|
Post by coachd5085 on May 31, 2008 17:09:31 GMT -6
I think that this would be a bigger issue if we were talking about an offensive coordinator. There are true philosophical differences there. If one guy's a Chuck-n-ducker and the other wants to run Power I that's an issue. You are probably right, but i think the "should there be more of an issue" is a valid question. Again, the premise is that the Coordinator in question is competent, trustworthy, and fully capable. If Dbl Winger inherits a staff with Tony Franklin or Andrew Coverdale, and he tells them "ok, this is how you are going to run MY system" then he is a fool, and he is doing everyone a disservice. The professional thing to do in that case is work his tail off to get those guys other jobs, and then run his precious "system" himself. (NOTE: this is not an anti dbl wing post. The same scenario could be getting a job and inherting JT curtis and saying "Ok coach, this is how MY system" than that guy is a fool too) Um, that is just a coverage change isn't it? Personally, I would start with the TWO hi safety look, because it is easier to train a kid to play downhill, than it is to take a kid used to playing LB and teach him to play with deep responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 31, 2008 18:01:57 GMT -6
flexbone, I dont understand your thinking. The whole idea of being in the coaching ranks is to be a head coach. Coach, that might be YOUR whole idea of being a the coaching ranks. Kind of foolish to think that it is EVERYONE's goal. The list of failed coaches is littered with "______" guys.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 31, 2008 18:41:55 GMT -6
that is not to say, I dont want input or for them to tinker and teach me, but They are not the ones with final say. End of discussion. That is not what you said. You said the point of being a COACH is to become a head coach. As far as calling the shots, much of that depends on the situation and resources available. Again, labeling yourself only weakens yourself...
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 31, 2008 19:47:24 GMT -6
Any other job, you do it the way the man in charge wants it.. If I own an established chain of restaurants.. and I hire YOU to manage one of my restauranst... well I will tell you.. Ok.. this is how we do this.. and how we do that.. How far do you think you would get if you come in wanting to do it your way? And the short answer to those demands would be.. get your own chain.. and you can call the shots.. Bad example, as you are describing the football equivalent of POSITION coaches, teaching the way their coordinator wants them to. In your example, the "scheme" or operations would be handled by the COO. In your case, if it is a "small" privately owned chain, then the owner is the COO. If it is a big chain, like McDonalds, then the COO makes the "scheme" decisions. No doubt that if McDonalds brought in the COO of Burger King because BK was producing a higher Operating Income, then that guy would do things "HIS" way, and not the CEO's way.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 31, 2008 21:48:12 GMT -6
Wrong! By your definition? the owner is paying the coach to make NO decisions at all that matter, he is just the figure head. What? Owner? Coach? The analogy was using restaurant management. How many owners have you been involved with in H.S football. Decisions that matter? Coach, the decision of running the olivett T vs the airraid vs the wing-t vs the single wing, vs the double wing, vs the pro I, vs the flexbone vs run and shoot....and runnign the the 3=3-5, vs the 3-5-3, vs the 5-3 vs the 50 vs the 52 vs the 34 vs the 43 vs the under vs the eagle vs the 50 shade vs split 4 vs the 44 vs the 4-3 vs the 4-2-5..... are not what separates the wheat from the chaff as evidenced by the fact that ALL WORK AGAINST ANY DEFENSE/OFFENSE. The decisions a HC makes, regaridng things such as practice tempo, camp, off season, player personnel, organizational structure, coaching staff changes, discipline, academic plans, parent relations, community relations,schedule, PROGRAM VISION, practice schedule/emphasis...THOSE are what separate the wheat from the chaff.. Coach, if I remember correctly, your answer (Under a different name..coachjerk) to several football related questions a while back was to "make them tougher". When asked how this occurs, your reply was "YOU JUST MAKE THEM" Forgive me if I don't feel you speak for the coaching community with regards to their aspirations. If that was not you making those statements, I STILL stand by my statement that you don't speak for the coaching community when it comes to aspirations.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 31, 2008 22:01:22 GMT -6
