4-3 Over for 11-12 YO Studs

[davecisar]

What if you are preparing that player only to play defense, but in HS he ends up playing offense? Kids develop kinda crazy sometimes and each team has unique needs.

I understand how it may be of value- and make the team better but for me, we train everyone on both sides of the ball- even the MMP kids.

[Michael]

Our littlest five-year-olds play D-Line only.  And they all rotate all game long.  They are the entire D-Line, they don't just fill in.  And they have their own coach, and they work on D-Line all day, every day.  The next year, they play another position.  It's really worked out well for us.  The kids love it, the parents love it, and the coaches love it.  We make a huge deal about them.  We don't really want to put them in space, and O-Line, for us, is way more technical and way more physical, so the O-Line kids are a year or two older.  And even there, the kids who are a little less athletic, or are a little younger and maybe have shorter attention spans, play O-Line only.

[CoachMattC]

I guess I should clarify.  Everyone is taught the basics like three point stance, blocking and tackling fundy's.  All the kids know this stuff and IMO that is the stuff that really gets transferred to the higher levels.  But once they are evaluated and placed in a position I see no reason to spend time drilling a kid who will play offensive line on rip and swim techniques or how to align in our defense.  I would much rather rep that kid in footwork or wedge progression to build his confidence in one specific task.

I quit worrying about preparing kids for high school a while ago.  I want to prepare them to compete successfully in a game situation.  If the high school staff cant teach a freshman coming in their system and techniques in 4 years with all that practice time because the youth coaches didn't do something then shame on them.

Now I understand a kid might want to try both sides of the ball to get the total football experience.  That is why when we get into running clock scenarios we will empty the bench and just throw kids out there on defense with no real training just to have fun.  We also try to let all the linemen run the ball at least once during the season.  But that stuff is for fun, I need to make my practices as efficient as possible while managing a large roster and there aren't a lot of ways to do that if I have to teach every kid two or three different positions.

[jkoester]

Just a thought, and I realize everyone's situation is different, but most 11-year-olds signing up for football want to learn if not play on both sides of the ball.  How are you helping to develop kids if they are "offensive line only" or "Defensive line MPP only" kids?  Do they at least get reps in practice on both sides of the ball?  In some cases, it seems the only ones really being "coached" are the top 11 or so of the 35.  It is a juggling act and probably the hardest and most controversial part of youth football.

I see the point, but I don't buy it.

Fist, we're talking one year of many years playing potentially.  It's typically not just one year that's at issue.  He may play one position one year, but a different one the next.

Second, it's not like that's unique to football.  In many other sports, kids will play only one or two positions during the year.  Baseball, basketball, etc.  From year to year a kid may move around, or some of the kids will be moved around, but most years most of the kids settle in somewhat.  Especially the kids with minimal aptitude for the game.  Baseball has mpp's as well, and you tend to see them in one or two positions max during the year.  You're not doing anyone any favors putting a kid in a position he can't succeed in.

[YCarr]

I quit worrying about preparing kids for high school a while ago.  I want to prepare them to compete successfully in a game situation.  If the high school staff cant teach a freshman coming in their system and techniques in 4 years with all that practice time because the youth coaches didn't do something then shame on them.

Great point Matt!

All I'm saying is that there is value in teaching a kid one position, I've personally never done it, but when out teams go to 8th Grade Ball, most kids get platooned.  The only reason it works in 8th Grade is because the don't have the roster limits or playing time rules that we do at the lower levels.  It's pretty easy to 2 platoon 50 kids, when you don't have to play 28 of them.

[kcdeer]

Yet, every youth baseball player both plays the field and goes to bat.  Every youth basketball player has the potential to score a basket.  My issue it is almost self-fulfilling, an 8-year-old kid gets penciled in at o-line, for example, then gets 2x the work at o-line than a kid who trains on both sides of the ball, so as a 9-year-old, he gets plugged in to o-line again.  Before you know it he is 11 and has never taken a snap on defense.   Granted, kids progress at different speeds, but it is something to be aware of and in my opinion letting each kid have an offensive position and a defensive position keeps interest higher.

[Michael]

I start each year new, and just coach them up, when I'm the head coach, anyway.

I've seen it done differently, though.

We had a kid on 9-11 last year, and he got put at tackle, and he was terrible.  I wanted to try him somewhere else, and his dad (a coach) was like, "No way, he's played tackle for five years!"  I was like, "Well, nobody ever taught him anything, apparently."

We had a kid on another team at OLB, and I suggested moving him to MLB.  The coaches all said, "No, he's never played anything but OLB."  I said, "He's SEVEN!"  They acted like he'd spent ten years in an NFL room.

I think a lot of coaches don't trust their ability to teach.  They seem like they think they can, but they don't truly trust it.  And a lot of them are correct not to.

[jkoester]

Well, honestly that seems to be one point in favor of NOT having coaches stay with teams over the years.  Unless you're very good about it, there is a risk that kids will get pigeon-holed.

That doesn't happen in our org, as the kids move up, the coaches don't.  So for the most part, kids start with a clean slate every year.  Obviously, if a kid has a talent for a position and a desire to play it, he'll stay with it.  But we have linemen become RB's, and so on.  In fact, one of our coaches literally doesn't pay ANY attention to the kids at the levels below him.  He starts completely from scratch, sometimes to his detriment.  Last year he put a kid at center who should have been at FB, had played FB for us for the 4 years prior.  But the kid is a slow starter.  I told them this, they didn't listen.  By mid-year he was their starter at FB.

