|
Post by dshanko67 on Jul 21, 2015 21:26:27 GMT -6
I coach a 5th grade team with similar numbers and we have manditory playing time. What we have done in the past is create 2-3 offensive groups (mixed abilities) for both offense and defense. On top of that we have our "stud" unit for offense and defense which will be used if needed. We are way more likely to use our top defensive players than ones for offense. Just one idea.
|
|
|
Post by coachjtm on Jul 22, 2015 9:25:51 GMT -6
We struggle with this every year. Our best solution was working in kids during points of the game so that we can rotate the 2's and 3's through certain positions say WILL or SS depending on the defensive front or at an off back/receiver or backside TE. Those guys sub out pretty regularly and we will designate a few plays a game to reward the kids who are pushing it in practice with a targeted screen or run to get the ball in their hands. We also work a very fast pace in practices with our offense. Our 1's will run 4-5 plays in quick succession then grab water (it's Texas, it's hot) and our 2's will take 4-5 plays, then water. It really helps those guys develop. You don't slow them down in between plays, you work with them in group and indy to correct mistakes and you have them work tempo and plays in team and it's a great way to get them experience vs. air, rotate a lot of kids through and build their confidence.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jul 22, 2015 10:58:46 GMT -6
We have 30 kids on our 6th grade team. How should we go about our starting lineups and substitutions? Keep in mind, only about half are good players, which pains me to say. There's a fine line between trying to get equal playing time which doesn't seem realistic with 30 kids, but also doing a disservice to the kids who work hard and could start both ways. I think we're going to try to have as many 1 way starters as possible and just rotate in guys. We always pride ourselves on putting the best 11 out there. But now I'm torn between getting quality playing time for each player vs building the best team we can and utilizing our best players. I don't know what the correct way to go about it is. Each kid has to earn their playing time but at the same time each kid HAS to play. Any help would be greatly appreciated. *RANT WARNING* Unless your team is some kind of select traveling team that is in an ultracompetitive league, "playing the best 11" in 6th grade football is complete and total BS. We routinely have 25+ every year and we play EVERYONE...in fact, we are usually able to start everyone somewhere. When we can't start everyone somewhere, we create some kind of rotation between 2 or 3 kids at 1 spot (2 plays in, 2 plays out..something like that). I see this every year. In our league, most of the other teams only play the best 11 kids. So you have a team with 20 kids and 11 or 12 kids are getting all the snaps on offense and defense and those other 8 or 9 kids, if they're lucky, get in the last couple minutes, usually when the game is decided. That is complete crap and it pi$$e$ me off to no end. Do we win every game? No. Have we lost games over the years because we don't play our best 11? Absolutely. But we win more than we lose and seldom have parents complaining about a lack of playing time. Parents know when they come to the game on Saturday morning that they are going to get to watch their kid play a lot of football in real game situations. In fact, I can't even begin to try and guess the number of parents who have told us that our organization is the best youth sports experience they have ever had. In my 16 years of coaching at the high school, middle school, and youth levels, I am most proud of that. I have run our youth organization since 2009. Since then, I can count on one hand the number of parents who have complained about how playing time is allocated. And almost all of those parents were mostly upset about the position their child was playing, not the lack of playing time. Again...I have a low opinion of youth football coaches who do the "play the best 11" thing (unless the exception I noted above). For those guys, the #1 priority is winning. Developing players, giving kids a fun experience, fostering a love and appreciation of the sport...those priorities are all secondary so some local hotshot can brag up his youth football record from the barstool. Those "play the best 11" youth coaches...the football is really for them and not for the kids. RANT OVER
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jul 22, 2015 11:18:12 GMT -6
I coach a 5th grade team with similar numbers and we have manditory playing time. What we have done in the past is create 2-3 offensive groups (mixed abilities) for both offense and defense. On top of that we have our "stud" unit for offense and defense which will be used if needed. We are way more likely to use our top defensive players than ones for offense. Just one idea. This is something we have done, as well. Our colors are blue and orange. So we will have a "Blue" offense and an "Orange" offense and a "Blue" defense and an "Orange"defense. That way, everyone has at least 1 offensive and 1 defensive position. We always set our defense first. We usually put the best players on defense and then make the offense with what is left over. Then, during the game (or week-to-week) we will switch kids. But very seldom will we have kids playing both offense and defense at the same time (unless the numbers dictate the necessity of that). Some other considerations... We practice 2x a week. If a player has an excused absence (I knew about the player being gone at least 24 hours in advance), the player sits for the first half of the next game. If a player has an unexcused absence (I didn't know about the absence in advance), the player sits for the next game. The other challenge we have had a handful of times is kids who don't want to physically engage and are afraid of contact. In a situation like that, it is a safety issue. Not only is a timid player a danger to himself or herself, they are a danger to other players. That's one of the toughest things about coaching youth football versus other sports...in baseball, for example, if you have a kid who just isn't any good, they play right field and bat down in the order. But, it's tougher in football because of the physical contact element of the game. But, like I said...that has only been an issue a handful of times and even then, we are still able to find quality reps for kids like that by midseason. I think it is lazy coaching to just put the "best 11" out on the field in a youth football game (again...the exception being an elite select traveling team that plays in an ultracompetitive league). That's easy...anyone can do that. The real challenge in youth ball is to put a kid in the position where they can have the most success and find quality reps for them in real game situations. Lots of guys don't like doing that because their primary motivation is winning, not developing and encouraging players.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 22, 2015 13:11:09 GMT -6
If you don't have a rule imposed on you mandating playing time, then you're free to use your own judgment or to develop you own rule. How about working out a system whereby players who catch your eye in practice during a given week as putting out extra effort get extra playing time in your next game? Like you could tell them right there, where everyone around can hear, that was good, you just earned X number of plays.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Jul 22, 2015 14:13:26 GMT -6
Whenever the roster gets above about 25 or 26 players, this really starts to be an issue. Here are some of the things we've done in the past to deal with it (let's hypothetically assume a roster of 30 for example purposes):
- Have as few two way starters as possible. If you have 8 guys going both ways, you'll only have 14 starters (8 2-way plays, plus 3 offensive players, plus 3 defensive players). That means you'll have 16 kids that have to get into the game to get their minimum plays. If you're going to try to get them all in at OG, OT, or WR, you're going to have a very hard time getting their plays done and you'll have a bunch of upset parents. Let's say you have a handful of special athletes that you just can't justify taking off the field (in reality, you can and probably should), so let's say you only have 3 guys going both ways. Now you'll have 19 starters (3+8+8) and only 11 you have to work into the game - that's a lot more workable.
