|
|
Post by coachshs on Dec 13, 2008 5:56:38 GMT -6
I have been asked by a helpful  athletic director to give him a rubric for what it takes to play each position on my team. He is more inclined to think it is a speed, strength, size type of thing whereas I, although those are important, feel that football IQ, toughness, and heart play more of a role. Does anyone have a rubric/criteria for what it takes to play each position on your team? For example to be a running back you have to run a 4.9 40, bench 185 18x, vertical jump 29.75 inches, and so forth. Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by dc207 on Dec 13, 2008 6:18:19 GMT -6
...is your athletic director a coach or former coach? Maybe he/she is and I don't mean to be disrespectful if so, but this sounds like a waste of time on the surface to me.
Sounds like something he/she can show to parents who complain about their child not starting or getting on the field.
We all have certain desired traits in __________ (Defensive Linemen, OLB's, FB's, Defensive backs, etc.) but certain kids are able to get the job done despite not having the ideal physical/mental requirements.
For example, our center this season was a senior who went 5-9, 205-lbs. but he was BY FAR the hardest working kid who would sacrifice ANYTHING to get the job done. We faced a trio of Nose Tackles this year who were roughly 6-2, 250 each - and our kid had no trouble at all. Tough, knew his assignment, stayed on his blocks and never, never turned on a teammate. Always positive and led by example.
We knew he had those traits at the beginning of his junior year, but had no intention of starting him at center. "Too small, too slow," we all said. In week four of his junior yearm, we faced a great team and our (more talented) starting center went down - insert backup and he was 2nd team all conference. Shotgun snaps 100% grade on the season, and he did the same thing this year; not one bad snap out of the gun while facing at least three very good NT's (one who is getting votes for All-State).
If WE had been asked this question by our AD before his junior year, we would not have necesarily listed traits that this kid boasts. That's my point, I'm not sure we can ALWAYS predict who can/can't succeed because there's certain things that can't be measured...
heart
intelligence
DESIRE
motor - as the defensive coordinator, I have talented guys who can't start because they do not have the motor to be unblockable and swarm the football like other, less-talented kids do.
Maybe it's too early for me to think of a better answer, but it sounds a little different to me. College's may do it, but we're just looking for football players at our high school. We can find a place to use them.
|
|
|
|
Post by kcbazooka on Dec 13, 2008 8:20:36 GMT -6
we prefer our skill people run 4.4's or less and our linemen to bench +300 and squat +500.
last year our DE weighed 155, benced 180, ran about a 5.1 but had a motor that didn't die -- we did ok - but i'm still looking for the those 4.4 guys...
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill Vasko on Dec 13, 2008 8:26:40 GMT -6
As a former AD, I would never ask for something like this from one of my coaches. Too many factors are involved. Sounds like someone with too much time on their hands, or too much heat from parents that they are afraid to diffuse on their own. Rubrics are ok, but I rank them up their with the Baldridge BS--more useless than useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1ispread on Dec 13, 2008 9:52:56 GMT -6
Coach, I dont know if you know it or not but your AD is fixing to sell you down the river. That rubric sounds likesomething small enough to create you BIG problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by chadp56 on Dec 13, 2008 10:32:49 GMT -6
I'd get this to him as soon as every other coach in the athletic program handed theirs in. To use an example from another sport: should someone who was taller, could run faster, and jump higher than Michael Jordan started over him? You can't meausure who is better on statistics alone, therefore creating some system to do that will probably only cause you more problems in the future. Maybe hand in a ruberic with one catagory, how many minutes the coaching staff thinks a kid should play= how many minutes the kid gets to play!
|
|
|
|
Post by outlawjoseywales on Dec 13, 2008 10:55:17 GMT -6
Coachshs, What is this A.D. going to do-go out and buy you some players that fit this criteria for Christmas?  That is one of the strangest things I've read in a while. Is he doing the same thing for basketball? "Well, lets see...let's start with 7' tall...blah blah blah. Let us know where this dumb crap is going? OJW |
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Dec 13, 2008 12:30:26 GMT -6
I like OJW's response...
