|
Post by TheOlBallCoach on Jan 30, 2019 17:01:55 GMT -6
Had a lot of success playing the best 11 both ways at many different levels of HS. Not a fan of 2 platoon.
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Jan 30, 2019 20:12:17 GMT -6
Side question to all of this. Two platooned before and obviously had the best 11 play other years as well. Is there more benefit in a modified version such as: One Way: QB OL DL Rotation Two Way Players at the skill positions. Creating different packages for that FB(HBack)/LB kid that will allow them to only have to learn 2 or 3 plays rather than the full system and keep their reps near 100% on defense. When I coached smaller sized football team we didn't do it per se, but did to an extent -- the bigs only played 1 way unless..... However, in our region there was a slightly bigger sized team that only had their OL go 1 way. I'm talking about a less than 370 student school classification.
|
|
|
Post by spillnkill on Jan 31, 2019 8:27:02 GMT -6
It almost seems that the problem isn't really having the kids to do it but the coaches to do it.
|
|
|
Post by fadepattern on Jan 31, 2019 9:30:37 GMT -6
We have done it for the last two years and have gone 20-5 with a 2nd round appearance and quarterfinals appearance.
I am a huge fan of it and believe it works but that is not two say that 1 platoon doesn't work as well.
We are a 6a school in Middle TN. 1750 students. 2017 we had 94 total players 10-12 and 2018 we had 87 players 10-12. in 2017 we had 3 two way players and only one of those guy actually played offense and defense for less than 15 snaps. In 2018 we had 5 two way players and only 2 played both offense and defense but they both played a significant amount of time on both sides of the ball (at least they did when it was crunch time).
Benefits: 1. increased practice time. Indy and group were never rushed. 2. we are pretty simple but the increased time allowed us to really get better at what we do. We run a lot of RPO stuff and we were able to get tons of reps. 3. we were always fresher in the 2nd half. We won a lot of games because of that this year. 4. kids that were marginal improved because they were able to focus on one side of the football.
|
|
|
Post by coachlesko on Feb 1, 2019 14:44:20 GMT -6
Side question to all of this. Two platooned before and obviously had the best 11 play other years as well. Is there more benefit in a modified version such as: One Way: QB OL DL Rotation Two Way Players at the skill positions. Creating different packages for that FB(HBack)/LB kid that will allow them to only have to learn 2 or 3 plays rather than the full system and keep their reps near 100% on defense. I have always coached with between 30-50 kids on the 9-12 roster. Always tried to get as close as possible to 2 platooning as we could each year. Always seemed to begin where spillnkill is stating here: When possible, QB only plays offense. Then, as many OL/DL as possible play one way. After that, it's all about skill level of the kids and how much you can trust them in a game situation. Is the 22nd kid better "fresh" than the 2-way kid who plays that position? I have often found that developing depth is the better route- the best 11 play on both sides, but you try to develop behind the 2-way players as much depth as you can. This can often help get you even closer to 2-platooning, even if you never get fully there. I have found that often, the ability to 2 platoon changes as the year progresses, due to injury, necessity, sometimes due to a kid developing faster than expected, and other times due to sheer dumb luck. In all these cases, developing depth behind the "First wave" kids will allow for needed adjustments as the season progresses. This has to be intentional through practice and game reps, and as kids grow, so do their reps to allow another to become more of a 1-way.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Feb 1, 2019 23:37:09 GMT -6
Read the link & it was compelling.
With that said, I'm at a small school and we HOPE for 30 on varsity. If I started 22 out of 30 I would really be putting some dudes on a varsity field that just DO NOT BELONG. For some it's a legit safety issue. Some guys are their b/c their friends play and that's about it.
OF COURSE I would love to 2 platoon. More kids play, but are more kids / parents really happy? I argue you are just trading who you piss off. If you do it and win, of course everybody's happy.
But reality is, you won't always win regardless of platooning or not. So....platoon & win = everybody happy except the small handful who don't play. Don't platoon & win = starters and their parents happy, back ups & their parents pissed.
Platoon and lose, everybody's pissed b/c frankly most kids & parents don't have the foresight / where with all, to realize their kid was lucky to be on the field. So, now you're a goat b/c you can't win doesn't matter how many dudes you played, you lost.
Don't platoon and lose. Same everybody's pissed b/c .....you lost.