- Have rotations at various positions. For instance, let's say we're running a 4-4 defense. We'll have 3 guys rotate between the 2 ILB positions. Same for OLB, DE, and DT, and we'll have 4 rotate between CB & S. So, all together we'll have 16 "starters" on defense and a roughly equal number on offense. So let's say that 7 or 8 guys are in the rotations on both sides of the ball, that gives us more two-way players, but also means we'll have 24 or 25 players in the "starting" rotation (each of those players will play roughly 2/3 of the game in their position) in total, and only 5 or 6 that need to get worked into the game to get their plays. That's a way better solution.
- Make sure you're competitive. I know, easier said than done, but winning (especially winning easily) makes it much, much easier to get everyone plenty of playing time. In games we know we're going to win easily (and at the youth level, the "any given gameday" adage doesn't apply - we all know there are teams that could play each other a million times and the better team would win every single time), I'll start the backups, and they'll often get more playing time in blowout wins than many of our starters. It's tough to do that when the games are close, and it's really tough to do when you're losing. Even in what appears to be a blowout loss, it's tough to sub a lot, especially if the other team still has their starters out. For instance, think of a game with a final score of 33-12. It sounds like both coaches should have been able to clear their benches and get everyone lot of playing time, right? Well, what if the winning team scored their last TD in the last minute. If you were losing 25-12 in the 4th quarter (a two-score game), would you effectively give up and put in all the subs against their starters? It's tough.
- Script the first 10-20 plays on offense. It will be less for "reading" offenses (SW, DW, WT, Option, etc.), but this will allow you to maximize the number of subs on the field every play right from the beginning of the game. I'm usually well past halfway done with minimum plays by the end of even a 10-play script because we're typically getting 3 or 4 subs in the game on every play. Because it's scripted, we'll have practiced it in order, with subs, 3 or 4 times before the game, so the kids all know what to expect, and we usually execute well and score.
- Another strategy we've used, but haven't for a few years is to have a separate MPP offense. For example, one year we ran a double-tight wishbone and called it Jacks. It consisted of all MPPs at G, T, and TE, plus a backup QB (so 6 or 7 MPPs, or all we had, all out there together). We put starting linemen at C and in the backfield (sometimes we left one starting RB back there as well). We run a Power/Blast type play, a Counter, a Sweep (all with no pulling), and a couple play-action passes. The group practiced as a unit and developed a lot of pride as Jacks. Their deal in games was as long as they were getting first downs, they wouldn't be pulled even if they already had completed their minimum plays. They had several long scoring drives for us, which they were very proud of. While I'm not crazy about separating out players like this, I don't know that any of the other systems allow these kids to feel like they really contributed as much as this one. And, of course, when ever we got ahead by a safe margin, the Jacks offense played the rest of the game, and often did very well.
There are several things I hate seeing and hope most coaches will avoid:
- Place a MPP kid at WR, have him split out as far as possible (30+ yards from the ball) and simply not move. That's just demeaning, but I see it all the time.
- Have a rotation of MPPs play WR and sprint deep every play in an attempt to fatigue their CB. While this is marginally better than the one above, it's still insulting to the players and amounts to basically having them run conditioning drills during the game, not really participate in the game.
- Have MPPs play line positions and just dive on the ground every play. If you're talking about A-gap bear crawlers, I'm okay with it so long as they're actually doing something productive (i.e. the way Dave Cisar teaches it), but if the kids are just being told to drop to the ground and make a pile up, no, that's dangerous and wrong.
- Play MPPs in a position where they'll be exposed. If a kid is playing DT and doesn't do well, chances are no one in the stands will notice, but if a kid is playing CB and he gives up a long TD pass to a better athlete (or can't make the open field tackle on a better athlete), everyone is going to see and know that that kid got beat. It's humiliating to the kid and can be a reason why a weaker player won't return the next season. It's one thing for the kid to know that he's not very good, but it's something else to be exposed publicly so everyone else knows it as well. A lot of times, if we can just keep these kids coming back, they eventually get a lot better, and sometimes even become stars.
