Meta: Suggestion to create a coaches thread

Submitted by TheGeneral on January 1st, 2013 at 3:38 PM

My first thread, I hope I don't get crushed for it. I have a suggestion for an addition to the board. A coaches thread, or a thread for the accepted knowledgeable posters coach or not for a particular sport. It could be a chance to teach the fanbase. If anyone has checked the game thread, most of it is vague ignorance "run Denard every down" "no more Smith" there is a reason the coaches are right in how they are doing both. This blog reaches a large audience and educating them why coaches are doing things couldn't hurt. I for one am amazed we are in this game and would love the nuances of this coaching masterpiece explained beyond what I can recognize. Any opportunity to make UM better is an opportunity that should be explored in my opinion.

Mod edit: Changed the title to avoid confusion with the game going on and everything, but otherwise a good topic to discuss/suggest to the staff. I doubt anyone will feel the need to "[crush you] for it". JGB.

Comments

justingoblue

January 1st, 2013 at 3:49 PM ^

Brian and Seth have, from the toolbox available to moderators I don't think there's the capability to do that built into the site. I do know that they're planning a major overhaul of the site sometime around Q2 of this year, and getting the "meta" tag onto the title basically guarantees that Brian will read it, at least from past observations.

In a few less words: cool idea, and I'd start one up now if I had the ability to start a thread where posters needed some kind of pre-approval to post, but I don't think that is something MGoBlog is built to do at the moment.

justingoblue

January 1st, 2013 at 10:24 PM ^

I did a bit of digging around and my best answer is still that I don't know. I do know that mods don't have the admin ability to change settings as far as who can comment (like a point minimum for editing wiki pages or when the site goes into lockdown mode) on a thread, which is likely what would need to happen to get a page like this going. Whether Brian has that capability or not, I have no idea.

What might be possible is to make a wiki page for guys like the coaches below to comment, although someone would probably need to babysit that and delete entries from people outside the list (anyone with 500+ points should be able to do that). That might not work very well in real time, but doing it a half or so at a time over the course of a few days with a "coaches snowflakes" theme might work if the interest level is high enough.

DoubleB

January 1st, 2013 at 10:44 PM ^

"guest coaches" be granted temporary moderator status during game threads? Just pick and choose a couple of guys to comment on what they see and make their comments visible to everyone.

This isn't ideal and I have no idea if this is even viable.

TheGeneral

January 1st, 2013 at 3:50 PM ^

That's why I'm suggesting a locked thread, I don't know if it can be done or who would choose who has access but I'd love to know if Magnus is as impressed as I am but not by asking. Rather by hearing why the cover 2 was the right call even if it didn't work.

orillia

January 1st, 2013 at 9:53 PM ^

high school football in Oregon - just completed my 25th season.......just saying.  Have been following Al Borges since his days at Portland State when he coached Neil Lomax under coach Pokey Allen and the run and shoot.  I have always felt he is a very good football mind - love the complexities and subtleties of his offense and his sets.  I do get frustrated by all the bashing of him as it is generally people who are going from emotion and not from an understanding that "player execution" is often the problem.

Magnus

January 2nd, 2013 at 8:10 AM ^

I agree on Borges.  I've had fun watching all the different sets they've used this year.  I don't agree with all the personnel moves or play calls (then again, nobody likes EVERY call), but he's a very well rounded offensive mind.

Space Coyote

January 1st, 2013 at 11:30 PM ^

(response not necessarily to Magnus, but thread idea in general)

As I've said previously when I started my football fundamentals series, I'd like the fanbase to become better educated when it comes to football. I, too, have found myself nearly defending the coaches to a fault sometimes because what some people claim is obviously wrong or they lack an understanding of what the coaches are seeing. INo, they aren't perfect, but the saying from John Wooden rings very true: it's not the x's and o's but the Jimmy's and Joe's for the most part. It is very rarely something inheretely wrong with the play design, choice, ect. It is typically either that the players aren't good enough or the coaching in practice wasn't good enough (which we can't know from our POV). Sometimes there's the whole RPS where a playcall just doesn't work, but that's a minor part of the game.

I like breaking down film and looking at things a bit more in-depth, I like coaching (which is why I do it) and love to teach people to understand the game, but I've come to realize that you also have to be careful with it in this atmosphere.

