On 2/19/2025 at 3:02 PM, theguru said:

I remember Male bringing Michael Bush in to play defense too when Male couldn't stop Trinity.  And for anyone that wants to feel old today, Michael Warren Bush Jr. is 40 years old. ??

Also, from Wikipedia:

Bush attended Louisville Male High School where he played quarterback his senior year after seeing action at defensive back, defensive end, linebacker, running back, safety, and wide receiver over his career. As a senior, he led the Bulldogs to the state championship game in Kentucky's highest class. In that showdown against future Louisville teammate Brian Brohm and the Trinity High School Shamrocks, Bush threw for 468 yards and six touchdowns and ran for 116 yards and another touchdown in a 59–56 loss. He also caught two passes for 24 yards, returned a punt and a kickoff, and made five tackles on defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bush

 

 

On 2/19/2025 at 5:05 PM, Honey Badger said:

I never forgot about Michael Bush, what a great talent he was "back then". I did forget about how freakishly different he was. Thank you for refreshing my brain about how old I am and about a dude that was just so much more different than everyone else. He was a stud basketball player too, pretty sure he won or played in a state title, maybe more than once..or I could just be making it up lol. It's crazy to think that was all well over 20+ years ago. That may be one of the best state title games in KY history, what a shootout Bush and Brohm. Then they teamed up at Louisville and had very successful college careers. Then they moved on to the NFL and Mike had a pretty successful stint. I think Brohm spent some time with the Packers.

I've got that Male Trinity game on videotape. One of the best high school games ever.

24 minutes ago, theguru said:

Exactly!! I am not kidding either, that is the videotape the game is on.

7 hours ago, Unrivaled97 said:

I don't think there is a set answer to this question.  I think it simply depends on your team's need and also the individual who is playing QB.  A lot of things play a factor like:

1) Do you have a good backup who can direct the offense if something did happen?

2) Do you enough solid players on defense where there isn't necessarily the need for the QB to play defense?

3)  What type of offense do you run?  Is it more RB oriented or do you sling the ball around a bit more?

4)  Is your QB a pro-style QB (I.e. better arm and maybe not as mobile thus not as good of an athlete) or a dual threat or simply an athlete playing QB where that athleticism is useful or needed on defense?

CAL last year vs. CAL this year is a great example of why there isn't necessarily a set answer.  Cole Hodge was a really good athlete and even though CAL is a smaller school, he wasn't needed on defense last year or the year before.  Fast forward to this year and Conner Hodge, who like his brother was also a good athlete, was needed on defense.  Same result for CAL both years at the end of it.

This ^ is the best answer to the question.

How does your QB compare athletically? > If it is relatively close to who he would replace on defense, then don't play him on defense. If he is clearly better AND your team needs him on defense, then play him on defense.

Beechwood has played their QB's at QB only for the past 15 or so years. Even Mr. Football Cam Hergott, definitely one of the best athletes on the team, didn't play defense except a few occasions where the Tigers played him at safety. In a couple big games when the opponent had high end speed, Coach Rash put Hergott in at safety.

13 hours ago, Astro Domino said:

Logan Armstrong played QB/LB in ‘07. A few factors went into that though. That was his one and only year starting at QB and he had definitely already established himself as one of the best players on defense the 2 seasons prior. He was built like a LB and QB was really his secondary position behind LB. Also that team was pretty thin on solid players if I remember correctly.

That was one I forgot. Luke Guyh also played some but was mainly a backup. I believe that was the only one. You are right, his main position was linebacker.

2 minutes ago, snakesnot_2000 said:

That was one I forgot. Luke Guyh also played some but was mainly a backup. I believe that was the only one. You are right, his main position was linebacker. You are also right about being thin on solid players. We got beat by Fulton, so that ought to tell you something.

 

My answer is an emphatic NO!

Sure it's a good idea and can work great; however, if he gets hurt while playing defense, things just went really south for your team really fast.

I don't care what type of offense you run.  In 2025, there's zero reason you should have your starting QB play any defense, unless you are down to under 15 players on the roster, and in that case, you may want to think about scrapping the season because of safety issues.

Look, you are the head coach.  You are charged with player evaluation and player development.  If you have your starting QB starting anywhere on defense you messed up & failed as a Head Coach on both of those fronts.  You didn't develop the right person to be the QB.  If your starting QB is better on defense and helps your team's success on that side of the ball, he should start there.  You should have developed a QB, probably 2.  That's your job.  If nobody on your squad fits your scheme for QB, then change your scheme.  Good coaches adapt to their players, not the other way around.  Why do you not have anyone that can be a serviceable QB at high school level?  The QB position for most  teams has been dumbed down so much that anyone that can run a little bit can be a QB. QBs aren't audibling on their own, they aren't making complex decisions, there's no complicated reads in most offenses anymore at the high school level.  You, as the head coach are responsible for making sure that you have a serviceable QB and a serviceable backup.  

