|
Post by brophy on Mar 29, 2007 10:57:42 GMT -6
Help me understand when a program should NOT platoon.
I am not suggesting there are no legitimate reason to avoid platoon, because we all will use what "works" for us.
I guess I'm stuck wondering;
[/i] 2) The biggest excuse is obviously numbers. To me, this is relative to people saying they can't buy a house because they don't have the money, so they rent. That kind of reason (IMO) is exactly why you SHOULD buy a house, so that you DO have the money (equity). I've seen big programs platoon, and little programs platoon. [/ul]If you only have a senior & junior class of 30 and 20 of them are girls, well then maybe I guess I would understand..........help me understand, folks. ** I have no agenda, I'm just looking to see what most opinions are on an open discussion of pros/cons of using personnel.[/font][/size]
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Mar 29, 2007 11:02:45 GMT -6
I'd love to help, but I've never been at a program that had a choice. In high school we had 40 kids on varsity and only probably about 15 that were quality to be starters. Where I coached the last 3 years, we have had 15 kids on the varsity roster so no option there.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 29, 2007 11:09:36 GMT -6
I have coached squads with only 30 players, squads with 130 players, and inbetween. Obviously with the smaller numbers, the chances of being competitive are much greater with two way players. There are some perks to it in larger programs too...depth being the main perk.
Of course, the trade off with this perk is reps. two platooning means you can practice 22 starters at a time instead of 11.
I always thought that if I were a HC, I would want a "Gold" team--a special unit comprised of the best 11 football players. Thought they could be coached up on a few number of plays, a few defensive responsibilities, and they could be utilized when the chips were down.
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Mar 29, 2007 12:00:20 GMT -6
We have always platooned whenever possible, but, if a kid isn't getting the job done, the best kids have to play.
Hard to win games when your best talent is sitting on the sidelines, especially in po-dunk small-school ball.
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on Mar 29, 2007 12:05:59 GMT -6
One that I've heard from a coach in Oregon said that all HS players should go both ways if they are the best at that position. He went on to question why a coach wouldn't put his best possible players on the field.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 29, 2007 15:29:40 GMT -6
...all HS players should go both ways if they are the best at that position. He went on to question why a coach wouldn't put his best possible players on the field.
Agreed.
However, IF, by projection- through reps, experience, coaching, coachability, etc. the backups would be (should be) better relatively soon (a few games) on one side- platoon.
In 5A we platooned as much as possible (still, for the most part, our backup Guard might be a starting DT).
If the backups are an entire level below the starter (Var- JV, JV- C team, etc.), like we have here now (1A)- iron man.
Also impacting the decision are such considerations like: schedule (district/conference games as openers... we've had this at times), playoff format (how badly will "adjusting time" affect or afflict you?) , realistic assessment of where the program is (rebuilding or repeating). Not saying it is right or wrong to give those things so much consideration... but I think there is impact from those factors.
so:
1) Does platooning somehow "hurt" a players chances of being 'discovered' by college recruiters( DI offensive guard playing DT)
No. Half the players I coached played something different in college (usually QB become TE, LB or DB; FB become DL... linemen usually stay there).
2) The biggest excuse is obviously numbers...
If you only have a senior & junior class of 30 and 20 of them are girls, well then maybe I guess I would understand..........help me understand, folks.
We have this (actually, our senior class has 16...10 girls), therefore, we play iron man... but we will platoon as much as possible.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Mar 29, 2007 15:30:00 GMT -6
I understand there are situations why you would not want to platoon. I just think you are shooting yourself in the foot if you can platoon or not.
if you do nto platoon, you wait until half time to make adjustments. platoon teams make adjustments each series.
platoon teams kids have to think about one job and that is their position. non platoon kids have to think of a offensive postion and a defensive position.
platoon teams work on their skills every day, nonplatoon teams work on their skills every other day.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 29, 2007 15:55:34 GMT -6
if you do nto platoon, you wait until half time to make adjustments. platoon teams make adjustments each series.
