|
|
Post by lochness on Dec 5, 2007 7:18:42 GMT -6
Coaches,
I wanted to ask this question because I've noticed a trend in a great many of the posts on the board.
Do a lot of you have trouble getting big kids (Linemen, ILB, TE types) out for football? I've never seen so many people complain about how "we're typically outmanned by about 100 lbs per man across the line" and stuff like that in my life. I'm not trying to be a wisearse, I'm just wondering if there is a trend here.
Clearly, if you are outmanned, then it is not a global trend, it simply means that for some reason YOUR school is not getting big kids out. Why do you think that is? How is it that so many coaches teams who come to this board seem to be so much smaller than the opponents they play? It's like everyone needs to be in the 1-10 defense and the A-11 offense because they have a 5'5 140 lb kid playing left tackle. Does anyone have size? I for one have been lucky enough to be at a school where size is always there. From 2002-2004 we had an OL that averaged over 240 lbs. We have had big, athletic TE's. We are NOT a city school, nor are we a regional school.
How do they match you up to your opponents? Is it school size or is it regional? If it's regional, what the hell happens to you guys? Are you a small landlocked village with an economy based on fishing that sits between a bunch of major cities or something? If it's school size, then you should be on SOMEWHAT even playing ground. Are there big kids in your school who aren't coming out, or is there something in the water and everyone in the building looks like Webster?
I'm assuming that most of the pattern comes from the fact that teams with bigger kids don't have to scrap for every advantage they can get their hands on, so those folks don't come out here as much, and it artificially makes it look like everyone in the country is playing with tiny kids.
BUT, is there another issue? I just think it's strange, because there are a lot of small schools in the state where I coach, but I've never seen just a gross, across-the-board lack of size for any particular team. It seems like football is a sport for the big boys, and the big boys like that and they come to play. Is it a cultural difference in different regions?
Can anyone lend a thought?
|
|
mike13
Sophomore Member
Posts: 108
|
Post by mike13 on Dec 5, 2007 8:08:40 GMT -6
We don't have any big kids in the school. This is the second school I've coached that simply doesn't not have the genetics. A reporter asked me after a game; "Caoch what do you think you need to work on? " I replied "Genetics, We need five 6-6, 280 players."
|
|
|
|
Post by realdawg on Dec 5, 2007 8:11:31 GMT -6
We have always been pretty big across the front in my 7 years here until this year, not huge, but probably avg. was 6 feet 240 this year we have two OL starters under 200lbs and no size in the foreseeable future, so its a problem here too.
However, it does not seem to be an issue at alot of the schools we play against. Many of them however are bigger than us and in more urban areas than we are, so that may play a different I dont know. I just know we were the smallest we have ever been this year, and it doesnt appear to be getting any better in the near future.
|
|
coachf
Freshmen Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by coachf on Dec 5, 2007 8:20:45 GMT -6
we have no size. One kid is about 230. The rest are right around 200 or lower. No real good height, either.
Honestly, my line in HS averaged 5-10 185 and we made a state championship. Mostly because we were so quick. I don't mind seeing smaller linemen as long as they are quick and strong. However, it is getting tougher, IMO, to find these guys than it is to find 250 lb. kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 5, 2007 8:28:39 GMT -6
"size" as in height is one thing
but "size" as in MASS is another. Several sociological & cultural issues at play (I'm assuming). Not many boys are bulking / hulking up to become 'manly' (as opposed to how they used to since the premier of "Pumping Iron" until the end of the 90's). There aren't many male icons that are bulking up, so the "norm" of male body type has hit European proportions.
THAT, and also the proliferation of maintaining a healthy diet and fitness routine nowadays is much different than it used to be. Kids are much more intelligent today in regards to how to be athletic (like a soccer player) and keep a good cardiovascular health.
With schools with inconsistent or nonexistent winning football traditions, you won't find many kids trying to "look like a football player" and sell out their image to a losing endeavor.
