|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 28, 2006 18:27:12 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. Coach, what system do they run...? Yknow, i think of some of the local city schools here...man, they have speed, kids with rippling muscles and power...they have track men every where you look..every receiver and back can jump and catch and run like the wind....but they cant win. ...yeah, and now their coaching staff is changing offenses...a whole new system...coaching matters. its huge. btw, there is a simple thing that can tell ya alot about a team that isnt well coached...at least i believe so...if a team has a great defense...then they most likely have great athletes. its tough to play defense with a bunch of stiffs....if that same team doesnt score ...they are probably not taught well. now, on the other hand, lets take another simple thought, if a team scores in droves but cant seem to stop folks very well, they probably dont have many athletes but are trained very well in execution and ball control. just some thoughts. Im speaking mainly about situations that im familiar with where kids play on both sides of the ball..at least the good kids do... ever see those schools that seem to win track meets and basketball titles all of the time....but they cant win a few football games....THATS COACHING. hmmm....just thought of a few things... lets list some superbowl/national championship winners that won due to coaching and others that won due to talent...let the debates begin anyone?
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jul 28, 2006 18:52:48 GMT -6
Amen to Calande, I see certain coaches win EVERYWHERE they go. Are they lucky every year? Nope. Are the guys that lose every year unlucky every year? Nope. most of it is excuse making by the guys that lose and jealousy of the guys that win. Is Urban Meyer lucky at every stop he has made, has he just got talent coming out of his ears? How did Bob Stoops win a national title 2 years after the same group of kids had losing seasons and got beat by over 70 points by Nebraska?
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jul 28, 2006 21:02:06 GMT -6
This whole thing is kind of like which came first the chicken or the egg. Really. Everyone knows (well not everyone but most coaches know) it takes a good knowledgable coaching staff who can teach the fundamentals as well as how to pull the tigger within thier schemes. Then it takes players. Average talent, blue-chippers whatever. It takes some players who are willing to work to get better etc. It takes a coach who can motivate those kids to see the importance of getting better, then kids who say "yeah coach you're right."
Going along with the chicken statment. If you gave the best chef in the world a bowl of chicken crap and told him to make a salad what could he do? Nothing. If you gave any of us a can of chicken from the supermarket and some mayo I bet any of us could make a pretty decent chicken salad. Does that mean we are better chefs than those guys on the Food Network? Probably not. My point is there must be something to work with. If there is something to work with now the coaching comes into play. That is/can be where the difference is.
So it is really both.
|
|
|
Post by coachjd on Jul 28, 2006 21:36:52 GMT -6
the team in Minnesota runs the double slot.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jul 28, 2006 21:53:52 GMT -6
Coach Knight took Texas Tech to the Tourny in his first year...
Everyone knew Bob Knight would get the Red Raider program back to its winning ways. Many didn't think it could be done so successfully or so quickly. In his initial season, Texas Tech went from 11th in the Big 12 Conference to a tie for third and posted a +14 victory margin (9-19 in 2000-2001 to 23-9 in 2001-2002). Texas Tech's 23 wins in that initial season represented Coach Knight's 25th season of winning 20 or more games and were Tech's most single-season victories since the 1995-1996 season. The Red Raiders also earned an NCAA Tournament berth for the 11th time in the school's 77 years of fielding basketball teams and marked the 25th time Coach Knight has taken his teams to the NCAA Tournament.
I'm just sayin'... Coaching counts...
|
|
|
Post by jjkuenzel on Jul 28, 2006 22:03:25 GMT -6
At the end of the day, I think we all have to remember that as coaches we are the only ones on our respective teams that don't step in between the white lines. While I do believe that coaches can rise a team up one level, no coach can take a below average team and make them great or even good for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jul 28, 2006 22:34:44 GMT -6
jj...
I disagree... the reasons teams are below average, are not necessarily due to being inferior... sometimes that is the case, and there's nothing you can do about that... however, many times... losing becomes a culture... a habit... and it only takes one man... one... who is stubborn enough, demanding enough, and yet insightful enough, to push enough buttons, to make others around him great...
