Patrick Mahomes didn't stick to one sport, making him a prime example for multisport youths

[Anonymous]

Haven't read all the replies to this but it should be noted that Patrick selected to play a sport that requires physical strength and speed over intelligence and decision making. His ability to still be a successful football star isn't a result of playing multiple sports, it's because he is a physically gifted athlete playing in a sport geared towards his best physical qualities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yeah, I mean you can just play football, baseball, and basketball, and then become a great center midfielder at the college level just b/c of your well rounded athletic ability.

Ah, you misunderstand. No one is saying that either (unless you’re Bo Jackson). Soccer is no more difficult to learn than basketball or hockey or lacrosse or football etc. that was my actual point.

Do you actually think manipulating an object using feet is as easy as using hands?

They also think learning how to ice skate in order to play hockey would be easy too.

Yeah, kicking a ball is so much harder than manipulating a small puck on ice with a long stick while on ice skates, and also learning strategic team play, etc. LOL.

You have some reading comprehension issue. A PP posted the following:

"Ah, you misunderstand. No one is saying that either (unless you’re Bo Jackson). Soccer is no more difficult to learn than basketball or hockey or lacrosse or football etc. that was my actual point."

THEIR argument is that soccer, basketball, hockey, lacrosse and football are all just as easy to pick up in 9th grade and excel in them.

No, my point is that soccer is no more or less hard than those other sports to learn. They all have their challenges. I will say that trying to play a sport while ice skating if you’ve never skated would be quite hard. Most people have run, walked, and jumped before ... so the PP making the point about hockey is spot on. As far as b-ball, soccer, tennis, golf, and baseball I played them all. I was the best at soccer and the worst at golf. I found soccer extremely easy and intuitive to learn (along with b-ball). Unfortunately, I am not tall so as I got older bballl was tougher for me to excel in. Just the result of the basket being 10 ft in the air. Soccer I did not need to be tall, but I did need to be fast, have strength and endurance, and be smart. I could dribble a b-ball and soccer ball both very well. Making a pk was easier than making a free throw. Much larger target and most GKs have no chance anyhow. Splitting a defense with a thru ball or executing a pick and roll were both easy enough to learn. Anyhow ... my point was around some of the posters talking about how hard it is to learn and be good at soccer. That was not my experience. As far as focusing in on one sport vs. many, obviously the more you practice one thing the better you’ll get at it. But, mixing in at least one other sport (maybe not as intensely) is good to prevent burnout and typically lowers injury rates due to use of different muscle groups.

Chess is easy to learn to play too.

Yes, someone can start and learn to play soccer at 15 but they will not be good at it. A kid starting soccer at 15 would not stand much of a chance making an elite soccer team unless their athletic attributes were far and away above anything the coach has seen. This player might be taken on as a project but the player will be light years behind in technical ability.

I have seen these types of players before and they almost never work out. Their shortcomings never make up for their athletic abilities and they either turn into liabilities or are simply not effective.

And soccer is different than your example of basketball. All your skill will not make you taller. In soccer, all your speed will not make you good with the ball at your feet.

I agree there are so several examples of just super tall players becoming NBA players and never really have played before.

[Anonymous]

I believe that hockey is a sport similar to soccer where you have to be all in as well. You just can't pick up hockey at 15. Learning to skate. Stick handling. Shooting. The tactics. The speed of play. The physicality. Holy crap. As for tackle football...QB may be difficult, but other than that, you just have to learn your position and be a big, strong a athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all the replies to this but it should be noted that Patrick selected to play a sport that requires physical strength and speed over intelligence and decision making. His ability to still be a successful football star isn't a result of playing multiple sports, it's because he is a physically gifted athlete playing in a sport geared towards his best physical qualities.

I don’t think you appreciate how racist you sound. Also he’s a quarterback, which requires intelligence and decision making

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all the replies to this but it should be noted that Patrick selected to play a sport that requires physical strength and speed over intelligence and decision making. His ability to still be a successful football star isn't a result of playing multiple sports, it's because he is a physically gifted athlete playing in a sport geared towards his best physical qualities.