Owners=to school board or whoever hires you. Use your head. as far as the toughness issue? I never said that. I think my post are up to 2 something. I have never said anything about how to make players tougher but believe what you must. As I stated above (but edited after your comment) I thought you had made such comments under the name coachjerk. Regardless coach, the list of coaching failures is probably a lengthy list of coaches who thought being a HC meant it was now time to declare "I AM A 4-3 AND SINGLE WING GUY" You show me a coach who thinks that the key element to being a HC is "running his stuff" and I will show you a coach who A) probably won't win consistently, and B) will have problems keeping assistants. As far as "owners/schoolboard" whatever...again, they are not hiring a HC because he is a 4-3 guy..or an odd stack guy...they are hiring him because he knows how to run a program. Jack Welch didn't know how to build engine turbines (GE Industrial/Aviation), or produce television shows (NBC) or loan capital (GE finance) or build kitchen appliances...HE knew how to RUN A "PROGRAM" (General Electric)
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jun 1, 2008 0:18:08 GMT -6
Wrong! By your definition? the owner is paying the coach to make NO decisions at all that matter, he is just the figure head. Wrong again. Anybody in coaching other the feel good reasons, wants to be a HC. I don't.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jun 1, 2008 0:35:51 GMT -6
Owners=to school board or whoever hires you. Use your head. as far as the toughness issue? I never said that. I think my post are up to 2 something. I have never said anything about how to make players tougher but believe what you must. As I stated above (but edited after your comment) I thought you had made such comments under the name coachjerk. Regardless coach, the list of coaching failures is probably a lengthy list of coaches who thought being a HC meant it was now time to declare "I AM A 4-3 AND SINGLE WING GUY" You show me a coach who thinks that the key element to being a HC is "running his stuff" and I will show you a coach who A) probably won't win consistently, and B) will have problems keeping assistants. As far as "owners/schoolboard" whatever...again, they are not hiring a HC because he is a 4-3 guy..or an odd stack guy...they are hiring him because he knows how to run a program. Jack Welch didn't know how to build engine turbines (GE Industrial/Aviation), or produce television shows (NBC) or loan capital (GE finance) or build kitchen appliances...HE knew how to RUN A "PROGRAM" (General Electric) What I find interesting is that at the highest levels, where they're paid millions, you don't find this level of micromanagement. NFL coaches and 1A coaches, who have a lot at stake, trust their coordinators. HS coaches, making a stipend of maybe $4000, want to do it all. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 1, 2008 1:52:09 GMT -6
HAHHA...coach, you are defining micro managing with your descriptions. The HC who hires an OC and then hands him a playbook and says "ok, you are the coordinator" PROBABLY is MICROMANAGING.
You are right, there are reasons that people get hired as Head Coaches. That reason (especially in H.S.) is NOT because the coach is a 4-3 guru, or an airraid genius, but because of the reasons mentioned above. Those are the things that he needs to do to do his job.
The whole "run what you believe in" is utter nonsense as a head coach, UNLESS you are also an offensive coordinator. Believe in...what exactly does that mean? Coach Calande "believes" in the dbl wing. Does this mean that the Run and Shoot doesn't work? Airraider..obviously believes in the airraid. Does this mean that the flexbone does not work?
The head coach is not doing his job if he is not putting his players in the best position to win. If this means that someone else as a coordinator, and that someone else has a different methodology for moving the football, or stopping the other team, then the coach IS NOT DOING HIS JOB if he handcuffs the new guy, because he is a "3-3-5" guy, and not a 4-3 guy.