- Blow off putting them in the game for the first 3 quarters because "this drive is too important" and then by rule have to put them all in at once on defense at the start of the 4th quarter and then blame them post game for giving up the winning TD.
|
|
|
Post by coachjtm on Jul 23, 2015 10:03:44 GMT -6
We have 30 kids on our 6th grade team. How should we go about our starting lineups and substitutions? Keep in mind, only about half are good players, which pains me to say. There's a fine line between trying to get equal playing time which doesn't seem realistic with 30 kids, but also doing a disservice to the kids who work hard and could start both ways. I think we're going to try to have as many 1 way starters as possible and just rotate in guys. We always pride ourselves on putting the best 11 out there. But now I'm torn between getting quality playing time for each player vs building the best team we can and utilizing our best players. I don't know what the correct way to go about it is. Each kid has to earn their playing time but at the same time each kid HAS to play. Any help would be greatly appreciated. *RANT WARNING* Unless your team is some kind of select traveling team that is in an ultracompetitive league, "playing the best 11" in 6th grade football is complete and total BS. We routinely have 25+ every year and we play EVERYONE...in fact, we are usually able to start everyone somewhere. When we can't start everyone somewhere, we create some kind of rotation between 2 or 3 kids at 1 spot (2 plays in, 2 plays out..something like that). I see this every year. In our league, most of the other teams only play the best 11 kids. So you have a team with 20 kids and 11 or 12 kids are getting all the snaps on offense and defense and those other 8 or 9 kids, if they're lucky, get in the last couple minutes, usually when the game is decided. That is complete crap and it pi$$e$ me off to no end. Do we win every game? No. Have we lost games over the years because we don't play our best 11? Absolutely. But we win more than we lose and seldom have parents complaining about a lack of playing time. Parents know when they come to the game on Saturday morning that they are going to get to watch their kid play a lot of football in real game situations. In fact, I can't even begin to try and guess the number of parents who have told us that our organization is the best youth sports experience they have ever had. In my 16 years of coaching at the high school, middle school, and youth levels, I am most proud of that. I have run our youth organization since 2009. Since then, I can count on one hand the number of parents who have complained about how playing time is allocated. And almost all of those parents were mostly upset about the position their child was playing, not the lack of playing time. Again...I have a low opinion of youth football coaches who do the "play the best 11" thing (unless the exception I noted above). For those guys, the #1 priority is winning. Developing players, giving kids a fun experience, fostering a love and appreciation of the sport...those priorities are all secondary so some local hotshot can brag up his youth football record from the barstool. Those "play the best 11" youth coaches...the football is really for them and not for the kids. RANT OVER I get the playing time thing and I agree with a lot that's said on here, but I'm going to disagree in part. I coach in a low income area. More than half my kids come from single parent (read mother) homes. Only about a quarter of my kids can afford their own equipment. We have to beg, borrow and steal to get enough shoes some years to make sure all our kids can play. Our philosophy is that if you want to get better, you show up to practice, not the games. We will play all our kids. But in an average year we will only start 15-17 different kids the whole season. Start that is. Our kids playing time is determined by a) showing up to practice, b) effort at practice, c) ability to execute, d) skill. We will never be and in fact most of our staff thinks it's immoral to teach our kids that everyone gets equal playing time. We have to teach our kids work ethic, "hard work pays off" isn't just a call and response for us, it might literally keep some of our kids out of jail. If our kids are taught that just showing up is enough to earn playing time, we will hurt our kids. We have to teach them that success is built on hard work, applying skill and that execution on the field, in the classroom and in life is important and will be rewarded. So while I agree with some points, I think that whom you are coaching can have a lot to do with how you coach. Of our 6 coach staff all of our kids collectively in a 13 game season last year played less than 120 snaps. Most of our kids will play 50% or more of the snaps this season. We weren't any easier on them and pressed all of our kids to improve whether they started or not, played or not. Practice is where the kids really get better and that has to be stressed to parents and kids alike.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jul 23, 2015 11:25:27 GMT -6
*RANT WARNING* Unless your team is some kind of select traveling team that is in an ultracompetitive league, "playing the best 11" in 6th grade football is complete and total BS. We routinely have 25+ every year and we play EVERYONE...in fact, we are usually able to start everyone somewhere. When we can't start everyone somewhere, we create some kind of rotation between 2 or 3 kids at 1 spot (2 plays in, 2 plays out..something like that). I see this every year. In our league, most of the other teams only play the best 11 kids. So you have a team with 20 kids and 11 or 12 kids are getting all the snaps on offense and defense and those other 8 or 9 kids, if they're lucky, get in the last couple minutes, usually when the game is decided. That is complete crap and it pi$$e$ me off to no end. Do we win every game? No. Have we lost games over the years because we don't play our best 11? Absolutely. But we win more than we lose and seldom have parents complaining about a lack of playing time. Parents know when they come to the game on Saturday morning that they are going to get to watch their kid play a lot of football in real game situations. In fact, I can't even begin to try and guess the number of parents who have told us that our organization is the best youth sports experience they have ever had. In my 16 years of coaching at the high school, middle school, and youth levels, I am most proud of that. I have run our youth organization since 2009. Since then, I can count on one hand the number of parents who have complained about how playing time is allocated. And almost all of those parents were mostly upset about the position their child was playing, not the lack of playing time. Again...I have a low opinion of youth football coaches who do the "play the best 11" thing (unless the exception I noted above). For those guys, the #1 priority is winning. Developing players, giving kids a fun experience, fostering a love and appreciation of the sport...those priorities are all secondary so some local hotshot can brag up his youth football record from the barstool. Those "play the best 11" youth coaches...the football is really for them and not for the kids. RANT OVER I get the playing time thing and I agree with a lot that's said on here, but I'm going to disagree in part. I coach in a low income area. More than half my kids come from single parent (read mother) homes. Only about a quarter of my kids can afford their own equipment. We have to beg, borrow and steal to get enough shoes some years to make sure all our kids can play. Our philosophy is that if you want to get better, you show up to practice, not the games. We will play all our kids. But in an average year we will only start 15-17 different kids the whole season. Start that is. Our kids playing time is determined by a) showing up to practice, b) effort at practice, c) ability to execute, d) skill. We will never be and in fact most of our staff thinks it's immoral to teach our kids that everyone gets equal playing time. We have to teach our kids work ethic, "hard work pays off" isn't just a call and response for us, it might literally keep some of our kids out of jail. If our kids are taught that just showing up is enough to earn playing time, we will hurt our kids. We have to teach them that success is built on hard work, applying skill and that execution on the field, in the classroom and in life is important and will be rewarded. So while I agree with some points, I think that whom you are coaching can have a lot to do with how you coach. Of our 6 coach staff all of our kids collectively in a 13 game season last year played less than 120 snaps. Most of our kids will play 50% or more of the snaps this season. We weren't any easier on them and pressed all of our kids to improve whether they started or not, played or not. Practice is where the kids really get better and that has to be stressed to parents and kids alike. As I posted earlier, we require that kids attend practice. If one of our kids has an excused absence, they miss the first half of the next game. If it is an unexcused absence, they don't play in the next game.
