Playing both ways...

[jbwill2]

In the past, I have heard some debate about the pros and cons of high school football coaches playing guys both ways (i.e. on both offense and defense). This topic was even covered in some detail in a recent book written about the top football programs in the country.

 

Obviously, the size of a school (and size of the school's football team) has a major impact on whether a team can afford to have players play only one way. Intuitively, it would seem to be the best to have the players specialize as much as possible. This is certainly what is done at the college and professional levels.

 

However, a case can definitely be made that high school football teams (even large programs) are benefitted more by playing at least some guys both ways, since at the high school level there is a limit to how much talent a prep team can realistically expect to possess at any one time, and there is an advantage to a coach having his very best athletes in the game as much as possible, as opposed to "settling" for less-talented players being on the field as the trade-off for player specialization.

 

What does everyone think?

[MountainThunder]

If you have to, you have to. I remember asking Greg Duncum a question when he was the head coach at North Laurel about playing so many both ways. I actually questioned him on why a relative of mine was playing varsity, both ways as a sophomore and if that was best. In typical Duncum fashion he answered 'Do you know somebody we have better to play either of those positions? If so, let me know and I will get them in there. I put the best players on the field who I think give us a chance to win. I would like the luxury of platooning, but we can't do that just yet.'

[Clyde]

Mike Mitchell would not have left CCH had he not been in a strict platoon system.

[Ram]

Having one player for each and every position would be the optimal situation. But, there are not very many programs around the state or the country that can do that and win. I am sure every coach would rather have one player for each position (all 22 positions) and never have a drop in talent. The goal is to have the best athletes on the field as much as possible, and to do that, most schools, have to have players play offense and defense.

 

Not to make this a Trinity thread, but I remember reading a thread a while back that said Trinity did not have a group of offensive linemen, they had groups of right offensive tackles, left offensive tackles, right offensive guards, and so on. That would be the perfect situation, each player having only on position to focus on and do nothing but work on getting better at that one position. But, that is not possible at the vast majority of programs around the state.

[thsrocks]

You must do what you need to do to be successful. The program I support usually plays an athlete at more than one spot only when needed. This season's example would be Radcliff. He was an outstanding receiver and a talented DB. He didn't see much action on defense until the playoffs. The player he replaced still rotated in on defense.

 

I feel Jordan Whiting could have been a beast in the offensive backfield, but with Tim Phillips and Xavier Thomas, the move wasn't needed, so Whiting was limited to the occasional fake punt or two point conversion play.

[GC2010]

My son played Optimist Football with Jordan...he is a BEAST where/what ever he plays...not only that, he is a great kid...good luck @ OSU in 09-10...

[born2reign]

If everything is equal, I would play two platoon football every time. The advantages that come from specialization when a young man can focus his energies on one side of the ball are numerous.

 

The first is the training that can happen in practice. If you have one position, you can spend the entire practice getting reps at that position and working on the fundamental skills it will take to make the player successful. A lot of athletes at this level get by on athletic ability. I want a great athlete, but I'll take a kid that wants to learn and takes coaching well and applies it. We tend to see great results from this type of player as long as you have quality coaching. It also helps coaches put together a quality scout team for practice against the number 1's. A coach probably wouldn't play all #1's in practice, but you can fill in to get guys experience playing against really good players at particular positions in practice that will simulate the game experience.

 

The second advantage is the fatigue factor. I want the freshest team in the second half of games. I have seen this time and time again at the lower levels of football (small schools). Team A will play 6 or 7 guys both ways and they will jump out in the first half. Team B has 3 or 4 guys that may rotate in, but they try to use a fresh 11 and they win games in the 4th quarter because they are fresher. Big plays become easier, tackling and coverage become better and pressure becomes rampant when your guys are fresh. I have also found that smaller schools that two platoon may perform questionably in some games early, but the are peeking by season's end going into the playoffs due to the freshness of players and all the coaching, practice reps, and game experience they are getting at their individual position

 

The third reason I like two platooning is you get more kids involved. This keeps kids in the program because they feel like they will play if they work hard and stick with it. Numbers are always an issue, especially at smaller schools. The promise of playing tends to keep kids in the program.

