|
|
Post by coachcb on Sept 28, 2009 11:29:46 GMT -6
This thread is s pin off of the "Draw The Line" thread.
Again, I am coaching sophomore defense in a program that emphasizes playing all of the kids at the lower levels. Development above everything else.
We never preach "our best 11" to the kids; everyone that gives effort plays, there's good rotations for every position. It's the same way at the freshman level; they split between two even teams and do the same thing that the soph and jv programs do.
About 3 games in, I had to move some kids around because of injuries and because kids weren't getting reps. I had 3 safeties (FS and SS) and 7 CBs. I moved a FS to SS and a CB to FS, just to get some depth. Also, the FS I had is a much better SS and I only had one SS. The kid that moved to FS is solid at it, as is the kid that rotates with him. So, now I have deoth at every position, easier to get everyone in and people are playing in their proper positions..
However, our philosophy has always been a stickler for the better athletes in the group; sense of entitlement and all.. When I made this move, I heard so much b-tching from the kids, it was unreal. I put my foot down on it and it quelled it for a little bit, but there was still a whiny undertone to all of it.
So, this last game, I "started" (someone's got to begin the game) all of the kids that our athletes consider beneath them. And, as they got the job done, they got a few more reps than the rest of our 'studs'. I even had one CB that the kids consider totally beneath them stay in throughout most of the game; he played well, came away with a pick, and worked hard.
Now, we won the game, everyone got a ton of reps, and I think it was the right thing to do.
Two questions:
1. Have any of you been in this situation?
2. Do you think I did the right thing this last game?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Sept 28, 2009 16:31:23 GMT -6
I should preface that I'm not looking for affirmation here; I enjoy the honest opinions I get from everyone on this board. Even dcohio.  |
|
|
|
Post by touchdownmaker on Sept 28, 2009 16:56:17 GMT -6
why worry about the approval of the kids? its not a democracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Sept 28, 2009 18:11:28 GMT -6
I understand that it's not a democracy, but I also want to keep the defense's moral up.
|
|
|
|
Post by k on Sept 28, 2009 20:35:28 GMT -6
In my opinion coach you're on the right path. The kids need to know that there is much more to football than physical ability. I start kids every week over better athletes. I want a center to read fronts and call blocking schemes the same way that a QB calls plays. I want a free safety who will read formations and respond with coverages. And don't we all want a QB who will read coverages and fronts? Further I'm going to factor in things such as health, attendance, attitude, etc in to who is going to start/play at any position I control.
The lower the level the more play time should be spread around. Its a hard idea to get into a competitive coach or player's mind that something is more important than winning. For both the coach and player the level they are at is "the level" that matters. Why do anything less than "win?"
I could have played the "best 11" today and won a game we ended up losing on JV. I'm ok with that. The kid who has nothing on the field but works his butt off every day through constant pain deserves to play because thats what JV is for. That said they definitely didn't all play equal amounts. On the varsity level my horses play till they can't play anymore or we have the game locked up on both sides of the ball.
|
|
|
|
Post by ducej11 on Sept 29, 2009 6:52:59 GMT -6
I should preface that I'm not looking for affirmation here; I enjoy the honest opinions I get from everyone on this board. Even dcohio. I actually like what you did a lot. I think it really hammers home that hard work and a team mentality will get you on the field. You said that the kid that played corner was not one of the studs, but he played hard and did a good job. Building the team mentality at the lower levels will pay massive dividends at the JV and Varsity levels. Some kinds that don't take too kindly of this, are these the kind of kids you want on your team anyways? I will take a team of kids that work hard day in and day out and sell out for the team, over some studs that complain about people "beneath" them playing. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Sept 29, 2009 7:25:30 GMT -6
And the thing is EVERY position shares reps; the LBs, the DL, etc.. Same thing on offense; the only position that doesn't rotate much is our RB position, but that's because we just don't have a whole lot of them.
My saving grace is that we have a very simple, sound defensive scheme; it's pretty easy to get everyone up to speed and playing fast when they have limited responsbilities. Honestley, even if we didn't have such an emphasis on playing everyone, I still would. It's just not right to ask all of the kids to give 100% and then sit them on the sidelines. Hurts the program during the season and in the offseason.
I also had to learn a hard lesson in this aspect.. One of our CBs had a great week of practice, I really praised him hard in front of the team, and then didn't play him as much as I should've during the game that week... It was a really tight game and I let competitiveness cloud my judgement a little bit.. I played our slacker over him and I shouldn't have; the kid should have 'started' the game for us. I was still kind of enthralled with the kid's physical attributes and got caught up in my own ego.
The next week, the CB that did such a good job in practice was 'sick' for two days. He was in school, but didn't come to practice; some of the kids said he was watching a volleyball game during practice. Now, bear in mind that I jumped the kid for what he did and didn't play him at all that week; it was unexcusable. But, I think it was something that I could've prevented by not being a hypocrite. It set kind of a bad tone for all of the DBs; again, something that I may have brought on myself.