This post confirms how clueless posters are that have never played other sports, including football. You actually think playing QB doesn’t take sports
Intelligence. Wow. Possibly the dumbest comment I’ve ever read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yeah, I mean you can just play football, baseball, and basketball, and then become a great center midfielder at the college level just b/c of your well rounded athletic ability.

Ah, you misunderstand. No one is saying that either (unless you’re Bo Jackson). Soccer is no more difficult to learn than basketball or hockey or lacrosse or football etc. that was my actual point.

Do you actually think manipulating an object using feet is as easy as using hands?

They also think learning how to ice skate in order to play hockey would be easy too.

Yeah, kicking a ball is so much harder than manipulating a small puck on ice with a long stick while on ice skates, and also learning strategic team play, etc. LOL.

You have some reading comprehension issue. A PP posted the following:

"Ah, you misunderstand. No one is saying that either (unless you’re Bo Jackson). Soccer is no more difficult to learn than basketball or hockey or lacrosse or football etc. that was my actual point."

THEIR argument is that soccer, basketball, hockey, lacrosse and football are all just as easy to pick up in 9th grade and excel in them.

No, my point is that soccer is no more or less hard than those other sports to learn. They all have their challenges. I will say that trying to play a sport while ice skating if you’ve never skated would be quite hard. Most people have run, walked, and jumped before ... so the PP making the point about hockey is spot on. As far as b-ball, soccer, tennis, golf, and baseball I played them all. I was the best at soccer and the worst at golf. I found soccer extremely easy and intuitive to learn (along with b-ball). Unfortunately, I am not tall so as I got older bballl was tougher for me to excel in. Just the result of the basket being 10 ft in the air. Soccer I did not need to be tall, but I did need to be fast, have strength and endurance, and be smart. I could dribble a b-ball and soccer ball both very well. Making a pk was easier than making a free throw. Much larger target and most GKs have no chance anyhow. Splitting a defense with a thru ball or executing a pick and roll were both easy enough to learn. Anyhow ... my point was around some of the posters talking about how hard it is to learn and be good at soccer. That was not my experience. As far as focusing in on one sport vs. many, obviously the more you practice one thing the better you’ll get at it. But, mixing in at least one other sport (maybe not as intensely) is good to prevent burnout and typically lowers injury rates due to use of different muscle groups.

Chess is easy to learn to play too.

Yes, someone can start and learn to play soccer at 15 but they will not be good at it. A kid starting soccer at 15 would not stand much of a chance making an elite soccer team unless their athletic attributes were far and away above anything the coach has seen. This player might be taken on as a project but the player will be light years behind in technical ability.

I have seen these types of players before and they almost never work out. Their shortcomings never make up for their athletic abilities and they either turn into liabilities or are simply not effective.

And soccer is different than your example of basketball. All your skill will not make you taller. In soccer, all your speed will not make you good with the ball at your feet.

It’s not different. Here’s what I know from actually playing competitive soccer. I loved marking slow guys that were skillful. It was cake. Contain and let them waste time making useless moves. Meanwhile they slowed the game down and let the defense get their shape. Fast guys were so much harder to mark. Fast guys with skills, nearly impossible. Exact same thing in basketball. Speed and quickness kills. In ALL team sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yeah, I mean you can just play football, baseball, and basketball, and then become a great center midfielder at the college level just b/c of your well rounded athletic ability.

Ah, you misunderstand. No one is saying that either (unless you’re Bo Jackson). Soccer is no more difficult to learn than basketball or hockey or lacrosse or football etc. that was my actual point.

Do you actually think manipulating an object using feet is as easy as using hands?

They also think learning how to ice skate in order to play hockey would be easy too.

Yeah, kicking a ball is so much harder than manipulating a small puck on ice with a long stick while on ice skates, and also learning strategic team play, etc. LOL.