With schools that are consistent winners, kids will attach their self-esteem to the football program and treat their bodies like they are "football players", trying to bulk up and put on size.
my worthless opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Dec 5, 2007 8:40:18 GMT -6
I think that most of us compare our size to that of an ideal... we all want big, huge, athletic linemen... fast backs/receivers. If our team doesn't measure up to our standard... we say we are small, or slow (or stupid... something I've said in the last year)
Realistically, we are usually pretty big... our OL averages anywhere from 220 to 260... and we are a very small school. Generally, we have larger people than our opponents. A lot of that is genetic... but we have a good weight program ("very good" in comparison to most of our opponents).
We will be smaller next year (projected OL: 215, 235, 250, 200, 185), but that should still put us in the upper half size wise.
We are however slow (compared to the ideal and in reality)... and this year were not very smart. A lot of that goes in cycles... as do a lot of things in a small school.
I'm probably guilty of reporting our team as less in potential than they are. I'll admit, I am a cynic (as are most coaches).
|
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Dec 5, 2007 8:41:08 GMT -6
We have LOTS of big kids. They just don't play football. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Dec 5, 2007 8:48:39 GMT -6
Opposite here. Biggest, strongest line in the league. Very weak at skill positions.
But, I have had the opposite. (And, small/weak line no skill!).
Here is the deal. Don't confuse "big" with "strong". We have lots of big kids walking around the school...that aren't in any sport. Because they are overweight and have never exercised. Then they worry about puking their guts out on the practice field.
Smaller kids, they don;t mind running.
|
|
|
|
Post by minterj on Dec 5, 2007 8:49:56 GMT -6
The big kids have been slow, lazy, or dumb.
We've had 2 240 lbs players in 6 years here that could actually play, the others that come out work their tails off, but just can't move.
|
|
|
|
Post by longball on Dec 5, 2007 8:52:18 GMT -6
We are very small up front. We averaged this season about 5'9 165, our biggest and best lineman 6'2 250 was lost before the season ACL. He is a sophmore and will help in the future. We gave up about 85 pounds per man in conference so we had trouble knocking people off the ball and running but we were creative and averaged about 100 yards per game on the ground (Jet sweep, power sweep, etc). We relied heavily on the screen game as a supplement for the running game and to control the rush. We have had big kids in the past but we are in a cycle of small kids. It just happens. I know it is hard on the playcaller when you are outmanned so bad up front but lifes hard and you must improvise and adapt.
Longball
|
|
|
|
Post by justwingit on Dec 5, 2007 9:06:50 GMT -6
very few big kids in our school -- Genetics --- several of the schools we play are primarily made up of German families = big kids, and those schools have had big kids all 30 years I've been around--- our kids are english/dutch/irish - not a german or samoan, in the mix!
we also have no speed (no african/americans in this rural community - I'm sure someone will take that as racist)
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Dec 5, 2007 9:49:04 GMT -6
This last year was one of the few where we had some size on the OL; had several big, athletic kids. I went against my past experience and started 2 big ol SOBs at our OT spots without really taking a good look at the smaller kids. They're both tall, thick athletic kids that were definetely OL types, but just didn't get off of the ball or run down LBs as well as the little dudes. In retrospect, I don't feel that we had out best 5 kids on the OL this year; we could've been much better across the front. We finished up 7-2, but I think we could've been 9-0 with some adjustments across the front.
If I had to do things differently, I would've moved our OGs (small, quick kids) to OT and plugged in 2 of our even quicker kids @ OGs. These two kids were physical and nasty; just a little small.
Lesson reinforced this year; I'll always look for a nasty attitude and athleticism on the OL over size.
|
|
|
|
Post by jraybern on Dec 5, 2007 11:48:18 GMT -6
In Kansas you have a lot of those apparently "landlocked" communities where the kids playing now are the kids of the guys that were the team 25 years ago. Claflin High School had huge kids when they were making their state championships in the late 90s. They seemed to have more kids over 250 (that could all actually play) than anyone else had over 200. At the same time, you have communities that are small EVERY SINGLE YEAR. We had one varsity starter that was 240 lbs. The next biggest starter was 200 lbs max. I outweighed 4 varsity starters on offense, and I'm 165.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Dec 5, 2007 12:04:27 GMT -6
Here in Illinois, Lake Zurich High School recently won the Class 7A state title. 7A is the second-biggest classification in the state They were not big at all. They only averaged 215 pounds across the O-line, but they were TOUGH. They were fast and strong and played "pad under" every team they played.