So my thing is this: I cannot & will NEVER be able to make everybody happy no matter what. Trying to do so is futile and the sooner a HC learns that & ACCEPTS it the better he will sleep at night. Hence, I play my best guys period. If 2 guys are close then playing them both 1 way is worth it. If not, then it is what it is.
But, if people are going to be pissed at me no matter what then I'm going to put my best guys on the field b/c I think it gives us the best chance to win. And if people are going to be pissed no matter what I might as well win so they can be pissed quietly.
What did that look like for us last season? We played 16 guys in 22 spots & made play offs for 3rd year in a row at a lower socio economic school then most of our opponents.
I thought it was pretty decent. Could we have done more 2 platooned? On paper it's a definite NO. Could I be wrong? Maybe, but like I said above, didn't lose sleep over it. Why? B/c we won & those who were pissed were pissed silently. Lot easier to sleep when it's quiet:)
That's my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Feb 2, 2019 6:05:21 GMT -6
I've put this up before, but this was my 2 platoon plan for a JV team at a small HS (220ish), grades 7-9 (just 1 elementary fed the HS).
School had great participation. You could count on 1 hand the guys that didn't play football, those that might could help (always 1 or 2 BB holdouts).
I had 34 JVers: about 1/2 were players, 1/4 potentials, 1/4 just out because that's what all boys did in this town.
I split the team in half. Put my best OL types in one group, the best skills in the other. Then I filled in with the rest to make the teams as evenly distributed as possible. After the first couple of practices we did have some 'trades' take place to fill in some gaps.
Every kid learned both offense and defense (it was JV after all). Half of practice the Gold group worked offense, the Blue group worked defense; then we flipped. (Blue and Gold were the school colors)
Then when the first game came around, I rotated the groups by quarter. To start the game the Gold group was offense, the Blue was defense. For the second quarter, we flipped. Next game the Blue group started on offense and so forth.
This was the plan for the first half of the season. Then as we got into our region play and we were set to face our rivals and toughest games, I announce the Flashes group (school mascot). I blended the best of both groups together and played basically a 1 1/2 platoon. Studs played both ways and contributors focused on just 1 side of the ball.
At the beggining there was push back. There was a certain status in the small town of being one of those iron man players that never came off the field. I had a few pouters that I had to sit down and explain the purpose of the bigger strategy. In the end winning and beating a much larger region rival for the first time ever helped.
There were the obvious things that came out in the end: olders kids were better, the studs were easily evident, former 'starters' now being subs had to be addressed. But along the way, there were some discoveries: found a few gems in the rough, kids without experience gained confidence with getting some playing time, more kids got to be involved helped to hold onto some kids down the road.
There are some other Xs and Os things that came about because of it too, but that's another chapter.
|
|
|
Post by bluboy on Feb 2, 2019 12:40:37 GMT -6
"...play my best guys period. If 2 guys are close then playing them both 1 way is worth it. If not, then it is what it is." We do the same.... Once heard a very successful coach in our area talk about two-platooning. He played his "studs" both ways. If he didn't have any "studs" and his talent was average, he would two-platoon. We play our best players on both sides of the ball. If these players need a break, we usually sub them on offense (especially after long drive).
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Feb 2, 2019 14:21:09 GMT -6
"...play my best guys period. If 2 guys are close then playing them both 1 way is worth it. If not, then it is what it is." We do the same.... Once heard a very successful coach in our area talk about two-platooning. He played his "studs" both ways. If he didn't have any "studs" and his talent was average, he would two-platoon. We play our best players on both sides of the ball. If these players need a break, we usually sub them on offense (especially after long drive). The crazy thing is I have NEVER really noticed us losing a game in the 4th quarter b/c of too many guys playing both ways. Have we lost games in the 4th? Sure. But we have also comeback & won games in the 4th quarter. I've seen both sides of it so I don't ever really factor that into methought process. I heard Nebraska S & C coach speak once at a clinic and he said the average college FB game actually only has between 5-6 minutes of live action in it. The average HS game then would be 1 / 5 less than that. I may be in the minority but I feel like kids can play that amount of time when trained properly w/o it HUGELY effecting their performance. JMO of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 7:58:37 GMT -6
Question is can they do that when the opponent platoons?
