|
|
Post by funkfriss on Mar 23, 2017 8:13:03 GMT -6
We have fairly low numbers year-in, year-out at our school due to our demographics. I don't want this to be a debate about why we're not getting more kids out...trust me, we have 95% of the kids out that we want out. We're not leaving talent in the hallways.
This past season we started the season with 6 returning OL. Four of those started at different points in the season and we ended up with a FB and TE starting at both guard spots with another FB filling in when one was hurt. We could've shuffled some guys around allowing the FB (a great runner) and TE (decent TE) to play their natural positions, but we would have been significantly weaker up front.
Next season we will have a few incoming Juniors who would be upgrades to the alternatives we had this year, but still not as good as the FB & TE. And so it goes...every year...
My question is, do you guys find it more beneficial to keep kids at their "natural" positions or do you move them around depending on the team's needs? Our kids are great and they always say "whatever the team needs Coach," but I keep coming back to two issues. One, am I hurting the futures of players who want to play at the next level (like the TE above). Two, are they not reaching their full potential because they are losing experience at their natural position. For example, if I move the FB back this year is he not going to be as good as he would have been with a year of FB reps last season. Maybe I'm overthinking it...
|
|
|
|
Post by cwaltsmith on Mar 23, 2017 8:32:24 GMT -6
I try to keep a kid in spot he wants to play bc I feel that he will work harder. I understand your predicament, I think you should try to get your best 4 or 5 players the ball some. If he is one of those 4 or 5 then move him where he can get it. If he isnt leave him at gaurd. If he isnt one of your best 4 or 5 then the next level isnt a concern. After putting the best 4 or 5 where they can get the ball, fill in the others with your best 6 or 7 left. Get your best guys on the field.
|
|
|
|
Post by newt21 on Mar 23, 2017 9:23:01 GMT -6
We have fairly low numbers year-in, year-out at our school due to our demographics. I don't want this to be a debate about why we're not getting more kids out...trust me, we have 95% of the kids out that we want out. We're not leaving talent in the hallways. This past season we started the season with 6 returning OL. Four of those started at different points in the season and we ended up with a FB and TE starting at both guard spots with another FB filling in when one was hurt. We could've shuffled some guys around allowing the FB (a great runner) and TE (decent TE) to play their natural positions, but we would have been significantly weaker up front. Next season we will have a few incoming Juniors who would be upgrades to the alternatives we had this year, but still not as good as the FB & TE. And so it goes...every year... My question is, do you guys find it more beneficial to keep kids at their "natural" positions or do you move them around depending on the team's needs? Our kids are great and they always say "whatever the team needs Coach," but I keep coming back to two issues. One, am I hurting the futures of players who want to play at the next level (like the TE above). Two, are they not reaching their full potential because they are losing experience at their natural position. For example, if I move the FB back this year is he not going to be as good as he would have been with a year of FB reps last season. Maybe I'm overthinking it... I always play kids where the team needs them. I have ignored the "natural" position argument because different body types can and often will be successful despite the "natural" position. Some years we have enough OL to use a TE, and when we don't, sorry Jim Bob, looks like you're our new RT. I can't justify putting a kid at TE where he MIGHT catch 15 passes when he can play OL where we can run and pass more successfully. |
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Mar 23, 2017 11:39:48 GMT -6
Take this for what it's worth but, anytime we have a positional need I go through my whole roster and try to find the strongest positon group (maybe 3 starting caliber corners for example) and then see which one I can move to a needed spot so we can still put talent on the field at the original postion but we're also not leaving talent on the bench.
This has been pretty helpful. in 2014 we moved our 2nd best DE to LB. Kid was slow but intelligent and we had a 3rd quality DE so that worked out for us.
|
|
center
Junior Member
Posts: 485
|
Post by center on Mar 23, 2017 11:47:09 GMT -6
Don't worry about the "preparing them for the future argument."
We try and allow them to play their "natural" position or the one they are most physically suited for.
Unless..
They can play more at another spot (moving the TE to OL). Win-win situation in that the kid plays more and you probably fill one of those gaps you have.
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Mar 23, 2017 11:50:04 GMT -6
I play them where the team needs them.
|
|
|
|
Post by macdiiddy on Mar 23, 2017 11:54:46 GMT -6
I dont think this is an easy black and white answer, it is a whole lot of gray.
We have leaned more towards team needs, to the detriment of the player but for the overall advantage of the team. I do think there is a threshold where you leave a kid at his spot while hurting another position or finding somoene else to train there. If the kid is a stud ILB (especially if he is younger) I think you leave them at that postion and try to find someone to fill the other hole.
If he is Okay to good, then you really need to start thinking about what is going to help the team.
This is a question I have weighed myself, and do look back and question moves, but you do what you think is best for the team and as long as everyone buys in, you should be alright
|
|
|
|
Post by funkfriss on Mar 23, 2017 12:02:22 GMT -6
Don't worry about the "preparing them for the future argument." We try and allow them to play their "natural" position or the one they are most physically suited for. Unless.. They can play more at another spot (moving the TE to OL). Win-win situation in that the kid plays more and you probably fill one of those gaps you have. This has usually been my feeling as well. The FB who played G was our starting FB as a Soph (2nd leading rusher averaged 5.5 ypc) and would've started there this past season as well. The TE playing G was less of a question because he wouldn't have started at TE last year, but we're graduating a stud so the spot is open next year. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Mar 23, 2017 13:15:56 GMT -6
Well, it doesn't really matter how well a TE catches or a FB runs if the front five can't get the job done... One year, we had a 5'11'' 205lb kid that won state in the 330 meter hurdles. He was big, strong, fast and athletic and would have made an excellent FB within our scheme. However, we needed him on the line as a quick guard as we needed a kid there that could pull well and block at the POA.
|
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Mar 23, 2017 20:20:49 GMT -6
I coached for a HC who kept kids at their natural position to the detriment of the team. His #1 concern was getting kids scholarships and as such played them where he felt they best projected at the next level. One year 5 of our best defensive players were LBers. After not succeeding on the field for the first half of the season we moved two of them to DL; they ended up both being all league there.
|
|
|
|
Post by runitupthemiddle on Mar 24, 2017 18:20:31 GMT -6
Take this for what it's worth but, anytime we have a positional need I go through my whole roster and try to find the strongest positon group (maybe 3 starting caliber corners for example) and then see which one I can move to a needed spot so we can still put talent on the field at the original postion but we're also not leaving talent on the bench. This has been pretty helpful. in 2014 we moved our 2nd best DE to LB. Kid was slow but intelligent and we had a 3rd quality DE so that worked out for us. That's right, don't leave talent on the bench. Just cause a kid is say the backup left guard, if he's better then your fullback move him to fb or tackle, whatever it might be, you have to figure out how to get the best 11 on the field at the same time. And the kid you have at guard that should be a natural at fb, have a few sets where he gets to play fullback. |
|
|
|
Post by coachddwebb on Mar 30, 2017 11:19:33 GMT -6
I am at a small school as well and we try to get best players on the field. Last year he had kid that had play SS and Will backer for us the last three years his senior he played DT for us and was second team all region.
|
|