This all comes down to a definition of coaching. Some think Head coaching means setting a vision for the program, overseeing the development of coaches and players on and off the field, organizing and delegating tasks and responsibilities and so forth. Other's think Head Coaching means implementing "their" favorite x's and o's...
|
|
nannother
Sophomore Member
GREATEST RB EVER
Posts: 122
|
Post by nannother on Jun 1, 2008 2:36:02 GMT -6
Wrong! By your definition? the owner is paying the coach to make NO decisions at all that matter, he is just the figure head. Wrong again. Anybody in coaching other the feel good reasons, wants to be a HC. My entire life was changed because a coach took the time to work with a misguided young man and gave him a purpose. It is the sole reason why I coach now. I want to help build character in the lives of troubled teens. It's not so much a feel good reason, I'm paying back. Winning is always good but anyone who coaches for the sole purpose of winning has only themselves in mind. Honestly being an assistant coach is what I've always wanted. The reason behind the question was to see if it's practical to allow a OC/DC to install their own philosophy (as long as it's sound). I've worked under coaches that wanted to control both sides of the ball and teach every position. Frankly, I haven't seen a winning season from any of them. It doesn't matter if you're a HC, Principal, or President, you're only as good as your staff, faculty or cabinet.
|
|
|
Post by rpetrie on Jun 1, 2008 6:48:04 GMT -6
When hiring ANYONE...you should be clear in what your objectives are for that person and how they potentially fit into your program. We are known as a "Wing-T & 52 Defense" philosophically. We also have evolved to incorporate more shotgun/passing concepts to take advantage of our skill position players, without putting more stress on our small OL. We are never going to be a zone blocking team because it is not a good philosophy for us...hence the Wing-T in principle. If we get a kid that could be a good option QB...we'll do that but with Wing-T blocking principles. THAT IS MY PHILOSOPHY!
We will run anything/at any time defensively, to put our kids into a position to succeed. If that means we run an under/over 4-man front, then that is what we will do. If we need to jump into a 3-3 look or Bear...we'll do it. But our base from what we teach that adjustment is still the 52...apples & oranges IMO. I think philosophically the debates are more appropriate regarding are we a 1-gap or 2-gap technique team. Do we want to base out of C3 or C2 or Man concepts. I BELIEVE IN A 1-GAP "contain" defense that has "hitters," not cover guys at the Safety positions...lets identify who fills each role the best, teach the techniques for alignment/assignment/engagement/pursuit..and let them go be football players. They don't know the difference between a 44/43/52/7-diamond...they just want to hit something.
If a position coach/OC/DC professes to being an expert in a certain offense or defense is truly worth his salt, he should be just as adaptable to the HC, and vice versa. It makes everyone better in the long run. Be able to identify the strengths & weaknesses of your personnel, be positive, and be a great teacher. The rest is just window dressing.
As a HC you SHOULD have a vision...it just shouldn't be narrowed by his ego...and it should be easily communicated in a manner that is more in depth than "BECAUSE I SAY SO..." let's not be a bunch of lemmings running towards the cliff.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jun 1, 2008 6:59:06 GMT -6
nannother, I am with you in that football saved, and saves my life. I believe football ALL BY ITSELF teaches all the things you put in your post. But I as a coach am not in this buisness to be a guidance counsler. I am not there to be their parent. That is why they have parents. and if you make the argument that some dont have a parent, they have somebody looking after them WHO SHOULD BE PARENTING. I have my own kids that need MY parenting. I dont believe guys like you become head coaches and good ones at that. NO offense. You may have meant no offense but it's getting personal. This is a good discussion and it would be a shame if it was deleted and that could happen (not by me) if this does not stay on a professional level.