Patton did it... Lombardi did it... Knight did it... numerous HS coaches are doing it...
We just don't know the whole story,
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 28, 2006 22:57:40 GMT -6
At the end of the day, I think we all have to remember that as coaches we are the only ones on our respective teams that don't step in between the white lines. While I do believe that coaches can rise a team up one level, no coach can take a below average team and make them great or even good for that matter. What's below average? What's average, or good, or great? You never really know until the season's over.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 29, 2006 5:22:10 GMT -6
This whole thing is kind of like which came first the chicken or the egg. Really. Everyone knows (well not everyone but most coaches know) it takes a good knowledgable coaching staff who can teach the fundamentals as well as how to pull the tigger within thier schemes. Then it takes players. Average talent, blue-chippers whatever. It takes some players who are willing to work to get better etc. It takes a coach who can motivate those kids to see the importance of getting better, then kids who say "yeah coach you're right." Going along with the chicken statment. If you gave the best chef in the world a bowl of chicken crap and told him to make a salad what could he do? Nothing. If you gave any of us a can of chicken from the supermarket and some mayo I bet any of us could make a pretty decent chicken salad. Does that mean we are better chefs than those guys on the Food Network? Probably not. My point is there must be something to work with. If there is something to work with now the coaching comes into play. That is/can be where the difference is. So it is really both. " If you gave the best chef in the world a bowl of chicken crap and told him to make a salad what could he do? " right , but Chuck, that chef is going to do everything within his power to make sure hes got more than chicken {censored} to work with the following year...know what i mean...i mean, comon, the kids are kids no matter where ya go...if you go somewhere and only have 100 boys in your school and play schools that have 1000 boys youre not likely to do that well, but if the school sizes are comparible then the talent pool is indeed comparable...sure, not all the boys come out for football but i submit to you that making your program attractive,....so attractive that every PARENT wants their kid involved ...so attractice that EVERY BOY wants to be a part of it... "the kids dont want to work" just will never fly with me...the kids want to win...but first THEY MUST BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A PAY DAY..THAT IS THE COACHES JOB...the coaches have to sell it. in some communities where losers are breedign losers its a tough sell..they simply dont believe they are capable of anythign more than they have ever done....but yknow, the right coach can take a small core of 8-10 kids and make some believers out of them,..then it happens..that core grows...thats coaching. Its really tough to win when the field it tilted..but my point is simply that a) kids love football b) kids want to win...they will work if they believe. anyhow, if im that chef, ill make the best tasting {censored} salad in the world and convince everyone that its some sort of freaking delacasy that they cant live without...im going to sell it for 3x the price of regular boring chicken salad to help them believe it is in fact something not everyone can participate in...get my drift?
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 29, 2006 6:19:43 GMT -6
More food for thought, another repost:
To paraphrase Coach Hugh Wyatt: "There are some communities where the 'culture' prevents you from doing what it takes to be successful."
I have never seen a jockey carry a horse over the finish line in first place, yet.
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jul 29, 2006 6:47:03 GMT -6
More food for thought, another repost: To paraphrase Coach Hugh Wyatt: "There are some communities where the 'culture' prevents you from doing what it takes to be successful." I have never seen a jockey carry a horse over the finish line in first place, yet. That's the point I am trying to make. Can one person change the culture of a community? Certainly not in a short time. I am done debating this issue. It is both. Players and coaches. The percentage of each varries depending on where you are. I agree the chef will do everything in his power to get better quality ingredients the following year, but we all know it is not that simple. I am not making excuses but it really has to be both. Patton was a great leader but he also had access to a great army with great resourses. Most historians will agree Robert E. Lee was a better general than anyone in the Union army HOWEVER Grant had like 3x as many troops as Lee. What made Grant better then McClellan (Burnside, Scott, Meade etc) was that he knew how to use the resourses he had. In fact most Civil War buffs will tell you the South had most of the better generals. Coach here in our state most consistant 5A power had a losing record at his previous 5A school. Now he is the "best" coach in Minnesota. So you cannot tell me it is just coaching or just players. Or just a coach having to make the program ultra attractive to get players and parents on his side. Besides didn't we get into this whole debate about 4-5 weeks ago? I recall a whole bunch of guys getting upset and getting into an almost personal debate.
