|
|
Post by gatorball on Jul 28, 2006 7:24:54 GMT -6
I want to here your opinion gentlemen. Is it coaches or players? Personally I think it is about 70% players and 30% coaches.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Jul 28, 2006 7:31:46 GMT -6
that might be about right for percentages
we can put them in situations to succeed by "outcoaching" someone, but the players still have to execute
|
|
|
|
Post by coachjd on Jul 28, 2006 7:48:16 GMT -6
I agree, you have to have the JIM and JOE's to win, but at the same time if you don't teach them how to play the game the right way they will have less of a chance to be successful on the field.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 28, 2006 8:02:01 GMT -6
efficient use of resources
you need the athletes though
the differential in talent with coaching could swing as high as 30% or reduced by that much, IMO.
You can see good talent wasted and bad talent maximized.
1) Teaching
2) Motivation / attitude
3) Talent
10) scheme
|
|
|
|
Post by coachjd on Jul 28, 2006 8:06:25 GMT -6
great point Brophy, "10) Scheme"
I have worked with and have seen a lot of coaches out coach themselves with too much x and o's in the dirt and not enough time teaching the kids how to play.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Jul 28, 2006 8:55:50 GMT -6
There is no question that talent has a HUGE impact on the team's ability to win. However, I constantly remind our assistants (and myself) that both teams are going to have 1-3 "stars" that will probably cancel each other out. The difference is which coaching staff has "coached up" their 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th ... players so instead of losing the game, those guys help WIN the game. Another line we tell each other - picked this up a few years ago - is "one good coach is worth three good players". I'd still like to have those 3 players, but the implication is that every coach needs to get the most out of the kids he is coaching.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jul 28, 2006 9:42:41 GMT -6
great players win games
great systems win games
great systems with great players WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS
|
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Jul 28, 2006 10:14:07 GMT -6
I think you might steal a couple games each season by out-coaching the opponent, but when you get to the playoffs, you better have the horses if you want to make a run.
|
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jul 28, 2006 10:19:45 GMT -6
I think you guys are selling yourselves short...
I'd take coaching up to 40%...
Especially in high school... most teams have their 3 studs, and then its about the rest...
Hence, I'm a big Bobby Knight fan... say what you want about his tactics... but to take an awful Texas Tech team, from the basement, to a perennial tournament team... speaks volumes...
I've come across quite a few coaches, that will undoubtedly beat you with theirs... and then beat you with yours...
15 to 18 year olds are basically the same... the difference is the confidence, courage, and comittment a coach is enable to instill in those individuals... add in some persistence and a coach has really gotten something...
The only thing players bring to the table, besides their innate physicality... is their desire to be good... and that intangible right there, is what separates the Jimmy and the Joes... IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jul 28, 2006 10:34:23 GMT -6
If the players are "in place" so to speak then the right coach can make the difference. Not saying great players but not chump change either. Coaches make a difference. Schemes make a difference. How that coach is able to communicate and motivate those kids makes a huge difference. But the Jimmies and Joes have to want it too, want to do it right etc. And be able to mentally and physically execute what they need too.
Once had an opposing coach come to me after the game and point blank tell me that I outcoached him that night. He further said he won the game b/c his players were physically better. That takes some balls for him to admit that IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 28, 2006 10:42:05 GMT -6
How many times have you watched a game film later and wonder "what if I did ....."
THAT would be coaching.
----I've been on the sour end where alignments or matchups weren't recognized well enough DURING (or before) the game and it made the job easier for our opponent.
How many times have you watched a game tape and said..." man, if that kid wouldn't have cut back into the horde of defenders..........fumbled the ball after a 90 yard run.....wrapped up the back in the hole.....etc"
THAT is player / Talent
----I've been on the sour end of that a few times, where, in all actuality the "perfect" play was called.....and maybe one or two players slip off a tackle for a super negative yardage / safety play....what else can you do? Sometimes your opponent OUTPLAY your player.
There have been a few times when the former was true ('man, if I would've been able to see THAT in a game....') but then you also run into a point of diminishing returns (preparing for EVERYTHING, be good at none) with limited practice time.
I guess the point being here (I actually think both are vital to success), you can only spend X amount of hours teaching and instructing Player A to do his "job".
----------With that, can Player A perform when needed?
