|
Post by coachshs on Sept 26, 2007 21:04:01 GMT -6
I am in a very large dispute over when it becomes more important to WIN then it is to play all your kids. Some are arguing that it is more important to "instill winning at a young age so that losing doesn't take hold" and others that say "giving all you kids a chance early creates more success with a greater number of kids later on. If you don't give them a chance to play they will quit and never play again." What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 26, 2007 21:15:15 GMT -6
it doesn't matter who plays........
so long as everyone can dance
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Sept 26, 2007 21:16:45 GMT -6
We're in a good situation that our freshmen are really good this year, so every kid gets some meaningful snaps at that level. That wasn't the case last year. They were bad, but we still tried to get every kid in. That may have sacrificed a win or two, but the majority of them came out again. I don't know what the right answer is. I don't think either is the definitive answer. I've seen plenty of schools take the winning angle and be successful, but not many with the play everybody model. You also have to ask "How many good kids will we lose if we're losing?" I think winning down there in the long run is the way to go, but I can see benefits of both. And you're welcome for all the help.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Sept 26, 2007 21:25:11 GMT -6
I think the answers will depend on the level of the person who is answering it. If I am the Head Varsity Coach, then I might have a different viewpoint than the Head Middle School coach
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Sept 26, 2007 21:28:45 GMT -6
I'd tend to think by playing more kids in the lower levels you'd also be developing depth- I think that promotes more comp at the varsity level and comp makes for a better team.
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on Sept 26, 2007 23:05:04 GMT -6
as soon as you stop paying $225 to get our minimum 7 plays, it is about winning
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Sept 27, 2007 6:06:46 GMT -6
I dont think they are mutually exclusive. I think winning is important (dont confuse that with winning at any cost please ) at every level as soon as the kids learn to keep score. Kids cry when they lose, kids quit when they lose, parents rag on kids and coaches when they lose, kids dont want to be associated with a loser, its societies norm to want to be around a winner. if a coach PREPARES EVERY KID TO PLAY AND WIN, then they are more likely to come out and stick with it regardless of the actual number of wins. Teams that PERFORM poorly because of lack of TEACHING AND PREPARATION are teams that suffer with lots of quitting. I know of one team that is 0-4 now and their solution to "make the kids have more heart" is to run them half to death. Keep in mind that they jump off sides, dont know their blocking rules, have a rash of injuries due to unsafe instruction and dangerous drills, endure daily/weekly position and scheme changes, fumble snaps, cant tackle because 80% of their practice time is spent on SCRIMMAGE rather than teaching and repping....prediction #1 = numbers will drop because preparation is poor and its NOT FUN to run all practice because of "no heart" or "not conditioned" and not get to play(especially if dads not on the staff) and certainly its not fun to NEVER HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN. I have been around plenty of teams where kids are satisified to be part of a winning team because they are learning and made to feel part of the team in practice and get some mop up duty as the team wins games. I was always honest with my kids " we are playing to win, you will learn the game in practice, you work hard enough and impress me enough and you will get playing time"...that is good enough for most kids. let me add one thing because I have tried the "every one starts" concept and its rediculous. It saps the very strength from the team. when you have to put "fearful frank" and "stumbling stan" and "wrong way willy" and " no clue nicky" on the field they will hurt the team, those kids who are giving their best trying so hard to win see that they no longer have a chance to succeed...well, they may quit on you. Is that really what you want? true story, about 7 years ago I coached jr high and middle school (two teams) and every kid had a starting position...our jr high was just 3-6-1 and the jv team of that jr high was 1-4 I think. Many of those kids didnt play the next year because we werent competetive (aka "we suck") in some of the games. I changed my thinking the following year, we played the hardest working, most deserving kids (not necessarily the best kids) we won all of our games and in fact only lost one in a two year period..., the attitude around THE WHOLE PROGRAM was effected by the success of the jr high team (more kids coming out, kids in the wt room, football chatter in the halls, overall growing interest from faculty and staff)...just some thoughts. btw, the varsity has been in the playoffs every year since and has good coaches and good players and good schemes. fwiw, I had about 80 kids signed up to play at the ms level this year before I took another job...that despite the fact that some kids didnt get to play more than a few mop up duty appearances last year. winning is fun.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Sept 27, 2007 6:59:20 GMT -6
I coach at the 8th grade level. We coach to win and play to win. Every player we have (around 28) get into every game. They may not play 50 snaps each, but they get into every game.