|
|
|
Post by gatorball on Jul 29, 2006 6:53:12 GMT -6
Ground chuck
I am not trying to start a fight here, I just wanted to here some opinions and I have heard some very good ones from you guys, Please no one get mad, We all have our beliefs and I think that great coaches can win where ever they go, but some guys are just lucky to be in a good system of kids and school support etc
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 29, 2006 7:02:45 GMT -6
groundchuck,
When you're a young coach, sometimes you think you put a hat on your head and a whistle around your neck, you do this, this and this, and you can coach ANYONE (or anywhere) and win.
I know I was that way myself 30 years ago.
I think that is where some of the debate on this thread is emanating from.
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jul 29, 2006 7:23:04 GMT -6
Ground chuck I am not trying to start a fight here, I just wanted to here some opinions and I have heard some very good ones from you guys, Please no one get mad, We all have our beliefs and I think that great coaches can win where ever they go, but some guys are just lucky to be in a good system of kids and school support etc It really is a good question. There are coaches out there who will lose and blame players. There are coaches out there who will win and take all the credit themselves. There are coaches whose teams consistantly underachieve, then there are also coaches whose teams always overachieve or achieve great heights. Why does one guy win a state title at 3 or 4 different schools at different levels? He is obviously a great coach. There is a guy here in MN who was an assistant with a state champion program, took over a small school and went to the finals about 3 years later. Then he jumped to a bigger school. About 3 years later they also went to the dome. He moved on to a very challenging program. He is a great coach especially when it comes to teaching fundamentals. He is definitely a difference maker as a coach.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 29, 2006 7:33:37 GMT -6
More food for thought, another repost: To paraphrase Coach Hugh Wyatt: "There are some communities where the 'culture' prevents you from doing what it takes to be successful." I have never seen a jockey carry a horse over the finish line in first place, yet. That's the point I am trying to make. Can one person change the culture of a community? Certainly not in a short time. I am done debating this issue. It is both. Players and coaches. The percentage of each varries depending on where you are. I agree the chef will do everything in his power to get better quality ingredients the following year, but we all know it is not that simple. I am not making excuses but it really has to be both. Patton was a great leader but he also had access to a great army with great resourses. Most historians will agree Robert E. Lee was a better general than anyone in the Union army HOWEVER Grant had like 3x as many troops as Lee. What made Grant better then McClellan (Burnside, Scott, Meade etc) was that he knew how to use the resourses he had. In fact most Civil War buffs will tell you the South had most of the better generals. Coach here in our state most consistant 5A power had a losing record at his previous 5A school. Now he is the "best" coach in Minnesota. So you cannot tell me it is just coaching or just players. Or just a coach having to make the program ultra attractive to get players and parents on his side. Besides didn't we get into this whole debate about 4-5 weeks ago? I recall a whole bunch of guys getting upset and getting into an almost personal debate. Chuck- no reason for anyone to get mad on either side..i certainly get irked when someone says "you only win because of talent" as if the many hoops I have jumped thru are somehow insignifcant? its not like the teams i took over just had talent sitting there...these teams were bad. 118 lbs guards for crying out loud! lol... look man, perhaps you are feelign a bit defensive because of your situation, but its not like anyone (certainly not me) doubts your coaching ability in any way. every situation is different and perhaps without y0u, where you have been, those schools would have been aweful...even losing teams can have a coach that has made a huge difference in the outcomes of the game...things like execution, being in the spot to make a play (even if they didnt), being competitive, playing hard whistle to the echo of the final whistle....I certainly dont intend to belittle anyone whos had a losing record. I know personally i went 3-6-1 in my first year...that was a better record than the schools two previous years combined but i did a crap job. I put blame on others when i had to only look in the mirror and find out why we lost games. heres just a few of the thing i did wrong.. 