OK. Got a guy, very fast, good hands, knows the game. Do I put him in the secondary, or as a receiver? What variables weigh the decision one way or another?
Dbacks are WRs who can’t catch.
Put him at WR.
Makes sense, OTOH, maybe a dback is a receiver who can run backwards.
That’s actually an over simplified (and halfway kidding) answer. All other things being equal, his height is a contributing factor as well. Assuming this is the NFL, 6-foot is about the cutoff point (yes, I know there are exceptions). Below that, put him at DB. Above that, put him at WR.
Also, for whatever reason, the absolute speed demons usually wind up at DB instead of WR. That may be a correlation with their height, though. I’ve never seen data to back that up.
I came to give mouthbreather first answer.
I’ve heard that, generally speaking, coaches will put their best athletes on defense.
If you’re stacking your defense with the best athletes, go with d-back. The good hands will help with interceptions, hopefully leading to points off turnovers.
As an example, this year Nebraska is winning largely due to defense. I wouldn’t be surprised if the defense is scoring more points than the offense. The offense is just there to not turn over the ball by rushing repeatedly and to give the defense a breather by chewing up the clock as much as possible.
The opposite is usually true. The schoolyard rule of thumb is that the best athlete plays QB, unless he just can’t throw at all, in which case he plays RB; there are many, many, many guys who played QB or RB in high school, then moved on to other positions when they moved to college, and a smaller number that make that switch moving to the pros. It’s virtually unheard of for a guy to move to QB or RB from another position.
The same is true, thouugh to a lesser extent, with WRs. There’s a lot more guys that move from WR to DB when they move up to a higher level of competition than vice versa. I think that’s pretty telling, as is the fact that Mouthbreather’s comment is pretty much a football cliche.
But as The Controvert points out, a lot of it depends on the system. At a place like Nebraska, where they only plan on throwing the ball 10-12 times a game, it’s a waste to put that awesome player on offense, where he will only rarely get a chance to use those hands and speed; so they’d likely make him a DB. OTOH, at my school (UCF), we throw 40 passes a game and need many good WRs.
Last thing: DBs have to be tougher and willing/able to take on blockers and ballcarriers bigger than themselves. If the guy is a bit of a wuss, it’s less of a liability at WR.
What level are you playing at?
If it’s high school, stick him at both. It’ll build character.
Also, to play WR, he’s gotta be able to run routes correctly. Some people just can’t master this.
Neurotik makes a good point: lots of high school players go both ways, unless they’re either a quarterback or playing at a large high school. In high school, I played both ways (o-line and d-line).
If you’re at college level and above, it’s almost unheard of for anyone to play both offense and defense. Sure, there are exeptions to this, but they’re very rare.
But perhaps the biggest question: what does the kid WANT to play? If he’s got his heart set on being a receiver, he won’t be nearly as happy playing D-back, especially if he sees someone that’s not as talented as he is playing ‘his’ reciever position.
If the kid honestly doesn’t care where he plays, place him wherever you think he’d have the biggest impact on the team. If you’ve got a high-powered passing offense, obviously you need him at receiver; if you’re a run-oriented team, you’d probably be better off with him primarily at d-back (and maybe running receiver in passing situations).
Just the $.02 of someone who’s been playing organized football for 13 years.
Let’s not forget safeties. They tend to be taller than corners. This is especially true for strong safeties, who are usually glorified linebackers, and frequently go 6-2 and over. And to my mind, in the high school game, a good strong or free safety probably has as much or more affect on a game as WRs.
In my opinion, the principal attributes of a DB are quickness, speed (which is actually less important than quickness), a willingness to hit, and a short memory (DBs are the last line of defense, and when they get beaten, they have to be able to forget it quickly and get back out there and play).
Knowing the game is probably more helpful for a DB, who has to see the play developing, react quickly, and get to the right spot to stop the play. On the other hand, WRs are generally told exactly what to do, and the ability to improvise is limited to open-field running, which should happen relatively infrequently.
Good hands are more important to a WR. Of course, good hands are also important for a DB, but more important is the ability to wrap up and open-field tackle with those hands.
Regardless, since I’m guessing you’re not a college or professional coach, I think you ought to run it by the kid. But as a former DB (I played every secondary position from the 7th grade through college), I’m kinda partial to them. I’ve always said that the best athletes on the field are the DBs – they don’t know where the receivers and RBs are going, but they have to beat them to that spot anyways.
If he is a really good athlete, I see no reason you can’t at least practice him at both spots and see how he turns out. Just my two pesos.
How’s his footwork? How much does he squat? How good an open-field tackler is he? Is he better at hitting or taking a hit? What is his mental approach to the game? What does he want to be?
He could have the best WR skills of anyone in the county, but if he doesn’t want to be one, good luck getting him to play, let alone with heart. And similarly for DB.
How quick is he? If he’s just fast, stick him at WR. If he’s also quick, DB will let him take advantage of that. If he’s equal across the board, put him at DB. A good DB can remove an equally talented receiver from the game. The opposite isn’t true. I played both, but eventually was moved strictly to corner. DB is a much tougher position to play. A receiver knows where he’s going and when he’s going to make cuts. A DB not only has to be fast enough to keep up with a receiver but has to be quick enough to react to those cuts, and preferably, be a bit faster flat out to make up distance on a good move if he doesn’t want to get burned. Running at sprinting speed, a good head fake can give a receiver an instant 5 yard separation. On any given play, a receiver is running a set route while a DB has to read the entire field as well as the receiver he’s on. WR is fairly easy to play, although the great ones are great for a reason. Cornerback is a bitch and there aren’t too many that are household names. If a receiver blows a play, it’s “oh man, that could have been a TD, we’ll get em next time”. If a corner gets burned it’s usually “That just cost us 7 points/momentum/the game”. A DB has to have the mental toughness of a QB. In my opinion, besides QB, it is the most challenging position in terms of individual pressure because of that.
While I agree to an extent about putting him where he wants to be, a good player will go where he is needed with little complaint, just happy to play the game. I wanted to be a receiver. I wanted to be Lynn Swann or Fred Biletnikoff. When the coach told me that I would do more for the team, and myself, at corner, I was all over it. Personally, if I was in charge, I would love to see Terrell Owens at corner. Great receiver but with his talent and mentality, he would be an absolute menace on defense.