You are looking at it from HS, and I can see that POV but what about learning several positions in college? That means less polishing for any one particular position and can hold back a player's development.
I'd say that is certainly a substantial adjustment, but the playbook & techniques are often quite a bit more advanced also. '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?[/QUOTE] From a coaching depth chart stand-point, there really isn't a problem with it - especially if depth is thin at FB. That is what I like about it. I don't think it works as a one year thing though. It may turn out to only be for a year, but it isn't planned to be that way. The player switches positions to somewhere he is better suited or he'll have a good chance to climb up the depth chart.
Take the best athlete available. I don't know why Rivals created the "ATH" position. Most players are ATH's, look at Early Doucet & Jai Eugune, both were QBs in High School. So how did they end up a WR & a CB on Rivals? Anyway, I like that Miles is getting top players from the ATH list. We Finished #1 in the Nation in that category last year, and we got phenomenal talent. The coaches have a good idea what position they would like recruits to play, and don't mind giving them a shot during the fall at a position they might want to try. Worked for Josh Reed the "RB". Here's an ATH who didn't do to badly at LSU: http://lsu.rivals.com/viewprospect.asp?pr_key=7221 :geauxtige
Because that's what they were recruited as, a WR & a CB specifically. There wasn't a decision to be made once they got here. They knew which positions they would play. The Athlete name doesn't just mean that the player can play multiple positions, but that he may play them in college. Generally, these guys are tried out in a couple different areas before finding a home on the college level. The bad side is that sometimes they never find one position to settle into.
That can happen to players who are recruited for a particular position, not just those recruited as athletes. Allen Bradford is a great example. He was recruited as a RB but with all our injuries at FB last year, he was asked to switch, then it didn't happen, then he considered other options, then back to RB, and now different considerations again this season. Tough on him for sure. And then I look at DJ Shoemate, on our commit list for next year. He committed (as much as you can) as a sophomore and athlete. He continues to grow and now nobody knows will it be WR, TE, LB, RB? Still a good problem to have, he's a tremendous player and someone you just want on the field.
Not at all. Athletes can play in any number of positions. And I am pretty sure when an athlete is recruited, the coaches have a position in mind for him.
Maybe it's also a case of a particular head collegiate coach already knows where he wants to use a particular recruit labeled as an "athlete", but just keeps that information to himself and his staff? Say, for instance, there's an ATH out there, but the recruit really wants to play WR. Sites like Rivals and Scout ask in interviews what he'd LIKE to play, but the recruit can't force them to list him as what he wants. Now, the recruiting process begins and he's down to a list of schools. Say 2 of those schools say, "we'll give him a shot at multiple positions and see which one he's better suited to play", but the other 3 claim that they want him as a DB. Even if all 5 programs feel he's definately better suited to play as a DB on the next level, the odds that he'll likely sign with the 2 programs that said they'll allow him to try out at WR is what might give them the distinct advantage in landing him. Now let's say he signs with one of the schools that said they'll give him a shot at WR.... They do--even if only briefly--and then tell him that they need him at DB. From the program's point of view, they kept their end of the deal--no one can claim that they were misled, and the character and integrity of the coaching staff remains intact, but in the end, they get the guy they wanted, at the position they wanted/needed.
No doubt that happens, even with players who do declare a position. One that pops up in my mind immediately is LaTerryal Savoy who ended up with Michigan and is listed as a WR- which is what he wanted to play- was also a safety in HS. LSU recruited him as a DB but they were honest about where they planned for him to play.
Also, I wonder how our coaches recruiting boards look for athletes? How do they classify them? Do they list their name under several positions? Or do they pick one position and stick them under that, but keep in the back of their mind that they could play others? I'd guess the latter. I guess there's a few key differences here that should be pointed out. There's the players that Rivals classifies as Athletes, which we may or may not be recruiting as such. Often times Rivals lists a player as an athlete when different schools are recruiting him at different positions, it doesn't mean that our coaches don't have a particular position in mind. Then there are players that we recruit as athletes and we aren't sure where we are going to play them. We just know that they are a great athlete & we want them on the team. Usually, we'll have 2 positions in mind (ex: WR or CB). Maybe we promise to give them a shot at one, but will move them to the other if they don't move up the depth chart. There's also the guys that we recruit for a certain position, like TE, where we bring them in as TE's but we know that some will move to other positions - we just don't know which ones because it depends on how each looks. Or we know that some will keep growing and naturally turn into an OT or whatever.