Duece
|
|
|
Post by cwaltsmith on Feb 4, 2019 9:40:31 GMT -6
We are looking at trying to do this this coming year. It had always been my thought process that you had to have 100 guys and 22 really good players to do it. We will never have either of those... However, I have changed the way I think. As said above... unless there is a ton of difference in 1 and 2... why not play them 1 way?... our problem with being tired in the 4th quarter up front is this... our guy weighs 210 and is blocking a guy that weighs 250 and is stronger than him... so even if he goes both ways too, we will wear us down simply because of strength and size. And you can always play the 1 in crunch time if he is a little better just not the whole game
|
|
|
Post by bluboy on Feb 4, 2019 10:14:53 GMT -6
"...play the 1 in crunch time if he is a little better just not the whole game"
We do this also. Over the years we've had some linemen who could have started both way, but we needed them more on defense. What we did was play them primarily on defense, and put them in on critical offensive situations (ball inside +10, short yardage, etc.). It has worked for us.
|
|
|
Post by lions23 on Feb 4, 2019 11:16:43 GMT -6
Medium and large size schools I have coached on. Best 2 freshmen/sophomore play QB and WR. Rotate quarters. Develop depth at most important spot. Let it shake out where it does for varsity.
We have had to throw in that starting senior WR to QB after one goes down and two goes down or just can’t a few times. it has saved us.
Get as many top kids to play same as. Best RB starts second best RB starts at OLB/safety. Both learn both spots. Easy to rotate as needed. Still keep fresh. No big drop offs.
Develop 3 corners that rotate and 1 or 2 starts on offense. Can take breaks early in series as needed. Have run off and blocking WRs that force the other time to cover early in series.
Develop 5 d lineman in a 3 man front. 4&5 might be o-linemen.
Try to keep o Line one way as much as possible.
Give breaks to studs right before end of 1st and 3rd quarter. Double the break with quarter timeout. Then do what you have to do in the fourth.
Package jumbo sets for D linemen and ILB to spell or get short yardage. They usually love it and can find the energy when needed.
Adjustments we make are bigger than others can make. We remain fresh and win games late.
Others will even say they can’t compete with or energy late and ability to adjust.
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on Feb 17, 2019 12:02:30 GMT -6
So we are a modified 2 platoon team I had 110 kids in the program. Approx. 2-3 FBS kids a year.
Those kids played both ways some!
We teach kids both sides in the spring and summer. During the season, we did JV/V Indy and team, etc....
We probably had about 5 or so kids that went both ways.
A lot of them rested on offense. Our starting Nickel was 2nd string RB, our starting WR was the backup DB. Played 2 Lineman on defense some.
2 years ago we had a 6'4, 300 DT and 6'5 240 DE, they played 40% of the snaps on defense split evenly (unless it was goal line)
I say try your hardest to be 2 platoon BUT when you have a DOG, play him as much as possible!
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on Feb 17, 2019 12:03:39 GMT -6
Also part of the reason I like a 3 man front on defense. 2 platoon is easy for us at skill, HURT likes heck on the Line! That was more of our issue!
|
|
|
Post by coachlesko on Feb 19, 2019 7:12:59 GMT -6
I've put this up before, but this was my 2 platoon plan for a JV team at a small HS (220ish), grades 7-9 (just 1 elementary fed the HS). I think it should be said that on the JV level, every kid should play in every game if possible. JV is all about development and getting them ready to play next year; especially when you never know which kid you may end up needing next year. If you are going to ask these kids to show up every day and sometimes put in an extra day of riding the bus every week, reward them with game-like reps. I think too often, this is where we all mess this up- don't play a kid on JV then wonder why they don't come back the next year.
|
|
|
Post by fadepattern on Feb 19, 2019 9:12:34 GMT -6
I've put this up before, but this was my 2 platoon plan for a JV team at a small HS (220ish), grades 7-9 (just 1 elementary fed the HS). I think it should be said that on the JV level, every kid should play in every game if possible. JV is all about development and getting them ready to play next year; especially when you never know which kid you may end up needing next year. If you are going to ask these kids to show up every day and sometimes put in an extra day of riding the bus every week, reward them with game-like reps. I think too often, this is where we all mess this up- don't play a kid on JV then wonder why they don't come back the next year. One of the things that we really like with 2 platoon is that it is much easier to make sure our JV guys all get quality reps. As far as JV goes we generally put the better linemen on offense (it is hard to function otherwise) and the better skill kids on defense (especially in the secondary).