You can make adjustments almost immediately, but it is tougher. Coaches must be very succinct (which is why I need to get my rambling out on the board here).
platoon teams kids have to think about one job and that is their position. non platoon kids have to think of a offensive postion and a defensive position.
True... Because of that we have to be pretty simple.
platoon teams work on their skills every day, nonplatoon teams work on their skills every other day.
Not really... if they start on O and D they are working on THEIR skills daily. granted, they are working on LESS skills, but they are still skills for their position(s).
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 29, 2007 15:59:45 GMT -6
two-way = old school one-way = 'new' school ? It takes considerable faith in your staff's coaching abilities, IMO, to go platoon where you have to "coach up that 2nd tier player" to become a legit starter, even when the instincts are telling you to put Johnny B.Goode who plays on the other side of the ball in. The security blanket of just letting the studs take over and let the marginal players "sink or swim" rather than forcing yourself (and the rest of the team) to rely on how well they've been prepared for a starting spot. I'm entrenched with the benefits of platooning far out-weighing two-way players ..........THERE! I said it.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 29, 2007 16:05:57 GMT -6
You put the kids on the field that give your team the best chance to win. The games are short enough that a player can play both sides of the ball, take a few down to rest and still contribute, perhaps even dominating on both sides of the ball. If I have two kids that are bigger, stronger, faster than the rest, neither is coming off of the field. Same goes with ...if i have 8 kids that are better than the rest, chances are all 8 are going to play quite a bit of both sides...we get a big lead, mercy rule, run the clock and the others get to play. I see no reason to pretend that a small school is a big time college or big hs program...try to win the game, thats the reason. Players win the game.
some examples...
best rb plays free safety or often will linebacker
fullback is often a mike backer
one tight end is a de
the other de is a guard
one of the dts is a guard
one of the tackles is a nose guard
corners are one way guys
I mean, thats pretty common for us.
some schools just have a big drop off after the top 8-9 kids.
another quite obvious reason is staffing. We have a head coach and an assistant...both have to coach 2-3 positions on each side of the ball just to get by. some schools have bigger staffs and it makes sense that they can have a defensive practice and an offensive practice at the same time. Now they can have bigger playbooks too...in the end, its whatever works. Even when we have had big rosters, the talent level and experience level drops off sharply after about 8 kids.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Mar 29, 2007 16:11:06 GMT -6
if you do nto platoon, you wait until half time to make adjustments. platoon teams make adjustments each series.You can make adjustments almost immediately, but it is tougher. Coaches must be very succinct (which is why I need to get my rambling out on the board here). platoon teams kids have to think about one job and that is their position. non platoon kids have to think of a offensive postion and a defensive position. True... Because of that we have to be pretty simple. platoon teams work on their skills every day, nonplatoon teams work on their skills every other day. Not really... if they start on O and D they are working on THEIR skills daily. granted, they are working on LESS skills, but they are still skills for their position(s). i can see your point however it is much eaiser to have 11 looking at your dc while the offense is on the field and vice versa. I find best for the olienman. you can change the scheme or you can get info as to who is having problems who is not. to me it would be hard to get johnny the info if he is on the field and I am talking to several other guys. i think platooning really helps the oline and it really helps the qb in a passing or pro style offense. I would platoon however if I ran the olivet fullhouse t formation. just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by coachsky on Mar 29, 2007 16:21:16 GMT -6
We have about 60-70 out at Varstiy/JV. We try to platoon as much as possible. Last year we had 2 or 3 going both ways.
This year we are implementing a "Gold System". We will full platoon but have a gold offense and defense that will put the 11 best our there. We presume that it will change 3 spots on defense and 1 or two on offense.
I've used this sytem in the past. What I found was that toward the end fo the season we called for Gold, a lot less. The players that were candidates to get platooned for improve and they learn to work well as a unit.
The bottom line is there are ussually one or two kids that are going to be playing at the next level. These kids are game changers and simply put, they are higher level athletes, they win ball games. In close contests or key possession they need to be on the field.
I like to rotate my d line when I have the personnel - 4 DT's and 3 DE's. Occasionanly one of those rotating is astarting olineman or TE.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 29, 2007 16:24:07 GMT -6
Let me be clear, here.
for the sake of discussion, I am pretty much saying, IF YOU COULD PLATOON, WOULD YOU?