You have some reading comprehension issue. A PP posted the following:

"Ah, you misunderstand. No one is saying that either (unless you’re Bo Jackson). Soccer is no more difficult to learn than basketball or hockey or lacrosse or football etc. that was my actual point."

THEIR argument is that soccer, basketball, hockey, lacrosse and football are all just as easy to pick up in 9th grade and excel in them.

No, my point is that soccer is no more or less hard than those other sports to learn. They all have their challenges. I will say that trying to play a sport while ice skating if you’ve never skated would be quite hard. Most people have run, walked, and jumped before ... so the PP making the point about hockey is spot on. As far as b-ball, soccer, tennis, golf, and baseball I played them all. I was the best at soccer and the worst at golf. I found soccer extremely easy and intuitive to learn (along with b-ball). Unfortunately, I am not tall so as I got older bballl was tougher for me to excel in. Just the result of the basket being 10 ft in the air. Soccer I did not need to be tall, but I did need to be fast, have strength and endurance, and be smart. I could dribble a b-ball and soccer ball both very well. Making a pk was easier than making a free throw. Much larger target and most GKs have no chance anyhow. Splitting a defense with a thru ball or executing a pick and roll were both easy enough to learn. Anyhow ... my point was around some of the posters talking about how hard it is to learn and be good at soccer. That was not my experience. As far as focusing in on one sport vs. many, obviously the more you practice one thing the better you’ll get at it. But, mixing in at least one other sport (maybe not as intensely) is good to prevent burnout and typically lowers injury rates due to use of different muscle groups.

Chess is easy to learn to play too.

Yes, someone can start and learn to play soccer at 15 but they will not be good at it. A kid starting soccer at 15 would not stand much of a chance making an elite soccer team unless their athletic attributes were far and away above anything the coach has seen. This player might be taken on as a project but the player will be light years behind in technical ability.

I have seen these types of players before and they almost never work out. Their shortcomings never make up for their athletic abilities and they either turn into liabilities or are simply not effective.

And soccer is different than your example of basketball. All your skill will not make you taller. In soccer, all your speed will not make you good with the ball at your feet.

It’s not different. Here’s what I know from actually playing competitive soccer. I loved marking slow guys that were skillful. It was cake. Contain and let them waste time making useless moves. Meanwhile they slowed the game down and let the defense get their shape. Fast guys were so much harder to mark. Fast guys with skills, nearly impossible. Exact same thing in basketball. Speed and quickness kills. In ALL team sports.

Only if you can actually do something with the ball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yeah, I mean you can just play football, baseball, and basketball, and then become a great center midfielder at the college level just b/c of your well rounded athletic ability.

Ah, you misunderstand. No one is saying that either (unless you’re Bo Jackson). Soccer is no more difficult to learn than basketball or hockey or lacrosse or football etc. that was my actual point.

Do you actually think manipulating an object using feet is as easy as using hands?

They also think learning how to ice skate in order to play hockey would be easy too.

Yeah, kicking a ball is so much harder than manipulating a small puck on ice with a long stick while on ice skates, and also learning strategic team play, etc. LOL.

You have some reading comprehension issue. A PP posted the following:

"Ah, you misunderstand. No one is saying that either (unless you’re Bo Jackson). Soccer is no more difficult to learn than basketball or hockey or lacrosse or football etc. that was my actual point."

THEIR argument is that soccer, basketball, hockey, lacrosse and football are all just as easy to pick up in 9th grade and excel in them.

