Hypothetical: if you wanted to make your son the "star" of your FB team, what system would you run?

rossford_resident

Active member
In my hypothetical, he's an average athlete: 5'9", 170. Average foot speed, arm strength, etc.

I'd say - off the top of my head - put him at FB in a Wing-T or similar offense. I suppose QB in an Air Raid system might work, too.

I'm not saying "anyone" can handle either position - or that prioritizing winning games is your first consideration. Just wondering what the best chance of having him put up "counting stats" would be?
 

eagleflight

Active member
Tell your son cross country is a great sport and truly develops character. If he insists on sticking with football, he better kill it in the weightroom and maybe junior year he can be a factor. I think cross is the best option for him.
 

PeterDragon

Active member
You would put a 5'9 170 lbs kid at FB in the wing T? Sounds more like the kid who plays WR on run plays and brings plays in from the sideline.
 

dograt

Active member
I'll bite, just because I'm bored.
wing-T fullback and air raid QB are possibilities, but I'd lean toward option QB

your team means you can coach him up to make decisions.
 

eagleflight

Active member
If you spend as much time with the dictionary as he spends in the weight room - maybe you can figure out what "hypothetical" means.
I understand hypotheticals. I sincerely apologize, my reply was unkind and uncalled for. Kids that outwork others and study the game can be successful in most systems and most skilled positions. I’ve even seen a few stud 5’9 170 lb d- linemen who study their craft and use great technique to become excellent players.
 
Last edited:

rossford_resident

Active member
I'll bite, just because I'm bored.
wing-T fullback and air raid QB are possibilities, but I'd lean toward option QB

your team means you can coach him up to make decisions.
Finally, someone who understands the point of the thread.

Guess I should have started one on "best concessions in NW Ohio."

I would say Fostoria is underrated.
 

rossford_resident

Active member
If you truly understood hypotheticals then you’d answer a simple question about a hypothetical athlete. Imo I’d put him at slot receiver on a spread offense and run slants and short routes.
I thought about that, too. Kind of dependent on the QB, though - and he'd pile up numbers at a faster rate.


It seems like FB in a wing-t, assuming you have a good offensive line and other backs who worry the defense, is the way to go. Put the kid in the weight room and work with him on running hard and low.

Our biggest rival when I was in HS was a straight Delaware Wing-T team. It seemed like the FB always piled up yards, even when they had relatively down years.

I remember a story in the Blade back when Mike Vicars started winning big at Delta. He moved a kid from FB to guard after the kid ran for almost 1,000 yards because he had Nagle and Kmic coming up.
 

Fball

New member
I know of a great slot receiver with similar measurables from a few years ago. He was too small to excel at running back and didn't have the arm of a QB...but he had a knack at running the slant and bubble screen. Of course, it depends on having a good quarterback.
 

StateChampion2012

Well-known member
A hypothetical 5'9'' 170 kid would probably play in the slot in our Pro style Offense. We actually have a kid that is a little smaller than that that'll be in the slot and maybe play some running back because he'll probably be the fastest kid on the team.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
eh, most teams are at best average athletes. They're trained. Their motivated.

In my hypothetical, he's an average athlete: 5'9", 170. Average foot speed, arm strength, etc.
...

I'm not saying "anyone" can handle either position - or that prioritizing winning games is your first consideration. Just wondering what the best chance of having him put up "counting stats" would be?
The hypothetical as I understand it, though we're to be killed if we don't, doesn't care about the rest of the players. It cares about stats for coach's kid. Now the "etc" part of OP's conditions I presume means the kid is also average intelligence, discipline, motivation, character.

It's the last two that kill the deal. There's no scheme that will help that kid become the star. He won't remember plays. He'll commit penalties. He'll quit. Only letting worse kids make the team is what OP is looking for, for his, uh, the coach's kid.
 
Last edited:

HighSchoolFB45

Well-known member
You would put a 5'9 170 lbs kid at FB in the wing T? Sounds more like the kid who plays WR on run plays and brings plays in from the sideline.
Wapak had a 5’9” 170 kid who was 3rd-team All Ohio at running back in the wing-t in 2015. We actually had a kid who was 5’4” 140 that was special mention All Ohio that played running back but he got the accolades from playing corner. No lie. If you looks up the kids Hudl it’ll say he’s 5’8” but seeing him in real life he is 5’5” at best
 

dhsdog06

Well-known member
I definitely get the image of either the little, scrappy slot receiver (Wes Welker type) OR the little speed demon who just outruns everyone. Either way, it's wide receiver. Although as said, that's reliant on a good QB who can get him the ball.