1) didnt interview and hire my own assistant. accepted it when one was appointed to me 2) didnt clinic and educate my assistant before giving him ownership of the oline 3) didnt use prepared practice plans and drills 4) had team captains that were cancers as far as im concerned...i picked them not based on character, but on playing ability like an idiot. 5) I had discipline issues all year and instead of cutting kids lose i gave them conditioning and kept them around thinking they were our only chance to win a few games. we would have been better off with out them 6) i was too worried about trying to please fans, parents and the kids instead of doing things my way. now, those were just the people problems I had ...then there was a whole other area of football knowledge, strategy adn coaching that was just pathetic... 1) we didnt have a trap, good counter to compliment our triple option game. 2) we didnt commit to power football and dabbled in way too many things...not good at anything. 3) tried to fit square pegs in round holes...had tiny halfbacks and tried to run wishbone. 4) blocking rules were used but the kids didnt know them very well because we didnt know how to teach them..the rules were sketchy at best back then. 5) play calling...wed run dives into 8 and 9 man fronts thinking it "might" work. lol...man we sucked. 6) defensively we were a revolving door personnel wise...every week it seemed like a new lineup...we changed defenses every week too it seemed...tried to be "multiple" and were good at nothing... 7) didnt get good film of practices 8) had poor quality film of our games 9) worried too much about playing "everyone" instead of those that were deserving and commited. 10) i just didnt know anythign because i was a rookie head coach...not that i know any thing now ... anyhow, looking back at that team..if id have known then, what i know now, we wouldnt have been 3-6-1...we might have been 7-3, or even 8-2....THERE WERE TWO TEAMS THAT JUST BLEW US AWAY IN TALENT....im not sure if the dw and 46 would have stopped them...i dunno....but i do know this, a better coach would have had a better season than 3-6-1...we "coached" well for one game...the final game of the season....we ran smashmouth football and didnt change our defense going into the week...made a difference. the other two wins? we were physically superior in every way. didnt matter if we ran dives into 9 man fronts...wed break tackles and run 40 yards. so, MY EXPERIENCES tell me that coaching matters. Please, no harm meant to anyone who takes offense to this side of the debate. its all meant to be fun, not personal.
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jul 29, 2006 7:59:10 GMT -6
Calande (and others) It's all good. I'm not threatened, just a little jaded by my last experience. Like I was telling someone else there are some games I would do over b/c I thought we could have done a better job preparing the kids. And if we win those games then maybe we win a few more b/c we get some mojo going. Ya know.
When I took he HC job at my last school I really thought that everyone wanted to win and just needed someone to show them how. While that may be the case in most places it certainly was not there.
Maybe the new guy will win, he's got a good pedigree. Maybe the kids wil wake up and realize that all the stuff I told them...he's gonna tell them the same thing and they'll realize its not the coaches but the themselves who have to get it done.
There are some good players there and if they can get thier act together they can be they can win more consistantly. But there are a lot of factors like drugs and alchohol which contibute to the deliquency of the program and school in general. Honestly, I think I coached my ars off as did some of my assistants. We got a lot of out some of those guys and I am proud of that.
No doubt coaching certainly makes a big difference. Will I be a better HC next time around. Certainly. Will I be able to make a bigger difference. Hopefully. That little thing called experience is huge. Still some situations are just plain bad.