|
|
|
Post by vince148 on Jul 23, 2015 16:59:42 GMT -6
*RANT WARNING* Unless your team is some kind of select traveling team that is in an ultracompetitive league, "playing the best 11" in 6th grade football is complete and total BS. We routinely have 25+ every year and we play EVERYONE...in fact, we are usually able to start everyone somewhere. When we can't start everyone somewhere, we create some kind of rotation between 2 or 3 kids at 1 spot (2 plays in, 2 plays out..something like that). I see this every year. In our league, most of the other teams only play the best 11 kids. So you have a team with 20 kids and 11 or 12 kids are getting all the snaps on offense and defense and those other 8 or 9 kids, if they're lucky, get in the last couple minutes, usually when the game is decided. That is complete crap and it pi$$e$ me off to no end. Do we win every game? No. Have we lost games over the years because we don't play our best 11? Absolutely. But we win more than we lose and seldom have parents complaining about a lack of playing time. Parents know when they come to the game on Saturday morning that they are going to get to watch their kid play a lot of football in real game situations. In fact, I can't even begin to try and guess the number of parents who have told us that our organization is the best youth sports experience they have ever had. In my 16 years of coaching at the high school, middle school, and youth levels, I am most proud of that. I have run our youth organization since 2009. Since then, I can count on one hand the number of parents who have complained about how playing time is allocated. And almost all of those parents were mostly upset about the position their child was playing, not the lack of playing time. Again...I have a low opinion of youth football coaches who do the "play the best 11" thing (unless the exception I noted above). For those guys, the #1 priority is winning. Developing players, giving kids a fun experience, fostering a love and appreciation of the sport...those priorities are all secondary so some local hotshot can brag up his youth football record from the barstool. Those "play the best 11" youth coaches...the football is really for them and not for the kids. RANT OVER I get the playing time thing and I agree with a lot that's said on here, but I'm going to disagree in part. I coach in a low income area. More than half my kids come from single parent (read mother) homes. Only about a quarter of my kids can afford their own equipment. We have to beg, borrow and steal to get enough shoes some years to make sure all our kids can play. Our philosophy is that if you want to get better, you show up to practice, not the games. We will play all our kids. But in an average year we will only start 15-17 different kids the whole season. Start that is. Our kids playing time is determined by a) showing up to practice, b) effort at practice, c) ability to execute, d) skill. We will never be and in fact most of our staff thinks it's immoral to teach our kids that everyone gets equal playing time. We have to teach our kids work ethic, "hard work pays off" isn't just a call and response for us, it might literally keep some of our kids out of jail. If our kids are taught that just showing up is enough to earn playing time, we will hurt our kids. We have to teach them that success is built on hard work, applying skill and that execution on the field, in the classroom and in life is important and will be rewarded. So while I agree with some points, I think that whom you are coaching can have a lot to do with how you coach. Of our 6 coach staff all of our kids collectively in a 13 game season last year played less than 120 snaps. Most of our kids will play 50% or more of the snaps this season. We weren't any easier on them and pressed all of our kids to improve whether they started or not, played or not. Practice is where the kids really get better and that has to be stressed to parents and kids alike. This something that I always wrestle with in youth. I'm like you. I believe that the kids that come to practice and give their best effort, good or bad, should play. That's what's wrong with today's society. Everybody thinks they're entitled to something. In the league I coach(ed) in, kids have to play a minimum 6 plays per half, and get this, you can't win by more than 25 points, and if the spread is 30 or more, the coach can be suspended for a game. Yet, on Monday afternoon, those kids couldn't even tell you what the score of the game was. We have become a coddling society.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 25, 2015 10:39:00 GMT -6
I get the playing time thing and I agree with a lot that's said on here, but I'm going to disagree in part. I coach in a low income area. More than half my kids come from single parent (read mother) homes. Only about a quarter of my kids can afford their own equipment. We have to beg, borrow and steal to get enough shoes some years to make sure all our kids can play. Our philosophy is that if you want to get better, you show up to practice, not the games. We will play all our kids. But in an average year we will only start 15-17 different kids the whole season. Start that is. Our kids playing time is determined by a) showing up to practice, b) effort at practice, c) ability to execute, d) skill. We will never be and in fact most of our staff thinks it's immoral to teach our kids that everyone gets equal playing time. We have to teach our kids work ethic, "hard work pays off" isn't just