Write up your christmas list... and when they see none of your kids meet that criteria, you explain that's why we struggle... and until parents start producing better offspring, you'll keep making due with the players that we have.
But if that doesn't work... break out the intangibles. The kids that play for me, are the ones that differentiate themselves from the others via their desire, persistence, courage, committment and confidence. We find those kids via immense observation.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Dec 13, 2008 13:43:17 GMT -6
I have been asked by a helpful athletic director to give him a rubric for what it takes to play each position on my team. He is more inclined to think it is a speed, strength, size type of thing whereas I, although those are important, feel that football IQ, toughness, and heart play more of a role. Does anyone have a rubric/criteria for what it takes to play each position on your team? For example to be a running back you have to run a 4.9 40, bench 185 18x, vertical jump 29.75 inches, and so forth. Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated. Let me put this as diplomatically as possible- this guy's frickin nuts. Ignore him. Tell him that you're working on recruiting right now. Even if you have no legitimate prospects keep a pile of recruiting questionaires on your desk for just this purpose. Hopefully by February he'll be too busy bothering the basketball coach to revive this insane idea. |
|
|
|
Post by coachshs on Dec 14, 2008 18:47:11 GMT -6
;D I am so thankful for a forum where I know I can get some "good" advice. To be very diplomatic my AD has very little coaching experience. I have been given an "Improvement Plan" that includes the aformentioned request and I believe every bit of what has been written here. Any other suggestions or sound bites may help me deflect this request. I have been given a date of completion for this request and I am sure that he will not let it pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 14, 2008 20:11:03 GMT -6
I think it depends on what you is trying to be accomplished. I don't see how the AD having little coaching experience has anything to do with he/she asking you to list what you deem to be the critical success factors of each position or to explain how you are evaluating the kids. The introspection might do the program some good.
The rubric doesn't have to be physical attributes such as 40 time or bench press numbers. How about something like this :
Evaluation Criteria for Safeties:
Critical Factors:
Instincts
Pass Production
Run Production
Tackling
Play speed
QB the Secondary
Position Skills:
Deep Zone
Range
Short Zone
M/M Covg.
Ball Skills
Catching Skills
Run Support
3rd dn. Value
Special Teams Value
These criteria can be used to produce a player by player evaluation like below.
Sample Evaluation summary:
Smith is an adequate reactionary athlete for the SS position, good play speed and good quickness when breaking and closing to the ball carrier, however is a little tight in his hips when asked to play FS. He plays with a good motor, high effort guy vs. both run and pass that will throw his body around to make a big hit. Vs. run, has good instincts to locate the ball in traffic, and will come up to make tackle. Is strong on the perimeter, as he can control the block of the WR, shed, and make the play. Good tackler, shoulder tackles at times, but can make the big hit, and is not an ankle biter or a miss tackle guy in open-field. Takes good angles to the ball and is explosive on contact. Vs. pass, best suited in short zone covg. or in m/m w/ TE’s. Good instincts in the short zone, understands routes and where he is to fit in order to close throw lanes for the QB. Again, is a little tight in his hips when transitioning as a FS, and has an adequate pedal, but does have good speed to close on the deep throw once he is running to it. Has good ball skills, locates the ball in flight and can track it on an angle. Good catch skills, not great, but can make the INT if given the opportunity.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 14, 2008 20:36:42 GMT -6
... We all have certain desired traits in __________ (Defensive Linemen, OLB's, FB's, Defensive backs, etc.) but certain kids are able to get the job done despite not having the ideal physical/mental requirements. I would argue then that THOSE traits that allow the kids to get the job done are what you are looking for, and that is what you construct the rubric with. Not useless height and weight requirements. THERE are your criteria RIGHT THERE. This could be PRECISELY the reason this admin is looking for some type of rubric as part of a professional improvement plan. So, you were going into the season with a 2nd team all conference player on the bench. How many other lineman won awards for you this year? They can't be quantitatively assessed, but you can definitely use empirical evidence to evaluate players on these traits. |
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Dec 15, 2008 12:53:38 GMT -6
I believe what the AD should have asked for was a scope and sequence for the positions. Fred Bouchard does a great two-dvd set on the defensive side of the ball developing a scope and sequence for the positions based on the premise of: What would the ideal varsity inside linebacker look like for our program? He then creates a skill set and works back to the 7th grade level so that each level has a set of skills that must be developed and mastered as they progress through the program.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Dec 15, 2008 14:32:50 GMT -6
Alright, since a rubrick makes sense here's one that encompasses every offensive line starter in the over 20 years since I've been here. Every number is accurate:
Center: 5'8 180-6'1 270. Can block.