|
|
|
Post by chiefscoach on Jul 29, 2006 8:12:37 GMT -6
At the end of the day, I think we all have to remember that as coaches we are the only ones on our respective teams that don't step in between the white lines. While I do believe that coaches can rise a team up one level, no coach can take a below average team and make them great or even good for that matter. I disagree completely. This kind of thought is what leads to so many coaches being ok with losing or not holding themselves accountable. Lets be honest as much as we talk on this board of how we are all a group of the "good" coaches and we talk against those "bad" coaches, in all honesty this board is probably full of not very good coaches because the bottom line is that X's and O's and what you can draw on a white board do NOT win you football games. Emotion, discipline, Character, Strength and execution are all what win you football games and all 5 of those things are instilled by a coach. Coaches MUST hold themselves accountable and it kills me that so many guys say "lets remember we don't make any tackles out there" well I believe if my kid misses that tackle its my fault for not teaching him how to tackle better.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 29, 2006 8:25:23 GMT -6
We all have to have confidence in ourselves and our methods, and most of us work so hard, that we HAVE to believe we make a difference.
If we didn't we'd be suicidal or raging alcoholics.
And, without question, coaching is important. How important in relation to the myriad other ingredients that make up a successful program, especially talent level...who can really say?
A Big Ten basketball coach once told me, "A bad coach can do more to hurt a good team than a good coach can do to help a bad team."
|
|
|
Post by chiefscoach on Jul 29, 2006 8:33:18 GMT -6
And one more comment for now and I'm not going to direct it to anyone because I really don't want to be a jerk in any way so I'll just make a general statement. Yes, I'm a young coach and I know all of the "old coaches" who have all this great expericence will disagree with me but here goes. You don't get better just by coaching another year. If your experience is bad experience it doesn't do you any good, it doesn't make you any better. Now that doesn't mean that if you have a losing season you don't learn anything, it just means that if you have a losing season and when you break it down your verdict is "We just didn't have the horses" your not getting any better and quite honestly you probably will never be a "great" coach. And heres the other thing Coaching is like everything else some people are good at it, some people are great at it and most people are bad at it. Thats just the truth. And honestly not out of pride but out of being blessed and called to do this and out of determination I believe I'll be successful in this game, but if I allow myself to drop to the mentality of the "Old wiser coaches" I have no chance at succeeding. And to the coach who blames his losing on his players all the time and to the coach who sits there watching film just talking bad about his players, I'd really like to schedule you.
|
|
|
Post by swarm2ball on Jul 29, 2006 8:45:00 GMT -6
Patton was a great leader but he also had access to a great army with great resourses. Most historians will agree Robert E. Lee was a better general than anyone in the Union army HOWEVER Grant had like 3x as many troops as Lee. What made Grant better then McClellan (Burnside, Scott, Meade etc) was that he knew how to use the resourses he had. In fact most Civil War buffs will tell you the South had most of the better generals.
I would say that I am not a civil war buff, but I have read numerous historians explain that a big reason why Lee's army was taken over was that he was a strong traditionalist and conservative and did everything by "the book" and would not change his strategy throughout the war, while Grant and others were very flexible with being in the "moment" and reacting to what they saw and not what they studied in the past. This theory can coincide with the fact that coaching does matter when it comes to how are you going to use your men versus the opponent and sometimes that means getting out of your old ways.
I always get a kick out of the line...............you can't make chicken salad out of chicken $%#&, but if you have the chicken salad, you better know how to serve it!
All in all, both components are very important
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 29, 2006 9:06:21 GMT -6
A little perspective from personal experience...
At my first head coaching job (25 years old) I took over a program that had had several losing seasons in a row. Five years later we had won the school's first conference title in 19 years and had the best record in the league over those five years. They have not finished higher than third since then.
At another gig, I took over a team that had won one game the previous two years. We went 7-2, 8-1 our first two years there.
Next stop, in our third year, we won the school's first conference championship in 31 years and went to the playoffs for the first time ever.
(The job I have now is the only one where they were consistently successful before I arrived).
So, yeah, I think coaching's important. But I had some really good kids and football players (and assistant coaches) on those teams.
When things go wrong, chiefscoach, the first thing I evaluate is the head coach. And I NEVER publicly blame losing on the kids. One of the stupidest things we say as coaches is, "The kids didn't want it bad enough."