|
|
nannother
Sophomore Member
GREATEST RB EVER
Posts: 122
|
Post by nannother on Jun 1, 2008 7:30:00 GMT -6
nannother, I am with you in that football saved, and saves my life. I believe football ALL BY ITSELF teaches all the things you put in your post. But I as a coach am not in this buisness to be a guidance counsler. I am not there to be their parent. That is why they have parents. and if you make the argument that some dont have a parent, they have somebody looking after them WHO SHOULD BE PARENTING. I have my own kids that need MY parenting. I take no offense to the statement mainly because it doesn't make sense. All coaches will influence the lives of their athletes. Contrary to your beliefs you are a guidance counselor. Those kids look to you for that guidance each day. You're a huge part of their development as young men and to say anything different is ridiculous. This is something that will impact their personalities and character for the rest of their lives and if that's not parenting them someone please explain to me what parenting is.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jun 1, 2008 7:34:38 GMT -6
I think that it interesting that identity would come up. I think there is a whole lot of ego involved in a few of these responses. As a DC with several stripes, I turned down a job because the HC wanted me to run a defense that I did not feel competent to coach. I also thought that he wanted to run it unsoundly. His ego forced me to make a choice that I have no regrets over. That's why I left my last job. We got a new header at the school where I was DC. We had a meeting scheduled to discuss the defense. The HC walked in and plopped something on our desks. It was our new defensive playbook. It was entitled "----- Defensive Playbook" with the name of the old team whited out. I walked out and have never regretted it. Later in the year we scouted them and noticed that, although they had coaches in the pressbox, nobody on the sidelines was wearing headphones. That was 20 years ago. Since then they've had 3 more HCs. We've had 3 state championships.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jun 1, 2008 7:50:28 GMT -6
I think that this would be a bigger issue if we were talking about an offensive coordinator. There are true philosophical differences there. If one guy's a Chuck-n-ducker and the other wants to run Power I that's an issue. Defense? As Coachd asked, what exactly is a defensive system? Any sound defensive system is going to be gap-sound, have a solid run support scheme in the secondary, be sound in pass coverage, and have a stunt/blitz component. 3-3/3-5, 3-4, 4-3, 4-2, whatever. They all do the same thing. How big of a philosophical difference can there be? It's not like we're talking about a major issue like more taste/less filling. You say that the guy is well qualified and that his system is sound. So, what's the problem? I am curious. What "defense" does he want to run and what do you want to run? It was a debate on 4-3 vs 4-4 as a base. Our league goes from one extreme to the next. With mainly Wing T or Spread teams, I though the best base was a 4-4 because if little adjustments from week to week and He wants 4-3 for the same reason. So, what's the debate? Play two high safeties and you're a 4-3. Screw a safety down and it's a 4-4.
|
|
kw
Freshmen Member
Posts: 87
|
Post by kw on Jun 1, 2008 10:36:29 GMT -6
My job is to teach the game of football, not morales ethics and value systems. WOW.... I agree WOW ...
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jun 1, 2008 10:43:48 GMT -6
You know guys, the bottom line is there are some coaches who micromanage the game and some coaches who hate coaches who do..
All the pissing matches in the world on here will not change anyone's mind.. My last HC was a {censored} good coach.. but came from a 2A school where he HAD to do EVERYTHING important. Once he got to our school, he hired a DC and me as the OC.. but we ran his offense.. and his game plan each week.. we basically just called plays..
I hated that so bad and thought it was so wrong..
And now, I am in the same situation as he was.. I am at a 4A school just like he was.. but my quality of assistants are lower.. not lifting myself above my own assistants.. but to this point (4 months in) none of them have demonstrated to me that they have the means of being someone I can turn over a facet of this program to.
And CoachD you are right.. its not about "Im a 43 guy and an Airraid guy".. but you know what.. its important.. because when all hell breaks loose.. it would be better to be running something that I as the HC actually know.. where I can perform damage control as well as possible.
When I interviewed for this position, I didnt bring in my entire potential staff with me. "We" didnt interview together.