a call and response for us, it might literally keep some of our kids out of jail. If our kids are taught that just showing up is enough to earn playing time, we will hurt our kids. We have to teach them that success is built on hard work, applying skill and that execution on the field, in the classroom and in life is important and will be rewarded. So while I agree with some points, I think that whom you are coaching can have a lot to do with how you coach. Of our 6 coach staff all of our kids collectively in a 13 game season last year played less than 120 snaps. Most of our kids will play 50% or more of the snaps this season. We weren't any easier on them and pressed all of our kids to improve whether they started or not, played or not. Practice is where the kids really get better and that has to be stressed to parents and kids alike. I am not sure what you disagree with in 19delta 's post. He said if they have an EXCUSED absence, they sit for half a game, and if it is UNEXCUSED then you miss the whole game. That doesn't sound like "show up and play" to me.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 25, 2015 10:52:42 GMT -6
This something that I always wrestle with in youth. I'm like you. I believe that the kids that come to practice and give their best effort, good or bad, should play. That's what's wrong with today's society. Everybody thinks they're entitled to something. In the league I coach(ed) in, kids have to play a minimum 6 plays per half, and get this, you can't win by more than 25 points, and if the spread is 30 or more, the coach can be suspended for a game. Yet, on Monday afternoon, those kids couldn't even tell you what the score of the game was. We have become a coddling society. I don't have a problem with a pay league instituting a minimum play policy. The youth league in my area actually has a "you must play 1/2 the game (play offense or defense) policy but they generally have teams of 16/17 kids and the schedule is strictly intra-league So that is easy to monitor and implement. Sadly, I saw some pretty jerk moves in that league, where Saturday Morning Vince Lombardi's would actually run off the weaker kids on their team so that they could have more players (better players) playing both ways. The point spread thing, is truly sad. While yes, some coaches are complete jerks, that type of legislation does nothing for anyone.
|
|
|
Post by 42falcon on Jul 25, 2015 13:34:02 GMT -6
It's youth football..... Every kid should play. In my experience if you do not have a rotation schedule in place to get all ur kids in u can run into the issue of not getting the kids in. 2 way players in youth ball blows my mind...
There is a great book called "Who's game is it anyway" It goes into great depth detailing the age/stage & development of youth in sport. One of the things that stands out to me is this: the teenage brain is not capable of understanding / processing this notion of putting others needs before your own in order for the collective group to have more success. This starts to be plausible for kids when they hit 14-15 years of age. Prior to that most kids don't get it & can't get it. Hence why most youth kids have no clue what the score is at the end...
Lastly look at LTAD models you might think you have the next super star in youth & it's your responsibility to do this kid a service & play him maybe even both ways. The % chance he really is a future superstar is low, no matter what you do. The fact is in youth sports age within a given year can be a big reason why a kid born in Jan of that year is hammering a kid born in Nov of the same year. If you are looking at developing talent all kids at this age should play equally regardless of age or ability.
Coached some youth ball many years ago learned this the hard way. Had a kid who's dad & kid were convinced kid was a QB... Kid was smallish not as coordinated as the other kids at QB. I didn't think kid was a QB, in fact no one did... Dads 6'3, his mom is 5"11 kid was super young. I've kept in touch with dad kid just finished a CFL training camp at QB and is the starter at his university team. He's 6'2, 210...
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Jul 27, 2015 15:19:33 GMT -6
We have 30 kids on our 6th grade team. How should we go about our starting lineups and substitutions? Keep in mind, only about half are good players, which pains me to say. There's a fine line between trying to get equal playing time which doesn't seem realistic with 30 kids, but also doing a disservice to the kids who work hard and could start both ways. I think we're going to try to have as many 1 way starters as possible and just rotate in guys. We always pride ourselves on putting the best 11 out there. But now I'm torn between getting quality playing time for each player vs building the best team we can and utilizing our best players. I don't know what the correct way to go about it is. Each kid has to earn their playing time but at the same time each kid HAS to play. Any help would be greatly appreciated. i dont know if you guys have rules on this (we do). but i try to give every kid 10 plays per game. with 11 players on the field for 50 snaps a game, this shouldnt be an issue. at the 6th/7th/8th grade level, your priority SHOULD NOT be "best 11". but coaching up everyone to create the "best 30". im going to say that again, in huge font, just so that my opinion is known. at the 6th/7th/8th grade level, your priority SHOULD NOT be "best 11". but coaching up everyone to create the "best 30".