Guard: 5'9 190-6'3 310. Can block.
Tackle: 5'11 170-6'5 260. Can block.
We've won with players of every shape and form. What they have in common is that they can block.
This rubrick thing is nonsense. It's all about a know-nothing AD covering his/her buttocks.
The day that I fill a form like this out is the day that I quit.
|
|
coachgeorge51
Sophomore Member
Cliches and mottos is mindless verbal nonsense.
Posts: 151
|
Post by coachgeorge51 on Dec 15, 2008 14:36:16 GMT -6
Don't do it. It will be the kiss of death. You cannot measure the many intangibles necessary to perform at the varsity level and kids don't fit into a cookie cutter by position or performance.
Please..........don't do it. I agree with a previous post - you are being "sold down the river" and "thrown under the bus". Be very careful with this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 15, 2008 15:12:59 GMT -6
Alright, since a rubrick makes sense here's one that encompasses every offensive line starter in the over 20 years since I've been here. Every number is accurate: Center: 5'8 180-6'1 270. Can block. Guard: 5'9 190-6'3 310. Can block. Tackle: 5'11 170-6'5 260. Can block. We've won with players of every shape and form. What they have in common is that they can block. This rubrick thing is nonsense. It's all about a know-nothing AD covering his/her buttocks. The day that I fill a form like this out is the day that I quit. I am again going to disagree here. The concept is only as worthless as you make it. Using physical dimensions are indeed worthless...so why use those? If you can't express the evaluation tools you are using, how are you actually evaluating anyone? |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Dec 15, 2008 17:20:36 GMT -6
Alright, since a rubrick makes sense here's one that encompasses every offensive line starter in the over 20 years since I've been here. Every number is accurate: Center: 5'8 180-6'1 270. Can block. Guard: 5'9 190-6'3 310. Can block. Tackle: 5'11 170-6'5 260. Can block. We've won with players of every shape and form. What they have in common is that they can block. This rubrick thing is nonsense. It's all about a know-nothing AD covering his/her buttocks. The day that I fill a form like this out is the day that I quit. I am again going to disagree here. The concept is only as worthless as you make it. Using physical dimensions are indeed worthless...so why use those? If you can't express the evaluation tools you are using, how are you actually evaluating anyone? All three positions have one thing in common- they can block. I don't see the value in this rubric thing at all. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 15, 2008 17:50:04 GMT -6
Coach, how do you evaluate your OL? You said they "all block" HOw do you pick a starter? If you can't clearly define the process you use to determine who is the starter, then are you really doing all you can do? Both Ed Reed and I could "cover"...what specific skills did the coach find necessary to do the job, and what did he do better than I did. ...like my example above with the safeties. ?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Dec 15, 2008 19:04:56 GMT -6
Ask this guy if it is in the rubric of the AD to go around and be a pain in the a$$. Tell this guy that the number one attribute is to be a team player and not slither behind corners and try to Pearl Harbor teammates.