----------Can Coach effectively TEACH the job in those alloted hours? (in whatever method needed to reach Player A................that may be a different approach than Player B)
Does "good coaching" make Terrell Owens a productive receiver? Can WR Coach, Todd Haley, take credit for his 20 touchdowns this season? It begs the question....
|
|
|
|
Post by coachjd on Jul 28, 2006 10:58:11 GMT -6
I don't mind Bobby Knight myself, but Ol' Bobby recruited the type of kids he knew he could win with. He didn't become a winner with the team he took over with at Texas Tech. he built it up by recruiting hard nose kids who would play fundamental basektball.
|
|
|
|
Post by chiefscoach on Jul 28, 2006 11:06:42 GMT -6
I'm sorry but I think Coaching plays a huge part in wins during a season. Yes its nice to have good players because that makes it so much easier but you can coach a team to victory and you can coach a team to be competitive and when you do that players are drawn to your program. If I thought Coaching only plays in 30% then I'm working way too hard. Espcially in College and High School I think Coaching can be the #1 factor. I see it every year you get that team full of studs that can fly all over the field and they run into that team that is so well coached and has a great work ethic and weight program and the speed wares out when you are getting punched in the mouth all night long. And if Coaching is only 30% then no Coach should ever be fired because they only account for 3 games during the regular season.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 28, 2006 11:17:00 GMT -6
My first speech of the season involves me telling the kids that we coaches will out them in the best possible position to succeed, and we will do everything we can to motivate them, but they are the ones that have to go out and do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 28, 2006 11:41:48 GMT -6
I have to agree that coaching, at least on the HS level, is worth more that 30%. The reason that I believe that I believe that, overall, in most leagues the talent is pretty balanced over the years. Yet, in most leagues there are a couple of teams that are contenders every year and a couple that are a threat to "oh-fer" every year. The difference is that the consistent winners have established coaching staffs and the coaching situation at the losing programs is always in a state of flux.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 28, 2006 11:46:11 GMT -6
what are we defining as coaching?
Game planning ? Game adjustments? Scheme? Teaching? Motivation? Off Season conditioning.....etc?
A coach molds and shapes the program, but what does it take to win games?
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 28, 2006 12:30:54 GMT -6
what are we defining as coaching? Game planning ? Game adjustments? Scheme? Teaching? Motivation? Off Season conditioning.....etc? A coach molds and shapes the program, but what does it take to win games? Blocking and tackling. Consistent winners are that because they're consistently good in those areas. That requires technique and that requires coaching. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 28, 2006 12:34:54 GMT -6
I want to here your opinion gentlemen. Is it coaches or players? Personally I think it is about 70% players and 30% coaches. if you were to take only one season...youd come to the conclusion that it was the players...if you took 10 years as a sample youd find that it was indeed the coaches. the coaches develop the players, the coaches win CONSISTENTLY by preparing for EVERYTHING year in and year out...ever notice how some coaches have one winning season after two or three losing ones and then go back to losing again...THAT ONE YEAR IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE PLAYERS ...PROBABLY winning DESPITE the coaching. On the other hand..ever notice how some coaches win every year NO MATTER WHERE THEY GO?,....that my friend is all about the coach. The coach did his job, he coached his coaches, they coached the kid and the kids did their jobs because they were put in the right position at the right time in the right schemes and given the best chance for success. winning season= players winning tradition= coaches sort of an oversimplified explanation...but the best coaches are prepared and they are the difference makers. when those coaches leave, they leave behind a program that has taught kids and coaches how to win. THE BEST LINE IN SPORTS " hed whip you with his kids, then take yours and whip his." or however that went... |
|
|
|
Post by chiefscoach on Jul 28, 2006 13:09:54 GMT -6
I want to here your opinion gentlemen. Is it coaches or players? Personally I think it is about 70% players and 30% coaches. if you were to take only one season...youd come to the conclusion that it was the players...if you took 10 years as a sample youd find that it was indeed the coaches. the coaches develop the players, the coaches win CONSISTENTLY by preparing for EVERYTHING year in and year out...ever notice how some coaches have one winning season after two or three losing ones and then go back to losing again...THAT ONE YEAR IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE PLAYERS ...PROBABLY winning DESPITE the coaching. On the other hand..ever notice how some coaches win every year NO MATTER WHERE THEY GO?,....that my friend is all about the coach. The coach did his job, he coached his coaches, they coached the kid and the kids did their jobs because they were put in the right position at the right time in the right schemes and given the best chance for success. winning season= players winning tradition= coaches sort of an oversimplified explanation...but the best coaches are prepared and they are the difference makers. when those coaches leave, they leave behind a program that has taught kids and coaches how to win. THE BEST LINE IN SPORTS " hed whip you with his kids, then take yours and whip his." or however that went... Couldnt agree more Coach Calande. |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 28, 2006 13:12:17 GMT -6
good stuff, Calande (and others) good summations on here. It makes a difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by toprowguy on Jul 28, 2006 14:05:26 GMT -6
Agree 100% with Calande.
