FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[formerd3db]

Off-topic but you guys are my little internet friends so...

I was the head coach of a varsity girls basketball program for the last two years.  In the off-season, the new principal at the school decided I wasn't the right guy for the program.  She attended zero games during my tenure.  Prior to my two seasons, the varsity program was 39-177 since 2002.  I went 26-27 including the only winning season in school history.  We have one all-time victory over our rival which took place in my first season and we beat an eventual state champion in my second to last game.  Zero academic issues or parent complaints (according to the AD that the principal also decided wasn't a good fit).  So needless to say I am not happy about the situation.


Well last night they lost 107-17 and has lost but 55 points or more 4 times this season already.  The team is 0-9 so far and the average margin in losses has been 49 points.  I hate this for the girls but I sure hope the administration is happy with the "new" direction of the program. 

...back to your regularly scheduled programming.

R.C.:

I am really sorry to hear that you received such disingenuous and wrongful treatment (and that's saying it mildly).  Unfortunately, there is always someone like this new principle who has a natural vindictiveness towards others, often for no understandable reason at all.  While I obviously do not know anything about her, I suspect that from what you have shared with us, I would venture to guess that some of it is sexist (in the reverse of what people usually apply that to i.e. men) and certainly an ill-perceived "power issue".  Whatever her misguided reasons were/are, the only thing I can encourage you is to simply remember all the good that you did for those girls who were your players and that you did it for all the right reasons-focus only on the positive memories. 

We all know that old saying that "what goes around, comes around" and someday she will get hers.  She, without question, forgot "The Golden Rule" and she will know what not being on the receiving end of that will feel like someday.  She deserves it.  Regardless, take pride in the great job that you did, again for all the right reasons.  You and your former players and their parents know what the real truth is.  Unfortunately, they are at the suffering end of a misguided person's poor decision.  Blessings to you, our friend here on the boards.

[Desertraider]

Off-topic but you guys are my little internet friends so...

I was the head coach of a varsity girls basketball program for the last two years.  In the off-season, the new principal at the school decided I wasn't the right guy for the program.  She attended zero games during my tenure.  Prior to my two seasons, the varsity program was 39-177 since 2002.  I went 26-27 including the only winning season in school history.  We have one all-time victory over our rival which took place in my first season and we beat an eventual state champion in my second to last game.  Zero academic issues or parent complaints (according to the AD that the principal also decided wasn't a good fit).  So needless to say I am not happy about the situation.


Well last night they lost 107-17 and has lost but 55 points or more 4 times this season already.  The team is 0-9 so far and the average margin in losses has been 49 points.  I hate this for the girls but I sure hope the administration is happy with the "new" direction of the program. 

...back to your regularly scheduled programming.

That has to suck. Don't take this the wrong way but maybe "winning" made you a bad fit and now they are back to normal? I never did understand some of the decisions made at the HS level. My bestfriends brother was the 8th grade girls BB coach at his school. The HC quit at seasons end so he took over as an interim for the next season. Led them to a winning season, conference champs, and state semi-finals (1st time in school history for all 3) - and was let go at season end so the program could head in a new direction. Maybe in your case it was politics? My old HS went tossed some really good coaches in football, BB and wrestling and hired local "names" and friends to replace them. Who replaced you?

[Raiderplaybyplay]

4.6 is plenty fast. There's a difference between coach-timed and scout-timed 40s. The scout's time is inevitably longer but more accurate.

4.4 speed is not nearly as frequent as one would believe from popular media and players and coaches throwing times around.

A bit late on the response here, but thanks for bringing up that point! 4.4 does not equal fast... it equals rare and elite speed.

Guys can be really fast and not run a 4.4 40... For example, Johnny Manziel only ran a 4.68 40 time at the combine but he certainly was fast enough to make some great plays with his legs in college.

40 times are overrated IMO, Actually watching the guys play gives you the best picture of how fast they. It's like what people would say about Jerry Rice, he might clock in at a 4.6 40 by the coaches, but Defensive Backs would swear he ran a 4.4 on Sunday

[wesleydad]

Ok, football talk time.  What does Mount have to do to win the game?  What concerns do you have with Wesley?  Only 3 days, might as well generate some talk about what looks like it could be a real good game.

[Raiderplaybyplay]

Got this from coach Jackson at Poteet a while back. Pretty interesting stuff. This is a eight-year study.