Barry Sanders and Ladanian Tomlinson and Doug Flutie would not meet some aspects of a plausible rubric for their respective positions. Yet, I think any one of us would take them on our team.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 15, 2008 19:10:45 GMT -6
Ask this guy if it is in the rubric of the AD to go around and be a pain in the a$$. Barry Sanders and Ladanian Tomlinson and Doug Flutie would not meet some aspects of a plausible rubric for their respective positions. Yet, I think any one of us would take them on our team. If you design a rubric in which Barry Sanders, Tomlinson or Flutie weren't at the high end of the rubric, then it is the coaches fault for putting together an asinine rubric. Now, if your rubric contained things such as vision, cutting ability, balance, decision making....i think all three would be quite high. I don't see why everyone is drawn immediately to a physical spec sheet for this rubric, nor do I see why so many are against being asked to sit down and analyze exactly which skills are needed to be successful . As coach orr just demonstrated, obviously you could care less about being 6'3. But there ARE definitely critical success factors and positional skills that coaches use to evaluate players right? I can't imagine that many well educated coaches here on the site play guys because "they are more gooder" |
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Dec 15, 2008 19:20:33 GMT -6
Because if it is subjective, why would the AD want the rubric in the first place? I have to agree, however, that listing attributes other than physical elements is very important. Sometimes, even the strongest kids aren't real good football players.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Dec 15, 2008 19:26:25 GMT -6
Coach, how do you evaluate your OL? You said they "all block" HOw do you pick a starter? If you can't clearly define the process you use to determine who is the starter, then are you really doing all you can do? Both Ed Reed and I could "cover"...what specific skills did the coach find necessary to do the job, and what did he do better than I did. ...like my example above with the safeties Wish I could tell you. I wish I had a formula. I don't. Instinct, intuition, and experience. Our starting RT is a walking muscle. Our backup, who plays almost as much, isn't. He's 5'10 and 215. As I said, though, he can block. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 15, 2008 19:33:13 GMT -6
Coach, how do you evaluate your OL? You said they "all block" HOw do you pick a starter? If you can't clearly define the process you use to determine who is the starter, then are you really doing all you can do? Both Ed Reed and I could "cover"...what specific skills did the coach find necessary to do the job, and what did he do better than I did. ...like my example above with the safeties Wish I could tell you. I wish I had a formula. I don't. Instinct, intuition, and experience. Our starting RT is a walking muscle. Our backup, who plays almost as much, isn't. He's 5'10 and 215. As I said, though, he can block. He can "block"... How do you rate his assignment correctness get off hand placement pad level force delivered Finish downfield blocking efforts... Coach, you know I respect your work and posts here, but If i was your boss or a parent...and I DO KNOW FOOTBALL...I would not accept "instinct, intuition, and experience" Now if you told me Joey got off slower, or had worse handplacement, higher pad level..maybe he didn't deliver as much force, or had trouble maintaining blocks...etc.. when compared to Johnny, I can go with that. Saying your gut says that Johnny is better doesn't fly |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Dec 15, 2008 21:25:42 GMT -6
Wish I could tell you. I wish I had a formula. I don't. Instinct, intuition, and experience. Our starting RT is a walking muscle. Our backup, who plays almost as much, isn't. He's 5'10 and 215. As I said, though, he can block. He can "block"... How do you rate his assignment correctness get off hand placement pad level force delivered Finish downfield blocking efforts... Coach, you know I respect your work and posts here, but If i was your boss or a parent...and I DO KNOW FOOTBALL...I would not accept "instinct, intuition, and experience" Now if you told me Joey got off slower, or had worse handplacement, higher pad level..maybe he didn't deliver as much force, or had trouble maintaining blocks...etc.. when compared to Johnny, I can go with that. Saying your gut says that Johnny is better doesn't fly I disagree. I'm not trying to ge argumentative. I respect your work, too. I believe in the gut, though. If a parent wants to come in and complain, they can have my $2800. a year. |
|
|
|
Post by PSS on Dec 15, 2008 21:26:28 GMT -6
Coachd:
Some things are unmeasurable and thus not able to be placed on any grading instrument.
Have you ever given thought to some players have more heart and just get the job done.
Some will play through pain or an injury for the team.
There are others you will call on in a tight game or situation because he will rise to the occasion when the player next to him won't.