I hate when coaches blame losing on the kids.
It is our job to take what we get make them better, find the right position for them, run the correct plays for them, use them to the best of their ability.
If the kid is not doing the job either coach him up better or replace him but don't complain about him.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 28, 2006 14:20:55 GMT -6
I want to make something clear. When I talk about the value of coaching I'm talking in the long term. I am not saying that it's always the coaches' fault for a bad season. No matter how great a coach is, if he goes into a bad program it will take him some time to get his program going. Even outstanding coaches who are in an established situation may have a run where they just don't have athletes. These things happen. I do believe that coaching is important, though, and in the examples I've given I think that good staffs will get it fixed.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachjd on Jul 28, 2006 14:55:15 GMT -6
We have a program in Minnesota we have played the last 4 years. Their scheme is simple they only practice 1.5 hours a day on M-W and 45 min on Thur and they have won 1 state championship and been to the state semi's or runnersups the other 3 years. They have an amazing run of talent right now. They have an excellent coaching staff, but they have dominated because of the kids. Most of their kids are 2 or 3 sport athletes and spend the summer playing basketball and baseball and show up in the middle of August ready to play football.
I am not trying to take anything away from any of us coaches right now, but you can coach the heck out of below avg kid and he is only going get better if he chooses to work hard and get better. I completly understand were the argument is coming from and we all should fight for what we truly believe in, but great atheletes make all coaches look good. I have never blamed a kid or kids for a loss and never will, but a lot of our success is going to be based on talent and desire to compete and passion to succeed by the kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by seagull73 on Jul 28, 2006 15:42:40 GMT -6
It is coaching or should I say program building. If schools have the same # of kids the talent is basically the same within the school. If a coach comes in and builds a program the kids want to be a part of he will pull the athletes out and win.
Why do some coaches win no matter where they are? It can't be because where ever they go they are blessed with great players every time. I agree that you can't win without talent but what are you doing to get the talent out of your school?
|
|
|
|
Post by gatorball on Jul 28, 2006 17:33:50 GMT -6
If you give me the kids from the Central Bucks West teams of the late 90s I could win with them, but maybe not on the same level at Mike Pettine did. In our area the head coach at Greenville PA has won over 210 games and been there for 25 years, last year after graduating 22 seniors he went 0 10 for only his second losing season. Most folks said that the team was very young in a good league and others said that the veteran coach did not adjust to his talent and competition well. It is a little of both, but I would say more that his team was young. Yes great coaches build teams, but some guys are just lucky a good group of kids comes down the pike and saves his bacon. All I am saying is that I know some good coaches who worked their arses off and won maybe 3 or 4 games and I have seen guys who did not know their tight end from their defensive end and won consistently. You always here of these old coaches who run old style power offenses and go with 4 plays and pass maybe twice a season and win consistently well then I would say kids in his case. Just a thought
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 28, 2006 17:44:06 GMT -6
If you give me the kids from the Central Bucks West teams of the late 90s I could win with them, but maybe not on the same level at Mike Pettine did. In our area the head coach at Greenville PA has won over 210 games and been there for 25 years, last year after graduating 22 seniors he went 0 10 for only his second losing season. Most folks said that the team was very young in a good league and others said that the veteran coach did not adjust to his talent and competition well. It is a little of both, but I would say more that his team was young. Yes great coaches build teams, but some guys are just lucky a good group of kids comes down the pike and saves his bacon. All I am saying is that I know some good coaches who worked their arses off and won maybe 3 or 4 games and I have seen guys who did not know their tight end from their defensive end and won consistently. You always here of these old coaches who run old style power offenses and go with 4 plays and pass maybe twice a season and win consistently well then I would say kids in his case. Just a thought I disagree that coaches that run power offenses win because they have overpowering personnel. A lot of times they win because they teach technique well, understand the offenses and how to make adjustments, and the kids have bought in and play hard. |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 28, 2006 17:54:02 GMT -6
I have posted these things before, but...take them both for what they are worth:
"Football, more than any other, is a coach's game." -- Bear Bryant
"There are more good football coaches than there are good football programs." -- Earle Bruce
I suspect which one of the above we agree with most depends on our recent level of on-the-field success.