But, nobody gets pigeon-holed on that team unless they want to, LOL.

[YCarr]

I start each year new, and just coach them up, when I'm the head coach, anyway.

I've seen it done differently, though.

We had a kid on 9-11 last year, and he got put at tackle, and he was terrible.  I wanted to try him somewhere else, and his dad (a coach) was like, "No way, he's played tackle for five years!"  I was like, "Well, nobody ever taught him anything, apparently."

We had a kid on another team at OLB, and I suggested moving him to MLB.  The coaches all said, "No, he's never played anything but OLB."  I said, "He's SEVEN!"  They acted like he'd spent ten years in an NFL room.

I think a lot of coaches don't trust their ability to teach.  They seem like they think they can, but they don't truly trust it.  And a lot of them are correct not to.

Kinda like the all state High School quarter back who gets recruited to play CB or WR in College.

[CoachMattC]

Yet, every youth baseball player both plays the field and goes to bat.  Every youth basketball player has the potential to score a basket.  My issue it is almost self-fulfilling, an 8-year-old kid gets penciled in at o-line, for example, then gets 2x the work at o-line than a kid who trains on both sides of the ball, so as a 9-year-old, he gets plugged in to o-line again.  Before you know it he is 11 and has never taken a snap on defense.   Granted, kids progress at different speeds, but it is something to be aware of and in my opinion letting each kid have an offensive position and a defensive position keeps interest higher.

I get what you're saying coach, the real problem is that IMO 35 kids is way too many.  But, thats what I have this year and if I do my job right Ill probably have that many next year, too.  That number is not going to change.

I have no issue with a kid who is ambitiously pursuing more playing time.  I do however have a problem with a kid who is not interested in football anymore because he doesn't like his position.  That kid can get with the program or drop his gear off in the truck.

[CoachMattC]

Well, honestly that seems to be one point in favor of NOT having coaches stay with teams over the years.  Unless you're very good about it, there is a risk that kids will get pigeon-holed.

That doesn't happen in our org, as the kids move up, the coaches don't.  So for the most part, kids start with a clean slate every year.  Obviously, if a kid has a talent for a position and a desire to play it, he'll stay with it.  But we have linemen become RB's, and so on.  In fact, one of our coaches literally doesn't pay ANY attention to the kids at the levels below him.  He starts completely from scratch, sometimes to his detriment.  Last year he put a kid at center who should have been at FB, had played FB for us for the 4 years prior.  But the kid is a slow starter.  I told them this, they didn't listen.  By mid-year he was their starter at FB.

But, nobody gets pigeon-holed on that team unless they want to, LOL.

I don't like staying with a team more than two years for just that reason.  My methods work well for me and lots of kids over the years but maybe they're not the best for every kid.  Maybe another coach has something to offer that I am lacking.  Who knows what is best over the long run?  Maybe my kids last year would have been the most prolific spread passing team you ever saw if I handn't made them run that damn power play 700 times, lol.

[kcdeer]

Points well-taken MattC.  Sometimes the hardest part is juggling 36 kids, usually 10 of which only have a passing interest in football.

[jkoester]

Yet, every youth baseball player both plays the field and goes to bat.  Every youth basketball player has the potential to score a basket.  My issue it is almost self-fulfilling, an 8-year-old kid gets penciled in at o-line, for example, then gets 2x the work at o-line than a kid who trains on both sides of the ball, so as a 9-year-old, he gets plugged in to o-line again.  Before you know it he is 11 and has never taken a snap on defense.   Granted, kids progress at different speeds, but it is something to be aware of and in my opinion letting each kid have an offensive position and a defensive position keeps interest higher.

I understand the argument, but I don't agree that field/at bat is a valid comparison.  Nor scoring baskets.  I perceive the issue as groupings of positions.  I don't see it as purely offensive/defensive side of the ball, I see it as lineman, RB, DB, LB, WR, etc.  Just as in hoops you have perimeter and post, or G/F/C.  Baseball - outfield/infield/pitcher/catcher.  Very different skill sets required, so experience in one doesn't translate well to the other.

At the younger ages we try a few more things since I'm not sure what the best fit is.  But determining where a kid fits does start to clarify somewhat as they move up.  And if one year an 11 year old kid has to specialize at CB because the team has 35 kids, and even though he's a solid RB they already have 4 other RB's who aren't playing CB, then so be it.  Next year he can try to play RB.

I'm definitely sensitive to the issue - I have my own experiences in basketball, and I'm fortunate that I didn't play for a HS coach who was narrow minded about where kids played.  That's also part of why I'm not really in favor of coaches moving up with their teams.  A good coach, yes, but too many of them at the youth level aren't very good.  Of the 5 coaching staffs my son played for in my own org, are only a couple that I'd have wanted him to stay with over the years.  And that pigeon-holing aspect is a big part of it.

[kcdeer]

Another good point..I think there are great differences between staffs that slide up w/ the kids and staffs that stay at one level.  Obviously the latter is probably in the aggregate more preferable, but hard sometimes to ask Dad-volunteers to deal w/ someone else's lovely cherubs rather than their own!

[CoachMattC]

moved here: http://www.dumcoach.com/index.php/topic,4062.0.html