For the purpose of the hypothetical: RB of some kind or option QB.
 

rossford_resident

Active member
Wapak had a 5’9” 170 kid who was 3rd-team All Ohio at running back in the wing-t in 2015. We actually had a kid who was 5’4” 140 that was special mention All Ohio that played running back but he got the accolades from playing corner. No lie. If you looks up the kids Hudl it’ll say he’s 5’8” but seeing him in real life he is 5’5” at best
When I was in HS in Northern Michigan the best team in our league had a 43 game winning streak with FBs ranging from 6'3" and about 230lbs to 5'6" and 150 lbs. Their coach ended up taking over a downtrodden D III college program at the end of his career when no one else wanted the job and finishing in the Top 5 in rushing offense for a few years running the same system.
 

rossford_resident

Active member
Or maybe you can figure out that you are totally transparent and there is absolutely nothing hypothetical about this. Jesus Lord, helicopter dad.
Nope. Four boys. Oldest played baseball. 2nd oldest stopped playing competitive sports at 13. One will be a senior who's played soccer for four years (assuming there's a season). The youngest plays baseball and place kicks.

Would have loved it if they played, but none of them were ever really interested.

As I said - a hypothetical question. Maybe worded poorly, but the general idea is what offensive system can produce the most "counting stats" at a position without putting the most talented athlete on the team there. It was inspired by a kid from Imlay City, MI named Rick Granata who was the all-time leading rusher in the state (and may still be) and was a walk-on at Eastern Michigan. Wing-T fullback.
 

Egret

Well-known member
My son played baseball and soccer too down here. Wouldn't have traded it for anything. I strongly advised against playing football. STRONGLY.
 

The Dock

Well-known member
When I was in HS in Northern Michigan the best team in our league had a 43 game winning streak with FBs ranging from 6'3" and about 230lbs to 5'6" and 150 lbs. Their coach ended up taking over a downtrodden D III college program at the end of his career when no one else wanted the job and finishing in the Top 5 in rushing offense for a few years running the same system.
Is this Olivet College?
 

OUcats82

Well-known member
I thought about that, too. Kind of dependent on the QB, though - and he'd pile up numbers at a faster rate.


It seems like FB in a wing-t, assuming you have a good offensive line and other backs who worry the defense, is the way to go. Put the kid in the weight room and work with him on running hard and low.

Our biggest rival when I was in HS was a straight Delaware Wing-T team. It seemed like the FB always piled up yards, even when they had relatively down years.

I remember a story in the Blade back when Mike Vicars started winning big at Delta. He moved a kid from FB to guard after the kid ran for almost 1,000 yards because he had Nagle and Kmic coming up.
Kmic was fun to watch at Mt. Union. Went with a friend to see the D3 National Championship down in VA and IIRC he had a nice game that day.
 

covidsucks

Moderated User
This may be the dumbest thread I've ever seen. Football is a team sport. There is no one player that is more important than another.
 

D4fan

Well-known member
Seen a few kids of this size perform very well as a defensive end. One kid I am thinking of in particular was a cross country runner who as a freshman got bored with the sport and went to football. Was a two way player tight end and defensive end. All conference first team senior season. Primary stats though were mostly tackles on defense and after his junior season most teams ran away from him, making stats very difficult to build his senior year.
 
The premise of your question needs to be questioned! No player with average skill levels and physical ability will be the "STAR" of their team. By definition half of the players on the team will be better than this player.

And if a coach tries to make the average player the star, he should be fired!

Now, if you mean as an incoming freshman he is average, then I would say at 5'9, 170 he could develop into a solid DLineman. In certain systems, If he was well above average in some respects (toughness, strength, intelligence, hand, etc.) then he could flourish if he develops that skill and the system values that skill.

Even at the smallest of schools, no one who is 5'9.m 170 and average in foot speed, arm strength, etc, will ever be a star. Unless your team is really, really bad!

Just my 2 cents
 

D4fan

Well-known member
The premise of your question needs to be questioned! No player with average skill levels and physical ability will be the "STAR" of their team. By definition half of the players on the team will be better than this player.

And if a coach tries to make the average player the star, he should be fired!

Now, if you mean as an incoming freshman he is average, then I would say at 5'9, 170 he could develop into a solid DLineman. In certain systems, If he was well above average in some respects (toughness, strength, intelligence, hand, etc.) then he could flourish if he develops that skill and the system values that skill.

Even at the smallest of schools, no one who is 5'9.m 170 and average in foot speed, arm strength, etc, will ever be a star. Unless your team is really, really bad!

Just my 2 cents
I disagree. "Star" may not be the correct word, but I think the question was where can that kid be placed to be impactful for the team? Safety is out due to lack of speed. Linebacker is out due to size and speed and nearly every line position as well. Slot receiver, tight end, defensive end and option QB are likely best options in my opinion. Fullback, doubt it.

Every once in awhile you will find a 170 lbs kid who is incredibly strong for their size, like bench press of 240, squat 400. That kid may do fine on the line or as a lead blocker if he can stay low enough not to get blown up by a real player.

Where I agree with you is such a player will have a hard time putting up meaningful stats being average speed and underweight. So star of team, not real likely.
 
.
Top