Back in 2005, I coached for a team that had a HUGE offensive line...2A program (second smallest in the state) and we averaged 250 pounds across the front! We thought that we were really going to pound the rock on people...fact was, we had big kids, but they were slow and weak...didn't lift, didn't work to get stronger and quicker and even though the other teams were a lot smaller than us, they were stronger and quicker and we couldn't get a hat on them.
Bigger isn't better. Stronger and quicker is.
|
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Dec 5, 2007 12:22:22 GMT -6
My question here wasn't really to ask about how to survive with smaller lines, or even to ask which was better...
I was mostly looking to see if there were coaches / schools who seem to consistently not be able to get big kids out for football.
|
|
|
|
Post by ccscoach on Dec 5, 2007 12:38:13 GMT -6
We are struggling with this as we speak. If you have any suggestion on how to do it then I would be very appericiative. I don't know why they don't come out. One thing we did to try and help us was to condition by position so that we don't have those bigs guys running 110's instead we focused more on 10 yard burst with these guys along with upper body strength. This is my second year hopefully this will change and soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Dec 5, 2007 12:48:26 GMT -6
i have 2 kids with good size, and this is the first year i have had any. One is a transfer and the other i finally convinced to play football. One came in at 6'6" 350 pounds, couldnt move at all though but has lost a lot of weight and will get significant playng time next year. The other is about 6'2" and 230, moves fairly well and looks like if he works out can crack the starting lineup and LT next year.
Other than those 2 kids the rest of my line is tiny, i will have some guys who have the weight but thye are usually only about 5'10"
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Dec 5, 2007 12:53:42 GMT -6
Over the years, I have seen bigger kids quite football because they lost out their positions to smaller kids.
Alot of the bigger kids I have coached have started at their positions all through youth and middle school football simply because they're "big kids". As such, they don't spend the time in the weight room or in the off season preparing for high school football. They show up for 2-a-days and lose their jobs to smaller, more athletic kids that have been living in the weight room all year.
The smaller kids are competing for skill player positions and know that they better be living in the weight room. They show up for camp ready to go and end up moved down to the OL/DL.
|
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on Dec 5, 2007 13:04:20 GMT -6
had a lineman this year, 6-4 210'ish, and had cleats made of concrete. lazy and won't work hard/do anything extra to help himself
also have a basketball player 6-3 225 that is a remarkable athlete (sophomore this year). his DAD won't let him play football because the DAD got hurt playing football in high school.
our actual starters this year averaged 5-8 175-180. They are the ones that worked hard, are athletic and have the HEART to get the job done. In terms of a trend, IMO, I think the big beef is still roaming the halls. But, for a myriad of variables (heart, work ethic, coddling from a young age, playing soccer and getting a 9th place trophy, video games, etc., etc.,), they are not coming out for football OR are not doing what it takes to get the job done.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Dec 5, 2007 13:13:11 GMT -6
My question here wasn't really to ask about how to survive with smaller lines, or even to ask which was better... I was mostly looking to see if there were coaches / schools who seem to consistently not be able to get big kids out for football. It's an issue with us. |
|
|
|
Post by bulldogoption on Dec 5, 2007 13:45:37 GMT -6
Yes, there are some big boys walking my halls that would help us be better in football I remember, way back when, sitting in one of my first clinic talks and hearing the speaker talk about how we aren't as big as our competitors. I thought [glow=red,2,300]WOW, that is just like us[/glow], and I ate his talk right up. Then as the years passed and I heard more and more and more coaches say it, it began to lose its credibility to me. How the heck can every single school be smaller than everyone else? Isn't that a black hole or something..... IMO there are a few reasons that all intertwine....... 1. Being fit is more "in" than being huge. There may simply be fewer "big" guys than before. 2. Turn on !@#$!@ ESPN and what do you see?  I'll tell ya: LT, Moss, Brady, TO, etc. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A CLIP OF A PANCAKE BLOCK OR A GREAT RUN STUFF. Big kids see that too and have dreams, just like any kid does, of being Brett Favre and playing in the Superbowl. Then when they get to real football, not flag or 7 on 7, and they can't compete they want no part of playing line because it hurts A LOT more. So what do they choose? 3. There are MANY more options for kids these days than in the past. Music, video games, internet, etc. I don't have an opinion on whether that is good/bad in the scheme of society, but its bad for my football team let me tell ya. I have a few big boys that don't want the accountability and I have a few that don't want the effort. 4. Winning has got to be the ultimate hook for kids doesn't it? I would bet that if we were knocking on the door for a conf championship those big boys would want a piece of the pie (no pun intended). Get big boys, helps you win.........Win helps you get big boys. And ay, there's the rub. 5. There a bunch of skinny kids walking around that should be playing also. In football however, a few huge a$$es in your line makes things a lot different doesn't it. |
|
coachpost
Freshmen Member
"I need more cowbell, baby!"