No, my point is that soccer is no more or less hard than those other sports to learn. They all have their challenges. I will say that trying to play a sport while ice skating if you’ve never skated would be quite hard. Most people have run, walked, and jumped before ... so the PP making the point about hockey is spot on. As far as b-ball, soccer, tennis, golf, and baseball I played them all. I was the best at soccer and the worst at golf. I found soccer extremely easy and intuitive to learn (along with b-ball). Unfortunately, I am not tall so as I got older bballl was tougher for me to excel in. Just the result of the basket being 10 ft in the air. Soccer I did not need to be tall, but I did need to be fast, have strength and endurance, and be smart. I could dribble a b-ball and soccer ball both very well. Making a pk was easier than making a free throw. Much larger target and most GKs have no chance anyhow. Splitting a defense with a thru ball or executing a pick and roll were both easy enough to learn. Anyhow ... my point was around some of the posters talking about how hard it is to learn and be good at soccer. That was not my experience. As far as focusing in on one sport vs. many, obviously the more you practice one thing the better you’ll get at it. But, mixing in at least one other sport (maybe not as intensely) is good to prevent burnout and typically lowers injury rates due to use of different muscle groups.

Chess is easy to learn to play too.

Yes, someone can start and learn to play soccer at 15 but they will not be good at it. A kid starting soccer at 15 would not stand much of a chance making an elite soccer team unless their athletic attributes were far and away above anything the coach has seen. This player might be taken on as a project but the player will be light years behind in technical ability.

I have seen these types of players before and they almost never work out. Their shortcomings never make up for their athletic abilities and they either turn into liabilities or are simply not effective.

And soccer is different than your example of basketball. All your skill will not make you taller. In soccer, all your speed will not make you good with the ball at your feet.

It’s not different. Here’s what I know from actually playing competitive soccer. I loved marking slow guys that were skillful. It was cake. Contain and let them waste time making useless moves. Meanwhile they slowed the game down and let the defense get their shape. Fast guys were so much harder to mark. Fast guys with skills, nearly impossible. Exact same thing in basketball. Speed and quickness kills. In ALL team sports.

SLOW guys, sure to some extent. I see that especially on thos who want to always do the same moves, like always a step over or maradona. Even their moves are slow and predictable. But a player of average speed with QUICK moves even though his pace is average will expose you.

On the opposite side, I have seen several players make high level teams that are fast, like a couple are exceptionally fast. But their first touch and ball skills are rec level and they just squander chance after chance because when the ball bounces off you 5 feet, even though you are faster than a defender, the more skillful defender can and does take it from you.

[Anonymous]

On the last two posts: of course. There has to be a good level of skill. It is not an either / or supposition. But all other things being equal, including skill, speed kills. And, I’d take someone with slightly less skill but more athleticism and I’d take someone with slightly less skill and more intelligence. But, at a minimum they can’t be incompetently skilled. That’s a given.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all the replies to this but it should be noted that Patrick selected to play a sport that requires physical strength and speed over intelligence and decision making. His ability to still be a successful football star isn't a result of playing multiple sports, it's because he is a physically gifted athlete playing in a sport geared towards his best physical qualities.

This post confirms how clueless posters are that have never played other sports, including football. You actually think playing QB doesn’t take sports
Intelligence. Wow. Possibly the dumbest comment I’ve ever read.

+1

In some ways, more difficult to play than soccer. In addition to needing to make the right split second decision, the incentive to make decisions quickly comes in the form of one or more large bodies nailing you into the hard ground. There's no soccer analog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On the last two posts: of course. There has to be a good level of skill. It is not an either / or supposition. But all other things being equal, including skill, speed kills. And, I’d take someone with slightly less skill but more athleticism and I’d take someone with slightly less skill and more intelligence. But, at a minimum they can’t be incompetently skilled. That’s a given.

No, the argument is about can a person pick up soccer in 9th grade, like football and excel? It is not uncommon for players first organized football experience to be in 9th grade and great athletes can excel at football. Can the same be done in soccer? Is, playing multiple sports and being very athletic enough for a player to start soccer in 9th grade and excel and even become elite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the last two posts: of course. There has to be a good level of skill. It is not an either / or supposition. But all other things being equal, including skill, speed kills. And, I’d take someone with slightly less skill but more athleticism and I’d take someone with slightly less skill and more intelligence. But, at a minimum they can’t be incompetently skilled. That’s a given.

No, the argument is about can a person pick up soccer in 9th grade, like football and excel? It is not uncommon for players first organized football experience to be in 9th grade and great athletes can excel at football. Can the same be done in soccer? Is, playing multiple sports and being very athletic enough for a player to start soccer in 9th grade and excel and even become elite?

