|
Post by larrymoe on Dec 5, 2007 18:06:36 GMT -6
We have no problem with size. Right now. In a couple years we will be size challenged I think.
Our smallest linemen weight wise next year will weigh 220ish. Our shortest kid will be 6'1ish.
Now, you want to talk quickness...... Get back to me in July. We're working on it.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Dec 5, 2007 18:07:35 GMT -6
I do agree with brophy though; kids have a whole different view about weight training and bulking up these days. When I was in school; all we wanted to do was to get massive, strong and fast. We all wanted to Lattimer and Mack from "The Program".
Now a days, these kids want to be males models or the next American idol contestant. For example, a kid that I coached in middle school is now a senior in H.S. He's 6'5'', 220lbs and extremely athletic.
He has a scholarship offer from DI program but may not take it; BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT TO BULK UP TO PLAY OL. The kid has a borderline eating disorder, I swear. Even when you explain to him the proper and healthy way to gain size, he still whines about "getting fat"..
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 9, 2008 15:43:43 GMT -6
a good follow-up article to this thread (good read) www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/sports/30obesity.htmlPutting on Weight for Football Glory By JERÉ LONGMAN BATON ROUGE, La., Nov. 29 — When the Desire Street Academy football team plays in a Louisiana state semifinal playoff game Friday night, the Lions will feature three starting linemen who weigh at least 300 pounds and two others who weigh 270 and 280 pounds, reflecting a trend in which high school players are increasingly reaching a size once seen almost exclusively among linemen in college and the N.F.L.
High school football rosters reveal weight issues that go beyond the nation’s overall increase in obesity rates among children. Two studies this year, one published in The Journal of the American Medical Association and another in The Journal of Pediatrics, found that weight problems among high school football players — especially linemen — far outpaced those of other male children and adolescents.
Now coaches and researchers fear that some young athletes may be endangering their health in an effort to reach massive proportions and attract the attention of college recruiters.........
|
|
FB4life
Sophomore Member
Posts: 191
|
Post by FB4life on Jan 9, 2008 16:26:35 GMT -6
Honestly--- And this just happens to be at my school--- but a lot of the "bigger" guys are scared to come out. Not scared they might get hurt, but the fear of commitment and sacrifice.
At lease the ones at our school, when I confront them in the hallways or in the quad, they tell me they are busy with after school stuff when i confront one of there friends (as to why they don't play). I get the real answer: "That kid coach, he's soft and afraid of conditioning."
FYI- I'm not taking shots at the big boys (I'm one myself-- 6'2 270). Thats just my experience.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jan 9, 2008 22:52:45 GMT -6
Brophy, I know you are the messenger, but if they are basing "obesity" on the same BMI scale that says, my ideal weight is 190, then they are full of garbage. I am not saying that it is not an issue; however, the BMI even states in small print that the range of obesity is altered if a person has more than average muscle mass.
People writing stuff and playing with numbers to make something out of what it isn't.
Also, what about the percentage of kids they tested in Iowa (the 45%) who were in worse shape before they started playing? Liberal media, go figure.
I am not sure that you can just make blanket statements like the ones here. We have not had a starting lineman over 270 in our program, ever since I started there 10 years ago. So, I would argue that many coaches do not encourage obesity. We want big and fast, not fat and sloppy.
The article finishes up by saying, there should be weight limits "starting with the NFL". What? No, what we need to teach is being healthy (eating healthy) and teach kids how to get into prime physical condition. Our offense is the wing-t and our defense is the 3-5, so that in of it self makes the statement that we cannot use slow out of shape guys.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jan 9, 2008 23:15:33 GMT -6
Lochness, to answer your original question. Size is an issue in our school. The district has continually moved the boundaries to favor our cross-town rival. They have 283 more kids than we do. Also, we have the ELL program for the district, the unwed mothers program and a much larger special ed program in comparison to more AP classes at the cross-town school.
This last year we were playing with five of the six (Y included) under 200lbs to their 250lb average on the line (maybe somewhat scewed, hey if the NY Times can lie with numbers then so will I). This is not too far off the mark, however.
This is why we are a Wing-t and more lately a Shotgun Spread offense and a 3-5 defense. We just do not have the kids. Moreover, this last group did not know how to compete in the weight room, but I have been informed by many fans in the community that weight training is not as important as scheme.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 10, 2008 8:00:47 GMT -6
BMI is a joke - I really think for any (responsible) mandate to be brought about, it should be on body fat %. That is the true test of 'health'.