DI
QB – 6'3" 200 40–4.6
RB – 6'0" 210 40–4.5
WR – 6'2" 185 40–4.5
OL – 6'4" 285 40–5.1
DE – 6'3" 250 40–4.7
DT – 6'2" 290 40–4.9
LB – 6'1" 225 40–4.6
Corner – 5'11" 180 40–4.5
Safety – 6'0" 200 40–4.6
D2
QB – 6'2" 195 40 – 4.8
RB – 5'11" 190 40 – 4.6
WR – 6'1" 185 40 – 4.6
OL – 6'3" 290 40 – 5.4
DL – 6'3" 250 40 – 5.0
LB – 6'0" 210 40 – 4.7
DB – 5'11" 185 40 – 4.65
D3
QB – 6'0" 175 40 – 4.8
RB – 5'10" 180 40 – 4.7
WR – 6'1" 180 40 – 4.7
OL – 6'2" 275 40 – 5.5
DL – 6'1" 250 40 – 5.2
LB – 5'11" 195 40 – 4.75
DB – 5'10" 180 40 – 4.7

I'm curious how they measured this too. It really looks like d2 and d1 QB heights are a bit high. 

It also seems to really overstate D3 RB height. Maybe this is just a mount union thing, but their stereotypical back is usually around 5'7 175.

[ExTartanPlayer]

It also seems to really overstate D3 RB height. Maybe this is just a mount union thing, but their stereotypical back is usually around 5'7 175.

There are nine RB's currently listed on Mount's roster.

5-10
5-6
6-0
5-7
5-10
5-9
6-0
5-11
6-0

Precisely two of them are (listed) shorter than 5-9.  So you might want to rethink the use of "typical" there. 

I have my own doubts about the validity of the study data, but I think it's a fairly reasonable characterization.  My sample is a bit of a convenience sample, but in 43 varsity games against 20 different opponents (one perk, if you will, of playing in a small conference was that we played against a lot of different teams over the years), I'd venture that the opposition's primary RB was between 5'9" and 6'0" in at least 35 of those games.  Offhand, I can only think of two specific instances where we played against an RB that was definitely shorter than 5'8" who was the primary ballcarrier (Wesley 2004 and Gettysburg 2007).  In four years, I played with five RB's who saw 50+ rushing attempts in at least one season and all were between 5'10" and 6'0" tall.  That, also, is anecdotal, and there are surely plenty of 5'8" and 5'9" backs in Division III, but there are also plenty of 5'10" and 5'11" ones.

Since someone will no doubt misinterpret this, I'm not saying "short backs can't be good" - I am saying that the typical D3 running back height of 5'10" seems about right to me, and I'm surprised someone would think 5'7" is "typical" because Mount has had a few short ones of late.

[Raiderplaybyplay]

It also seems to really overstate D3 RB height. Maybe this is just a mount union thing, but their stereotypical back is usually around 5'7 175.

There are nine RB's currently listed on Mount's roster.

5-10
5-6
6-0
5-7
5-10
5-9
6-0
5-11
6-0

Precisely two of them are (listed) shorter than 5-9.  So you might want to rethink the use of "typical" there. 

I have my own doubts about the validity of the study data, but I think it's a fairly reasonable characterization.  My sample is a bit of a convenience sample, but in 43 varsity games against 20 different opponents (one perk, if you will, of playing in a small conference was that we played against a lot of different teams over the years), I'd venture that the opposition's primary RB was between 5'9" and 6'0" in at least 35 of those games.  Offhand, I can only think of two specific instances where we played against an RB that was definitely shorter than 5'8" who was the primary ballcarrier (Wesley 2004 and Gettysburg 2007).  In four years, I played with five RB's who saw 50+ rushing attempts in at least one season and all were between 5'10" and 6'0" tall.  That, also, is anecdotal, and there are surely plenty of 5'8" and 5'9" backs in Division III, but there are also plenty of 5'10" and 5'11" ones.

Since someone will no doubt misinterpret this, I'm not saying "short backs can't be good" - I am saying that the typical D3 running back height of 5'10" seems about right to me, and I'm surprised someone would think 5'7" is "typical" because Mount has had a few short ones of late.

GREAT point... I apologize for not doing my homework, I'll take your firsthand experience over my opinion lol.