|
|
|
Post by football247365 on Jul 28, 2015 19:41:41 GMT -6
We have 30 kids on our 6th grade team. How should we go about our starting lineups and substitutions? Keep in mind, only about half are good players, which pains me to say. There's a fine line between trying to get equal playing time which doesn't seem realistic with 30 kids, but also doing a disservice to the kids who work hard and could start both ways. I think we're going to try to have as many 1 way starters as possible and just rotate in guys. We always pride ourselves on putting the best 11 out there. But now I'm torn between getting quality playing time for each player vs building the best team we can and utilizing our best players. I don't know what the correct way to go about it is. Each kid has to earn their playing time but at the same time each kid HAS to play. Any help would be greatly appreciated. *RANT WARNING* Unless your team is some kind of select traveling team that is in an ultracompetitive league, "playing the best 11" in 6th grade football is complete and total BS. We routinely have 25+ every year and we play EVERYONE...in fact, we are usually able to start everyone somewhere. When we can't start everyone somewhere, we create some kind of rotation between 2 or 3 kids at 1 spot (2 plays in, 2 plays out..something like that). I see this every year. In our league, most of the other teams only play the best 11 kids. So you have a team with 20 kids and 11 or 12 kids are getting all the snaps on offense and defense and those other 8 or 9 kids, if they're lucky, get in the last couple minutes, usually when the game is decided. That is complete crap and it pi$$e$ me off to no end. Do we win every game? No. Have we lost games over the years because we don't play our best 11? Absolutely. But we win more than we lose and seldom have parents complaining about a lack of playing time. Parents know when they come to the game on Saturday morning that they are going to get to watch their kid play a lot of football in real game situations. In fact, I can't even begin to try and guess the number of parents who have told us that our organization is the best youth sports experience they have ever had. In my 16 years of coaching at the high school, middle school, and youth levels, I am most proud of that. I have run our youth organization since 2009. Since then, I can count on one hand the number of parents who have complained about how playing time is allocated. And almost all of those parents were mostly upset about the position their child was playing, not the lack of playing time. Again...I have a low opinion of youth football coaches who do the "play the best 11" thing (unless the exception I noted above). For those guys, the #1 priority is winning. Developing players, giving kids a fun experience, fostering a love and appreciation of the sport...those priorities are all secondary so some local hotshot can brag up his youth football record from the barstool. Those "play the best 11" youth coaches...the football is really for them and not for the kids. RANT OVER I'm sorry if "playing the best 11" came across wrong. I merely meant starting the best 11, but of course we have rotations and try to have as many 1-way starters as possible. Every kid plays on our team as well. Didn't mean for you to rant, no hard feelings.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Aug 2, 2015 21:49:04 GMT -6
It sounds a little counterintuitive, but I found it was easier to spread playing time if everyone could play both ways and we drew up "starters" irrespective of "fairness." If my players could only do one thing I was really hemmed in, I couldn't do a double switch to keep a good player to help cover for a weaker one; I could play them more on offense if we played a team that demanded my top CBs, or have my MPPs play defense all game if the opponent's passing game was abysmal. By being aggressive early with MPP playing time I could feel out the game and see if I needed my best guys to get most of the playing time or if I could use this game to build up a certain level of goodwill by loading up with MPPs.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Aug 3, 2015 12:21:42 GMT -6
It sounds a little counterintuitive, but I found it was easier to spread playing time if everyone could play both ways and we drew up "starters" irrespective of "fairness." If my players could only do one thing I was really hemmed in, I couldn't do a double switch to keep a good player to help cover for a weaker one; I could play them more on offense if we played a team that demanded my top CBs, or have my MPPs play defense all game if the opponent's passing game was abysmal. By being aggressive early with MPP playing time I could feel out the game and see if I needed my best guys to get most of the playing time or if I could use this game to build up a certain level of goodwill by loading up with MPPs. This is a MUST Every kid needs 3 positions. Offense Defense And KOR or KO That way, no matter what the play is, you can drop a kid in.
|
|
neohio
Probationary Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by neohio on Feb 3, 2016 14:36:04 GMT -6
.
|
|
klaby
Junior Member
Posts: 389
|
Post by klaby on Mar 25, 2016 16:50:22 GMT -6
Ok...this is a huge issue for every youth program. Fact is there about 70-75 plays in an avg youth game. So if as a youth coach you cant get a kid 15 plays you are not even trying. If a kid practices he should play. It's easy, hide a bad kid with 10 good kids and rotate. 1st how often do you throw at 6th grade....not often, so run plays in with WR, and throw when you have your good kid/s in. Play a bad 3 tech when your stud LBers are in. Hide 2-3 on specials. trust me it can be done, and your HS coach will love you for it. fact is most kids quit because of bad experience at youth level. If the kid has fun, they will keep coming back. YOUTH Football guys, Nick Saban isn't signing your 11 year old....no matter what some expert tells you, he just isn't...let have fun!
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Mar 25, 2016 19:20:35 GMT -6
Sixth grade? If they come to practice play them all. Make two units. Unit A plays all offense one half and the the other group plays all D. Then at half time A plays D and B goes to offense. Now you're subbing fewer kids. This is sixth grade and you don't want the kids to quit and play soccer. You want them to feel good about football. Keep playing. Someday some of not so good kids are gonna be good or good enough and football is a numbers game.
|
|
|
Post by coachjo14 on Jun 21, 2016 15:50:23 GMT -6
A rotation we have used with our freshman team (d3 college) so that we can see all of our kids play and evaluate them in live situations is to rotate as much of a whole unit as possible. So if I had 2 sets of DL, 3 Sets of LBs, and 3 sets of DBs We would go 1-2 for the DL, 1-2-3-1-1-2-3-1 with the LBS, and 1-2-1-3-1-2-1-3 with the DBs or something along these lines.
We played a 10 game freshman schedule and we wanted to see each of our guys play and gauge their talent. Of course we are competitive so we wanted to win. Often times our DL is our thinnest group and that is fine. We can get good reps for everyone and we play our best guys with our weaker groups.
For instance 1st defense goes. Then 2nd defense. Then it might be the first DL with the 3rd LBS and 3rd DBs. Then maybe then 2nd DL, 1st LBs and 1st DBs. Or any sort of combo. The main thing is to have a rotation.