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Mar 10, 2019 20:01:09 GMT -6
Here's a presentation from a few years back. I'm a big believer in trying to get as many players involved as possible. This is especially huge when you are looking for the one thing that can help "close the gap" between you and the guys you have to play or "get you over the hump" when you're really close to being the champ. drive.google.com/open?id=0B-wPWQCvDJf4V3Z0SmdKdFVTRjQ
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 7, 2019 2:34:42 GMT -6
I've seen in this thread and elsewhere the "draft" model that goes something like the following: QB > best WR > best 11 defenders go to defense > the "leftovers" get sorted out.
This model doesn't seem to take into account two factors: Offensive and defensive schemes, and the importance of each of the various positions in the context of said schemes. In an even front defense, or an odd front defense that one gaps and plays with a lot of movement, do you absolutely have to have the 3 (odd front) or 4 (even front) best defensive linemen on your team playing those spots? What good is picking your QB and feature WR at 1 and 2 in the coaches' draft going to do you if you don't have a line to protect the QB so the QB can get the ball to the feature WR? Someone else mentioned something along these lines in this thread, but seems like you'd at least want to have a center at 3, with possibly at least 1 or 2 more linemen fairly high in the draft order.
What about taking into consideration the biggest threats on your schedule that determine whether you make the playoffs or not? If I know I have got a few smashmouth teams on the schedule, I probably want my front 6 or 7 to be top notch, but if they are more balanced or pass-heavy, why would I prioritize, for example, my 2 inside backers in a 4-2-5, over running back, H-back, or X, H, or Y receivers (with the Z receiver being my 2nd pick in the draft)? If I have two players that can do an *acceptable* job (acceptable is all you need) at ILB, why would I give the defense priority over two players for those spots that would help the team overall more by playing on offense?
What about the consideration of how much zone coverage, especially spot drop zone, vs man coverage your defensive scheme utilizes? If I'm playing mostly zone, do I really need Champ Bailey and Revis playing corner on the outside when I have two corners capable of playing acceptable zone coverage, and I could have Bailey playing running back and Revis playing my second receiver spot? If I use Bailey and Revis on offense, my offense's ability to score points goes way up, while my defense's ability isn't hurt significantly, because the zone coverage that Bailey and Revis provide isn't so much better than what my two decent corners provide that their absence there is a problem. And hey, you could always "hedge" or get the best of both worlds, and play Bailey and Revis at corner when you need lock down man to man coverage. That doesn't take a significant amount of investment for them, it's simple man coverage. You just install it in spring (or fall camp if they join the team late), and then they do occasional "maintenance" during the season, maybe one day a week, or even only one or two days a week during weeks you know, based on the opponent, you are going to need some lock down man coverage. Just so it's clear, this isn't an argument for running zone so you can get a bunch of studs over on offense, it's simply a matter of optimizing your team's positional setup based on the players you have and the scheme you run. If you run a man heavy scheme, then Bailey and Revis play corner, and the offense will have to make do without them, or use them only in crucial situations with a few plays that they have practiced.
It seems like you would want to structure your draft in such a way that each position is assigned a spot in the draft based on their importance to the team's overall competitive efficacy rather than just a wholesale "the defense gets the next 11 picks, then the "leftovers" get sorted out."
|
|
|
Post by kahnfoo44 on Aug 11, 2019 10:31:12 GMT -6
As stated in this thread a few times..... A very large part of the decision is coaches. Small schools in my area have a hard time getting even 3 quality coaches that can commit the time. I would love to platoon, I do not see that happening. What I am going to shoot for is platoon the line as much as possible. Even with that it will be difficult to not have the starting Oline on defense. Looking to fill out my O line first then try to keep them as fresh as possible.
|
|
|
Post by jlenwood on Aug 12, 2019 6:19:53 GMT -6
I always coached at a small school, 45 kids was probably the high point in all the time I coached at my last stop (9 years). One of the things you soon realize when you have such a small roster is the following breakdown of players:
Group 1) You probably/hopefully have about 5 kids who love football and are what we call football players Group 2) 5-10 kids who are bodies and not much more Group 3) The remainder are the kids who are athletic, but HS football probably isn't as important as it should be
We convinced our HC one year to two platoon, and we only had about 35 kids. It took a boat load of coordination in the off season with the coaches to get the system down that we would use. Practice scheduling was super important, player distribution, who plays where, who doesn't come off the field and so on.