Those are the things that are unmeasurable.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 15, 2008 21:54:44 GMT -6
Coachd: Some things are unmeasurable and thus not able to be placed on any grading instrument. Have you ever given thought to some players have more heart and just get the job done. Some will play through pain or an injury for the team. There are others you will call on in a tight game or situation because he will rise to the occasion when the player next to him won't. Those are the things that are unmeasurable. Like I said... They can't be quantitatively assessed, but you can definitely use empirical evidence to evaluate players on these traits. Being a clutch player would definitely be part of my evaluation for a QB. Playing with pain would be something my DL would have to do...etc. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 15, 2008 22:05:44 GMT -6
He can "block"... How do you rate his assignment correctness get off hand placement pad level force delivered Finish downfield blocking efforts... Coach, you know I respect your work and posts here, but If i was your boss or a parent...and I DO KNOW FOOTBALL...I would not accept "instinct, intuition, and experience" Now if you told me Joey got off slower, or had worse handplacement, higher pad level..maybe he didn't deliver as much force, or had trouble maintaining blocks...etc.. when compared to Johnny, I can go with that. Saying your gut says that Johnny is better doesn't fly I disagree. I'm not trying to ge argumentative. I respect your work, too. I believe in the gut, though. If a parent wants to come in and complain, they can have my $2800. a year. It think of it as being the best coach I can be, and I think of it as ensuring the best possible team...not as much as trying to avoid parental complaints.. I just feel the whole "gut thing" doesn't strike me as fair to the kids. If those guys are working their butts off..I just think they deserve a thought out methodology or process, and they deserve more than a a general "he is better". |
|
|
|
Post by los on Dec 15, 2008 22:31:31 GMT -6
This could be a helpful tool though, we've all probably used it for player analysis(in our heads,lol), just never bothered to write it down, for others to critique......since the example in the original post was about running backs, here's a few of my personal requirements for a good running back......good ball handler, that includes taking a hand-off/pitch....carrying the ball properly.....switching the ball away from the pursuit....covering up in traffic, etc = (doesn't turn the ball over)......runs behind his pads with good vision....can set up/read a block and make the best cut = (runs smart).......can run thru tackles, use a stiff arm, equally effective inside or outside, finishes off each run = (runs tough)......knows his assignments,effective blocker and carries out fakes without the ball = (team player)......then....with all these things being equal......"speed on the football field" would come into play, as a determining "physical factor", as to whether joey or johnny gets the starting job....thats about it....
|
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Dec 15, 2008 22:39:48 GMT -6
I am again going to disagree here. The concept is only as worthless as you make it. Using physical dimensions are indeed worthless...so why use those? If you can't express the evaluation tools you are using, how are you actually evaluating anyone? Coach, I think you are missing the initial intent of the Rubric... Coachshs said... I have been asked by a helpful athletic director to give him a rubric for what it takes to play each position on my team. He is more inclined to think it is a speed, strength, size type of thing whereas I, although those are important, feel that football IQ, toughness, and heart play more of a role.My point is this... the Rubric you are proposing, is no more than a wish list. All the traits you'd like a player to have? Where do you start, or stop for that matter? Seems like a complete waste of time. Especially considering... you play with what you get. I may want my RB to have vision, good hands, a willingness to block, quick feet, a strong heart, a hearty appetitie... blah, blah, blah... but what I got is Joe and Jack. I'm starting Joe cause he's faster. Two weeks later, it becomes quite apparent that Jack is a harder runner, has an innate instinct for the game. What? Shame on me for not knowing that from the beginning? For not having that on my Rubric? So again, if I put everything down on my Rubric... but its just me and towo other coaches... and we have a Jv and Varsity program to run, 6 different positions to coach with only 3 coaches... but i should build the rubric and be ready to legitimize how each and every kid rated within that Rubric? In short, i could see the Rubric as an evaluation tool. What I'd like my players to have been, vs who they actually were... but to utilize it as a selection criteria... That's a recipie for disaster. I was hired to run the football program, through several weeks of observation, I will choose my starting 11... and that starting 11 could be based off of something as flimsy as attendance, or as simplistic as quantitative stats. Nonetheless, this is the last bastion of dictatorship... a kid plays because I believe he should. if thats not reason enough... I shouldn't be the coach of that program. |
|
|
|
Post by los on Dec 15, 2008 22:59:51 GMT -6
Thats hilarious Khalfie..."last bastion of dictatorship"....no wonder theres so many bloodless coups in football coaching, lol
|
|
athletic director to give him a rubric for what it takes to play each position on my team. He is more inclined to think it is a speed, strength, size type of thing whereas I, although those are important, feel that football IQ, toughness, and heart play more of a role.