|
|
|
Post by raider7342 on Sept 27, 2007 7:04:55 GMT -6
i know a coach who liked to play everyone, but many of them only played one or two plays. his theory- parents ask "did you play?" he must say yes and therefore had the opportunity to prove his ability to play more. this was jr. high level. not a bad idea
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Sept 27, 2007 8:05:50 GMT -6
I coach at the 8th grade level. We coach to win and play to win. Every player we have (around 28) get into every game. They may not play 50 snaps each, but they get into every game. Same here...and I have 4 or 5 kids that have no business being on the football field.
|
|
|
Post by dsqa on Sept 27, 2007 12:11:11 GMT -6
I assigned a coach to substitition. Small High school 32 players, so not as easy in a bigger program for sure, but I monitored playing time as the game got out of hand, and made sure every kid got in. Just my way. They were there, they deserve to play, if we can get them in. The problem for me is getting so engrossed in the game, that I would lose track of it, so I had a coach who kept me posted, and we tried to get kids in where we could. Some, it was just hard, and we had to wait, but I never got playing time calls.
Of course, I told the parents before the season, that I don't discuss playing time with parents, only players. If their son wants to be treated like a man, he needs to act like one, and see me himself about playing time. We talk about what he needs to do, and then handle it that way. That way he is accountable to me, and his parents have nothing to say about it. I also explained my philosophy of assigning a coach, and when a game is close, that would be the only case in which every kid may not play. I made it a priority, so parents left me alone.
Parents are not the enemy. They just lack information.
On a side note on this:
I am now a full-time parent this year, with two sons playing for a new coach who replaced me. My business was taking up my opportunity to continue coaching this year. It has been a whole new experience, and I gotta tell you, the new coach has not lied to me, but I have never experienced some the emotions I have felt this year. Can I just suggest that until you have walked a mile in a parent's shoes, that you cut them some slack. If you have never had to watch another coach work your kids, etc. and do it in such a way you struggle with at the HS level, it would be wise to hold your tongue about how evil parents are. IT IS TOUGH. It isn't that he isn't a good guy, I just don't know what he is thinking all the time, so that leaves me to my own conclusions, and that is BRUTAL!!! COMMUNICATE WITH YOUR PARENTS.
I just spent an hour and half with the new coach last weekend going over some stuff and I got to ask my "hard" questions I had been stewing over, and every answer he gave me was reasonable and understandable. Not necessarily how I would do it, or would have done it, but knowing him and what he told me when he arrived, he is following what he said he would do. Not everyone gets the chance to have that interaction with the coach, like I did, even though I disagree with him on a lot of things, but I have a whole new respect for what parents go through in turning over their kids. IT ISN'T ALL WHACKED, like you may think.
Anyway, the coach who can inform parents in a reasonable manner, and employs fair policies, can expect a reasonable response. Of course, there are still the unreasonable ones that it wouldn't matter. But, as a whole, I slept well on Friday Nights knowing we had a game plan for scheme, and substitution.
Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by gacoach on Sept 27, 2007 12:38:53 GMT -6
I Of course, I told the parents before the season, that I don't discuss playing time with parents, only players. If their son wants to be treated like a man, he needs to act like one, and see me himself about playing time. We talk about what he needs to do, and then handle it that way. That way he is accountable to me, and his parents have nothing to say about it. Parents are not the enemy. They just lack information. On a side note on this: COMMUNICATE WITH YOUR PARENTS. dsqa, I agree with some of your post, but not all of it. I do think that parents lack information but most don't take the time to think things through and are getting one sided information from their son. This leads to a big lack of communication. As coaches, I don't think we have to explain ourselves to parents unless their is a case where a player is in danger. Playing time is strictly between the player and coach, the parents don't play for you. If they want to know why their son doesn't play either come to practice or ask their son. When it comes to booster club, fund raising and such, then parents are in the mix. What happens on the field is not their business, just their sons. I don't feel we, as coaches, need to explain why we do things. Shoot, most of the parents I have talked to wouldn't understand it anyway. Where I coach we do have parents, and some players, who would rather lose and play, than win and stand on the sidelines. You don't need those people in your program because they have a different agenda than what you are trying to accomplish, which is ......winning games......not having a "happy camp".
|
|
|
Post by dsqa on Sept 27, 2007 13:03:48 GMT -6
That is fine. I am only suggesting you tell them up front how you plan to address them, not that you have to continually talk to them, or explain yourself.
The additional stuff, is simply a comment regarding some of my experiences this year, that have opened my eyes to a little different world as a parent. I haven't worked out all the concepts yet, but I know this will make me a better coach. Everyone is different in their approach.
I have been a head coach for 8 years at the HS level, starting two programs from scratch, and I had a lot of success taking the approach of believing the best about parents until they give me some reason not to. I did have the "lose and play" parents, the "happy camp" parents, and all.
The bottom line, I just found it helpful to keep playing time between me and player, and talking with parents BEFORE the season that I was happy to talk with them about anything but playing time.
But, I am not suggesting we are obligated to explain ourselves. I just think it is important to lay things out up front to parents and then walk your talk. If I made it sound like we have to regularly explain our actions. That isn't what I meant at all.
I will say that I am exploring different thoughts on parent involvement for future opportunities. I have some friends that have done some pretty creative things to "keep the parents in check". I am beginning to see the wisdom of their efforts.
To coin your phrase, "It's so easy to forget, that what you give is what you get" If you give "most" parents a chance they can be okay, but as a rule - you are right - what happens on the field is no business of the parent, unless their son is being harmed inappropriately for sure.
I was just thinking out loud.
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Sept 27, 2007 13:08:33 GMT -6
I can certainly see where your experience this year will help you grow as a coach. I've had several parents who've apoligized after venting over something and I always tell them it's ok- they love their son and want the best for them and I understand how that brings emotion into it. It does help to try to walk in their shoes just a bit.
|
|
|
Post by gacoach on Sept 27, 2007 13:13:03 GMT -6
dsqa,
I know you where referring to talking with parents before the season started just to lay the "ground rules". I'm just thinking out loud too. I live in the 2nd fastest growing county in the COUNTRY, and have had a lot of growing pains with the parents. We were a small country school with 1200 students playing 2A and 3A ball, now we're 5A with 1650+ students playing schools with upwards of 4000 students and the parents just can't understand why we aren't winning more. I guess I'm just tired of trying to explain myself without sounding like I'm making excuses.
|
|
|
Post by CoachDaniel on Sept 27, 2007 16:51:45 GMT -6
I don't think playing kids or trying to win are the only two options. To me, the only place where winning is the #1 priority is the Varsity level. That doesn't mean we play everyone on the JV level, the job there is to prepare those that will eventually be Varsity contributors ready to play. There's a dozen guys who, barring a miracle or a disaster, will never play a meaningful down of football. I think you try to play more guys on middle school, but no one has a right to time.
|
|
|
Post by biggroff on Sept 27, 2007 17:43:13 GMT -6
I completely agree with Coachcalande on a very big point. On the freshman level and to a great extent on the Sophomore leve we play the most serious, hard working kids along with the most talented (not that these are mutually exclusive). We average about 19 to 20 kids starting on offense and defense with another 6 or 7 on special teams. We have seen our quality and number go way up over the last two years. We now have 62 on varsity (school has 950 kids total) with 40 on sophomores and 55 on freshman (enough to play a freshman A and B game). These numbers really help us. We get a lot of athletes in the building playing football because they know that many will play if they deserve it. WE do not play the best kidsif the best kid will not conform to the program and what our expectation are and the kids respect this.