So with (if I remember correctly) 5 coaches we committed and did it. Now this was a team that was not very talented in the smallest school in the division, so we were behind the eight ball to start. Our philosophy was to make our studs single use players, and use them as a backup if needed somewhere on the other side of the ball, and most importantly to make our average guys (group 3) a little above average by only having 1 main focus at practice. I have always thought if all things are equal, if I can get my average guys a little better than your average guys, I win.
For practice, we would have a "switch" period where the guys from O or D would have to go rep the other side of the ball for a brief 10-15 minute period. They would learn their position and the calls etc during this time, however their primary role was the other side of the ball. So for example, in a game my starting QB (best athlete) would actually go in for a series or sporadically during the game at safety. This worked great at first, kids loved-coaches loved it-parents loved it. Those lower level kids who never saw the field because they were just a smidge less talented than a stud got more playing time, studs weren't winded by the second quarter etc.
Unfortunately what bit us was what always bites the small schools, injuries. When you can't have depth at a true 2 platoon system, that is the hill you die on. By the middle of the season, while on paper we were still trying to 2/P, we were right back to some kids just never coming off the field.
If you have the kids and the coaches to pull this off, it CAN be done at the small school. I truly believe if you are going to do it though you better be committed to the long haul. The kids who saw little time pre-2P became so much better, the studs were fresher and better, everyone felt engaged, practices were fantastic, it was just great. However, our HC was so afraid to continue we dropped it and never went back. As far as how we did wins/losses, I don't think our record would have been much better had we went all year, but we were a heck of a lot more competitive and had more chances to win when we we 2P.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 11:09:14 GMT -6
I always coached at a small school, 45 kids was probably the high point in all the time I coached at my last stop (9 years). One of the things you soon realize when you have such a small roster is the following breakdown of players: Group 1) You probably/hopefully have about 5 kids who love football and are what we call football players Group 2) 5-10 kids who are bodies and not much more Group 3) The remainder are the kids who are athletic, but HS football probably isn't as important as it should be We convinced our HC one year to two platoon, and we only had about 35 kids. It took a boat load of coordination in the off season with the coaches to get the system down that we would use. Practice scheduling was super important, player distribution, who plays where, who doesn't come off the field and so on. So with (if I remember correctly) 5 coaches we committed and did it. Now this was a team that was not very talented in the smallest school in the division, so we were behind the eight ball to start. Our philosophy was to make our studs single use players, and use them as a backup if needed somewhere on the other side of the ball, and most importantly to make our average guys (group 3) a little above average by only having 1 main focus at practice. I have always thought if all things are equal, if I can get my average guys a little better than your average guys, I win. For practice, we would have a "switch" period where the guys from O or D would have to go rep the other side of the ball for a brief 10-15 minute period. They would learn their position and the calls etc during this time, however their primary role was the other side of the ball. So for example, in a game my starting QB (best athlete) would actually go in for a series or sporadically during the game at safety. This worked great at first, kids loved-coaches loved it-parents loved it. Those lower level kids who never saw the field because they were just a smidge less talented than a stud got more playing time, studs weren't winded by the second quarter etc. Unfortunately what bit us was what always bites the small schools, injuries. When you can't have depth at a true 2 platoon system, that is the hill you die on. By the middle of the season, while on paper we were still trying to 2/P, we were right back to some kids just never coming off the field. If you have the kids and the coaches to pull this off, it CAN be done at the small school. I truly believe if you are going to do it though you better be committed to the long haul. The kids who saw little time pre-2P became so much better, the studs were fresher and better, everyone felt engaged, practices were fantastic, it was just great. However, our HC was so afraid to continue we dropped it and never went back. As far as how we did wins/losses, I don't think our record would have been much better had we went all year, but we were a heck of a lot more competitive and had more chances to win when we we 2P. We are doing this now and it is working out pretty well. We'll see once the season starts. Duece
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Sept 1, 2019 16:30:01 GMT -6
Here's a presentation from a few years back. I'm a big believer in trying to get as many players involved as possible. This is especially huge when you are looking for the one thing that can help "close the gap" between you and the guys you have to play or "get you over the hump" when you're really close to being the champ. drive.google.com/open?id=0B-wPWQCvDJf4V3Z0SmdKdFVTRjQCoach, I was looking over your document here. I saw where you talked about not "stacking" one side of the ball just to score points or make it easy, does this apply to both sides of the ball or just offense? This stood out to me because I talked about something similar in my post earlier in this thread, a common idea I see with these types of discussions is offense gets the best QB and WR on the team, then the defense gets the next 11 best defenders, without any regard to offensive and defensive schemes and the importance of the various positions within those schemes, and how this affects the competitive efficacy of the team overall...That to me sounds like stacking the defense...
