You should see some of these high school's stadiums.... Unreal.
2025 NFL Draft
- Thread starter SolterraCyclone
- Start date
Are you saying it's a disadvantage to have that kind of training in high school?
I think he's saying it could make them peak athletically sooner than players from smaller states, like Iowa. You get a guy from Texas and he's already filled out strength wise and may not improve much. You get a guy from Iowa and after a couple years in a college weight room he improves a ton. The Iowa kid has more room for growth than the guy from a big school in Texas. Not saying it's correct, but that's the hypothesis.
In my opinion, yes. My kid is just starting football in Ankeny. The amount of training that begins this summer on one hand is really good. I am happy he has goals he needs to achieve this summer. On the other hand he has to be fully committed. Meaning we as a family has to be fully committed. No family vacations that conflict with training, no work that conflicts with training, no excuses for not being at training. If he, or we, can't do that, well, there's the door. That's just too much (and such b.s. in my opinion).
A friend of mine has a son who is a sophomore and plays basketball. His boy has big programs sniffing around and he was told if he wants a shot he needs to play in high AAU tournaments from here on out. Tournaments that will take him all over the country, and he will need to quit his other activities and focus 100 percent on basketball. He is really reluctant to do so, because he loves to play golf and wants to golf with his friends this summer. If he chooses basketball all that ends. I think that is too much to ask. The kids just wants to be a kid, and I think forcing him to play basketball will not be healthy for him.
That's a whole separate argument that I don't disagree with, but for the kids that are getting a head start on serious training, are going to play in college, and do want to invest the time, I don't see how it could be a disadvantage for them compared to kids that don't have that.
As a parent, who has coached and watches my own son, go on to compete in college. Be wary of the people and programs selling you this idea. If your kid is a D1 level athlete, you will know it when you see it, and everyone else will too. If he is borderline, he will have to work harder, no doubt, but excessive training, is not always the answer.
I am not saying your kid should not compete in high level AAU and train hard, but this is a long road, and the kid has to enjoy what he is doing, or he will never survive when he gets to college. Just my 2 cents, others can feel free to disagree.
I think people are greatly underestimating the training/nutrition resources available in a P4 program. Even the high schools in Texas aren’t coming close to that.
Basketball is similar to soccer and hockey where your high school performance actually doesn’t matter nearly as much as the travel squads.
The level of competition just is on another level and that’s how players get evaluated best in the modern era.
Some "smoke" about Higgins going to the Texans at #34. Guess we shall see....
We have driven by the one in Allen Tx a couple of times, what they have for facilities are better than Central and Simpson are playing on.
That is what I am saying exactly, less chance for growth when a kid has been in some of these Texas type programs for years in high school compared to an Iowa kid.
Unless it somehow limits or stunts their growth then they’re just growing earlier, which would mean they’d be ready to play sooner at a higher level.
demoncore1031
Well-Known Member
Thibodeaux and Burns didn't exactly light it up last year. They combined for 14 sacks, which isn't bad but certainly not elite. Carter is the best player in the draft so that's a great pick. Maybe they will trade Thibodeaux or Burns?
demoncore1031
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's a weak draft. A weak QB draft, yes, but there are a lot of players that will be starters in the league, especially on the d-line.
Nobody wanted to trade up because QB is about the only position teams ever trade into the top 5 for. I don't think I would have traded up to #4 for anyone other than Ward, Hunter or Carter, and they were all off the board.
Yeah that’s really not the case and kinda backwards logic. By that standing every student that’s not working out has a higher potential for athletic growth then kids who are training.
You’re also really underestimating the amount of development resources P4 programs have
Not higher, just has not reached his peak yet. Take any player that has been lifting weights for years, and compare him to a new player that is just starting the program there is going to be less growth in the first player compared to the second.
I kind of figured it was the job of every P4 program to develop its players, but you have programs like Texas, where that was just not occurring, under Mack Brown. They had gotten lazy in their recruiting were getting high rated kids that just did not continue to improve, while kids with lesser stars became better players. UT went one year there without getting a player drafted, now how does that happen at Texas?
It started a bunch of posts ago as a question of whether the recruiting rankings have blind spots because someone posted how most kids taken last night were 4 or 5 stars. I don’t think it applies so much to the kids in the Des Moines area but I could see how the kids in the tiny rural areas are not getting the same attention and are therefore under the radar. I just looked it up out of curiosity and Cooper DeJean was a 3 star recruit. It’s reasonable to question if he would have been a 4 star recruit if he had been born in the Dallas suburbs instead of podunk Iowa.
That's true. However, I think we see a kid from Texas that is slightly ahead of an Iowa kid and assume he'll always be ahead because they'll both continue developing at the same rate. But, the theory is that the Texas kid might already be maxed out (or closer to it) and already peaked physically where as the Iowa kids are behind developmentally when they get to ISU but can end up growing into better players than the Texas kids who appeared to be better recruits only because they were further along developmentally when they were 16-17 years old.
Again, not my theory and I'm not claiming it's correct.