We would keep our 1st units ready if we needed to. It taught them about handling adverse situations and answering the bell. I know you might say well your other players need to learn that too. Yes they do, but that 3rd string freshman LB is probably not going to need it in a conference title game down the line. We will get the chance to stand tall later in the game and also in squad scrimmages.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Jun 22, 2016 8:54:23 GMT -6
A rotation we have used with our freshman team (d3 college) so that we can see all of our kids play and evaluate them in live situations is to rotate as much of a whole unit as possible. So if I had 2 sets of DL, 3 Sets of LBs, and 3 sets of DBs We would go 1-2 for the DL, 1-2-3-1-1-2-3-1 with the LBS, and 1-2-1-3-1-2-1-3 with the DBs or something along these lines. We played a 10 game freshman schedule and we wanted to see each of our guys play and gauge their talent. Of course we are competitive so we wanted to win. Often times our DL is our thinnest group and that is fine. We can get good reps for everyone and we play our best guys with our weaker groups. For instance 1st defense goes. Then 2nd defense. Then it might be the first DL with the 3rd LBS and 3rd DBs. Then maybe then 2nd DL, 1st LBs and 1st DBs. Or any sort of combo. The main thing is to have a rotation. We would keep our 1st units ready if we needed to. It taught them about handling adverse situations and answering the bell. I know you might say well your other players need to learn that too. Yes they do, but that 3rd string freshman LB is probably not going to need it in a conference title game down the line. We will get the chance to stand tall later in the game and also in squad scrimmages. i like it -- almost like line changes in hockey.
|
|
|
Post by coachjo14 on Jun 22, 2016 13:03:53 GMT -6
33coach and by not just putting all of the worst players out there at once you have a better chance to succeed. When they all get out there at once together there is smoke in the city and blood in the water.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Jun 22, 2016 13:57:16 GMT -6
33coach and by not just putting all of the worst players out there at once you have a better chance to succeed. When they all get out there at once together there is smoke in the city and blood in the water. i may have to steal that concept.
|
|
|
Post by coachjo14 on Jun 22, 2016 14:23:46 GMT -6
We've been pretty good defensively doing this. I'm not sure how my OC was subbing. OL is usually one of our thinnest spots. I remember late in one game the first year my OC trotted a QB out there in nut cutting time for his "plays". I was like OH NO! lol. At least he held onto a three and out and ran more clock. We ended up making a goal line stand. Gotta love JV league!
This year we are probably going to change what we are doing with our JV team going to more of a "reserve game" format. Our best guys who don't play on Saturday will player for the most part. We will take just under half of the season (probably a 6-3 split) and play only freshman who haven't gotten much work. A little different approach but still a lot of work for everyone to go around. In the past the whole JV schedule has been all freshmen who don't play. It will be interesting to see how the more competitive approach effects retention.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Jun 23, 2016 17:13:19 GMT -6
33coach and by not just putting all of the worst players out there at once you have a better chance to succeed. When they all get out there at once together there is smoke in the city and blood in the water. i may have to steal that concept. So not to be a dink or anything, but that's college. I understand it's D3 so it's possible you have some less than stellar players, but I'm pretty sure, even on a relative basis, you don't have the kinds of kids we have coming out in youth ball. That said, yes, everyone plays. And I'll do things similarly to how others do it. But I'll tell you what - I don't give a f*ck what the studies say, winning is important to kids. It definitely matters HOW you win, sure. But playing everyone equally and getting smoked every week is NOT going to get those kids coming back next year. Nor is going 8-0 by playing 15 guys and sitting the other 15. There has to be a balance. Our org changed leagues last year and we got our asses handed to us across all levels, and our retention #'s this year are horrible. In years past, we were at the top of our league year in year out, and our retention #'s were excellent. Same coaches, more losses, bad retention. It isn't 100% on the winning/losing, there are always different factors at play, but that's the biggest variable from prior years to this one. My team's retention was a little better than the rest of the org, and I don't think it's a coincidence that we were the only team that sniffed success (we went .500). We're in Pop Warner so with 30 kids we would have an 8 play minimum rule, and kick offs and PAT's don't count. In very competitive games, it's possible for some kids to just get 8 plays. When games aren't competitive (either way), we empty the bench so those kids get plenty of playing time. When we KNOW games won't be competitive, we flip the dynamic and our "starters" may only get 8 plays. We want, by the end of the year, for every kid to have way more than 64 plays (8 games at 8 plays). But I will not apologize that the top 7-8 kids on the roster will play twice as much as the bottom 7-8 kids, with the middle kids in the middle. That's real life. Those bottom kids have every chance to work hard and change their stars, so to speak - and have. We have had a kid play just the min at 9 years old, and be a captain and top 5 player at 11. And we are open to that happening, in fact we look for it since it's happened enough times. And again, our retention numbers have been damn good through the years, which IMO is what our primary goal should be. From a strategy perspective, we tend to primarily use the offense to make sure kids get their min. plays (MPR). In an ideal world - which probably isn't 30 kids on the roster - the defense is best 11 start, and the next 5-6 best players are subs. We subscribe to the cliche of (paraphrased) a bad play on O = 2nd and long, while a bad play on D = 6 pts. So with 30 kids, that ideal world isn't going to work. What I've done is once we're at 28+ kids, I'll set up 3 offensive lines. My "first" line isn't necessarily my best 11, but it includes probably 3-4 of my best linemen. My second line will have a good TE and T, my back up C, and then my