 

Two platoon is the way to go if you can. Coaches have to figure out which positions they can get by with using lesser athletes while competing at a high level.

[1968isaac]

I think fatigue is a very big factor for guys going both ways. Especially for lineman, right Ram? It's a dogfight for these guys on each snap and is very exhausting. I was discussing this same issue with my son last night. Hopefully he is able to "Specialize" at his position this coming year as a senior. And of course it is tough for the WR/DB types who run routes most every play and then play pass coverage. No doubt, you have to play your best athletes to compete.

[HDE]

Hopefully he is able to "Specialize" at his position this coming year as a senior.

 

 

 

Not unless you plan on getting a lot of transfers, and even then I don't see it.

[Freebird23]

If everything is equal, I would play two platoon football every time. The advantages that come from specialization when a young man can focus his energies on one side of the ball are numerous.

 

The first is the training that can happen in practice. If you have one position, you can spend the entire practice getting reps at that position and working on the fundamental skills it will take to make the player successful. A lot of athletes at this level get by on athletic ability. I want a great athlete, but I'll take a kid that wants to learn and takes coaching well and applies it. We tend to see great results from this type of player as long as you have quality coaching. It also helps coaches put together a quality scout team for practice against the number 1's. A coach probably wouldn't play all #1's in practice, but you can fill in to get guys experience playing against really good players at particular positions in practice that will simulate the game experience.

 

The second advantage is the fatigue factor. I want the freshest team in the second half of games. I have seen this time and time again at the lower levels of football (small schools). Team A will play 6 or 7 guys both ways and they will jump out in the first half. Team B has 3 or 4 guys that may rotate in, but they try to use a fresh 11 and they win games in the 4th quarter because they are fresher. Big plays become easier, tackling and coverage become better and pressure becomes rampant when your guys are fresh. I have also found that smaller schools that two platoon may perform questionably in some games early, but the are peeking by season's end going into the playoffs due to the freshness of players and all the coaching, practice reps, and game experience they are getting at their individual position

 

The third reason I like two platooning is you get more kids involved. This keeps kids in the program because they feel like they will play if they work hard and stick with it. Numbers are always an issue, especially at smaller schools. The promise of playing tends to keep kids in the program.

 

Two platoon is the way to go if you can. Coaches have to figure out which positions they can get by with using lesser athletes while competing at a high level.

 

The fourth reason is for the athlete and not necessarily for the team. Playing on both sides of the ball will draw more attention to the athlete and will open more doors of opportunity for playing ball at the next level.

 

However, I am also of the opinion that when more kids get the chance to play on Friday nights the more involved the community, and in the long run, the better the program. Unfortunately, our community suffered through a coaching tenure that two platooned to the point where we only had approximately 30 players on the team. Decent teams and a state championship, but a terrible following by the community. Took several years to recover from that particular philosophy.

[jbwill2]

Unfortunately, our community suffered through a coaching tenure that two platooned to the point where we only had approximately 30 players on the team. Decent teams and a state championship, but a terrible following by the community. Took several years to recover from that particular philosophy.

 

I think you mean the opposite of what you wrote... "two-platooning" means having the players specialize on either offense or defense, doesn't it? The previous Highlands coach you are referring to did very little platooning, which caused some of the PR issues you mentioned in your post.

[CoachBuckett]

When you coach a class A school you have no other options.

[born2reign]

Two platooning means you only play a guy on one side of the ball. Hence you have two platoons, one for offense and one for defense with no players going both ways.

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[outlawcoach]

Get your best people on the field. I have seen very few teams, even at the biggest schools, that didnt have at least a few going both ways. At the small schools, going both ways is almost understood for most of your front liners. Conditioning is a factor, but if you can survive the early part of the schedule the kids play their way into shape by mid-season. Bottom line....get your best players on the field!!!

[HCFan1]

When you coach a class A school you have no other options.

 

That's the truth. There just not enough players that can get the job done to compete with better teams. I know at 2A Cov Holy Cross there are 6 two way starters that just don't leave the field. It was a some what of a proble while it was hot outside. Having said that, none of those players would have it any different.