Yes, I believe they can, especially if they’ve been playing other similar high movement team sports like b-ball, lacrosse, or hockey. Obviously, they will have to train hard at the foot skills piece to catch up / become competent. Just like a 9th grade football player has to train hard at reading defenses / reading offensive scheme, strength and speed training, tackling, play books, blocking, foot work in traffic, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yeah, I mean you can just play football, baseball, and basketball, and then become a great center midfielder at the college level just b/c of your well rounded athletic ability.

Ah, you misunderstand. No one is saying that either (unless you’re Bo Jackson). Soccer is no more difficult to learn than basketball or hockey or lacrosse or football etc. that was my actual point.

Do you actually think manipulating an object using feet is as easy as using hands?

They also think learning how to ice skate in order to play hockey would be easy too.

Yeah, kicking a ball is so much harder than manipulating a small puck on ice with a long stick while on ice skates, and also learning strategic team play, etc. LOL.

You have some reading comprehension issue. A PP posted the following:

"Ah, you misunderstand. No one is saying that either (unless you’re Bo Jackson). Soccer is no more difficult to learn than basketball or hockey or lacrosse or football etc. that was my actual point."

THEIR argument is that soccer, basketball, hockey, lacrosse and football are all just as easy to pick up in 9th grade and excel in them.

No, my point is that soccer is no more or less hard than those other sports to learn. They all have their challenges. I will say that trying to play a sport while ice skating if you’ve never skated would be quite hard. Most people have run, walked, and jumped before ... so the PP making the point about hockey is spot on. As far as b-ball, soccer, tennis, golf, and baseball I played them all. I was the best at soccer and the worst at golf. I found soccer extremely easy and intuitive to learn (along with b-ball). Unfortunately, I am not tall so as I got older bballl was tougher for me to excel in. Just the result of the basket being 10 ft in the air. Soccer I did not need to be tall, but I did need to be fast, have strength and endurance, and be smart. I could dribble a b-ball and soccer ball both very well. Making a pk was easier than making a free throw. Much larger target and most GKs have no chance anyhow. Splitting a defense with a thru ball or executing a pick and roll were both easy enough to learn. Anyhow ... my point was around some of the posters talking about how hard it is to learn and be good at soccer. That was not my experience. As far as focusing in on one sport vs. many, obviously the more you practice one thing the better you’ll get at it. But, mixing in at least one other sport (maybe not as intensely) is good to prevent burnout and typically lowers injury rates due to use of different muscle groups.

Chess is easy to learn to play too.

Yes, someone can start and learn to play soccer at 15 but they will not be good at it. A kid starting soccer at 15 would not stand much of a chance making an elite soccer team unless their athletic attributes were far and away above anything the coach has seen. This player might be taken on as a project but the player will be light years behind in technical ability.

I have seen these types of players before and they almost never work out. Their shortcomings never make up for their athletic abilities and they either turn into liabilities or are simply not effective.

And soccer is different than your example of basketball. All your skill will not make you taller. In soccer, all your speed will not make you good with the ball at your feet.

It’s not different. Here’s what I know from actually playing competitive soccer. I loved marking slow guys that were skillful. It was cake. Contain and let them waste time making useless moves. Meanwhile they slowed the game down and let the defense get their shape. Fast guys were so much harder to mark. Fast guys with skills, nearly impossible. Exact same thing in basketball. Speed and quickness kills. In ALL team sports.

A slower skilled player can destroy defenses. They take space, dribble to slow the game, hold the ball or pass to speed up the game. They would have you running with your face to goal in no time. Mark Riquelme, Rivaldo, Figo and Zidane for half a game and get back to me on how easy it is to mark a slower skilled player. Hell I would bet you in your prime would have all kinds of problems with Wayne Rooney in his current form and he is not even considered a skilled player. Some of the best offensive mids in the world are not the fastest. They have average speed.

