Knowing that our football team is (overall) relatively young, and searching for another reason to be optimistic regarding our chances to compete for a Big Ten championship this year...
Here is my take on what positions experience is more critical...1 to 5 *'s.
Your thoughts?
Offense:
QB: *****
RB: ***
Slot: ***
WR: **
TE: ***
C: *****
G: ****
T: ***
Defense:
NG: **
DT: ***
DE: ***
Spur: *****
OLB: ***
MLB: ****
CB: **
Bandit: ***
SS: ***
O-Line
I'd throw deep on your
I'd throw deep on your defense all day long - there's no free safety!
Your team's experience won't matter when I'm dancing in your end zone.
+1
Well played sir.
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
Bandit
Is basically the free safety, as it was explained to me...could have that wrong though.
Problem is is that there is
Problem is is that there is no Strong Safety in a 3-3-5... It's a Free Safety.
I know this is a little detail, but we DO get pretty picky on this site from time to time haha
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
There are basically three
There are basically three safety positions. Bandit, spur, and free safety.
Twitter // Recruiting Work// Email
I've never played football
I've never played football competitively, but I'd imagine Wide Receiver is harder than running back (having to learn different routes, blocking schemes, syncing with the quarterback). Also, I'd guess LT and RT are harder positions than the guards, (conjecture based on the fact that younger guys play guard and sometimes slide over to tackle as they age). I don't really know how hard the safety positions in the defense compare to one another, but I'd bet playing in the secondary is harder than playing linebacker which is harder than playing on the line.
From a mental standpoint, I
From a mental standpoint, I think playing tackle is easier than playing guard. Guards do so much more pulling, trapping, and combo blocking than tackles. When we need a substitute offensive lineman for the scout team, we almost always put the sub in at tackle - we can just tell him what to do with a few words. If we were to put that sub in at guard, the explanations would be like, "If the DT is head up on you, make a heads call. If he's outside of you, pull right and kick out the first man outside the tight end's block."
"What's a heads call?"
"Dammit, go play tackle."
Magnus, why don't you just
Magnus, why don't you just print out plays and show them pretty pictures? It saves lots of explaining.
WR needs way more stars than
WR needs way more stars than that. WRs have to know blocking schemes as well as their routes, and they have to understand the relationship of their routes to the other routes. And they have to know their routes with perfect precision. Exact numbers of steps to take, the exact cuts to make, all of that. My football-playin' roommate once said that outside of the QBs, the WRs were the guys on the whole team who had the coaches most on their case to get the playbook right.
"We've beaten Michigan the last four years. So where's the threat?"
- Mark Dantonio
Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com/<
disagree
The wide receivers have to get the playbook right because a badly run route or a flat-out incorrect route could lead to a pick 6. If a guard misses his block, it's probably going to be a loss of a few yards and maybe a fumble once in awhile.
But you see freshman wide receivers and running backs contributing all the time, because they're largely based on athleticism.
For some perspective, my team's wide receivers have no clue what goes on in the backfield. All they know is whether the QB is dropping straight back, rolling out, or giving a play action fake. Otherwise, they just have to know their routes or who to block.
Linemen have to make calls at the line, make split-second adjustments to blocking schemes, decide who to block pre-snap, know where the QB is setting up, know how the running back should cut, know where the backs are going in pass pro, etc.
At any given time, the RG should be able to tell you what the LT, LG, C, RT, FB, QB, TE, and RB are doing. All he really knows about the WRs is that they're running routes or blocking, but nothing more specific than that. Still, if you ask a WR what the LT, LG, C, RG, RT, or FB is doing, he'll probably give you a blank stare.
Ehh
I'd give the RB a 1*. I'm not saying dumb people play it, but the complexity usually boils down to "Take handoff, run left/right" or "play action" or "block". That's it. Your RB occasionally runs routes, but will usually just bubble, wheel, or go to the flat. If you're counting on your RB to go deep... maybe you should play him at WR.
I think your OL criteria will vary depending on offensive scheme. For something like Michigan's zone blocking system, all of your OL are probably on equal footing, and will usually look to the C to make calls. For something more Pro-style or I-form, your G's will need to be a bit more experienced as Magnus said, what with all the pulling and little things in execution that are the difference between crushing a DE with a pulling guard and running into your C and falling down. In this offense your GT combos and GC combos usually combine to make blocking calls as opposed to the C deciding things for the entire line.
In defense, your $/F should be pretty smart and/or experienced. They're the guys who will have to decide, (most likely keying on offensive linemen) to either come up in run support or backpedal to pass coverage within a second of the snap. If they get it wrong, Bad Things Happen.
The whole O-Line gets 5 stars for me. Running backs are dumb, you just tell them which way to run and they do it.
I base that strictly from Forrest Gump..
Football Coach: Who in the hell is that?
High School Coach: That there is Forrest Gump. Coach. Just a local idiot.
Football Coach: He must be the stupidest son-of-a-bitch alive. But he sure is fast!