Posts: 38
|
Post by coachpost on Dec 5, 2007 14:00:47 GMT -6
I have to agree with some of the other posts that mention this occurring in cycles. The school I was at last year has had a few linemen earn scholarships to D-I schools. The most recent 4 linemen played varsity at least 3 years. The weight program, and knowing the style of offense (spread) and defense (4-3)would give them more looks may have been a factor in getting large freshman to play football.
The school I am at this year went through a coaching transition, and that also seems to have made an impact on the size of our team and the number of big kids we have. Our offensive line averaged 6-3 260 (if you don't consider a D-I prospect at 6-7 320 then we were only 6-1 230). We also didn't have a weight program from Dec-April because the old coach was fired and the assistants were coaching other sports.
The other school I mentioned before killed us running the ISO because they averaged 6-2 280 across the line. They also have a very consistent weight training regimine during school/after school with at least 15 players bench pressing more than 350 lbs.
I think the bigger kids will come out if they see success in the program (W-L and recruiting) and they have an off-season program that promotes positive change in the individuals. This is what our focus is this off-season - strength, speed, and football smarts. We want our kids thinking football year-round. We know that with our kids, we need to have success early to keep the kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatorball on Dec 5, 2007 14:05:39 GMT -6
At smaller schools, size is an issue with the starters and it really drops off if you have an injury or two
|
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Dec 5, 2007 14:20:32 GMT -6
Yes, there are some big boys walking my halls that would help us be better in football I remember, way back when, sitting in one of my first clinic talks and hearing the speaker talk about how we aren't as big as our competitors. I thought [glow=red,2,300]WOW, that is just like us[/glow], and I ate his talk right up. Then as the years passed and I heard more and more and more coaches say it, it began to lose its credibility to me. How the heck can every single school be smaller than everyone else? Isn't that a black hole or something..... IMO there are a few reasons that all intertwine....... 1. Being fit is more "in" than being huge. There may simply be fewer "big" guys than before. 2. Turn on !@#$!@ ESPN and what do you see? I'll tell ya: LT, Moss, Brady, TO, etc. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A CLIP OF A PANCAKE BLOCK OR A GREAT RUN STUFF. Big kids see that too and have dreams, just like any kid does, of being Brett Favre and playing in the Superbowl. Then when they get to real football, not flag or 7 on 7, and they can't compete they want no part of playing line because it hurts A LOT more. So what do they choose? 3. There are MANY more options for kids these days than in the past. Music, video games, internet, etc. I don't have an opinion on whether that is good/bad in the scheme of society, but its bad for my football team let me tell ya. I have a few big boys that don't want the accountability and I have a few that don't want the effort. 4. Winning has got to be the ultimate hook for kids doesn't it? I would bet that if we were knocking on the door for a conf championship those big boys would want a piece of the pie (no pun intended). Get big boys, helps you win.........Win helps you get big boys. And ay, there's the rub. 5. There a bunch of skinny kids walking around that should be playing also. In football however, a few huge a$$es in your line makes things a lot different doesn't it. Great post, coach. I agree. |
|
dragon
Sophomore Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by dragon on Dec 5, 2007 14:33:33 GMT -6
One thing I've noticed is that the school that I played at, and the schools in the conference have gotten smaller and smaller since I've graduated. My junior year we averaged 280 across the O-line, we had some big boys, and that was pretty unusual. But every school I've seen them play in the past years, including them have gotten smaller and smaller, this includes not only the o-line, but also skill positions, I could just be imagining things, but I truly believe that as one of the posters above mentioned I think kids are just getting smaller because of cultural things.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 5, 2007 14:36:55 GMT -6