If you as a defender are having no problems with a “skilled” player chances are they are not skilled. At a certain level everyone can do a crossover, etc. This does not make them skilled. When a truly skilled player runs at you with ball glued to his/her feet, you will be back peddling in fear. They will tear through tight spaces and be where they wanted to be with you on their backside. Most importantly they will not dribble but pass before the defense can regain the shape. What you are described is not a skilled slow player but a player with slow speed of play/recognition.

The thing in team sports is the connector. The player who see the field three passes ahead and has the skill to make the connections. This can be the point guard, QB or midfielder and they do not have to be fast. You surround them with fast players.

Pure speed and absolute, linear speed has limited value on the soccer field. The way a player coordinates themselves on the ball is very different off the ball and many fast people are slow with the ball.

I was once told by a women's college coach that he was searching for fast players- he said 'all the fancy footwork stuff, I can teach them'- i argued that he could not because its extremely hard to teach older players. There are speed ladders, speed gyms, speed parachutes, speed shoes -the list is endless. When you hear a coach asking for fast athletic players then you know they wont be teaching much technique or tactical understanding to their players. You can count on one hand the amount of players who have successfully made the transition from track star to soccer star, and this transition was made in their early teenage years and only in extremely rare circumstances. If speed did have its place in soccer, then Olympic track athletes could be converted into soccer players and we all know this is impossible in the same way that Michael Jordan wast fast and big but would be lost on the soccer field and would need at least 10-15 years of basic technical training and years of playing to understand movement and how to read the game. He would have needed to start playing at a young age to become a decent player and even then he would have needed someone to prioritize technical and tactical development over physical. Being an 'athlete', in the context of Jordan, implies that he is capable of excelling in all sports. In the right environment, perhaps he would have made a fine professional soccer player but the development would have needed to start between 6-8 years of age and this doesnt include the desire and dream to become one, the first ingredient an athlete needs to become a high level player.

https://www.psvunion.org/page/show/468863-speed-and-soccer-the-myth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the last two posts: of course. There has to be a good level of skill. It is not an either / or supposition. But all other things being equal, including skill, speed kills. And, I’d take someone with slightly less skill but more athleticism and I’d take someone with slightly less skill and more intelligence. But, at a minimum they can’t be incompetently skilled. That’s a given.

No, the argument is about can a person pick up soccer in 9th grade, like football and excel? It is not uncommon for players first organized football experience to be in 9th grade and great athletes can excel at football. Can the same be done in soccer? Is, playing multiple sports and being very athletic enough for a player to start soccer in 9th grade and excel and even become elite?

Yes, I believe they can, especially if they’ve been playing other similar high movement team sports like b-ball, lacrosse, or hockey. Obviously, they will have to train hard at the foot skills piece to catch up / become competent. Just like a 9th grade football player has to train hard at reading defenses / reading offensive scheme, strength and speed training, tackling, play books, blocking, foot work in traffic, etc.

I kind of admire your confidence in continuing to post this theory when it’s clear you know zip about high level soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the last two posts: of course. There has to be a good level of skill. It is not an either / or supposition. But all other things being equal, including skill, speed kills. And, I’d take someone with slightly less skill but more athleticism and I’d take someone with slightly less skill and more intelligence. But, at a minimum they can’t be incompetently skilled. That’s a given.

No, the argument is about can a person pick up soccer in 9th grade, like football and excel? It is not uncommon for players first organized football experience to be in 9th grade and great athletes can excel at football. Can the same be done in soccer? Is, playing multiple sports and being very athletic enough for a player to start soccer in 9th grade and excel and even become elite?

Yes, I believe they can, especially if they’ve been playing other similar high movement team sports like b-ball, lacrosse, or hockey. Obviously, they will have to train hard at the foot skills piece to catch up / become competent. Just like a 9th grade football player has to train hard at reading defenses / reading offensive scheme, strength and speed training, tackling, play books, blocking, foot work in traffic, etc.

Competent is not high level or elite.