The obstacles, limitations, etc are usually temporary and can be fixed with the application of resources. (more students, more coaches, more facilities, etc)
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Mar 29, 2007 16:31:57 GMT -6
two-way = old school one-way = 'new' school ? It takes considerable faith in your staff's coaching abilities, IMO, to go platoon where you have to "coach up that 2nd tier player" to become a legit starter, even when the instincts are telling you to put Johnny B.Goode who plays on the other side of the ball in. The security blanket of just letting the studs take over and let the marginal players "sink or swim" rather than forcing yourself (and the rest of the team) to rely on how well they've been prepared for a starting spot. I'm entrenched with the benefits of platooning far out-weighing two-way players ..........THERE! I said it. How are you supposed to "coach up" a slow 250-pound offensive lineman who can't see his toes? The platooning argument sounds good...the problem is that almost no one does it in Illinois small-school ball. And, if the other teams are keeping their studs on the field both ways, aren't you making things tough on yourself by keeping your studs on the sideline? Great athletes are going to win a heck of a lot more games than great coaches will. Work smarter, not harder!
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Mar 29, 2007 16:35:36 GMT -6
for the sake of discussion, I am pretty much saying, IF YOU COULD PLATOON, WOULD YOU?Yes! Of course! Who would possibly disagree with that? If I had 22 kids who were all good, solid high school football players, why in God's name would I not get those kids on the field?
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on Mar 29, 2007 17:31:36 GMT -6
Yes if I could platoon I would, but this high school and if I got a beast that can go both ways, he is going both ways.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Mar 29, 2007 18:03:02 GMT -6
two-way = old school one-way = 'new' school ? It takes considerable faith in your staff's coaching abilities, IMO, to go platoon where you have to "coach up that 2nd tier player" to become a legit starter, even when the instincts are telling you to put Johnny B.Goode who plays on the other side of the ball in. The security blanket of just letting the studs take over and let the marginal players "sink or swim" rather than forcing yourself (and the rest of the team) to rely on how well they've been prepared for a starting spot. I'm entrenched with the benefits of platooning far out-weighing two-way players ..........THERE! I said it. Although we're a larger school we have 5 paid coaching positions varsity and JV. We have a number of volunteers and coaches who split the supplement, which amounts to volunteering. The bottom line is that there's a disparity in the knowledge and dedication on the staff. Not to say that they're bad coaches but it's hard to expect the same from them as the fully-paid coaches. What that means is that it's hard for us to find enough good coaches to platoon successfully. It's also hard to argue that a stud should only play one way. Our RG last year was a 290 lb. D.1 player who also played defense. Our LG was a sophomore who was also a 2nd team All State DL. Our 3rd guard was a sophomore who gave us some good minutes but wasn't nearly as good as the other two. Our fourth was also a starting DL. We rotate our linemen on both sides of the ball but the best get the majority of snaps. If it's all about the Jimmys and Joes why play Sonny and Cher instead?
|
|
|
Post by airman on Mar 29, 2007 18:17:42 GMT -6
lancaster high school in wisconsin is a small school of about 400 i beleive and that totally platoon. when they started out people thought they were crazy. I got to see them play in 2000 at the wi state championship game up close. they had 80 players on varsity(jr and sr). coach hoch talks about how platooning was the key to there success at lancaster h.s.
|
|
|
Post by los on Mar 29, 2007 18:32:59 GMT -6
OK Brophy, going waaay back to the beginning of the thread, lol! Q #1.- does platooning hurt your chances at being discovered? Answer- I don't think so, arent most college guys looking for an exceptional athlete, good student, self disciplined individual first? Someone with the right quality's they can build on? And they may not even play the same hs position again, the rest of their careers? Q#2.- is the number of quality players a good reason not to platoon, or is playing 2 way old school? Answer- Sure, to me, numbers and total team talent matter, especially in small 1a or 2a programs. Far as old school philosophy, what may be more "old school", was something a lot of teams did back in my playing days, we were a 3a school and almost entirely platooned(a few crossovers) but the majority of our best athletes(had 3 div. 1 guys on that team) played defense "only", with only 1 of them crossing over part time to play TE. Our offense was mostly just your avg. hs players! So the defense was really the team that got the better players! Not sure why, but probably why we had so many low scoring games back then lol?
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Mar 29, 2007 19:04:32 GMT -6
Let me be clear, here.
for the sake of discussion, I am pretty much saying, IF YOU COULD PLATOON, WOULD YOU?The obstacles, limitations, etc are usually temporary and can be fixed with the application of resources. (more students, more coaches, more facilities, etc) Yes I would. IN fact we do platoon most of our players, especially the linemen. We are a 4A school and I would estimate we start 18 different kids for 22 positions. Then those other two-way guys get spotted rests throughout the game.
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Mar 29, 2007 19:05:41 GMT -6
I went to a big high school (2,000+ kids). We platooned, but we did have about 80 varsity players. When you have that many players, the chances of finding 22 kids good enough to start is pretty good.
Again, where I am now, we probably get 18-22 juniors and seniors every year. Talent pool is not quite as deep here in Smallville and there is often a severe drop-off in production when you keep the ponies in the stable.
Last year, for example, we platooned 2 kids, 1 at CB, the other at WR. The kid who played CB was an athlete and tough football player. The kid who played WR...great kid, hard worker, never missed anything in 4 years of ball, but he weighed 130 pounds and ran a 5.5 40. Kid was highly coachable and a great teammate but just had crappy genetics. He just didn't have the physical ability and we eventually had to play the other kid both ways because it just wasn't getting done.
And maybe we as coaches didn't do a good job...maybe we should have coached the weaker kid up better and found ways for him to contribute but, in the end, we just couldn't justify keeping the ponies in the stable. It didn't make sense. You have to put your best athletes on the field if you want to win. Platoon if you can but, if you have a kid sitting on the sideline who is clearly better than the kid out on the field, I really think you are doing yourself and your program a disservice.
So, I guess what I am trying to say is that platooning is overrated.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 29, 2007 22:14:52 GMT -6
i can see your point however it is much eaiser to have 11 looking at your dc while the offense is on the field and vice versa.
No doubt. Really... at the HS level, you almost have to platoon somewhere. If you platoon O/D, you can have starters on special teams. If not, specials are where you get kids rest. That REALLY impacts special teams philosophies (squib KO, quick kicks rather than punts, etc.).
I would love to do it... but I am not confident that this past year's junior high offense would finish in the top 3 in the state offensively next year... and unless we play iron man, that is the best I can get on to the field.
Again, if the back-ups for varsity kids are legitimate varsity kids, then yes- Platoon. If your back-ups are really just JV kids, then like Wildcat says: Platoon if you can but, if you have a kid sitting on the sideline who is clearly better than the kid out on the field, I really think you are doing yourself and your program a disservice
for the sake of discussion, I am pretty much saying, IF YOU COULD PLATOON, WOULD YOU? NFL- yes AFL/NIFL -can't... not legal NCAA/NAIA- yes top 3/4 5A, top 2/3 4A. top 1/2 3A, top 1/4 2A - yes bottom 1/4 5A, etc...no (by top and bottom I do not mean potential of athletes, program, record, etc.... basically schools commitment to football: number of coaches, number of players out/eligible, etc.) 1A- be happy if you can put a full unit on without having to "hide" too many.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 30, 2007 10:01:01 GMT -6
If it's all about the Jimmys and Joes why play Sonny and Cher instead? I think I'm going to get this tattooed on my arm, thanks! One could argue, that your "Charles Jefferson" at 60% isn't better than my 100% Johnny Slapdick........ If you let your "Charles Jefferson" completely dominate at one position or do you try to distribute his talent among a bunch of positions? It's the Law of Diminishing Returns at work in a 48 minute ball game on humid nights in the early Fall. (for those that do platoon, you almost ALWAYS have the 2-4 players that HAVE to play both sides, but the majority of players do platoon).
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Mar 30, 2007 10:15:51 GMT -6
I would agree with Brophy's basic premise that a team that platoons with good, solid high school football players has a huge advantage over a similarly-sized team that does not platoon. In a situation like that, it is basically 2 teams (1 offensive team and 1 defensive team) playing against 1 team (11 kids going both ways). Doesn't matter how conditioned those 11 kids will be...fatigue is going to be an issue.
But the main point of what I just posted is that the 22 guys who are platooned are all good, solid high school football players who are going to be productive. When you get to the point that platooning means that a strong, productive kid is sitting on the sideline and a weak, unproductive kid is playing, you are going to have problems. Like I said...hard to win when you keep the ponies in the stable!
And that's the way it works here, at least in po-dunk Illinois small-school ball. Generally speaking, you don't see much platooning in 1A & 2A ball...the best athletes are on the field. In fact, I would go as far to say that in small school ball in Illinois, you are at a distinct disadvantage if you platoon because of the mismatch in talent that will result.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 30, 2007 10:24:43 GMT -6
then, you could say that those "turds" you cringe to start are basically that way because they haven't been coached up. (this all is related to how we each value / perceive "coaching")
If you just platoon at the Varsity level, I think you will find that the turds are more pronounced. If you platoon program-wide, it should be a different story.
It's easy to say that is the case, when you think short-term.
BUT, if that 3rd string player is ACTUALLY getting reps at the 8th & 9th grade level (instead of runt garbage time), he develops; 1) a sense of purpose 2) identifies himself as a football player (motivation to hit the weights) 3) gets intense quality instruction (instead of 'lectures' he hears at the back of the line) 4) has immediate incentive to keep coming out for football (increase numbers)
Again, with short-term / long-term 'solutions' a lot of this becomes chicken-or-the-egg mentality.
It boils down to We are going to slap-what-we-can-together to win NOW on every level.
or
We are going to BUILD a program geared to win at the Varsity level.
|
|
|
Post by pantherpride91 on Mar 30, 2007 10:56:45 GMT -6
lancaster high school in wisconsin is a small school of about 400 i beleive and that totally platoon. when they started out people thought they were crazy. I got to see them play in 2000 at the wi state championship game up close. they had 80 players on varsity(jr and sr). coach hoch talks about how platooning was the key to there success at lancaster h.s. There is a small school here in southwest Ohio that platoon all the way. School has about 5-600 with around 80-100 guys on the team. The coach was told the same thing as the coach of lancaster when he brought in this two platoon system. Well 3 state championships later and a year in and year out playoff threat people have stopped their doubts. While I was in school there we had guys who could barely run when they came in as freshman. But with the amount of reps and individual attention you recieve due to the two platoon system these guys were able to be "coached up" into some real ball players. Unless you have ever got the opportunity to be involved with a two platoon system you can not really understand the benefits it brings. Besides the obvious of more reps and coaching time at each position, the two platoon brings alot more confidence to players. Instead of working for 11 starting positions the kids are working for 22 positions. The guy that may have never been able to show his game through middle school now has every opportunity to take one of the 22 positions on the field. We had so many guys on the team because there were so many positions up for grabs (you also had the guys who just wanted to be out there). We never had super athletes. We only had 5 or 6 guys the whole time I was in school go anywhere to play ball after school. I can remember multiple games when the other team had multiple "studs", and come the end of the game their were beat down. He might get his yards, or make some tackles for loss, in the first half. But as the second half wore getting hit every single play began to take its toll. We won many games in the second half just due to having fresh legs. I do not care how much conditioning you do but when going against a guy who only has taken half the snaps, and half the beating, is nearly impossible. What you lack in total talent can be made up in having fresher legs come the 4th quarter
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Mar 30, 2007 12:05:45 GMT -6
brophy -
You make great points...I agree that if you start at the lower levels, platooning will pay huge dividends.
In fact, you can probably make the argument that the REASON we typically only have 18-22 juniors and seniors is because we DON'T platoon as a rule. I think that it is entirely possible, that had we platooned as a rule and not just because we had to at the lower levels, many of those "back of the line" kids just might have stayed out for their junior and senior years.