Having a starting QB get playing time on defense is simply irresponsible IMO.

I'm sure I'm going to have quite a few disagree with me on this one, but with no position being as important to your team than QB, risking it is a losing proposition.

Never a good idea, regardless of classification or numbers in the program. The Quarterback has always been deemed an extension of the coach on the playing field, if they’re unable to converse with the coordinator when they’re not on the field you’re essentially halting the growth you need for that position thus making it difficult to improve throughout the course of the season as an offense. Putting way too much on a kids plate if you want him to execute efficiently as a Quarterback and then turn around and play every snap of defense. It doesn’t matter how severe of a drop off it may be defensively, because like a wise man once told me, “If you got a Quarterback, you got a chance.” 
 

I won’t call out the team or player, but an absolute stud who started for 4 years as QB didn’t improve at all at the position unfortunately. Not because he was incapable, he was just the best player on both sides of the ball and if you’re going 110% on Defense playing every snap and making majority of the tackles, of course when your standing in shotgun handing the ball off you’re using that time as a rest period. Anyone who knows that position, it’s more than just handing it off. You’re getting a look at how they line up and trying to pull defenders with a good ball fake, such an important position and you never want someone who is just trying to make it to the next series because they’re running on fumes. 
 

Very simple answer if you are serious about winning football games.

9 hours ago, New Colonel said:

My answer is an emphatic NO!

Sure it's a good idea and can work great; however, if he gets hurt while playing defense, things just went really south for your team really fast.

I don't care what type of offense you run.  In 2025, there's zero reason you should have your starting QB play any defense, unless you are down to under 15 players on the roster, and in that case, you may want to think about scrapping the season because of safety issues.

Look, you are the head coach.  You are charged with player evaluation and player development.  If you have your starting QB starting anywhere on defense you messed up & failed as a Head Coach on both of those fronts.  You didn't develop the right person to be the QB.  If your starting QB is better on defense and helps your team's success on that side of the ball, he should start there.  You should have developed a QB, probably 2.  That's your job.  If nobody on your squad fits your scheme for QB, then change your scheme.  Good coaches adapt to their players, not the other way around.  Why do you not have anyone that can be a serviceable QB at high school level?  The QB position for most  teams has been dumbed down so much that anyone that can run a little bit can be a QB. QBs aren't audibling on their own, they aren't making complex decisions, there's no complicated reads in most offenses anymore at the high school level.  You, as the head coach are responsible for making sure that you have a serviceable QB and a serviceable backup.  

Having a starting QB get playing time on defense is simply irresponsible IMO.

I'm sure I'm going to have quite a few disagree with me on this one, but with no position being as important to your team than QB, risking it is a losing proposition.

While I agree with you, that if you can avoid having your QB play defense, you definitely should, I don’t agree that you can put just about any good athlete at QB in today’s game. Maybe in Dixie’s 4 play, one wide receiver routes, hurry up system, you can get by with that, but today’s game is much more complex than the old days of everyone had 2-3 running backs in the back field and rarely threw the ball. I’d say a lot of teams allow their QBs to make checks within their scheme and to read coverage in the passing game.

I think most teams would definitely not want to have their QB play defense, sometimes you don’t have any choice if you want to win.

1 hour ago, gbballfan21 said:

I’d say a lot of teams allow their QBs to make checks within their scheme and to read coverage in the passing game.

I couldn't disagree with this statement more.  High school QBs look at the sidelines for the "check with me" after they start the cadence because they are clueless and poorly coached.  We see this in college now too.  QBs do NOT diagnose coverages anymore at high school level.  They don't understand their own schemes let alone how to read a defense.  And this comes from bad coaching.  Everything these days is "get your athletes the ball in space and let them run." But they don't know how to do that.

 

Look, offensive coordinators are not very good overall at the high school level. They don't know how to scheme against certain things, how to adjust, or how to create their own wrinkles to a scheme.....let alone teach a QB these things.  Most OCs are a product of YouTube videos and clinics where they have assembled a random collection of plays but don't understand why they are used or when.  They can't set up and bait a defense.  They don't self scout.  Heck, many can't even draw a proper route tree.  They don't have a true system, because in a system you actually teach QBs all of these things.

Biggest complaint of NFL and College coaches of QBs is they don't know football.  They don't understand it and have to look at the sidelines for directions at all times.  That has now become part of the college game now.  The QB in high school for the vast majority of schools is essentially a running back, and again that's the college level too.  

 

Are there exceptions, of course there are.  However, let's not act like the average high school QB is reading a defense, let alone making his own checks.

