With the very unfortunate shortening of the careers of Travis Elliot and Tate Nichols I was considering the question that in the heat of competitive passion, do some of the more skilled kids get overused and does this lead to elevated injury risk. I remember when Travis first got hurt against Colerain and read that he was hurt PLAYING DEFENSE, I was amazed. Why risk your franchise player, who is taking a lot hits on the offensive side of the ball on defense?

If a kid plays both ways and plays nearly every play then I think it is a significant risk. And remember that kid probably does not have much down time in practice either. However, it is a fine line between using a player too much and just enough. Anyone remember when Boone Co's Alexander did not play defense until the opposing team crossed mid-field and only if the game was close?

Alexander played defense on passing situations only unless it was a pass heavy team...

Every time a kid straps it on he is prone to career ending injury. Sorry, stoopid thread...

 

It's Football for cryin out loud....Show me one kid that has never been hurt and I will show you the winning numbers for the PowerBall.

If I remember correctly Elliott's injury was flukish. Both he and the RB from Colerain had season ending injuries.

Take the focus of the games for a second. A lot depends on how much hitting takes place in practice. If you're a team that has to play the majority of its best players both ways on Friday nites there is no way there should be hitting going on throughout the week. Ive been told by some of the coaches that Ryle bangs hard virtually everyday in practice, this takes a toll on players bodies and I would venture to say this had an impact on Travis.

 

Contrast that to a team like Cooper last season who played 8 players both ways the entire season and practiced in shells virtually the entire season and kept virtually everyone healthy for their run to Bowling Green. If teams don't have enough players to platoon on Friday nites they better limit the contact through the week.

I would bet most stud football players played both ways in high school. By definition, yes, you increase your chances of injury.

 

However, I'm not sure there is a direct correlation to # of plays in high school and future serious knee injuries.

Unfortunately it is a fact of life in Ky HS Football at the vast majority of schools. Just don't have the quality and quantity of players at most schools to only go one way.

Miles Simpson played both ways and also all special teams.

It would be great to play kids one way but its just not feasible for most staffs around the state.

 

Anytime you step on the field there is an injury risk but there is no problem in kids playing both ways. We had a kid shatter his femur playing touch football after he stepped in a hole. It was our best player too. Injuries, especially to seniors are awful but they are part of life and sports.

Every time a kid straps it on he is prone to career ending injury. Sorry, stoopid thread...

 

It's Football for cryin out loud....Show me one kid that has never been hurt and I will show you the winning numbers for the PowerBall.

 

 

Exactly

With the very unfortunate shortening of the careers of Travis Elliot and Tate Nichols I was considering the question that in the heat of competitive passion, do some of the more skilled kids get overused and does this lead to elevated injury risk. I remember when Travis first got hurt against Colerain and read that he was hurt PLAYING DEFENSE, I was amazed. Why risk your franchise player, who is taking a lot hits on the offensive side of the ball on defense?

 

Agee'd button pushed.

If a kid plays both ways and plays nearly every play then I think it is a significant risk. And remember that kid probably does not have much down time in practice either. However, it is a fine line between using a player too much and just enough. Anyone remember when Boone Co's Alexander did not play defense until the opposing team crossed mid-field and only if the game was close?

 

Quite the opposite to be honest. One of the main reasons for teams trying to two platoon is maximizing practice in terms of reps. If you watch teams that two platoon, the practices are almost always more up tempo (bc you aren't herding cattle so to speak in trying to find a scout team...two platoon teams usually end up 'self serving' each other in practice), and the number of reps are doublesd in the least (instead of having a group of 10 ILB's, you have a group of 5 or less).

 

There are a lot of arguments out there supporting the two platoon idea at more than just your obvious schools (big publics and privates). Outside of each teams stud (and, most high school teams just have one, no matter what Mom and Dad might think), take your average high school football player (what most of us were as well), and have them rep the crap out of one position over and over and over.

 

I've heard some coaches state that if you are at a school with over 400 kids (and/or 40+ kids on the team), and you "don't have any depth", then it's on the coach. Part of me agrees with a lot of that. I know a rural/county school in the state that is going to be implanting a two platoon system this year. It's going to be a down year as is due to the lack of upperclassmen (only 10 total Juniors and Seniors), and several freshmen and sophomores are going to have to play by default due to the lack of numbers, and overall talent in the Junior and Senior classes.

 

Part of the reasoning behind this, too is in hopes of increasing numbers. One advantage football has over every other team sport is that it has 22 starting positions (well, 25-26 if you count kickers and snappers). Utilize that. Make that a recruiting pitch.

 

Ok, I know that was a little, well Wayyyyy off the intended meaning of the thread, but that's my two cents on the deal.

Of course the chance of injury goes up when a player plays both ways. The chance of injury goes up also when comparing 2 kids who only play one side of the ball depending on the number of snaps each kid takes, that is just basic knowledge.

 

The one big advantage teams that don't have players playing both ways is that the practices are better. What I mean is when you have 11 kids playing defense, and a different 11 playing offense then in practice those players are going up against the #1 teams the majority of times. When you have kids playing 2 ways then you usually have your #2's going against the #1's on the opposite side of the ball. You can only improve when you are going against #1's in practice.

 

I have no problem with players going both ways if they are the best at the positions they are playing. It's part of the game and many teams need those players to go both ways to be successful.

Of course the chance of injury goes up when a player plays both ways. The chance of injury goes up also when comparing 2 kids who only play one side of the ball depending on the number of snaps each kid takes, that is just basic knowledge.

 

The one big advantage teams that don't have players playing both ways is that the practices are better. What I mean is when you have 11 kids playing defense, and a different 11 playing offense then in practice those players are going up against the #1 teams the majority of times. When you have kids playing 2 ways then you usually have your #2's going against the #1's on the opposite side of the ball. You can only improve when you are going against #1's in practice.

 

I have no problem with players going both ways if they are the best at the positions they are playing. It's part of the game and many teams need those players to go both ways to be successful.

 

Mine played every play of every game (nearly) from 2nd grade until his sophomore season. Disappointed at first but grateful tdday that he didn't play offense that year, although he played all the special teams and defense.