|
|
|
Post by coachmoore42 on Sept 27, 2007 19:05:25 GMT -6
I will say that I am exploring different thoughts on parent involvement for future opportunities. I have some friends that have done some pretty creative things to "keep the parents in check". I am beginning to see the wisdom of their efforts. Please share some of your ideas and the ones that you have been informed about from others. I am always looking for the best ways to involve parents that also help us to "keep them in check."
|
|
|
Post by tog on Sept 27, 2007 19:15:21 GMT -6
jv everyone plays but do it smart
put the roy (rest of yall) kid in at left tackle and run sweep to the right
|
|
|
Post by PSS on Sept 27, 2007 19:38:47 GMT -6
I'm with TOG on this one. We have 2 JV teams and 2 freshmen teams. The best JV team is loaded and there goal is to win along with the best freshmen team ( the A teams). The other 2 teams (B teams) have more kids on them.
We have the goal to win the B team games but we will do a ton of creative substitution in order to play everyone.
My point is this: They deserve to play after being beat on all week by the Varsity while running scout teams. They paid their dues!
|
|
|
Post by schultbear74 on Sept 27, 2007 20:07:38 GMT -6
I'd put roy in at X and run a dive
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2007 20:21:30 GMT -6
I'm pretty much with tog. Play everyone on the younger levels; quite frankly I don't see a logical reason not to. On the varsity, the priority is to win. If you can play all of your kids and do that, more power to you!
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Sept 28, 2007 3:50:08 GMT -6
Makes me ill when kids who have poor practice habits play just because "everyone plays"- One time I saw this one kid who got into a varsity game and I honestly hadnt ever seen him run a drill in practice...always sick, always injured...I turn around and theres a bunch of deserving hard working kids standing there while hes under the lights...puke!!!
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Sept 28, 2007 12:45:39 GMT -6
I coach at the 8th grade level. We coach to win and play to win. Every player we have (around 28) get into every game. They may not play 50 snaps each, but they get into every game. Same here...and I have 4 or 5 kids that have no business being on the football field. Normally we have the same problem, however this year every kid can contribute something.
|
|
|
Post by dsqa on Sept 28, 2007 13:13:45 GMT -6
There are so many issues that are involved in getting a kid in a game, and I am never going to play a kid who doesn't deserve it for effort, etc. I am just giving general input.
gacoach, sounds like you walked into a bit of a hornet's nest with that class jump. I can appreciate your frustration, no doubt. I wish you the best. Thanks for getting back with me.
In terms of ways I have seen coaches do things.
One would host father/son video sessions at a local restaurant's back room, watch last week's game, take questions, watch the opposing team's film a bit to give them an idea of the coming week's gameplan, thought process, etc. This guy has a very creative mind, and did some other things that I won't even suggest, because it would draw the ire of too many. Another one I am aware of is a sponsor program of parent's taking other player's kids as their sponsored kid. They invite them over for a meal during the week, and give them a care package, etc. It is a chance to cross pollinate encouragement between players and parents. Another is a member of the staff visiting each home on the team before the season for dinner, and explaining where Junior fits in the scheme of things, and where the staff sees him right now. I understand that DeLasalle sets that as a high priority in their preseason efforts, to visit every home,etc.
The bottom line on parents is that it helps if you are one to appreciate the effort you need to make as a coach to make the experience a good one for the kid. We are there to serve their team. I regularly tell the kids, "this is your team, if you want to play on Friday night, you have to show me you deserve to be on that field with your team, everyday."
|
|
trojan
Junior Member
[F4:wingtcoach.com] [F4:wingtcoachdon]
Posts: 494
|
Post by trojan on Oct 1, 2007 18:03:39 GMT -6
This is a tough one. Part of what matters is what level you coach. As was mentioned, a varsity coach looks for varsity victories. As a 7th grade coach, I have to concern myself with the team I've been preparing since April. "Existing" at practice does not earn anyone meaningful playing time. We have over 50 7th graders on my team, and a victory can be hard to manage if my starters have to get the hell off the field to get in the kids that just want to wear the jersey, or the ones that have dads that make them play.