worst 3-4 players in the other spots on the line. If I have more than 3-4 really bad players, that's when I'll use one or two in my "first" offense. Typically I don't have more than 2-3 kids who cannot be coached up to at least be a good speed bump for the DL. If I can find a kid who can maybe play a little bit at RB that isn't good enough to play D, then that's a bonus for this group. Usually, the kids I run in and out at RB are also in my top 15 mix on D, so their plays really aren't an issue. My third line will be kids that, in a pinch, can also play some D. If it's a close game and I don't want to run that third O out for all 8 plays, I'll use them for 4 on O and 4 on D or some split like that. I also run schemes that are MPR friendly, so to speak. I flip my line and run a modified DTDW (I pull one, for example). I run a lot of BEAST with my second offense, which is a very good youth set. There's no need for kids who aren't up to it to struggle to block in space or make one on one blocks - all angles, double teams and cut off blocks. I want kids in position to be able to have some success. And I will just not split kids out to get them out of the way, although I did that one year because I had some tiny kids - but I did run at them and throw to them. I run a youth specific (JJ Lawson's) 33 defense where I can put kids that are just okay into the stacks and use the tap and go scheme to make them more effective. Again, I'm not going to put a MPP type kid out at CB or S in space where he can get embarrassed. And even though it doesn't count as a play, I will use athletic kids who aren't (yet) good football players on kickoff - we on-sides kick, so they just have to be fast and willing to try to get a ball that's rolling around. Not a whole lot of tackling required. So there's a good chance to get 3-4 kids who aren't on either "starting" group another few plays potentially. And on KO return, any kid that can catch a ball is out there (I rarely have more than 12-13 kids who can catch a ball). Usually, that's another 2-3 kids from that second offense getting some additional plays that don't count towards the 8. It's a jigsaw puzzle. I try to make sure that my second offense has a chance to move the ball - if they do, they stay out there. I've had plenty of games where those guys hit their 8 plays during a drive, and as long as we're moving the chains, they stay out there. I also won't sacrifice a drive by just running four plays with them. I will run them out there, and if they don't move the ball, they come back out after two plays. If my starters can get a first, the second group goes back in. The point is to hold the ball as long as we can - that's another reason I run a ball control O like the DW. 15 play drives are PERFECT to get kids playing time.
|
|
|
Post by coachjo14 on Jun 23, 2016 18:26:09 GMT -6
jrk5150No hard feelings. I've been to some youth stuff and know how rough it is sometimes. I read through what you're doing and it's good stuff coach. I will say we have been the only team that plays all of our guys and only plays freshmen. Most of our opponents run their best "reserves" out there and they play the whole game. So having some kind of rotation matters. We often dress 60-80 for these games and there are some truly awful ones trotting out there. We view it as an opportunity to develop, evaluate, and hopefully retain student athletes.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Jun 24, 2016 7:37:49 GMT -6
Glad you took it the way I intended, I certainly did not mean any disrespect.
I think your last sentence sums it up beautifully, except we're not as much in the business of "evaluate" as you would be. We certainly are in the business to retain and develop, and that's where I place my priorities.
And IMO, retention for us is not only playing time, but winning too.
Like I said - balance.
My "system" isn't THE best system from a competitiveness perspective/to win games, but by trial and error over 11 years, it's the best system FOR ME to track those MPR's and ensure we meet them.
After that, it's up to me to find opportunities to get them MORE than the MPR whenever I can.
I have made decisions in games where for whatever reason I really wanted to get more reps for my starters (try out a new play, formation, refine timing, etc.), but instead I put that second group into the game to get them more playing time.
|
|
|
Post by coachjo14 on Jun 24, 2016 18:13:46 GMT -6
Makes sense. I'm not real thin skinned usually. Heck working with my boss I wouldn't have lasted long if I was lol.
I know what you mean though. The evaluation part is important to us because we are always looking for guys who might be able to help us on Saturday. Kid might not have the defensive scheme down, but he can play on a couple of special teams units. It that's the case we need to see him do it then start to work him in.
I know what you mean winning is huge. One thing I have learned working at the d3 level is kids will pull the pin in no time flat. If they aren't playing much they often feel like they can just go to a larger public school to just be a student. That's where them getting some tick on our freshman team helps to keep some around. We have won on both levels and that definitely helps.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Jun 28, 2016 14:59:43 GMT -6
I also think when you're a program, the program winning plays into it. For example, you can afford to lose some freshman games if your varsity program is successful. If the kids are learning and developing and getting playing time, the W's and L's aren't quite as important as long as they can look ahead and see a future for themselves.
Doesn't quite work the same way in youth ball - the kids don't have the perspective, they are focused on the now.
|
|
|
Post by coachjo14 on Jun 28, 2016 23:29:29 GMT -6
Lol id like to say the older ones have more perspective, but for every self aware kid who decides to stop playing cuz he knows he can't compete there are 20 we are screwing. Like 2 upperclassmen backup quarterbacks who got mad a freshman who is smarter, stronger, faster, and just plain better leap frogged them on the depth chart. When our starter went down he led us to 3 victories. Its not his fault our offense evolved from pro style to more of a spread that incorporates more qb run stuff.
I agree though we've done a much better job lately of retaining our top freshman. Most play at least some on Saturdays and the rest play a ton in JV games. So even if weve lost some jv games we've kept our best a lot more lately. Had to bolster our academic support program too.
|
|