|
Post by coachshs on Dec 21, 2008 13:44:03 GMT -6
coachorr
I think that this is very helpful. I think that the categories you use can in part be used for my rubri for football. It allows for an evaluation of the atheltes without to much hard data.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Dec 21, 2008 16:38:31 GMT -6
Do you think there is a pitfall for listing "height"?
My thought is, if two kids are very similar in score and style, I would probably keep the taller one; however, if I have a bunch of kids like the taller one, I might keep the shorter one. And, herein lies the conundrum. Individual player fitting his skill-set in the dynamic of a team. If I have Manning and Flutie, yes Flutie could play Q, but helps the team better as a slot and Manning as the Q. (I may train Flutie as number 2, assuming that I have no younger players that are close to as good.)
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Dec 21, 2008 16:40:13 GMT -6
What do you think about the "critical player attributes"? Notice they have a higher weight than fundamental skills.
SHS, if you want the word doc, I would be happy to send it to you. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 21, 2008 17:20:28 GMT -6
Do you think there is a pitfall for listing "height"? My thought is, if two kids are very similar in score and style, I would probably keep the taller one; however, if I have a bunch of kids like the taller one, I might keep the shorter one. And, herein lies the conundrum. Individual player fitting his skill-set in the dynamic of a team. If I have Manning and Flutie, yes Flutie could play Q, but helps the team better as a slot and Manning as the Q. (I may train Flutie as number 2, assuming that I have no younger players that are close to as good.) I think at the lower levels, you may be splitting hairs a bit, BUT if EVERYTHING else is equal, then physical dimensions could be used. A taller, longer player disrupts shots and passing lanes more than a shorter player...again, if all other things are equal.
|
|
|
Post by coachshs on Dec 22, 2008 1:18:28 GMT -6
Do you think there is a pitfall for listing "height"? My thought is, if two kids are very similar in score and style, I would probably keep the taller one; however, if I have a bunch of kids like the taller one, I might keep the shorter one. And, herein lies the conundrum. Individual player fitting his skill-set in the dynamic of a team. If I have Manning and Flutie, yes Flutie could play Q, but helps the team better as a slot and Manning as the Q. (I may train Flutie as number 2, assuming that I have no younger players that are close to as good.) This is where my concerns are. If you get a group who thinks taller is better and you cut the taller kid then you are in trouble. I am not sure that the height is as important as some of the other issues. For example I don't see anything about off the court issues in your rubric. If I have two kids that are equal in everything on the court except 2 inches in height then I am going to take the "quality" kid off the court in exchange for the height. If the better kid off the court is taller then all the better. I think that there is much more to athletics then in game success. Taking into consideration the character of the man is also important.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Dec 22, 2008 1:30:17 GMT -6
I have to agree with you SHS. I like to have kids I can trust to do the right things off the court, because when the chips are down, we all want kids who will not fold when the going gets tough.
I think the philosophy behind the rubric is a form in which to provide concrete evidence to players of what they are good at and what areas need improvement. I don't think a kid can do anything about height; therefore, I think it is out of place.
I am going to remove it. Thanks for the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by dc207 on Dec 22, 2008 10:22:45 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. Uggh, the aforementioned center won second-team All-Conference as a junior (the year he DIDN'T start at the outset) while the initial starter won first-team All-Conference at MLB - where he made 95 tackles with like 25 TFL's. So there was a reason that HE (the MLB) was also starting at center. Two other offensive linemen won first-team All-Conference, so it's not like we didn't have kids there with ability. Also, the center then went on to earn first-team all-Conference this season. Gonna miss him.
|
|