Notifications

New Play Safer rule change (elimination of 3-point stance)  

Page 2 / 2
  RSS

CoachDP
(@coachdp)
Kryptonite
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 17400
North Carolina
High School
June 21, 2019 7:14 pm  

The ridiculous thing about the Pop Warner mandate is, if they truly believe in Dr. Bailes statement and that it's actually necessary to change the rules in the belief of safety, then why aren't they mandating it at the PeeWee, JV, Varsity and Unlimited age groups where the players are bigger, stronger, faster, more physical and aggressive?  It the stance is dangerous, then it's dangerous across the board.

My personal belief is that they don't really believe the 3-point to be dangerous, at all.  It's just a desperation move to get their name in the paper to reverse their dwindling numbers of participation, by giving the appearance of being "proactive."  But their stance (no pun intended) is ludicrous, as it makes them look as if they only care about the safety of the younger players and are more than willing to risk concussions and "unintentional helmet contact" with the older players.  Either the stance is dangerous, or it isn't.  Which is it, Pop Warner?

--Dave

"The Greater the Teacher, the More Powerful the Player."

The Mission Statement: "I want to show any young man that he is far tougher than he thinks, that he can accomplish more than what he dreamed and that his work ethic will take him wherever he wants to go."

#BattleReady newhope


ReplyQuote
CoachDP
(@coachdp)
Kryptonite
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 17400
North Carolina
High School
June 21, 2019 7:23 pm  

And as for the Center, whether he's snapping the ball with one hand or two, he is in what is essentially a 3-point stance and is in the most vulnerable position of all because he can't protect himself while snapping the football.  While Pop Warner has rules at the Tiny Mite and Mitey Mite levels that don't allow the Center to be covered, the Center can be covered at Jr. PeeWee.  So here we have a player in the dangerous, dreaded 3-point stance, whose job to snap the ball doesn't allow for protecting himself in an age group where they allow a Nose to line head-up on the Center.  And yet Pop Warner says the 3-point stance at that age group is too dangerous to be used.  I suppose if your son plays Center at the Jr. PeeWee level in Pop Warner, they must believe he's expendable.  Or is it that the 3-point stance really isn't all that risky?

Regardless, enjoy explaining to the Center's parents why he can be in a 3-point with an aggressive 0-Tech hovering over him, while his line mates are prohibited from being in essentially the same stance.

--Dave

"The Greater the Teacher, the More Powerful the Player."

The Mission Statement: "I want to show any young man that he is far tougher than he thinks, that he can accomplish more than what he dreamed and that his work ethic will take him wherever he wants to go."

#BattleReady newhope


ReplyQuote
CoachDP
(@coachdp)
Kryptonite
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 17400
North Carolina
High School
June 22, 2019 7:09 am  

I don't have a dog in the fight.  I don't care whether we have to be in a 3-point stance, or a 2-point stance.  I've done either and we've had success with both.  I've coached them both at youth, middle and the high school level.  We've used the 2-point with our Double Wing, as well as with the Air Raid.  So it really makes no difference to me.  In addition, I don't care if Pop Warner has zero safety documentation to support its argument.  If they even THINK this is a safety issue, then I am all for what will make this game safer.  I think it is our greatest responsibility as coaches, and for all too long, coaches have run some really stupid, unsafe drills with no more than hope that their players wouldn't get hurt.  Years ago, I watched my cousin being coached by his youth coach and I convinced his dad to take him off the team, the coaching was so dangerous.

All that being said, I just don't believe that Pop Warner is making this mandate from a safety perspective.  If they were, the 3-point stance would be banned at each age group.  And to ban it at the youngest levels where most 3-point "stances" were nothing more than frog stances where the player's first move was straight up, makes the implementation at those levels even more ridiculous. 

Pop Warner is speaking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.  They say the 3-point is potentially dangerous, yet allow it at older levels.  They say the 3-point is potentially dangerous, yet allow Jr. PeeWee Centers to be covered by a 0-Tech.  They say the 3-point is potentially dangerous, yet a 2-point stance may only differ from the hand being on the ground.

Or their assumption is that all 2-point stances look like a Spread/Zone team and they don't.  And they shouldn't.

--Dave

"The Greater the Teacher, the More Powerful the Player."

The Mission Statement: "I want to show any young man that he is far tougher than he thinks, that he can accomplish more than what he dreamed and that his work ethic will take him wherever he wants to go."

#BattleReady newhope


ReplyQuote
CoachDP
(@coachdp)
Kryptonite
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 17400
North Carolina
High School
June 22, 2019 5:39 pm  

I don't understand how you can fully load up from a 2 point stance. If it was equally as explosive, sprinters would just take off from a standing position. If they are claiming it's safer, I would really love to hear how?

Ryan, I've thought about the question while I was out power washing my driveway today.  Sprinters have very different bodies than offensive linemen.  And sprinters typically have a very strong core.  Unlike linemen, especially at the youth level where their core strength is virtually non-existent.  So a sprinter in a 4-point technique with a strong core is very different from a (youth) lineman with no core strength.  Being bent over in a 3-point with no core strength makes the get-into/get-out-of not only more difficult for the lineman, but also makes him slower to react.

--Dave

"The Greater the Teacher, the More Powerful the Player."

The Mission Statement: "I want to show any young man that he is far tougher than he thinks, that he can accomplish more than what he dreamed and that his work ethic will take him wherever he wants to go."