Now, I DO agree with the NYTimes article where the coach suspended his lineman until he cut 50lbs (because he was a heat stroke/heart attack waiting to happen - liability). That is probably something we should look at.
|
|
|
Post by coachcastleman on Jan 10, 2008 8:05:03 GMT -6
I think just about every coach would like to have lineman that are bigger and stronger than he has. That is just natural. I have coached in the same conference for the last 8 years and no team has been consistent in having a large line. This is my first year at my school as a head coach and we had the biggest line in the conference. We were pretty strong and moved well and we had a good season. Unfortunately all but one of those guys were seniors. So next year we will be a small line, but I am going to make sure we are quick and stronger. You just have to adapt what you have and make the necessary changes. No sense in complaining about having a small line. Just work hard and find an offense system that works with the players you have.
|
|
|
Post by highball007 on Jan 10, 2008 9:42:22 GMT -6
Coaches,
We had 1 O-line over 6 foot, this year. I had 6-7 students in my weight training classes that are over 6'5'' and probably 240ish. They don't want to run at all. They will take zero's in my class every time we run the mile. They don't like to sweat in the weight room either. I have under size linemen that work their butts off and these kids just laying around in 6'5'' size 15 shoes bodies wasting away.
I told the basketball coach last year (both of our 1st years) that I would help him out and coach JV or freshman, because I know how hard it is to find coaches around here, hence I only had 4 assistants for 3 levels of football. We our in our 2nd year of basketball and still without a 6'2'' player on our Varsity. We are a 5a school in the state that has 6A we are a school of 1200 students and the big kids hate sports!
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jan 10, 2008 9:52:46 GMT -6
SW, that is a great example of what happens to many big kids.
|
|
|
Post by casec11 on Jan 10, 2008 12:22:21 GMT -6
SW, that is a good point. I was always to big & tall to play in youth because of weight limits. So my first experience was in highschool as a freshman.... needless to say I had my A$$ handed to me, for at least two years before I caught up. It was not because I physically could not do it but because I did not understand the game and speed of it.
Coaches.... a good Idea would be get the youth orgs to get rid of the weight limits to play... or have an unlimited team
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jan 10, 2008 12:52:05 GMT -6
Highlandball, that is interesting, would you mind telling me where at in Oregon. Our state plays some Oregon schools on a regular basis. Just seems interesting that there are no that many people who want to coach.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jan 12, 2008 7:21:36 GMT -6
How many coaches have experienced this? In Middle School / Freshmen teams and possibly JV the real big kid comes out for football. It's his first football experience. He might be a little slow and has not grown into his body. He is 200+ pounds. The team is full of kids who have played youth football since they were 7. He couldn't because he was too heavy. He ends up getting eaten alive by 150lb kids who have technique and are very aggressive. They already know how to play with pad level, they already know how to get into a stance, etc. The big kid ends up falling behind and sits for 2 years and becomes disillusioned with football. The 150lb kids were better football players and they don't grow much more. The big kids who dropped out are now roaming your school and everyone wants to know why don't play. I have seen this happen in schools on our area. It's hard to fault the coaches at the lower levels , they should play the best kids but I think we are turning off some of the bigger kids at an early age. Dont most areas have unlimited Youth Football at least for linemen? Here in Nebraska everything is unlimited and has been since the 1970s. Many areas like in Maryland have both Pop Warner and unlimited. If unlimited was not available, certainly your premise would make sense.
|
|
|
Post by swroberts on Jan 13, 2008 13:00:13 GMT -6
No unlimited in WNY. The weight div. in our town were 7u 90lbs 9u 110lbs 11u 130lbs 13u 155lbs
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jan 13, 2008 13:03:46 GMT -6
Coach,
Wow that eliminates a lot of kids. One would think with the leftovers someone could start an unlimited league. Many areas have both.
Some rules of some the of the recent leagues we played in: All weights listed are for "stripers", if the kid weighs more than that he must play between the tackles. Some teams have had anywhere from 1 to 11 stripers and the o-line for the "A" division 11-12 and 13-14 age kids often average over 200 lbs.
age 8-10 "A", under 120 lb running back weight, 100 for "B" age 11-12 under 140 "A", Under 120 "B" Age 13-14 under 170
Age 7-9 Under 95 running back weight Age 10-11 Under 125 Running back weight Age 12-13 Under 155 Running Back Weight
|
|