7 minutes ago, New Colonel said:

I couldn't disagree with this statement more.  High school QBs look at the sidelines for the "check with me" after they start the cadence because they are clueless and poorly coached.  We see this in college now too.  QBs do NOT diagnose coverages anymore at high school level.  They don't understand their own schemes let alone how to read a defense.  And this comes from bad coaching.  Everything these days is "get your athletes the ball in space and let them run." But they don't know how to do that.

 

Look, offensive coordinators are not very good overall at the high school level. They don't know how to scheme against certain things, how to adjust, or how to create their own wrinkles to a scheme.....let alone teach a QB these things.  Most OCs are a product of YouTube videos and clinics where they have assembled a random collection of plays but don't understand why they are used or when.  They can't set up and bait a defense.  They don't self scout.  Heck, many can't even draw a proper route tree.  They don't have a true system, because in a system you actually teach QBs all of these things.

Biggest complaint of NFL and College coaches of QBs is they don't know football.  They don't understand it and have to look at the sidelines for directions at all times.  That has now become part of the college game now.  The QB in high school for the vast majority of schools is essentially a running back, and again that's the college level too.  

 

Are there exceptions, of course there are.  However, let's not act like the average high school QB is reading a defense, let alone making his own checks.

If a QB can’t read basic high school defensive coverages, and know if a defense gives us this certain look then we are running this play, and against another certain look we are checking to the 2nd call in the huddle, then they aren’t very well coached. Most high school defenses are running some version of cover 3, Cover 2, and some type of man to man. Not real complex stuff, I’d say the really good teams have a QB competent enough to be able to read basic defensive coverages.

Now, if a team is strictly putting their best athlete back there, and making him pretty much an extra running back, then yes, they probably aren’t asked to read much of anything. 
 

 

44 minutes ago, gbballfan21 said:

Now, if a team is strictly putting their best athlete back there, and making him pretty much an extra running back, then yes, they probably aren’t asked to read much of anything. 

That's what most teams do now because your best athlete has the ball in his hands on every play.  It can make up for a lot of shortcomings, but also can really hurt you.

10 hours ago, gbballfan21 said:

If a QB can’t read basic high school defensive coverages, and know if a defense gives us this certain look then we are running this play, and against another certain look we are checking to the 2nd call in the huddle, then they aren’t very well coached. Most high school defenses are running some version of cover 3, Cover 2, and some type of man to man. Not real complex stuff, I’d say the really good teams have a QB competent enough to be able to read basic defensive coverages.

Now, if a team is strictly putting their best athlete back there, and making him pretty much an extra running back, then yes, they probably aren’t asked to read much of anything. 
 

 

Coverages on the HS level are a little more complex than that.  Past two read you don’t really see much Cov 2 past being a check to a nub TE or something similar. There are teams running zone match and man match. Patterson and Saban both have had a large impact on HS defense coverages/fronts. 
 

It is much more common in today’s defense to operate out of a 2 hi shell and play split field coverage. A lot of times the coverage is an automatic check to what the offense presents. Things like playing man on 1 and 2 read on 2 and 3 in trips. There are very few teams that base out of single hi (I don’t count the Iowa St stuff as single hi)

As far as simplification and not reading defense goes you can thank Mike Leach and Hal Mumme (to a degree BYU) for that. Leach was famous for not caring what the defense was in. They only ran plays in one direction. 
 

Once Walker at Northwestern showed the Big 10 what you could do in the spread (which leads Purdue to get Tiller) and the spread of the Air Raid due to Franklin, Leach and Mumme the need to check or kill plays became less necessary. Teams had built in answers between the QB read game and access throws. That later evolved into RPOs. Teams still check and kill plays without looking to the sideline. They build in answers. 
 

Leach made the comment a number of times about the NFL not wanting to develop QBs. The Briles guys were well known for comments like “football ball ain’t hard. Don’t make it hard” or “don’t make simple things difficult”.  
 

There are definitely teams that have a collection of plays and not a system. There are also definitely fans that think they know a lot more about what’s going on. Let’s not forget the kid playing QB is 15-19 years old. That demographic isn’t known for making the best choices. 

On 2/19/2025 at 12:42 PM, LongTimeReader said:

I would say no to starting QB playing defense, but I'm all for the backup playing another position. Most teams the backup QB is one of the better players on the team and you should allow him to play another position on the field instead of him just standing on the sideline come Friday nights just because he is the backup. 

That reminds me of Oldham County's QB Sam Young from a few years ago. As a freshman he started at DB and was the back up QB, Sophmore/Junior year he was the starting QB, and would sometimes be brought in on defense, and then senior year if I'm not mistaken he was their starting QB and Safety. He went on to accept a PWO at U of L which is where he's at currently.

Appreciate the feedback. Keep it going and thank you!