|
Post by triploption on Jul 27, 2008 11:15:13 GMT -6
Hello all,
I have been hearing some talk lately about a 2 point stance for your lineman. Just curious, how many of you have tried it, and what were the results. Logically it makes great sense to me. Typically leg strength in the kids usually cannot support their body weight, so the first thing they do on the snap is to relieve the pressure and stand up.
I believe the kids may be more explosive from the 2 point stance, but would love to hear the pros and cons from those that have tried it. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jul 27, 2008 11:18:47 GMT -6
Hard to get kids on the balls of their feet when in a 2 point Ive never had a problem with the exception of extremely obese kids of getting into a good 3 point.
|
|
|
Post by dvo45 on Jul 27, 2008 11:31:49 GMT -6
We did it, the kids liked it a lot. They are already in a good blocking position, and like you said, most of the time the kids just want to stand up and get out of a 3 point stance.
I think it worked well with us because we had a "zone" style blocking scheme and that we didn't really want to drive the d-line downfield, just prevent penetration.
|
|
|
Post by acdcdad2 on Aug 23, 2008 19:43:23 GMT -6
:(The 2 point may be good for some but I would never never have a young linemen start in a 2 point stance. They need to start low and finish high, and if they are in a 2 point they will stand up!! at the start and will get blown back.
|
|
|
Post by piquaindian on Aug 31, 2008 21:25:24 GMT -6
We use it. Mainly because our lineman have to play both ways and they get dead tired getting down in a 3 point stance. They do a great job with it.
|
|
|
Post by jt3232 on Aug 6, 2011 13:53:03 GMT -6
Hello, I am a highschool freshman offensive lineman not obese not skinny. But I would like to know how to become explosive from a two-point stance, because personally I like the 3 point stance best, in which I have been switching from throughout middle school to the two point stance. Anyways some advice would be nice thanks.
|
|
mw5433
Freshmen Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by mw5433 on Aug 6, 2011 14:50:57 GMT -6
In my opinion the 2 point has it's place in youth football but not if you want to be as explosive as you can or get the most out of your drive blocks. I've coached against team the had success with the 2 point but they where primarily pass blocking or trapping. As far kids not having the strength or getting tired from a 3 point, I have never seen or had that problem ( with exception on the extremely obese kids). I think the decision to be in a 2 or 3 point should be based on what scheme your running.
|
|
|
Post by coachmsl on Aug 7, 2011 11:22:58 GMT -6
We all are hearing more and more about the 2 pt. After helping out with the highschool last year, these were my observations. This school is a powerhouse with atheletes. They fought this for a month. I would not want to try 2pt with a youth team. Just my opp.
LOW STANCE - Flat Back - Just because they are in a 2 pt stance, you still have to run the ball and leverage is key.
NO FALSE STEPS - Couple ways to help teach this. Place dummy behind their heals... Mental weight off first step foot.... Knock knees slightly
msl
|
|
raiderx
Sophomore Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by raiderx on Aug 7, 2011 12:49:29 GMT -6
I have used both with my OL. I prefer the 3 point. 2 point tends to make them a little lazy...especially in the run game. Low man wins and in the 3 point at least you start low.
|
|
|
Post by utchuckd on Aug 7, 2011 22:11:20 GMT -6
This intrigues me a lot. I can see pros and cons both ways. I double team at the POA, and for those a good 3 pt would be best, but my guards pull a lot so a 2 pt would serve them better, even with their down blocks I don't think a 2 pt would be too bad, as long as they kept good form. I would be scared of them getting lazy as raiderx said. Most of my kids can get in a good 3 pt so it's prolly a non-issue for me, but I've got a big 'un that's real tight thru his hips and can't get into or out of a 3 pt, I might experiment with him tomorrow at practice.
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on Aug 8, 2011 6:40:43 GMT -6
The way I coach a 3 pt. stance, there's very little weight on the hand anyway. "Kids want to stand up first out of a 3 pt stance", "Kids won't stay low in a 2 pt". It's all about drilling the natural tendencies out of them. Not saying I'm a genius at that, as I experience the same issues all other coaches do. I think, in the right system, a 2 pt stance would serve just fine, IF taught and drilled right.
One way to drill staying low, after you've progressed through the basics of course, is "King of the Boards". Low man wins, and this is one great way to drill that in their thick skulls full of mush.
|
|
|
Post by hindberg on Aug 8, 2011 22:37:23 GMT -6
I am not the smartest guy but I would think this would put you at an instant disadvantage in youth football. The D line who would be in a 3 pt stance could shoot under and have instant leverage driving your players back in a best case situation. We played two teams that tried this against us last year and both ended with negative total yards for the game. I could see an advantage at the high school level and above or possibly a older select team.
|
|
|
Post by mahonz on Aug 9, 2011 13:41:39 GMT -6
I too have been hearing a lot about this and know of one VERY successful youth coach that swears by it…and they run the DW offense.