I was once told by an old Louisiana high school legend coach that a good HC coaches his assistants and lets them coach the kids. And you can only coach what you really know.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 1, 2008 11:13:41 GMT -6
I am not going to stand on the mound and preach to those kids. My job is to teach the game of football, not morales ethics and value systems. Again not my place nor is it my job. Yes they look to me. But the way I live my life should be reflected in how I treat them and how I raise my family and do my job. So, which of the 32 NFL teams do you work for? Perhaps you coach in the AFL then, or maybe in the CFL. Because otherwise you are getting vastly overpaid if you are getting paid to teach how to block and tackle. Unfortunately, it is these attitudes that allow for low pay, lack of respect, and budget cuts because when you get down to brass tacks, If all football coaches felt their job was to "teach" football, we would be in a world of hurt, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE GAME OF FOOTBALL IS PRETTY UNIMPORTANT to the world. Again though, you illustrate my point, that some coaches think football is all about little lines stemming from O's and X's and such, and others think it is about getting 11 people to work together to achieve a goal (move a ball, or stop ball movement)
|
|
|
Post by PSS on Jun 1, 2008 11:37:54 GMT -6
DC and KW, do either one of you have kids? if you do, answer this: Do YOU WANT SOMEBODY OTHER THAN Yourselves teaching your kids morales and values and such? Now if your honest, the answer is no. You want those things modeled in your teachers and coaches but in the end you do not want them to teach those PRECIOUS items to your kids. I will answer this question. The best role models out there in the school business are coaches. When I am not around I want the coaches I work with or the coaches my son interacts with to be the one helping me shape his life. Another thing, I know these coaches will help to keep my son away from the wrong crowd when I can not intervene. They can and will build upon the morals and values that I have established. My father trusted the my coaches with these things and I in return trust my son's coaches'. I wouldn't have it any other way. Period!
|
|
nannother
Sophomore Member
GREATEST RB EVER
Posts: 122
|
Post by nannother on Jun 1, 2008 11:53:47 GMT -6
DC and KW, do either one of you have kids? if you do, answer this: Do YOU WANT SOMEBODY OTHER THAN Yourselves teaching your kids morales and values and such? Now if your honest, the answer is no. You want those things modeled in your teachers and coaches but in the end you do not want them to teach those PRECIOUS items to your kids. It is hard to believe that you don't think that's part of your job. IMO part of the reason why these kids are turning out like they are is because everyone wants to say "it's not my job." I certainly don't want to be a part of a staff where everyone looks at a problem and says, "I'm not going to do it. It's not my job." Part of being a team is contributing even when it's not your job. You're trying to teach your kids to be team players but not demonstrating the same team attitude. Kids can see right through that kind of mentality and see what's really important to you. That is exactly why I do teach more then just football. We have mandatory study halls. We make them accountable for their decisions. We reward and punish them in order to teach good morales and values. In essence WE ARE PARENTS. I wonder how many of your kids parents know and share your philosophy. I deal with inner city kids. Some of them don't have parents. Some of them have parents that are junkies or just don't care. Some of them have parents that try to teach their kids but there's too much negative influence in their neighborhoods. To all of those kids, YES, I'm trying to be a father figure. Yes, I preach to them. I try to make sure they know someone cares other then the gang leader in their neighborhood. I know not all of you coaches have those kind of kids, but in one way or another all of us are parents to our athletes. So, definitely, I want my coaches to be coaches, parents, preachers and teachers. If we turn just one of those kids life around then I've won our state championship. This is a little of the original question, but I find it very interesting that a coach would not think that they should teach morales and values.
|
|
kw
Freshmen Member
Posts: 87
|
Post by kw on Jun 1, 2008 12:11:04 GMT -6
Liberalhater are you a classroom teacher? I don't have children, however, I have to agree with PSS. I coach at the college level and I have parents who have entrusted me with their young men (some are hundreds or thousands of miles away from home) to build upon the morals and ethics they have established over the years with their sons. Believe it or not that comes with the job. I would not have it any other way.
kw
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 1, 2008 12:22:49 GMT -6
You know guys, the bottom line is there are some coaches who micromanage the game and some coaches who hate coaches who do.. but you know what.. its important.. because when all hell breaks loose.. it would be better to be running something that I as the HC actually know.. where I can perform damage control as well as possible. . This is a common theme in many threads. Just wondering, why anticipate that something will happen and their coordinators will fail, but that the HC will then swoop in with some super football acumen and save the day? ?