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Sept 3, 2019 8:16:24 GMT -6
Here's a presentation from a few years back. I'm a big believer in trying to get as many players involved as possible. This is especially huge when you are looking for the one thing that can help "close the gap" between you and the guys you have to play or "get you over the hump" when you're really close to being the champ. drive.google.com/open?id=0B-wPWQCvDJf4V3Z0SmdKdFVTRjQCoach, I was looking over your document here. I saw where you talked about not "stacking" one side of the ball just to score points or make it easy, does this apply to both sides of the ball or just offense? This stood out to me because I talked about something similar in my post earlier in this thread, a common idea I see with these types of discussions is offense gets the best QB and WR on the team, then the defense gets the next 11 best defenders, without any regard to offensive and defensive schemes and the importance of the various positions within those schemes, and how this affects the competitive efficacy of the team overall...That to me sounds like stacking the defense... If you are going to use any type of platoon system you need to figure out the best thing for the overall success of the team. This may mean that the "best" nose guard might actually be a primary offensive guy if there is no other option at, say, center. Plus, is the DL more important than the OL unit? There will be questions that each staff has to answer independent of the staff next door doing the same thing. It's easy as the position coach to say, "I want these 4 guys because they are the 4 best receivers." However, you have to look at number of snaps, number of targets, what do we need all 4 rec spots to do the greater majority of the game before you decide how to split the reps, create the rotation, etc. With that, you must also look at the opponents you play, the secondary players available, etc. It isn't, in my opinion, as simple as "give me the QB and the defense gets the next best 11." That, to me, is a recipe for disaster. You can't hide a poor offensive line unit. You can't hide a poor defensive back. however, you can hide a receiver. you can hide a DL guy some. What I mean is, there are times where we aren't asking the X receiver to be the best guy on the field. So, if he can do some basic things then that lets me play my "best" X (or the better X) on defense longer while keeping him fresher over there AND still use him in critical situations or specific shot plays to him. Same thing with a DL... if he can do some basic things - we don't need him to make all these tackles - then we can keep our OL unit fresher, longer by waiting until, say, 3rd down or when the opponent enters our territory to sub in our OL who are the "better" DL. It is about being fresh, stealing minutes, which means don't burn up your guys in the first half playing them every down simply because, "they are the best." Find a way to rotate the crossovers into their secondary spot in specific/limited situations and coach up the other guys to do the yoeman's work of the snaps. It's amazing how cutting your FS's reps at WR by 30% will increase his productivity on his primary side while not limiting you to the times you target him or use him as the decoy on those handful of vital plays.
|
|
|
Post by jlenwood on Sept 3, 2019 9:21:50 GMT -6
It is about being fresh, stealing minutes, which means don't burn up your guys in the first half playing them every down simply because, "they are the best." Find a way to rotate the crossovers into their secondary spot in specific/limited situations and coach up the other guys to do the yoeman's work of the snaps. It's amazing how cutting your FS's reps at WR by 30% will increase his productivity on his primary side while not limiting you to the times you target him or use him as the decoy on those handful of vital plays. I think this is the strategy to incorporate if you 2P or not, however I believe it falls under the category of a lot of change within the coaching ranks, and that is fear. Just like crazy practice schedules, all year round involvement etc, "If I don't do it the other teams are doing it and they will win because I am not doing the same thing". Teams that could really benefit from this strategy are handcuffed because of a coach afraid to try because he will fall behind someone else.
|
|
|
Post by aceback76 on Sept 3, 2019 9:52:17 GMT -6
Been discussing this w/some colleagues for awhile now and want to drum this back up on here. The topic I've been discussing w/the guys I'm talking to is a small school scenario, with anywhere from say 40-50 kids in the entire program (includes JV and varsity). How would you go about implementing a 2 platoon, or modified 2 platoon system? What's the minimum number the roster has to get down to in order to abandon the 2 platoon model? What about modified 2 platoon (i.e. where kids still play both ways but players are labeled as defense 1st offense 2nd and vice versa)? Duece Just OUR way of thinking: In a 48 minute HS game, we felt it was necessary to have our "Blue Chippers" going both ways. If the other team controlled the ball for let's say 30 minutes, the Blue Chippers might be on the sideline where they couldn't help us.