On a related note, do we expect 150 kids on a varsity team? If I get 50 each year, and they all stay, what kind of playing time can they expect on a 10th-12th grade varsity team? I know we have a JV team, but do you want 150 kids on your team? Will the bottom 100 help give the top 50 a good look at practice?
|
|
|
Post by coachshs on Oct 1, 2007 18:36:45 GMT -6
I am very thankful for each of your insights. I really appreciate the commentary about parent involvement.
I am a HS Head Coach and am disagreeing with the local Little League (3rd - 6th grade) coaches who want to play to win - to instill pride in little 3rd grade Joey. I want to see everyone play at this level and have fun. It doesn't help my program if they start playing soccer. What is really painful is when they are losing badly and they still won't play all the kids. It just doesn't make sense.
I also challenge parents, coaches, administrators alike to accurately predict what type of football career an individual will have when they are in MS and earlier. Kids change dramatically in their pre-teens and to sell out a kid at a young age because he isn't a very good football player in 7th grade or whatever would be a huge mistake in my opinion. I have coached a number of athletes who didn't mature until their Junior and Senior seasons. What good would they have done me had a coach chased them off when they were younger?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 3, 2007 14:09:19 GMT -6
coachshs--GREAT POINTS.... it is important to remember that often the best/most coordinated athletes at 9-10 don't tend to grow as much as the lanky/awkward children. One Anecdotal example is a young athlete I knew who was an "all star" in football, basketball, baseball as a 8 year old, 9 year old, 10 year old....B team all star as an 11 year old...and as a 13/14 year old, he couldn't hit the ball out of the infield because of his size.
Lots of little league allstars don't even play in H.S because of their diminutive size...
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Oct 3, 2007 14:26:16 GMT -6
I am very thankful for each of your insights. I really appreciate the commentary about parent involvement. I am a HS Head Coach and am disagreeing with the local Little League (3rd - 6th grade) coaches who want to play to win - to instill pride in little 3rd grade Joey. I want to see everyone play at this level and have fun. It doesn't help my program if they start playing soccer. What is really painful is when they are losing badly and they still won't play all the kids. It just doesn't make sense. I think at the youth level they should all play, but it's not fair to play them all the same amount. The kids listening better and putting the effrot in should be rewarded wtih more playing time. My teams have played teams that played only their starters. I think that unless the kids missing practice, being a poor sport. not keeping up in school or being insubordiante, he should get to play some in each game and that doesnt mean after the game has been decided in the 4th quarter. I also challenge parents, coaches, administrators alike to accurately predict what type of football career an individual will have when they are in MS and earlier. Kids change dramatically in their pre-teens and to sell out a kid at a young age because he isn't a very good football player in 7th grade or whatever would be a huge mistake in my opinion. I have coached a number of athletes who didn't mature until their Junior and Senior seasons. What good would they have done me had a coach chased them off when they were younger? You can do both at the youth level, no reason at all it has to be an either/or situation. We play everyone and consistently win as well. Takes some planning, the right scheme to accomplish both goals ( play kids and win) and very regimented game day management where we aggressively but strategically sub from the opening gun. Requires coaching all the kids well and lots of coach hustle. The "play everyone" thing is often a cop out for poor youth coaches of which there are many. You can do both with a bunch of effort.
|
|
|
Post by eickst on Oct 3, 2007 14:38:23 GMT -6
It's not hard to play everyone and win. Playing everyone doesn't mean taking out eveyr single one of your starters and putting in a weaker kid. I like putting a weak kid in at guard when I know the play I am going to call has him AND the tackle double teaming someone. Why put a kid in a situation where he will fail? Put him somewhere that he can feel success and help the team rather than hurting it.
|
|