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jun 1, 2008 12:57:44 GMT -6
You know guys, the bottom line is there are some coaches who micromanage the game and some coaches who hate coaches who do.. but you know what.. its important.. because when all hell breaks loose.. it would be better to be running something that I as the HC actually know.. where I can perform damage control as well as possible. . This is a common theme in many threads. Just wondering, why anticipate that something will happen and their coordinators will fail, but that the HC will then swoop in with some super football acumen and save the day? ? Its not about assumption, its about preparation.. What if I bring in a guy to run the split 6 defense and we have a great season with it.. and in Jan he gets hired out from under me by another school? Do I try to learn the defense myself in hopes of teaching someone else how to run it? Do I hope that one of the defensive assistants learned enough about it to come in an take up shop? Or do I nip all that in the bud and teach what I want ran with anyone that comes in.. because at the end of the day.. as long as I am HC.. I am the only thing consistent... assistants may come and go and kids will certainly come and go.. but as long as I am the HC.. I have to make sure some stability is in place.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 1, 2008 13:43:05 GMT -6
This is a common theme in many threads. Just wondering, why anticipate that something will happen and their coordinators will fail, but that the HC will then swoop in with some super football acumen and save the day? ? Its not about assumption, its about preparation.. What if I bring in a guy to run the split 6 defense and we have a great season with it.. and in Jan he gets hired out from under me by another school? Do I try to learn the defense myself in hopes of teaching someone else how to run it? Do I hope that one of the defensive assistants learned enough about it to come in an take up shop? THIS was exactly what the Legendary coach was talking about. If you haven't trained your assistants to be coordinators, THEN shame on you. Being a successful coordinator isn't about knowing a million various things, but rather about being focused, organized, and detail oriented. Basically, it is just having a plan, and YOU as a header should be able to get a h.s coach ready for this in a year's time. Simple modeling, giving expectations, monitoring, and probing/leading questions are all that is necessary. Peppering them with whys and hows rather than whats....
|
|
nannother
Sophomore Member
GREATEST RB EVER
Posts: 122
|
Post by nannother on Jun 1, 2008 13:50:06 GMT -6
KW, you read karl marx? Ill get back to it. The best role model for a kid... is his parents. HIS PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS Morales and values. they trust you to help him maintain his. THATS IT!. You are not to teach your values. What you and a bunch of other coaches are advocating? Is right out of karl marx books. The school and its teachers are their to teach subjects. Teachers lives and the way they live them IS enough. If Marx had to deal with some of the kids we have today, he'd probably write another book. Child rearing is completely different now then the 1800's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2008 14:02:40 GMT -6
I don't think that's what they are saying, liberalhater. I think what they are saying is coaches (as well as noncoaching teachers) are PART of the process. That is something I agree with.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jun 1, 2008 14:04:53 GMT -6
Guys lets stay with the question at hand and avoid the politics.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 1, 2008 14:24:03 GMT -6
I have an idea? Lets try an american original: INDIVIDUAL responsibility. Make the parent responsible for their child. So if you have kids? you want teachers and coaches to teach them values? WOW! Talk about not wanting to take responsibility. Coach, why do you write as if morales and values are to be derived from a singular source? That is as foolhardy as saying "I only want to learn defensive back play from Bob Stoops. he should be responsible for all of my defensive back instruction. No thank you for the offer to clinic me Nick Saban" You keep writing as if the ethics and values are part of an expressed curriculum, rather than the hidden curriculum in our school systems. You write as if you believe that the coaches are indoctrinating players with a very narrow and specific values, like they are math facts. If you think that property taxes should be used to fund a stipend for you to teach the nuances of dual read pass protection, I must disagree. I think the topics have splintered quite a bit here. Originally, there was a question (that i thought was a no brainer based on the explanation given) as to how to proceed as a HC if you had a coordinator you trusted fully. From there we explored differing scenarios such as not feeling anyone was capable, how important the HC's idea of schemes are.., and lastly touching on the HC's responsibility to develop coaches.