We are thinking about it with a group of 7 year olds…we will see. Might bail right away....might not.
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on Aug 10, 2011 14:59:23 GMT -6
I too have been hearing a lot about this and know of one VERY successful youth coach that swears by it…and they run the DW offense. We are thinking about it with a group of 7 year olds…we will see. Might bail right away....might not. The 9/10 year old team in my former league won the Championship last year running I formation with OL in 2 point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2011 5:09:49 GMT -6
Depends on what you plan to do
I wouldn't because it's not good for what we do, you are in a different boat
If 95% of what you are going to do is pass , preferably from the gun, I can see the value of 2 point across the board.
I personally don't like it because I believe in a balanced attack, the run game is 70-80% of our offense right now , though that's changing a bit, we also prefer to be under center full time.
As Dave C mentioned I've never had a problem getting kids into a 3 point, nor have I ever had problems, pass blocking because they were.
|
|
|
Post by shamespiral on Aug 14, 2011 6:59:56 GMT -6
Hard to get kids on the balls of their feet when in a 2 point Ive never had a problem with the exception of extremely obese kids of getting into a good 3 point. Why would you want them on the balls of their feet?
|
|
raiderx
Sophomore Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by raiderx on Aug 14, 2011 12:20:35 GMT -6
Hard to get kids on the balls of their feet when in a 2 point Ive never had a problem with the exception of extremely obese kids of getting into a good 3 point. Why would you want them on the balls of their feet? -- He's not a zone blocking guy if he wants them on the balls of their feet.
|
|
brycrob
Probationary Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by brycrob on Sept 24, 2011 12:50:57 GMT -6
If the goal is to teach technique so they excell in youth, intermediate, HS, and college, why would you teach them the 2 pt for O lin anyway? Teach the kids right the first time and they will be better players for it.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Sept 24, 2011 21:25:21 GMT -6
If the goal is to teach technique so they excell in youth, intermediate, HS, and college, why would you teach them the 2 pt for O lin anyway? Teach the kids right the first time and they will be better players for it. How many will play in HS? Live for now.
|
|
brycrob
Probationary Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by brycrob on Sept 25, 2011 12:52:11 GMT -6
If your in TX.... All of them.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Sept 26, 2011 0:32:46 GMT -6
If your in TX.... All of them. So 5A high schools in Texas have about 1200 or so kids on the football team? Wow, that's incredible ... Seriously, the national average is only about 30% of all youth players will ever set foot on a varsity football field in a game as a player. I doubt very much that those numbers are dramatically different in Texas.
|
|
brycrob
Probationary Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by brycrob on Sept 26, 2011 15:23:14 GMT -6
That's not the point. Out of those 1200, I bet the majority DID play youth football. If you are going to COACH football, coach it right. 2 Pt stance on the O Line is not teaching the boys how to play the game correctly.
You are in CA, I lived in OC for 13 yrs. Football is not as big of a deal in CA as it is in TX and especially in the rural areas. The study you are referring to was out of Michigan St. Michigan is a state that has a heavy hockey and lacrosse participation so that is not a very strong study either.
Not saying it's 100%, I was trying to prove a point but I will bet you it is 50 - 60% of youth football players play in middle and high school.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Sept 26, 2011 17:06:14 GMT -6
That's not the point. Out of those 1200, I bet the majority DID play youth football. If you are going to COACH football, coach it right. 2 Pt stance on the O Line is not teaching the boys how to play the game correctly. You are in CA, I lived in OC for 13 yrs. Football is not as big of a deal in CA as it is in TX and especially in the rural areas. The study you are referring to was out of Michigan St. Michigan is a state that has a heavy hockey and lacrosse participation so that is not a very strong study either. Not saying it's 100%, I was trying to prove a point but I will bet you it is 50 - 60% of youth football players play in middle and high school. Relax - I was just having a little fun. Yes, the study was out of Michigan St, but I'm pretty sure the data was taken from national samples. More importantly, how is having the o-line in a 2-pt stance incorrect? It may be incorrect for your system, but it may be absolutely correct for another coach's system. Don't assume that your way of doing things is the only correct way. There is nothing inherently better or more correct about a 3-pt stance over a 2-pt. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but which one is "correct" depends on the system/scheme being employed and the coaches that are coaching it.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Sept 26, 2011 21:27:33 GMT -6
That's not the point. Out of those 1200, I bet the majority DID play youth football. So what? You can't travel backward in time. The question is what to do for the kids you're coaching now, not to pick some subset of them in the future and muse about how they should've been coached. The way to "play the game correctly" is the way that gives you the best winning chance today. Not against opponents you might meet some years down the line if you're in the minority that keeps playing the game -- at which time you can always learn another way to play. People who play certain sports over a number of years sometimes even have to change their game as techniques they favored are outlawed or other developments of the game make them obsolete or disfavored. Just during the years I took wrestling in school, we had to relearn one move when the chicken wing was outlawed. There are chess openings that make sense for lower level players to use because their opponents are unlikely to find the comebacks to them that make them unplayable at grandmaster level. There are similarly lots of things I think are appropriate in children's football that would be inappropriate at higher levels of play, for the same reason. I would think that in areas where participation is greater, the proportion of children who would go on to play in HS would be even lower. The only way I could see Texas HSs to accommodate larger number of players would be for them to have extra teams besides varsity, JV, and frosh; maybe varsity A, varsity B, then JV A, JV B, etc. I doubt many schools have such extra teams. Of course it's possible, as here in NYC, that HS age players could have opp'ties to play other than interscholastically, i.e. on club teams, but that's not what you wrote about.