My only experience of watching D3 started in 2011 so I'm certainly biased towards more recent backs. My mind just went to guys like Mitchell, or Blaire Skilliter , Drew Prendergast or even Levell coppage, in my head I thought that was the norm. 

However... I do feel like guys tend to gain a few inches on their listed height compared to reality. I used to work for WRMU and when we'd interview players I noticed a discrepancy compared to their listed height. Guys with listed heights taller than myself were often shorter than me... So i wouldnt' be that surprised if some players listed at 5'10 and 5'9 are closer to 5'9 and 5'8 etc.

And NO short running backs aren't bad at all, if you're short you have a lower center of gravity, can cut quicker and are harder to see behind the line of scrimmage.

[formerd3db]

4.6 is plenty fast. There's a difference between coach-timed and scout-timed 40s. The scout's time is inevitably longer but more accurate.

4.4 speed is not nearly as frequent as one would believe from popular media and players and coaches throwing times around.

A bit late on the response here, but thanks for bringing up that point! 4.4 does not equal fast... it equals rare and elite speed.

Guys can be really fast and not run a 4.4 40... For example, Johnny Manziel only ran a 4.68 40 time at the combine but he certainly was fast enough to make some great plays with his legs in college.

40 times are overrated IMO, Actually watching the guys play gives you the best picture of how fast they. It's like what people would say about Jerry Rice, he might clock in at a 4.6 40 by the coaches, but Defensive Backs would swear he ran a 4.4 on Sunday

Rpbp:

Doesn't matter re: any late response.  Anyway, you make a good point.   Anyone can work on technique i.e. their running form, the start "out of the block", etc., and improve their times.  With all the new technology that uses both laser start and end times, I believe the 40 times are accurate whoever uses those.  Of course, the coaches hand timed technique, which is still used by some, has been accepted for years and admittedly, has some built in unavoidable variable factors.

At any rate, I, like many others, are in your camp regarding 40 times being overrated.  I agree with you that combining all the other factors, including observation of the player in action, provides a better overall evaluation than just 40 times and that quickness and being fast are two different parameters.  However, the 40 times have been at the top of the usual accepted standard list for years and most likely it will always be that way.   

[Dr. Acula]

I would say 5'7" 175 is really small for a Mount RB historically speaking.  Other than the guys on the current team like Mitchell and Johnson the only other featured back I can think of that small was the year they used Lattimore and Skilliter.  Going back from the late 90's to present their norm has been more like 5'10" 195 or the like.  Guys like Moore, Pugh, Strauch, Robinson, Kmic, Murray, etc. were all around that size.

And any discussion of small Mount RB needs a mention of Dave Hassey.  That kid was tiny, but lightning quick turning the corner.   

[Dr. Acula]

Off-topic but you guys are my little internet friends so...

I was the head coach of a varsity girls basketball program for the last two years.  In the off-season, the new principal at the school decided I wasn't the right guy for the program.  She attended zero games during my tenure.  Prior to my two seasons, the varsity program was 39-177 since 2002.  I went 26-27 including the only winning season in school history.  We have one all-time victory over our rival which took place in my first season and we beat an eventual state champion in my second to last game.  Zero academic issues or parent complaints (according to the AD that the principal also decided wasn't a good fit).  So needless to say I am not happy about the situation.

With the way parents are today I would think the combination of these two things should have earned you a lifetime appointment!  Like a Supreme Court Justice for girls hoops. 

[Raiderplaybyplay]

4.6 is plenty fast. There's a difference between coach-timed and scout-timed 40s. The scout's time is inevitably longer but more accurate.

4.4 speed is not nearly as frequent as one would believe from popular media and players and coaches throwing times around.

A bit late on the response here, but thanks for bringing up that point! 4.4 does not equal fast... it equals rare and elite speed.

Guys can be really fast and not run a 4.4 40... For example, Johnny Manziel only ran a 4.68 40 time at the combine but he certainly was fast enough to make some great plays with his legs in college.

40 times are overrated IMO, Actually watching the guys play gives you the best picture of how fast they. It's like what people would say about Jerry Rice, he might clock in at a 4.6 40 by the coaches, but Defensive Backs would swear he ran a 4.4 on Sunday

Rpbp:

Doesn't matter re: any late response.  Anyway, you make a good point.   Anyone can work on technique i.e. their running form, the start "out of the block", etc., and improve their times.  With all the new technology that uses both laser start and end times, I believe the 40 times are accurate whoever uses those.  Of course, the coaches hand timed technique, which is still used by some, has been accepted for years and admittedly, has some built in unavoidable variable factors.