|
|
|
Post by rpetrie on Jun 1, 2008 14:33:32 GMT -6
Guys lets stay with the question at hand and avoid the politics. So in essence it appears there is no right or wrong answer...If you (as an assistant) don't want the alignment of the X's & O's determined for you...then leave. It is about choice. The head coach has no responsibility to any existing coach on staff to "help" him find another job. Loyalty is something earned through trusted experiences, that usually span more than a year or 2. I think it is a great indicator when any of my assistants move onward & upwards because opportunities are available. They wouldn't be afforded those positions unless they showed some competency on my staff. If any person wants the liberty to run their own O/D philosophy they should either step up to the HC ranks, or find a program that will allow it. Essentially isn't it the same dilemma. A coordinator who is ONLY WILLING to run THEIR PHILOSOPHY is no different than a Head Coach who ALSO wants their philosophy installed and run. I personally would be more upset if a OC/HC did not permit me to TEACH during practice, and simply had me baby-sit drills that weren't my own, or didn't allow me to provide input...that's a whole different scenario. It seems that the focus of being a good coach regarding safety, technique and the academic/social/moral/physical/emotional development of the students is taking a back-seat to a 3-technique vs. a shaded nose...sad. And never believe or try to deny that those responsibilities come with the territory.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 1, 2008 15:18:00 GMT -6
Guys lets stay with the question at hand and avoid the politics. Essentially isn't it the same dilemma. A coordinator who is ONLY WILLING to run THEIR PHILOSOPHY is no different than a Head Coach who ALSO wants their philosophy installed and run. I. I don't see these as being the same. The coordinator SHOULD want to be in full control, as he is the "coordinator". As a high school coach, the perk of being the coordinator is just that...you are the "coordinator". You are growing as a coach. That is the reward, since other rewards are most likely insignificant. In the second case, if the HC wants to do the x's and o's his way, then the "coordinator" is not really a coordinator at all is he? He is just basically the lead offensive flunky, or the offensive caretaker. Two different situations present here. I think where a lot of this confusion stems from is the college ranks and their titles. Some coaches, like Spurrier don't list coordinators. They do the job themselves (although in Spurriers case, it isn't really coordination..like other coaches coordinate..lol). Other major college coaches such as Weis, have "coordinators" listed, but they do the coordination themselves. The listing is a nifty way to establish a hierarchy, as well as get one of the assistants more money. Make no mistake about it, Michael Haywood is not "coordinating" the ND offense in any shape, way, or means from practice planning to game planning to play calling. However, he has a nice resume builder as a coordinator, and he gets paid more. I have no problem with Weis saying "hey, you want this job, you are going to do what I tell you to do, I am the coordinator, and you are listed as the coordinator. For that you will receive more money than if you were just the runnings back coach." In this case, the "coordinator" is not responsible, does not have the "pressure" coming down from the HC, AND is getting other benefits of being the coordinator. (Namely money and stature) Don't see this as the case in most high schools, but if it is, and the guy you higher coming in agrees to it just to get coordinator on his resume...that is cool. I believe this entire "argument" or "debate" or whatever boils down to this fundamental question: If you as a header think you are the best candidate to coordinate, AND in doing such you do not stretch yourself so thin as to hurt the team, then by all means, be a coordinator. At some schools, this isn't even a question. At others the program demands might be so great that you may no longer be the best choice for the team. I don't think people here are advocating that once you become a header, that it is now necessary to turn in your coordinator stripes. I know I am just saying, headers NEED to be professionally prepared to do so should the situation merit it, AND he should be professionally savvy enough to put his program in a position where that can be done within a year or two of his arrival.
|
|