|
|
raiderx
Sophomore Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by raiderx on Sept 27, 2011 6:24:29 GMT -6
I coach in TX...we have a varsity with 55+ kids every year. We have 2 JV teams - both have about 35 on them for a total of 70+...some years more like 80+ players. We also have 2 freshman teams - 35 + on each. Not defending or supporting the above argument but we do have that many players. 4A school with middle size 4A enrollment (1600 kids).
|
|
|
Post by mahonz on Sept 27, 2011 10:45:46 GMT -6
Our second grade team is using 2 point stances. Never done this before and it has really worked out well for a number of reasons. Yes they do play high….but so do all of the opponents so it’s a wash.
Teaching. A 2-point stance is simple for all. Teach it and move on never having to constantly adjust them since they are so young. Tons of time is now spent on technique rather than a good 3-point stance.
Stance. Since their stance is naturally a bit high it hides the backfield actions. Didn’t expect this at all. Counters are deadly.
Aggression. When you watch our line fire off the ball compared to the opponents…there is no comparison because their feet are further forward and their hands are locked and loaded. We are twice as fast off the football.
I am not convinced this would be a good idea as the kids progress a year or two down the road, but for Super Smurfs who are all learning to play football to include the DL….the two point stance has been a spectacular idea.
Penetration is a non-issue. It happens on occasion just like with any team but it really isn’t a problem.
|
|
|
Post by mentor1st on Sept 11, 2012 11:34:03 GMT -6
You will always get a bunch of "opinions" based on how we all learned to play football 15-30 yrs ago. The proof is in the pudding. If you are coaching young kids, you can teach them very effectively to run block using the 2 point stance. I've done it for years. You first have to do it correctly. You must have their forearms on their thighs. You then also have to have their right foot one half a shoe length behind their left. Essentially you are accomplishing multiple things. First, you are taking one step out of their firing position (lifting their hand), and as long as you practice firing into a bag, they will be at the same blocking height as they would from a 3 pt. 2nd, you will never have kids with their heads down, no matter how tired they are. 3rd, the kids will not tire as easily. College teams are now running effectively behind 2 pt stances (UCLA over 300 yards against Nebraska) and so can your kids. The key is you are only picking the hand up that was on the ground. Their butt's stay down.
|
|
|
Post by mahonz on Sept 12, 2012 15:32:04 GMT -6
Im glad this thread popped back up.
I posted a year ago and can now say I don't think I will ever teach anything BUT a two point stance again....any age group...any level.
Cant even begin to tell all of you how well it has worked out.
|
|
soxfan
Probationary Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by soxfan on Aug 29, 2016 13:25:40 GMT -6
Been doing a 3 pt for years with all age groups 6th grade and under. Always had decent success with it, but this year i am going 2 pt. We have a small inexperienced group and we are trying to capitalize on quickness and screen blocking. This post ended 4 years ago, there must be some opinions on how it worked out since then. Any advice on how to coach it up would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Aug 29, 2016 13:44:44 GMT -6
Old thread, but certainly still relevant.
For those opposed -
What's the first step out of 3 point? In many progressions, it's a 3-6" power step, load hands, straight back, chest to thigh, head up.
Sooooo, what's wrong with STARTING them in that position? Those advocating for 2 point don't start them in the "ready" position, they start them in the load position. If done correctly, it's faster and same pad level because you are now starting with your second step to some extent.
That said - I've seen Mahonz's film, and his kids ain't low, LOL. :-)
I won't do it because of two reasons: first, I tried it on wedge (going on first sound) and they were really timid with no momentum; and second because I'd get politically destroyed in my program, it's run by a guy who coaches youth and HS and believes part of our mission is to get the kids ready for HS, and that means 3 point stances. Whether I agree with that or not...
|
|