sacred cow".

The definition for the term "sacred cow" that I'm using here is "an object one believes to be immune from criticism". Another way to say what I'm thinking is to do the following:

A) Think of a Government program (one not expressly authorized by the Constitution) that is helping you right now or that you believe is providing a neccessary service (i.e. Medicare, Food Stamps, etc.)

B) Advocate and support people who want to eliminate that program

Why do I say this? Because no change is ever going to happen if everyone keeps agruing about programs that don't effect them. It's easy for a wealthy person to talk about how bad welfare is. It's easy for a conservative christian to say we should have prayer in schools. What about all the poor people who know that welfare isn't helping them? What about all the conservative christians who say that there shouldn't be teacher led prayer in public schools? Below I have some of my own "sacred cows" that I think should be sacrificed in order for us to "live free".

1. Reduce the FCC's power down to simply handing out frequencies and regulating the use of them. No more power to regulate content.
   -Good - insure that speach stays free and that the governement can't shut down dissenting voices
   -Bad - Pornography and the "F" word on daytime television


2. Get rid of the FDA or limit their power to only make recomendations as to what drugs are safe and which are not. Eliminate the DEA and all federal drug laws including ones that make various drugs illegal (states are still free to inact legislation).
   -Good - Reduced drug prices, faster "time to market" for new drugs and treatments, more access to potentially life saving treatments
   -Bad - Potentially dangerous drugs on the market, more illegal drug useage in the country.


3. Eliminate any business requirement to provide health care
   -Good - The free market can truely work and allow competitive prices in the health care industry.
   -Bad - Requires more work on the part of the health care consumer to make sure they are getting good quality care.

These are just the first 3 that come to mind. Maybe later I'll work on making a complete list.