#BattleReady newhope


ReplyQuote
gumby_in_co
(@gumby_in_co)
Platinum
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 4148
June 22, 2019 6:19 pm  

Ryan, I've thought about the question while I was out power washing my driveway today.  Sprinters have very different bodies than offensive linemen.  And sprinters typically have a very strong core.  Unlike linemen, especially at the youth level where their core strength is virtually non-existent.  So a sprinter in a 4-point technique with a strong core is very different from a (youth) lineman with no core strength.  Being bent over in a 3-point with no core strength makes the get-into/get-out-of not only more difficult for the lineman, but also makes him slower to react.

--Dave

In a former life, I was an all-state hurdler. In a sprint, it's important to get to full speed as fast as possible. A sprinter will employ blocks and a crouched start to get the longest possible first step while still maintaining a forward lean. If you tried to do this from a standing start, the forward thrust of your knee will be countered by a backward motion of your upper torso. Also, standing up while using blocks is near impossible.

As a line coach, I am always fighting a long first step. I ask for a 3" step in hopes to get a 6" step. One thing I've found personally is that this fight is much easier from a 2 point stance. From a 3 point, it's really hard to take a fast first step without taking too long of a step.

When in doot . . . glass and oot.


ReplyQuote
J. Potter (seabass)
(@seabass)
Gold
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1248
June 23, 2019 4:29 pm  

If you are going from the 2 point stance I would NOT recommend an even toed base. I would be heel to toe or staggered with the back foot turned out slightly. The back foot turned out allows you to drive off the i sole of either foot.


ReplyQuote
rpatric
(@rpatric)
Bronze
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 175
Maryland
6th - 8th
Head Coach
June 24, 2019 6:01 am  

Ryan, I've thought about the question while I was out power washing my driveway today.  Sprinters have very different bodies than offensive linemen.  And sprinters typically have a very strong core.  Unlike linemen, especially at the youth level where their core strength is virtually non-existent.  So a sprinter in a 4-point technique with a strong core is very different from a (youth) lineman with no core strength.  Being bent over in a 3-point with no core strength makes the get-into/get-out-of not only more difficult for the lineman, but also makes him slower to react.

--Dave

Dave,
I'm probably a little out of my element as far as 2 pointing offensive linemen. I can definitely see the value of it though. I'm always looking at things from a defensive perspective and I like for my d linemen to have an explosive 1st step. In my experience dealing with our d line last year, the only way I could get the desired results was starting them out in  4 pt. When they were in a 3 point, most of them stood up immediately. I noticed when my de/OLBs went 2 pt, they usually had some kind of stutter step for their first step and they had a tendency to get off a step slower. Maybe if I could teach a lower more powerful 2 point that would work? The only way I knew to teach them was to go 4 pt and do what I told them was loading up. Basically explained to them that by creating bend at the ankles, knees, and hips they were able to fire off the ball with more power. I used a bow and arrow, not literally, as an example and it seemed to resonate with my players. I did have 1 kid tell me that he sees Khalil Mack rush from a 2 pt all the time, to which I responded " So you're Khalil Mack now?". I guess is just really see value in youth defensive linemen using 4 pt stances. Definitely got some useful advice on this thread. Thanks Coaches!


ReplyQuote
ZACH
 ZACH
(@bucksweep58)
Diamond
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 9393
Coach
June 24, 2019 6:29 am  

Core stability and weak hips are why kids stand up on first step(s) ... putting them in a stronger forward lean from a 4 point just hid the problem.

If you bird dog under a pipe for a couple minutes a day, things improve drastically

I can explain it to you, I can't understand if for you.


ReplyQuote
rpatric
(@rpatric)
Bronze
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 175
Maryland
6th - 8th
Head Coach
June 24, 2019 7:02 am  

Core stability and weak hips are why kids stand up on first step(s) ... putting them in a stronger forward lean from a 4 point just hid the problem.

If you bird dog under a pipe for a couple minutes a day, things improve drastically

Bird dog meaning the core exercise? All 4s with one leg extended and the opposite arm extended? Sorry if I sound like an idiot, just trying to get it right.


ReplyQuote
gumby_in_co
(@gumby_in_co)
Platinum
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 4148
June 25, 2019 5:35 am  

Bird dog meaning the core exercise? All 4s with one leg extended and the opposite arm extended? Sorry if I sound like an idiot, just trying to get it right.

Bird dog to me is "one step, freeze. 2nd step, freeze", etc. I could see how doing this under a pipe or in a chute gets them used to playing a lower pad level.

When in doot . . . glass and oot.


ReplyQuote
rpatric
(@rpatric)
Bronze
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 175
Maryland
6th - 8th
Head Coach
June 25, 2019 7:51 am  

Bird dog to me is "one step, freeze. 2nd step, freeze", etc. I could see how doing this under a pipe or in a chute gets them used to playing a lower pad level.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I went yoga on that like an idiot 😂😂


ReplyQuote
gumby_in_co
(@gumby_in_co)
Platinum
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 4148
June 25, 2019 10:01 am  

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I went yoga on that like an idiot 😂😂

Maybe you just discovered a new football drill: "Downward Bird Dog".  😀

When in doot . . . glass and oot.


ReplyQuote
COACH JC
(@winged)
Diamond
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 6999
June 25, 2019 2:38 pm  

Funny I was just discussing what our get-off approach will be for our D-line out of a 2 point stance. Definitely open to suggestions.

It's all about having fun.  But losing aint fun!


ReplyQuote
Dimson
(@dimson)
Diamond
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 7455
June 25, 2019 5:03 pm  

Funny I was just discussing what our get-off approach will be for our D-line out of a 2 point stance. Definitely open to suggestions.

Same thing as a 3 point. Minus the hand in the dirt.


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share: