|
Post by groundchuck on Sept 23, 2014 11:28:52 GMT -6
Lack of numbers can be a real problem in a program. But why do some people, coaches included, lean on it like a crutch for their loser's limp?
|
|
|
Post by hanagin on Sept 23, 2014 11:52:32 GMT -6
It's easy to quantify a lack of bodies. On the flip side, it's sometimes hard--either truly hard or hard because people don't want to do it--to look at the qualitative problems with the bodies you do have and the performances they are turning out week after week.
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Sept 23, 2014 12:31:07 GMT -6
Have you ever coached a team with twenty guys 9-12? Ever try mad run a scout team with 9 guys? Ever have to put together an OL with 3 true linemen? Numbers can kill you when they get low enough, it effects everything you do. You don't have kids going two ways you have three way kids who never step off the field. We finished with 20 kids last season, it was a crazy season to say the least. Not to mention if someone goes down you don't lose one you lose five cause now your te has to go to tackle and your tackle to center and your back up fb to te and so on.
Changes everything you do as a coach. Maybe you have coached a team low in numbers, but if you haven't then you have no clue what it's like. We never used it as an excuse but it was evident our numbers had a direct impact on our 3-7 season last year.
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Sept 23, 2014 12:46:28 GMT -6
In my experience... this is usually the sequence of events if you have low numbers:
1) Kids know that there are only 20 kids who are gonna go in, and usually its easy to know who the best 11 kids are... 2) I know I will play because I'm by far the best ___ on the team, so I'll not go to weights, not REALLY study the playbook, or just kinda do what I want instead of what I'm told 3) Complacency - I'm the best player on my team so why do I need to get any better?
Numbers tend to fix those problems above because if there are triple the bodies, there are triple the athletes, which means that you may have the #2 guy who is the same type of athlete as you take your job if you don't do what you need to do, or get better at what you do. If you don't know the plays, then you won't play either. Competition within the program leads to more competition with other programs... (not good enough to just beat kids on my team, I wanna beat the #1's and #2's on ______, or ______ team)
It is much more complex than "low numbers" but I totally understand that it is a huge factor in most cases.
|
|
|
Post by coachphillip on Sept 23, 2014 13:06:37 GMT -6
The drop off between 1's and 2's is great on a team of 35. Imagine the drop off on a team of 18. It's worse when compounded by the prospect of playing three level programs where their JV team of 45 shows up and whips your butt for forty minutes. Low numbers seriously hinder a team's chances of success.
|
|
|
Post by jlenwood on Sept 23, 2014 20:07:11 GMT -6
Lack of numbers can be a real problem in a program. But why do some people, coaches included, lean on it like a crutch for their loser's limp? As others have stated here, I don't think t is a crutch if it is true. We are dropping to some very scary numbers in our program, and it kills us week after week....no excuse, just fact. Where it hurts us is really in stamina. We do fine for maybe two series of offense and defense, and then it starts to catch up with us. When I look to the sidelines to give my safety a rest, because he is also a WR, and is on punt and punt return and on and on, and I see my number 2 who is a 1st year freshman, you bet that is frustrating. Unless your 25-30 kids are a bunch of freaks, you are gonna take some lumps. I tend to try and get my kids to focus on the battle to beat the guy you line up over. If we can win a few of those individual battles, it sure helps out.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Sept 23, 2014 20:43:59 GMT -6
In my experience... this is usually the sequence of events if you have low numbers: 1) Kids know that there are only 20 kids who are gonna go in, and usually its easy to know who the best 11 kids are... 2) I know I will play because I'm by far the best ___ on the team, so I'll not go to weights, not REALLY study the playbook, or just kinda do what I want instead of what I'm told 3) Complacency - I'm the best player on my team so why do I need to get any better? Numbers tend to fix those problems above because if there are triple the bodies, there are triple the athletes, which means that you may have the #2 guy who is the same type of athlete as you take your job if you don't do what you need to do, or get better at what you do. If you don't know the plays, then you won't play either. Competition within the program leads to more competition with other programs... (not good enough to just beat kids on my team, I wanna beat the #1's and #2's on ______, or ______ team) It is much more complex than "low numbers" but I totally understand that it is a huge factor in most cases. Just to give my slant on these thoughts: I don't necessarily even think the 3 points listed happen due to laziness, but just a lack of understanding and a non competitive environment. Kids that are 2 and 3 year starters (due to low numbers) often REALLY DO think they are working hard---
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on Sept 23, 2014 22:34:53 GMT -6
Well, if you want to hear how the other side lives, we have 65 kids on a JV team with 4.5 coaches. It's a weird problem to complain about but I would LOVE to shed about 10-15 of the kids that are out to wear a jersey and that's all.
It's a total 'first world problem'.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Sept 24, 2014 5:54:54 GMT -6
In 2011 we had 21 players and a Soccer kid who kicked for us. Won nine games (most at the school in 35 years) and District championship (school had never won a playoff game).
This year we started with 21, are now down to 19. One, starting WR-CB and our back-up K and P, will not play this week due to injury and at least one other really shouldn't be playing at all because he can't protect himself.
We are 1-3 and will be hard-pressed to win again. We have three linebackers for a 4-3 defense, one QB, three RBs. One of the RB-LBers is injured, did not practice yesterday.
We had about 60% attendance at Summer Conditioning Workouts.
Based on the number of Juniors (six) and Sophomores (12, two already on Varsity) playing now, next year will be worse.
But that will be AB (After Bruce).
My point is the first team was the aberration. We had a once-in-a-generation class come through. This year is more how a program with low numbers looks.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Sept 24, 2014 5:57:53 GMT -6
blb when you say you have 21--down to 19 do you mean total kids in football program? Or just kids playing on Varsity Friday nights, with more kids on a separate JV or Frosh team
|
|
|
Post by blb on Sept 24, 2014 6:23:54 GMT -6
blb when you say you have 21--down to 19 do you mean total kids in football program? Or just kids playing on Varsity Friday nights, with more kids on a separate JV or Frosh team
19 on the Varsity, 27 on JVs. So 46 9-12.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Sept 24, 2014 6:26:57 GMT -6
Thank you for the Clarification-- It is funny how perspective is different. Many small school programs would say 46 9-12 is a decent overall number, assuming a somewhat equal distribution across grade levels.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Sept 24, 2014 6:40:58 GMT -6
Thank you for the Clarification-- It is funny how perspective is different. Many small school programs would say 46 9-12 is a decent overall number, assuming a somewhat equal distribution across grade levels. coachd, we are a Division 6 school for football.
Last week we played the number one ranked team in Division 4, because they are in our league. They have 39 on their Varsity roster.
The team we play this week has 36.
So it's not just about how many we have in each grade.
|
|
|
Post by coachcotner on Sept 24, 2014 7:23:19 GMT -6
The Head Coach I am an assistant for had 14 kids the year before I hopped on board. 8 of which were freshman.........I don't think you can call it a crutch
|
|
|
Post by jsk002 on Sept 24, 2014 7:34:29 GMT -6
In my experience... this is usually the sequence of events if you have low numbers: 1) Kids know that there are only 20 kids who are gonna go in, and usually its easy to know who the best 11 kids are... 2) I know I will play because I'm by far the best ___ on the team, so I'll not go to weights, not REALLY study the playbook, or just kinda do what I want instead of what I'm told 3) Complacency - I'm the best player on my team so why do I need to get any better? Numbers tend to fix those problems above because if there are triple the bodies, there are triple the athletes, which means that you may have the #2 guy who is the same type of athlete as you take your job if you don't do what you need to do, or get better at what you do. If you don't know the plays, then you won't play either. Competition within the program leads to more competition with other programs... (not good enough to just beat kids on my team, I wanna beat the #1's and #2's on ______, or ______ team) It is much more complex than "low numbers" but I totally understand that it is a huge factor in most cases. Spot on and this is definitely something you need to overcome. I'm dealing with it right now - the only kid I have with any size is the biggest dog you will ever see. I'm at the point now where I just am not going to play him because he isn't working at practice. Sometimes you have to give a little (not play him) to get a little (kids need to understand that its not a free ride). We have to do this every 4 or 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by tigerpride on Sept 24, 2014 7:40:26 GMT -6
I have 50 kids on a roster at a big school who competes with similar schools with roster sizes of 80-100. These schools two platoon and have fresh bodies on special teams.
We put our best players on the field and play two ways with many guys. We must practice Off/Def each day, while other programs can have their kids practice offense all week with offensive guys and defense all week with defensive guys.
Bottom line, its difficult for our kids to play both ways for 4 quarters. We are pretty good, but depth and special teams cost us a few games last year.
I dont make excuses. Its a reality that is hard to fix when you have 15 kids that can play varsity football out of 50 vs a team that has 25-30 kids that can play varsity.
|
|
|
Post by coachwilcox on Sept 24, 2014 7:46:22 GMT -6
In my experience... this is usually the sequence of events if you have low numbers: 1) Kids know that there are only 20 kids who are gonna go in, and usually its easy to know who the best 11 kids are... 2) I know I will play because I'm by far the best ___ on the team, so I'll not go to weights, not REALLY study the playbook, or just kinda do what I want instead of what I'm told 3) Complacency - I'm the best player on my team so why do I need to get any better? Numbers tend to fix those problems above because if there are triple the bodies, there are triple the athletes, which means that you may have the #2 guy who is the same type of athlete as you take your job if you don't do what you need to do, or get better at what you do. If you don't know the plays, then you won't play either. Competition within the program leads to more competition with other programs... (not good enough to just beat kids on my team, I wanna beat the #1's and #2's on ______, or ______ team) It is much more complex than "low numbers" but I totally understand that it is a huge factor in most cases. Just to give my slant on these thoughts: I don't necessarily even think the 3 points listed happen due to laziness, but just a lack of understanding and a non competitive environment. Kids that are 2 and 3 year starters (due to low numbers) often REALLY DO think they are working hard--- This is a very good post. I coach at a small school and I am constantly trying to create a competitive atmosphere that nurtures improvement. My kids know who is the "best" player at their position but there are ways to insure them that they will not play just because. I had two starters last week miss a practice due to sickness and we have a policy that says if you miss practice you do not play for a half. They stood and watched as we took a 42-12 halftime lead.
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Sept 24, 2014 9:36:48 GMT -6
I played on JV team with 12
|
|
|
Post by cltblkhscoach on Sept 24, 2014 9:39:32 GMT -6
Very good posts here. We came in this season to a program that hasn't had a JV for 3 years and had maybe 30 kids at most on the team last year, and half of those kids graduated.
With the help of a rule change for freshmen and recruiting our own school, we have now about 65-70 kids in the entire program and have a JV again. But our issue is the numbers we have don't have a lot of playing experience so the few that returned from last season are being counted on and our JV is 90% freshmen. And those that returned from last season didn't play much either outside of maybe 3-4 players.
So even if you do get numbers up, it still takes time to develop those numbers in the offseason. Then you have to retain the numbers once you get them up. So numbers definitely is a legit concern not only for one year, but then developing your program going forward. But only the select few understand that, and most of us are on here, lol.
|
|
|
Post by paulfrantz on Sept 24, 2014 15:30:24 GMT -6
It's an excuse, until it becomes a reason. I coach an 8 man team that last year had 13 players. We were good, but had an injury plagued year. 3 or 4 starters out every game. With us playing both sides, that means 8 starters. We were 0-10. This year we again have 13. Healthy through the first 4 games, 2 out two weeks ago, and 1 out last week. We are 5-1. 13 is a #'s problem to start with, we are normally playing teams twice our size, but I never let it be an excuse. When you play with 9 or 10 like last year, it's a reason. When smaller teams lean on it constantly, it can become an excuse for poor effort (we're going to lose anyway, we're at a disadvantage from the start). It is a mindset passed down from the head coach! We go into every game expecting to win.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Sept 24, 2014 17:36:04 GMT -6
Thank you for the Clarification-- It is funny how perspective is different. Many small school programs would say 46 9-12 is a decent overall number, assuming a somewhat equal distribution across grade levels. coachd, we are a Division 6 school for football.
Last week we played the number one ranked team in Division 4, because they are in our league. They have 39 on their Varsity roster.
The team we play this week has 36.
So it's not just about how many we have in each grade.
Bruce-- I have no idea what division 6 or division 4 means for you guys. In fact, it took me a while to really grasp the whole concept that teams with different enrollments play in the same "league" but are in different divisions in some parts of the country. Never experienced that. I do understand your point though, you guys have significantly less players than your opposition. I was just pointing out that for some--46 9-12 graders would be a welcomed sight to see.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Sept 24, 2014 17:54:04 GMT -6
I was the HC at a 4A school back in 2008. We had over 800 kids in the school.
We had 33 grades 9-12. Only 5 were freshmen. We had teams in our district that had separate 9th grade teams that were 30-40 deep.
We finished 1-9.
Only team we beat was a 1A team (120 in school) who had 25 kids on their team.
Lots of things needed to be changed there to get the kids out. Today the same school has over 60 kids. The school went through some changes and kicked out the riff raff and numbers are up and they are winning 4-5 games a year.
|
|
|
Post by hanagin on Sept 24, 2014 20:22:50 GMT -6
In general, it seems that more bodies equates with a better chance to have better athletes, better competition and a better team. Having played on a JV team that normally dressed under 16 (12 on one occasion), it really would have been nice to get a breather. On the flip, last year , the MS team I coached had 45+ kids. Sure, we had depth, but it wasn't useful depth, so it didn't really help us much. It made practice easier than when I've had to be part of the scout team as a coach due to low numbers, but it wasn't as great as appearance would have indicated.
I think the bigger issue is that focusing on numbers can mask larger, if perhaps less obvious, problems: hence the crutch mentioned by the OP. There are practical limits on the numbers a coach can squeeze from a school. But some coaches, due to philosophy, personality, effort, school culture, administrative support, etc., can foster larger numbers than others , even in schools of similar sizes. Sometimes, the efforts of a coach match with the school's culture and he can reap positive results (although does having more kids bring success or does success bring in more kids?). Other times, the coach can seemingly do everything 'right' but the numbers aren't going to be there due to things he can't control. And sometimes, a coach does get it wrong, does the wrong things, and drives kids away, but doesn't have the self-awareness to see it. It's a lot simpler to talk numbers than other things. A lot less messy.
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Sept 25, 2014 6:22:01 GMT -6
Lack of numbers can be a real problem in a program. But why do some people, coaches included, lean on it like a crutch for their loser's limp? So what was the point of this now? Are you on a staff with guys blaming low numbers for a bad season? You play someone who said this? You don't believe that low numbers contributes to losing?
|
|