At any rate, I, like many others, are in your camp regarding 40 times being overrated.  I agree with you that combining all the other factors, including observation of the player in action, provides a better overall evaluation than just 40 times and that quickness and being fast are two different parameters.  However, the 40 times have been at the top of the usual accepted standard list for years and most likely it will always be that way.   

Well put... all factors considered should definitely be used as opposed to religiously hanging on to a single stat. I'd say the best example of this would be when Ryan Swope , Texas A&M receiver ran a 4.34 at the NFL combine. Anyone who watched him play at A&M can tell you that he certainly didn't play like a 4.34 guy. I mean if you showed me tape of Swope versus Pierre Garcon (who's listed at running a 4.48) I'd say Pierre was faster.

That may have just muddied the water of my point, but I guess what I'm trying to get across is what matters isn't what they run in shorts and under-armour on a track, what matters is if they can pull away from defenders or create seperation. I guess i believe in "football speed"

[Raiderplaybyplay]

I would say 5'7" 175 is really small for a Mount RB historically speaking.  Other than the guys on the current team like Mitchell and Johnson the only other featured back I can think of that small was the year they used Lattimore and Skilliter.  Going back from the late 90's to present their norm has been more like 5'10" 195 or the like.  Guys like Moore, Pugh, Strauch, Robinson, Kmic, Murray, etc. were all around that size.

And any discussion of small Mount RB needs a mention of Dave Hassey.  That kid was tiny, but lightning quick turning the corner.

I should have said 5 '8 because that's the guys I was thinking of. I covered mount on radio from '11 to '13 and saw them use backs like Skilliter who was 5'8 and Jeremy Murray who was actually 5 '8 (just checked his bio on that one to avoid looking like an idiot again)   and now I see Mitchell who fits that mold. But YES, certainly just a few flukes, made me think that was the typical.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Raiderpbp, agree totally with your remark that roster heights are often inflated over real heights.  My favorite example is basketball point guard Earl Boykins.  When he enrolled at Eastern Michigan he was 5'8".  After a standout freshman season, he became 5'7".  By junior year he was 5'5".  (We were starting to fear he would eventually disappear entirely!)  His coach got off a great line: "Until we saw HOW good he was, ya think I'm gonna risk my career admitting I recruited a midget?!"  He went on to a 14-year career in the NBA.

BTW, while the NBA and his bio in Wikipedia still list him as 5'5", he majored in my department.  I never had him for a class, some some colleagues who did insisted that 5'3" was closer to the truth!

[Raider 68]

Ok, football talk time.  What does Mount have to do to win the game?  What concerns do you have with Wesley?  Only 3 days, might as well generate some talk about what looks like it could be a real good game.

For Mount to win the game they must:

1. Open the playbook

2. Use Nemeth more at RB with quick hit running plays and control the temp  of the game when they
     have the ball, no huddle.

3. The Oline needs to give K. Burke time, minimal sacks.

4. Use all the WR's to keep the Wesley D honest.

5. On defense, crowd the line, since Wesley will throw 80% of the time.

6. Cover #88 like a blanket, but do not lose track of the other receivers at all times.

7. Play with controlled emotions and keep the penalties to a minimum for 4 quarters.

8. Keep the turnovers to none if possible, good decisions, since Wesley have scored a lot off TO's

Wesley will try to do many of  the same things. There are fast like Mount, have top receivers and a top QB. Although J.
Callahan does not run  much 134 yds in 13 games, he is more mobile than M. Myers. They will try to keep their penalties
at a minimum, but their high emotion could have an impact with penalties. The winner of this game will be the team that plays
smart, since they are both very talented.

[joelmama]

The Wesley QB is not what you would call a running quarterback, Mount must get pressure on him.  Wesley on the hand needs to bottle up Burke and commit to spying on him which is a risk because it leaves less people for coverage, but other than turnovers IMO these are the keys to each teams primary needs other than protecting the ball.

Last year Wesley passed about 73% of their plays.  Mainly because we couldn't stop them.  They run ok but that is not their strength.  Mount needs to make them run.  Sounds kind of backwards but I think that is the case this week.