There's a guy who posts on here named khalfie who just became the head coach at a traditionally weak school down in Central Illinois...I believe he is planning on platooning for precisely the reasons you stated.
Now...with all of that being said, you have to be darned confident in your abilities and the abilities of your assistant coaches if you are going to platoon, especially in po-dunk schools (our enrollment between the two schools in our co-op is right around 400).
It might be a rough couple of years, but, in the end, you would definately be better off for that. The problem might be getting through those first few years without being fired for losing that would be tough.
|
|
|
Post by coachsky on Mar 30, 2007 13:08:42 GMT -6
I agree that the benefits of platooning are undervalued and if you have ample talent you should try to platoon.
A couple thoughts:
- As a line coach I usually need my whole group during our first few series to find out what's happening and make adjustments if necessary. If your adjusting your blocking schemes it's always good to discuss that with your backs.
- I think it takes a deep commitment on the part of the coaching staff to platoon. We tend to over rely on the physical assets of our kids. A commitment to platooning requires a stronger dedication to physically developing all kids, emphasis on technique, and making sure everyone is rock solid in their knowledge or assignment.
- When you platoon you decrease the impacts of a key injury and in fact you drastically decrease the opportunity for a key asset to be injured by lowering their exposure.
- To me there is a benefit to getting more kids on the field. When you have 60-75 kids out it's a shame to see 15 or 16 getting 95% of the snaps.
Observation:
Last year I attended an incredible playoff games - 9OT's. Thats correct nine. Pasco vs. Bothell. It was like a heavyweight boxing match. After about third OT I saw Pasco looking slower and tired. The had 4 kids going both ways. Bothell had none. Bothell rotated a couple guys on both sides but no one dedicated. Bothell's final drive was three power runs between the tackles - they wore Pasco down.
I'm convinced platooning was a factor in determining who went to the state championship. Pasco coaches might argue that they would have never made it that far without those kids on the field. Great debate.
|
|
|
Post by PSS on Mar 30, 2007 13:17:11 GMT -6
then, you could say that those "turds" you cringe to start are basically that way because they haven't been coached up. (this all is related to how we each value / perceive "coaching") If you just platoon at the Varsity level, I think you will find that the turds are more pronounced. If you platoon program-wide, it should be a different story. It's easy to say that is the case, when you think short-term. BUT, if that 3rd string player is ACTUALLY getting reps at the 8th & 9th grade level (instead of runt garbage time), he develops; 1) a sense of purpose 2) identifies himself as a football player (motivation to hit the weights) 3) gets intense quality instruction (instead of 'lectures' he hears at the back of the line) 4) has immediate incentive to keep coming out for football (increase numbers) Again, with short-term / long-term 'solutions' a lot of this becomes chicken-or-the-egg mentality. It boils down to We are going to slap-what-we-can-together to win NOW on every level.or We are going to BUILD a program geared to win at the Varsity level.This is a great example Brophy. I haven't chimed in on this thread yet but want to add my two cents. I am a advocate of platooning. I think the advantages have been pointed out numerous times in this thread. While I agree that there are small schools that can not because there just are enough boys in the school, I do have a problem with those that are pointing out quality depth. Isn't that the reason we are in this profession? You just have to work for a HC that believes in the same philosophy, because I have seen it work.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Mar 30, 2007 13:26:12 GMT -6
While many great coaches and teams have gone the Iron Man route even at big High Schools like Don Markhams teams, Im more inclined to agree with Mr Brophy. As a player that played I- Back and Safety, I was much more effective when I only went one way as a senior. We had at least 18-19 real football players out of 150 or so, so platooning would have been the way to go with most of us. Add in returning kicks and special teams and its just too much no matter how great a shape you are in. My Junior year I lost 21 pounds during season and I was a running back. With us, although we go both ways, it's not really iron man. Our TB usually doesn't play defense because he's going to get 30 or so touches. Our QB is usually a 1-way guy, too. Most of our 2-way starters are really 1 and a half or 1 and three-quarters starters. If we have 2-way OL I'll work a 3 man rotation to get them some rest. The DL coach does the same.
|
|