I always have to remind myself that these are 15-16 year old KIDS, not adults. There are going to be behaviors that are unexceptable and I have to quash them, but I also have to make sure that I'm not contributing to the b.s. as well. Plus, it's just not in me to be a royal dictator; I try to find a fine line between having a good relationship with our kids, set limits and making sure that they don't cross boundaries.
The funny thing is, we play everyone, the teams that we play don't, and we're still 5-0 on the season; nice icing on the cake. And, it'll just get better for the kids next year; everyone will play on JV, the other teams will have lost numbers and we'll keep on winning games. But, again, who really gives a sh-t if your lower levels win games if you're going to lose kids every year for it.
Some of the problem that we have is that our freshman program plays EVERYONE, period. It's almost like youth football; if you come to practice, play hard, then you'll play a lot. But, they play the same two teams all year; teams will split between two 'even' squads, but still find a away to have their studs on both teams. The freshman staff does a great job of cooaching the kids up; their kids know their stuff when I get my hands on them But they lose games because the playing field isn't level. So, the kids get to the soph and JV level, having lost games, and are a little frustrated. So, it takes a littl while to beat the 'best 11' thought out of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Sept 29, 2009 10:43:07 GMT -6
Also, I want to reiterate that I am in no way trashing our freshman coaches. They do a fantastic job with the kids; our numbers at the soph and JV levels are always high and the kids understand our scheme very well.
But, as I said, when you basically play two teams all year that play their studs no matter what, you're going to have some kids that are a little down. Especially those that are better athletes.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonnyboy on Sept 29, 2009 11:27:17 GMT -6
We take a different approach. At the younger levels 9-10th we play the best players on the A team, however, every spot is open every day. Performing well has it's rewards and so does not performing well. Even when I was a kid I wanted to win. So if I'm in 9th grade and I know I'm better than the people in front of me and they are playing just because of equal playing time we do not have as good of chance as winning. The player that is playing just because it's his turn has a better chance of doing something incorrectly that could lead to a loss. Equal playing time to me creates a less effective practice...I know I'm going to play regardless of how well I do in practice so I could take some plays off or not be into it that much. We want our 9-10th graders on A Squads to get used to winning, get used to high intensity practices, get a swagger, and know that we are trying to win the game. To me this creates more effort in the off-season because you need to get stronger and faster to beat somebody next year. If I'm guaranteed playing time because I go out for the team then I don't really have to lift/train in the off-season.
9-10th grade has B squad games also and we do equal playing time/or as much as possible depending on depth at positions. All coaches go to the B games and evaluate players after each game. If they are performing well in a B/JV game they might get more roll with the 1's the following week or find themselves on a special team. If they don't perform well in a B/JV game then they have the next week to impress. Each day is a job interview.
Just our take. I love the original post. He stuck to his guns and followed the philosophy of the program. Regardless of your take/perception I think you need to agree to the philosophy of the program and then coach in that manner. You need to convince the kids that whatever you do is the best and have the kids and coaches buy in...
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Sept 30, 2009 14:17:18 GMT -6
We have been very successful with what we do in the program; playing everyone works out well. Our numbers are always up (40 seniors last year) and we have enthusiasm during the season and out of it. Plus, because we are so good at getting kids reps in the lower levels, they just keep on getting better. We view the lower level games as what is basically a scrimmage, another practice. All of the kids basically get an extra day of practice with a lot of reps; makes them better. By the time they get to the next level, they know the fundamentals and schemes inside and out.
I have coached in programs that use the A squad/B squad approach and I liked it, for the most part. But there were issues;
1. We had a hard time getting B squad games- they were usually against soph and JV teams in the class below us.
2. We did the same thing you guy do; if you play well at B you move up, if not, you stay where you are at. On the flip side, if you were lazy and played poorly in an A squad game, you may be moved down.
3. We kind of lost the team unity aspect. Kids on the B squad didn't feel like they were really a part of the team; they felt beneath the program. Even when they had the chance to move up, there were still issues.
4. The B team was the scout team for the A squad quite a bit; the A group didn't get good looks. And the B-squad didn't get the reps that they needed in a lot of situations.
By splitting between two even freshman teams, we keep the unity there. The teams scrimmage each other and give each other good looks. Plus, the 'lower level' kids still feel like they're a part of the overall freshman program, not the bottom rung.
We also did 5-6th quarters at the freshman level for a year... WHAT A FRIGGIN NIGHTMARE!!! We played our best kids in the first 4 quarters and then tried to plug everyone else in during the 5th and 6th quarters; with a running clock. There were kids that worked hard all year and basically got 10 plays each week; it was terrible. Thankfully, the state high school sport association made it illegal, mainly because of the officiating issues. Walked into 3 games and found out that the officials wouldn't do a 5th and 6th quarter and actually wanted a running clock during the first 4. The had lower level varsity games to officiate and they wanted to get there on time...
|
|