But, I have had some years where I had to coach my fanny off just to keep from getting killed (one year it didn't work). And I've been fired, too.
|
|
|
Post by chiefscoach on Jul 29, 2006 9:20:55 GMT -6
A little perspective from personal experience... At my first head coaching job (25 years old) I took over a program that had had several losing seasons in a row. Five years later we had won the school's first conference title in 19 years and had the best record in the league over those five years. They have not finished higher than third since then. At another gig, I took over a team that had won one game the previous two years. We went 7-2, 8-1 our first two years there. Next stop, in our third year, we won the school's first conference championship in 31 years and went to the playoffs for the first time ever. (The job I have now is the only one where they were consistently successful before I arrived). So, yeah, I think coaching's important. But I had some really good kids and football players (and assistant coaches) on those teams. When things go wrong, chiefscoach, the first thing I evaluate is the head coach. And I NEVER publicly blame losing on the kids. One of the stupidest things we say as coaches is, "The kids didn't want it bad enough." But, I have had some years where I had to coach my fanny off just to keep from getting killed (one year it didn't work). And I've been fired, too. And I can agree with you. I don't believe you can win championships on coaching alone, I just believe that if we are doing our job, like obviously you've done with the success you've had, we have no time to blame the kids. And I think you nailed it the head coach must be accountable and having a good staff is important too. A great head coach with an aweful staff will not be very successful. So, please don't get me wrong I know that many things have to go right for coaches to win big but I just think we can never ever stop holding ourselves accountable. At every clinic I've been to they say "what you see on tape is what you coach" and I think so many of us say that but don't really believe it. And I think that statement is so true. And believe me it applies to me first. I am not half the coach some of you are but I'm going to keep working hard until I get to that point and the way I will do that is by never blaming anyone else but myself for not succeeding. But yeah coach I agree with what you just said and I understand that even great coaches will have losing season, no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jul 29, 2006 9:38:19 GMT -6
It really does come down to coaching in the end, then... Because, if you build a successfull PROGRAM that kids want to be a part of, then you're going to consistently get the players out. It's not like one school or town consistently has a genetics pool that contains more "football players" than others. I think every school has "football players" in a fairly equal ammount. It's just a matter of whether or not those "footbal players" are actually PLAYING football, or are they roaming the halls, working, and partying because they haven't been DRAWN to the program. A coach who has established a sound program is going to get those kids out. He may not win every year, but he will have a consistent and steadily improving team.
So, the "easy" answer is that it takes BOTH coaching and talent. BUT I believe for consistency, the chicken has to come before the egg, and the coaching has to be good enough to encourage the atheltes to come out for our program and not do something else with their time.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 29, 2006 9:47:21 GMT -6
Here's my take-
Great coaching can.....
...make terrible talent decent (around .500) ..make decent talent good. ...make good talent great ...make great talent champions
The opposite is true for bad coaching
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 29, 2006 11:26:18 GMT -6
uh, both?
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jul 29, 2006 13:48:41 GMT -6
As someone else said earlier there are varied talent levels in all fields, coaching included.
There are great salesmen that wil be the best wherever they go, regardless of circumstances, and Ive seen it, the same goes for bad salespeople, they will always brig up the rear.
God made us all different all of us have different abilites and work with a variety fo committment levels.
Based on that, reason would say there are Great coaches, average coaches and poor coaches. Ive seen the great ones win everywhere they have gone and Like DR John Ward, he has been everywhere and has taken over so many sorry programs and turned every one of them around, it wasnt luck or players , it was him and his system. The latest sad sack team he turned around in 1 years time in NC is doing great. Im sure he will quit that gig soon and move on to another challenge, he gets bored easily and loves the challenge of a turnaround. I think HS coaching is 70% coaching. How could a guy like Don MArkham turn around a 1-9 team to 14-0 in onse season with the same kids? Its coaching.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 29, 2006 14:06:10 GMT -6
You can't build a successful program unless EVERYBODY is on board with how you, as HFC, want to do it. Even then, it's tough.