Most people won't read the posts, honestly, especially if you go too in-depth. So you have to look at it with some depth so people learn and understand, but not to the point that you are just going over heads. And then one has the realize that most people don't want to have football be another job. They want to watch it for enjoyment, and to be honest sometimes it's much easier to enjoy while not looking at things from a coaching perspective. I come from a family of coaches at different levels, different fields, etc. One thing that I can tell you from all of them is that at some point you become much more rational (instead of die-hard fan) and some of the enjoyment kind of goes away.

So with all this said, the one game a week I try to watch for fun is usually the Michigan game, and even then the coach in me is persistent. Doing something like this in-game, while much more meaningful and helpful to those interested, would never be in my interests at this stage. Doing it outside of games, during the week perhaps or when I have time, may be (depending on other commitments, etc). That's a long answer to this whole thing that replies to about 10 different posts on this thread, but that's everything I have on this subject for now.

TheGhostofYost

January 1st, 2013 at 4:14 PM ^

My opinion on our coaches is that they are stupid.  Continually running Smith up the middle and, even worse, running play-action off of it that fools nobody, refusing to alter the punt formation, showing a complete inability to run a two-minute offense, wasting seconds by not calling a timeout soon enough, making a bad decision to go for two, making a horrid decision to fake a punt at our own 35, etc.   The list goes on and on, and none of the problems ever get fixed.  Brady Hoke may be a good recruiter and a tough football coach, but he's not very intelligent. 

TheGeneral

January 1st, 2013 at 4:23 PM ^

Love you Mr. Yost(that may be the wine talking) but if you don't appreciate this effort you are tough to please. They are better than us everywhere but we're in it. I'm ecstatic, but that and the wine would be why I wouldn't be able to post on proposed thread.

Edit-i don't know wwhy my "reply" hardly ever goes where it's intended.

Lazer with a Z

January 1st, 2013 at 5:14 PM ^

I think this is a great idea. I coach high school football, know a little bit, and some of the perceptions people have are just crazy.

One of my favorite things to do while watching a game is read tweets from Chris Brown of Smart Football. It'd be neat to do the same here. I'd be happy to participate, and I'm sure we have some knowledgable football people on here.

DoubleB

January 1st, 2013 at 6:20 PM ^

Agree with Magnus--the game threads are simply awful with a bunch of people having no clue about the game. I'm very limited in what I could contribute just with the concurrent scheduling.

To the HS coaches above, I think you could vastly improve the quality of game threads. Noticing a few techniques, a few plays, fronts, and coverages can be very enlightening.

Lazer with a Z

January 1st, 2013 at 6:30 PM ^

I usually don't participate simply because I feel like I end up defending the coaches more often than not. The lay person doesn't really understand the preparation that is required for each game. It a coach is doing (or not doing) something, there is a reason. We don't get to see practice, or to watch hours of film befor these games. All we see is the product on the field, which is really just a piece of the puzzle. I don't think any coach is perfect, but I find it hard to second guess them. People on the boards love to play the armchair coach role, and it's just not that easy. 

I forget his name, but I saw the coach from the documentary "Undefeated" speak a couple months ago, and he said it best. He said, "Coaches don't win games, players win games. Coaches win players." I think he nailed it, and that's why I have faith in this staff. These players play hard for them. 

DoubleB

January 1st, 2013 at 7:36 PM ^

You're absolutely right. Who am I to judge? I didn't watch countless hours of opponent game film or watch my team practice. Do those guys make mistakes? Of course. But I'm not qualified to judge them.

I do think what can be added is noticing different techniques, similar plays out of similar formations and such like that. I don't non-coaches pick up on that.

MgoRayO3313

January 2nd, 2013 at 12:05 AM ^

I have only been coaching high school football three years now. Just recently had to move for work but I will be back in Michigan next June for my fourth season. I am an offensive guy by nature (played two years of D2 college football) but I had played plenty of D in high school and I am learning more concepts all the time. Always glad to pass on any knowledge I can. I try to make it to 2-3 coaches clinics a year so I am usually up on new concepts/strategies/ideas, at least at the high school level. Love coaching and I would always be open to hearing ideas from those with more experience than myself.