I've noticed a trend of Miles recruiting athletes that could play multiple positions and was wondering what ya'lls thoughts were on the advantages & disadvantages of this. Also, is it ultimately a good or bad thing? Advantages: Other recruits see who else we're recruiting, and when they are listed as an athlete or can play multiple positions it doesn't deter them as much as seeing a player specifically listed at their own position. Versatility allows us to move as unexpected needs arise - injuries, transfers etc. Disadvantages: Lack of specialization often means a lack of development at the particular position. Furthermore, if the players is moved around once he gets to campus his development takes even longer because he's learning several positions & isn't getting full reps at one single position.
So then you think recruiting athletes is a bad idea? Because an athlete isn't recruited to fill a particular need.
Some of these kids are still growing when they get to campus. If they outgrow the position originally intended, they can still see PT based on overall skill. Some kids played both sides of the ball in HS so the learning curve may not be as severe as you think. It seems that these "athletes" are typically the skill players. WR, FB, RB, TE. They are not that far apart in terms of responsibilities so it can work. Linemen get switched from O to D and back but are not generally recruited as athletes. Playing another position gives players an appreciation and understanding of the game from a broader perspective. That can only help. For example, one year as a FB gives a RB huge advantage in learning to follow your blocker, when to hit the hole, and how the D adjusts. Using the term "athlete" gives you a bigger recruiting pool I think. It says you want to recognize a player's physical skills but not limit them to PT based solely on ONE position. Brian Cushing is a great example. PC said several times that he was such a strong athlete that he just wanted him on the field, regardless of where. I also look at a player like our kicker David Buehler. The guy was brought in as an athlete, could seriously play LB, but he kicks. What a great concept to have a kicker who might be able to tackle instead of tiptoeing off the field when the play comes his way. All that said, there are probably some positions AND players who will or should only play in one spot. Players who need focus and reps to get to their peak. How many players on a roster really can be athletes? I like the idea.
Perhaps they're listed as "ATH" by these recruiting services because who's to say that the evaluaters at sites like Scout or Rivals know more than the top-tier coaches? (while Scout and Rivals do a phenominal job--for the most part--with such a large list of players, I highly doubt that they know more than coaches). I happen to like recruiting a handful of ATH in each class. To me, an ATH signifies a gifted player, capable of playing so many positions where the depth is needed. I don't look at it as "he's learning several positions and isn't getting full reps at one" as a negative. If he's playing high enough quality at multiple positions, then you end up seeing it translated into an above-average rating (for instance, a 3-star rating). Good coaching will polish the rust of poor technique any day...and we're fortunate enough to have solid coaching. Most ATH play multiple positions in high school more out of necessity to their respective high school teams and sometimes if a player doesn't look as glammering throughout an entire game, it usually signifies that he's just tired. But if he's good enough to be considered as a ledgit I-A player at multiple positions, then you know he'll be fine when they only have to worry about playing one position on the next level. That's just my feelings.
Like TE's turning into Linemen or DB's turning into LBs. The skill players were the ones that I was originally thinking of, but Miles also likes to take a lot of TE's because of their versatility to play other positions. I would say that the learning curve from HS to college is pretty big, and that it seems it would become exponentially bigger the more positions a player rotates through. I agree that the knowledge can improve them as a player, but at what cost? A RB has learned to follow his blocks better, but has wasted a year at a position he won't play. Wouldn't he have been better suited getting reps as a RB & learned how to follow blocks that way? Practice makes perfect, and players need reps to be the best they can be. This is kind of where I was heading. I like that we recruit a few athletes, but there's a limit because if every player could play everywhere then our depth chart would be a complete cluster.
Exactly. :thumb: My nine yr. old was the 3rd baseman and one of two of our big hitters in the lineup but moved to 10U fastpitch and is playing centerfield on our All Star team. I told her and the only other 9 yr. old (Who was our other big hitter and first baseman last year) it would help them when they got back on the infield.........appreciation but more importantly, understanding the outfield pos. and being a leader on the infield, calling coverages, cut-offs, etc. I like the same, on the diamond, we call 'em utility players- they're always the most athletic too. True, it's simple math and they don't have the numbers.
I've never played the game obviously so take my thoughts with a grain of salt. I've always read/heard that WR's have the smallest learning curve from HS to college and that's mostly because they have speed, good hands, and good moves. Learning routes is probably the most difficult. But that brings me to a belief that the most difficult adjustment for ANY player between HS and college and then the NFL is SPEED and SIZE. As for the RB's, I wouldn't suggest that a year at FB would suite them all. Reggie Bush, Joe McKnight types are just not going to be wasted (nor do they need) at the FB position. I'm thinking more of the Big Back guy who doesn't necessarily start but is maybe # 3 or 4 on the depth chart. If you've already got a speed back and a solid #2, then why not have a redshirt freshman big back play FB for a year?