just another thought.............how much does "size matter" in football (moreso than it did a decade ago)? If you were just BIG, you could go out and do your thing, because SIZE was pretty much everything 'back in the day'. If you were a BIG guy you could get stroked like never before, just because you could dominate (with not a tremendous amount of effort). "Back in the day", we weren't running tempo offenses, we weren't running a whole helluva lot of screens, jet sweeps, spread option, 7-step route combos, throwing uncovered........y'know, pretty much the "equalizers" to the size dilema. So, NOW, even if you are BIG, it really doesn't mean a whole lot. Take for instance, in 1988..........  You'd be foaming at the mouth to get these kids to come be your offensive guards or DTs.... now in 2007, you see these big fat-bodies coming to practice, and you're wondering "what thehell am I gonna do with this tub of crap?" Because THESE KIDS (now) are not athletes. They obviously aren't following your BFS program....they have no core development.........they can't move (like their opponents).....etc When I started out in college (as a DLineman) I had the extreme displeasure to face these [/B]guys [before I transferred years later] 1992 ECC wins their sixth consecutive Region XI championship and their 14th bowl game in 17 attempts. Sports Illustrated mentions Ellsworth's offensive line as the largest in all of football and shows a picture of them in the November 16 issue. [average player on the line was 6'5", 340 lbs.....bigger than the Dallas Cowboys line at the time........a year later the program went on probation.....hmmmm] |
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Dec 5, 2007 14:50:21 GMT -6
I remember that SI article...I think that two of those guys were 400+ pounds. The "little guy" on the line was like 290!
|
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Dec 5, 2007 15:01:10 GMT -6
This year we averaged about 220-225 on our offensive line. Next year we will only have 3-4 kids on the entire team that will be over 200 lbs. However, we don't have a bunch of big kids walking the halls either. The guys that should be out for football are out for football here.
|
|
zwaps
Freshmen Member
Posts: 29 
|
Post by zwaps on Dec 5, 2007 15:04:46 GMT -6
very few big kids in our school -- Genetics --- several of the schools we play are primarily made up of German families = big kids, and those schools have had big kids all 30 years I've been around--- our kids are english/dutch/irish - not a german or samoan, in the mix! we also have no speed (no african/americans in this rural community - I'm sure someone will take that as racist) haha, it's not racist but it's quite frankly wrong. Why should a German be "bigger" than a Dutch? I mean their genom is identical. That's not a different race. I mean, heck, the countries only exist for a "couple" of years. Even if you think you can eliminate "interbreeding" then there wouldn't be enough time to develope global genetic variations of this - or any magnitude! That you identify heritage with abilities is uneducated thinking that I would not expect from someone who works with and educates kids! Nevermind that the intraracial variations will weigh much higher than any mystical "speed" gene or "size" gene. The words you are looking for are lifestyle, culture and individual development and gene variation. Everything else is {censored}. In a way, one might call you racist. But then again, i'd just settle for ignorant. |
|
|
|
Post by k on Dec 5, 2007 15:42:19 GMT -6
Before this year we had a heck of a time getting the big kids out to play. On the Freshman level our two 6' 230 pound tackles were not going to come out. They will, no doubt in my mind, be four year players and get their letters as sophomores. Big kids, strong kids, fast kids. Neither had a love for football before this year. Now I can't keep the kids out of my classroom all they want to do is talk football. Our freshman team alone had six kids on the plus side of 200 (330/230/230/220/215/200) who were all players for me (the 330 kid played my two gap 0 tech).
Heck next year we've got a monster of a kid who will be a junior next year come out. Like 6'8'' and gotta be like 400 I swear. Monster of a kid who is near benching his weight. They've been on him for three years now (he repeated as a freshman) to play and he wouldnt go out. Now the kid is lifting and running with us every day.
The problem we have is the basketball players who are told they are not allowed to lift during the basketball season and getting some of those kids to come out and play football.
|
|