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Sept 3, 2019 12:17:43 GMT -6
Coach, I was looking over your document here. I saw where you talked about not "stacking" one side of the ball just to score points or make it easy, does this apply to both sides of the ball or just offense? This stood out to me because I talked about something similar in my post earlier in this thread, a common idea I see with these types of discussions is offense gets the best QB and WR on the team, then the defense gets the next 11 best defenders, without any regard to offensive and defensive schemes and the importance of the various positions within those schemes, and how this affects the competitive efficacy of the team overall...That to me sounds like stacking the defense... If you are going to use any type of platoon system you need to figure out the best thing for the overall success of the team. This may mean that the "best" nose guard might actually be a primary offensive guy if there is no other option at, say, center. Plus, is the DL more important than the OL unit? There will be questions that each staff has to answer independent of the staff next door doing the same thing. It's easy as the position coach to say, "I want these 4 guys because they are the 4 best receivers." However, you have to look at number of snaps, number of targets, what do we need all 4 rec spots to do the greater majority of the game before you decide how to split the reps, create the rotation, etc. With that, you must also look at the opponents you play, the secondary players available, etc. It isn't, in my opinion, as simple as "give me the QB and the defense gets the next best 11." That, to me, is a recipe for disaster. You can't hide a poor offensive line unit. You can't hide a poor defensive back. however, you can hide a receiver. you can hide a DL guy some. What I mean is, there are times where we aren't asking the X receiver to be the best guy on the field. So, if he can do some basic things then that lets me play my "best" X (or the better X) on defense longer while keeping him fresher over there AND still use him in critical situations or specific shot plays to him. Same thing with a DL... if he can do some basic things - we don't need him to make all these tackles - then we can keep our OL unit fresher, longer by waiting until, say, 3rd down or when the opponent enters our territory to sub in our OL who are the "better" DL. It is about being fresh, stealing minutes, which means don't burn up your guys in the first half playing them every down simply because, "they are the best." Find a way to rotate the crossovers into their secondary spot in specific/limited situations and coach up the other guys to do the yoeman's work of the snaps. It's amazing how cutting your FS's reps at WR by 30% will increase his productivity on his primary side while not limiting you to the times you target him or use him as the decoy on those handful of vital plays. Coach, I hear ya. Thanks! This is pretty much along the lines of what I talked about earlier, particularly DL. You may have alluded to this, but there's also such a thing as "hedging" or letting 2nd or 3rd level players at spots on the depth chart play in non-crucial situations, for example when the opponent's offense is in their minus territory...Then, in the event the opponent's offense starts to put a drive together, you bring out the blue chippers, who have now had a chance to rest. This might require you to play a bend but don't break style of defense to some extent, but there's an argument to be made for that anyways (not trying to start a scheme argument, if someone wants to talk about that, I'll be glad to engage in a different thread), the great Belichick has been quoted as saying "I don't give a s--- about our defense giving up yards; all I care about is scoring defense, turnovers and the red zone." I guess one could argue that if they want to, but that seems to be pretty common sense to me. If you play bend but don't break, with 2nd and 3rd stringers providing the bulk of the snaps until it's time to clamp down, that also gives your first stringers a chance to rest over the course the game, hopefully leaving them in good shape for "go time" at the end of the game. I don't know the HS field goal success rate vs the NCAA and pro games, but I'd imagine what Belichick was talking about is excerbated at the HS level, because if you can clamp down in the red zone, the success rate of field goals is not spectactular, which makes your scoring defense that much better...
|
|
|
Post by ogre5530 on Sept 3, 2019 12:35:07 GMT -6
2 Platoon!? What's that mean??? We have 31 9-12 at a small catholic school!
|
|
|
Post by coachirish on Sept 11, 2019 13:29:08 GMT -6
If you are 2 platooning, How do you get quality competition in practice? I understand that 1s and 1s can be each other's scout teams but then isn't that taking away from the whole benefit of 2 platooning? I see some of your practice schedules that are 2 platoon. I really want to go to this.
|
|