Off-season Question

[strongx]

What rating (10 is best and 0 is worst) would you give your local coaches regarding doing what is best for the kid versus doing what makes the coach look good? Of course, this isn't restricted to just football. For example, having coached youth sports for too long, I have been guilty of taking the short, fat kid and playing him in the offensive line. But when we look at the size of mom and dad, the kid may never make it over 5'6". His play at guard helped our team and made our coaches look smart, but it was probably not best for that kid. It happens in youth basketball all the time and in baseball we have all seen the tall kid play 1B when neither his mom or dad are over 5'9". 

Just curious. Should the benefit of the team (and therefore the coaches) completely trump the benefit of the player? 

 

[OldandBusted]

100% to benefit the team. As a youth coach I always tell parents he can be a backup at the position you want him to play, or he can start where I want him to play.  We do allow players to tryout for any position they want during the first few practices to get a feel for the athletes. As far as rating the coaches, that answer depends on the organization. Some local teams, Knoxville, are great at developing players and doing what's best for the team. Most however just play their sons and forget everyone else exists. The athletic develop falls on the parents and what they are willing to invest in the off-season. 

[strongx]

17 minutes ago, OldandBusted said:

100% to benefit the team. As a youth coach I always tell parents he can be a backup at the position you want him to play, or he can start where I want him to play.  We do allow players to tryout for any position they want during the first few practices to get a feel for the athletes. As far as rating the coaches, that answer depends on the organization. Some local teams, Knoxville, are great at developing players and doing what's best for the team. Most however just play their sons and forget everyone else exists. The athletic develop falls on the parents and what they are willing to invest in the off-season. 

Good post. I think that is the norm.

[STARSNBARS]

Fellers sumtimes thes pearunts like two taik thangs intwo thair own hands.....

 

[strongx]

The lil single A school down 411 played it different a couple yrs ago. Instead of playing their 6’3” stud at TE and DE/LB, they play the kid at RB and safety. It seemed to work out for both the team and the kid.

[Osage]

On 6/12/2018 at 10:01 AM, strongx said:

For example, having coached youth sports for too long, I have been guilty of taking the short, fat kid and playing him in the offensive line. But when we look at the size of mom and dad, the kid may never make it over 5'6". His play at guard helped our team and made our coaches look smart, but it was probably not best for that kid.

I'll bite, because I honestly don't know: what would have been better for the kid? D Line?

[STARSNBARS]

Fellers letts say a TE haz a goodur arm....Shood he bee mooved two Quotabaick.....???.....

[strongx]

8 hours ago, Osage said:

I'll bite, because I honestly don't know: what would have been better for the kid? D Line?

Very true lol! I’ve just seen bigger kids get put near the ball, under the basket, or at first base when they are young. Heck, I’ve played many kids where it’s best for the team. I had a former pro tell me a few years back that many coaches play a kid where it makes the coach look the best instead of the kid. Unknowingly, he called me out! I’ve noticed it more since then for sure.