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jul 28, 2006 18:02:35 GMT -6
Winning season=players
Winning tradition=coaches
Yeah I can agree to that...still gotta have some dudes... but in general I agree.
But hey, if your doing everything you can as a coach and staff, and your 150# LB gets trucked by a 230# RB on his way to the endzone that is not a coaching mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 28, 2006 18:13:50 GMT -6
Winning season=players Winning tradition=coaches Yeah I can agree to that...still gotta have some dudes... but in general I agree. But hey, if your doing everything you can as a coach and staff, and your 150# LB gets trucked by a 230# RB on his way to the endzone that is not a coaching mistake. right chuck, but the key is to build the program, the whole program so that youre the one with the 230 lbers...know what i mean? I mean look at tiny southern columbia here in pa...they are going to win their 6th straight state title here...they have been running wing t for 20 years ill bet...they are huge at some spots...thats not players, thats the coach and his staff building that program. someone mentioned cb west...they got a ton of kids and they arent anywhere near the level that they were with pettine at the helm...look at north penn...they got a ton of kids, petting jr went there and now thingy beck..both guys that played for and coached with petttine...they run that same stuff and kick arse with it...do they have talent? you bet your arse they do...but they did before too when they werent any good. the coaching matters. the program matters, the systems matter, the attitudes matter, the preparation matters, the commitment matters, planning practices down to 3 minute periods matters, planning meals, workouts, open gyms, scrimmages, meetings, parent teacher conferences, academic expectations and tudoring...all that crud matters....every dime thats raised matters, every kid in the lil league that meets the HC and his staff with a burning desire to become a big "insert mascot here" player someday matters...Im telling you this, good coaches...no, great coaches...they can win ANYWHERE. Put Bellichek on any staff...shoot, send him to the Cardinals and he will have them in the playoffs very quick..same with Shannahan. Those guys leave no stone unturned...are there bums in coaching that win? you betcha., I wont name any but one guy won the superbowl moreso because of his assistant coaches and players than himself...what happened afterwards?.....someone here said the power guys that win year in and out with 4 plays must have kids...baloney, they have systems and execute them flawlessly. thats what wins for them. winning breeds winning and all situations are different but in the end I strongly believe that kids love football...if they arent coming out to football and arent lifting weights for football and arent participating in camps and clinics...ITS BECAUSE THEY AINT DRINKING THE COACHES KOOLAID...THEY ARENT BUYING WHAT HES SELLING. Ill bet if every one of us thought for a moment we could give at least 3 examples of programs we personally know of that were practically changed over night just by bringing in a new coach, new system and new attitude with high expectations. coaching matters. think about all star games that end in blowouts...why is that? ill tell ya why...TEACHING. one team gets taught a whole lot more in those sparse practices then the other. anyhow, heres another thing...cb east vs cb west...east should have beaten them alot more than they have...same kind of talent if not more. better coaching, better program, better systems at cb west....if only id lived across the street id have been a buck. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 28, 2006 18:17:48 GMT -6
If you give me the kids from the Central Bucks West teams of the late 90s I could win with them, but maybe not on the same level at Mike Pettine did. In our area the head coach at Greenville PA has won over 210 games and been there for 25 years, last year after graduating 22 seniors he went 0 10 for only his second losing season. Most folks said that the team was very young in a good league and others said that the veteran coach did not adjust to his talent and competition well. It is a little of both, but I would say more that his team was young. Yes great coaches build teams, but some guys are just lucky a good group of kids comes down the pike and saves his bacon. All I am saying is that I know some good coaches who worked their arses off and won maybe 3 or 4 games and I have seen guys who did not know their tight end from their defensive end and won consistently. You always here of these old coaches who run old style power offenses and go with 4 plays and pass maybe twice a season and win consistently well then I would say kids in his case. Just a thought but what of the guys that run that same system and turn around team after team with those same 4 plays? look at markham...that guys won at some lame places...shoot, what does it take for a team to go from 1-9 to 14-0 and a new scoring record? it takes talent and coaching together...the talent couldnt have changed that much in one year could it? but the coaching did change that much. Im going to say that the coaching , particularly at the high school level, is a much more important thing than anyone here has suggested. in fact im going to say its 70-30 for coaching. You cant build a program with bad coaches in place. the kids just wont stick around and play for a bunch of goons. otherwise i agree, i have seen some bozos win and some real hard workers have mediocre to losing seasons...but winning isnt the only way to evaluate the staff. theres a ton of success that are overlooked by the fans in the stands. |
|