Just because you are hired as HC doesn't mean that's the case.
In fact, in a lot of HS situations, there are people (parents, administrators, board members, faculty, even your coaching staff) that will not give you what you need, and may be hoping you fail for their own selfish reasons. Doesn't take many to undermine you.
And, how 'bout when the people who hired you move on, and new administrators (who may want their "own people") come in?
School size doesn't mean there are as many athletes or football players in similar enrollment schools. As a simplified example, suburban schools are different than urban schools, and are different than rural schools.
Coaching is NOT a zero sum profession, nor does it have an even starting line.
Bottom line, do what's right, and sink or swim your own ship; so, if you have to go, you can pass the old "Mirror Test."
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 29, 2006 14:07:47 GMT -6
And one more comment for now and I'm not going to direct it to anyone because I really don't want to be a jerk in any way so I'll just make a general statement. Yes, I'm a young coach and I know all of the "old coaches" who have all this great expericence will disagree with me but here goes. You don't get better just by coaching another year. If your experience is bad experience it doesn't do you any good, it doesn't make you any better. Now that doesn't mean that if you have a losing season you don't learn anything, it just means that if you have a losing season and when you break it down your verdict is "We just didn't have the horses" your not getting any better and quite honestly you probably will never be a "great" coach. And heres the other thing Coaching is like everything else some people are good at it, some people are great at it and most people are bad at it. Thats just the truth. And honestly not out of pride but out of being blessed and called to do this and out of determination I believe I'll be successful in this game, but if I allow myself to drop to the mentality of the "Old wiser coaches" I have no chance at succeeding. And to the coach who blames his losing on his players all the time and to the coach who sits there watching film just talking bad about his players, I'd really like to schedule you. Chiefs- this is a great statement really...I am not a young coach really (pushing 40) but I too have had all of the "I been a DC for 25 yeeeeerz and ya girl thingy run da ball wit dem deeer splitz bein so narra..." and the "ya got ta git yer best athlete at qb at that age grup" and the "ya cant pull yer tackles at dis level cuz the lbers read too well" nonsense....15 years, 20 years, 50 years of experience doesnt mean diddly if most of it was losing experience. yknow the types "back in '68 we won our division..." blah blah blah...yeah, but "what have you done for me lately?" ha ha...anyhow, i thought you were right on...experience AT WINNING AND TURNING THINGS AROUND AND AT MAKING FINE YOUNG MEN OUT OF BOYS....those things are important...just being around the game as a coach and losing year after year after year while you wait for that magic forumula of division I kids to hit your team... is kinda like going to the gym but not growing muscles cause you dont know how to eat right... Anyhow I think I am that "young" coach who believes he can go anywhere and coach anyone and win. I think my players believe in me and what I bring to the table ...the players and my staff are the only ones that have to believe. shoot, i must believe, every other post I make is braggin about the dw and what it can do...im a believer. someone has to coach it! I know that my system and our practice habits make a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE....and get this, those of you that think players are 70% or more responsible for the success or lack of...ask yourself one question.."why is practice mandatory?"...SO YOU CAN COACH THEM!
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 29, 2006 14:24:53 GMT -6
I would suggest that any one who believes they can go anywhere and win because of their determination and/or Xs and Os read The Right Kind of Heroes by Kevin Horrigan, about Coach Robert Shannon and the East St. Louis Flyers.
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jul 29, 2006 15:05:44 GMT -6
I would suggest that any one who believes they can go anywhere and win because of their determination and/or Xs and Os read The Right Kind of Heroes by Kevin Horrigan, about Coach Robert Shannon and the East St. Louis Flyers. Bob Shannon is THE MAN! I heard a story about him. They went up to some suburban school in the playoffs and the coach from the other team thought they would win. He told Shannon "Your a_ _ is grass and we are the lawn mower." So after th Flyers dismantled this suburban team Shannon shook the coach's hand after the game and, you guessed it, said "You better buy a new lawnmower."
|
|