|
|
Post by airman on May 3, 2007 18:16:43 GMT -6
I was wondering what style of head coach you are(for those of you who are or were head coaches). where you the I have to do everything because I feel my way is the best or were you able to give freedom to your assistants.
i realize being the head guy you have the final say.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on May 3, 2007 18:33:53 GMT -6
I'm the head coach, and all but one of my assistants are former players of mine. I'm a dictator in that I'm going to set things up so my young coaches can be successful. I'm also a chairman in that the coaches who have been around for awhile can now make practice and in game adjustments, provide real input regarding implementation and strategy, and are looked upon by the players as COACHES. It really depends on how your staff is made up.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbairattack on May 3, 2007 19:10:06 GMT -6
I like to think of myself as a General more then a 'dictator'. I have officers under me that are more interactive with the soldiers and give their opinions on anything and everything from training methods and drills to war strategy and execution. okay analogy over  I have the final say but my decisions are intended to be for the good of the staff and the kids. I dont want to be overbearing but at the end of the day, week, or season it is my head on the chopping block first then everyone elses. |
|
|
|
Post by lsrood on May 4, 2007 8:40:11 GMT -6
I'm more a chairman of the board type. I have a great mix on my staff, coaches with great experience and success, and new firebreathing young pups who all came through our system and understand what we are trying to do. I value everyone's input and we try to arrive at decisions through a consensus. If needed I will try to steer the consensus in the direction I want or think best, but I don't just arbitrarily shoot things down. I want the whole staff to feel they have ownership of the program.
I give my assistants the freedom and responsibility to coach their areas. Once we have determined how we are going to proceed it is up to them to make sure their players are properly prepared. Since I don't coach a position on O or D I can float and observe what they area doing and make sure it is what we want.
Of course when it comes to the tough decisions they automatically get pushed back to me, which is fine. We have a term for that around here, it falls under the "Sucks to be head coach" category. Any problems with parents, headaches of any nature or controversial decisions all end up in my lap. So I think most of the time I'm a chairman of the board, but I like fbairattack's analogy of a general to describe the "STBHC" category.
|
|
kdcoach
Sophomore Member
Posts: 194
|
Post by kdcoach on May 4, 2007 10:03:25 GMT -6
More of a Chairman of the Board type. I think if you don't encourage others to add input and be always trying to learn and communicate new things than you will grow stagnant as a staff or organization. By continually shooting down ideas because they aren't yours you discourage that process. Having said all that, ultimately the HC must have the final say and decision. After all, it is his name going in the newspaper when things go wrong or right. And in some/most situations, if he gets canned so does everyone else.  |
|
|
|
Post by coachmathis on May 4, 2007 10:03:42 GMT -6
I wouldn't quite call it chairman of the board style but its similar. I give my assistants freedom to coach because if I didn't think they were good enough to coach on the varsity level I wouldn't have hire them. My mind state is I didn't hire you for me to tell you how to do your job or to do your job for you. I will make comments and things of that nature during practice or if i think he needs to change something, other than that it's, you get a check now go earn it. If you have young guys, like fbdoc says, I would be more of a dictator and very hands on in what they are doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on May 4, 2007 10:23:33 GMT -6
I try to be as much a "chairman of the board" as possible. I am always looking for input, ideas and feedback from my staff, as long as it's voiced properly. I want my guys to feel that they have a stake in the program, that they "own" a part of it.
However, I can be a real micro-managing tool when I need to be. If I see something wrong, I correct it and I do so quickly. I am ver clear what I want with my assistants on some things; others they have a lot of leeway. Here's an example;
A few years ago, one of my assistants was teaching shoulder blocking with the offensive lineman, even though I had asked him to teach them to use their hands. He knew what I wanted in terms of technique and why I wanted it. I had even given him a packet with some diagrams and drills along with a thorough demonstration. I was very personable with everything, but I was firm with using the hands.
So, that was his first warning. When I saw that he was teaching shoulder blocking, I walked over, stopped the drill and took over. I scrapped the shouler blocking but told the kids that the coach had misunderstood what I wanted. I tried to save him a little bit of face.
He wasn't happy with me, but our practice time is limited and a commodity. I don't like having practice time wasted on a technique that I have asked him not to use. In most other situations, I would have pulled him aside in private, but he knew he was doing something that was going to upset me.
|
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on May 4, 2007 15:17:12 GMT -6
I'm Kim Jong Il... short, crazy, paranoid and in charge!
Seriously, The DC has full reign- my final say is that he has the final say when it comes to the D (I will argue, but I have found we are better if we abide by his decisions). Special teams coord. have almost the same reign... but any fake, onside, reverse, punt block, etc. must be run by me (generally during game planning, but sometimes they see things in a game). I run the O and really do not want to focus on the other aspects.
Our DC was a successful HC for over 20 years, the special teams coaches all played here and in college- and two coached elsewhere before returning home. really, I've got it pretty good... I may be the weakest link on the staff...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2007 9:13:30 GMT -6
I have worked for dictators and chairmen of the board, had no major issues with either and worked fine under both men.
But I worked for a guy once who was more like "the tallest kid in class" and we may as well have been leaderless. I hate to badmouth anyone and he was actually a great, great guy. But I knew we were in trouble when he told me one day "I'm way over my head."
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Vint on May 8, 2007 14:25:11 GMT -6
I have worked with great head coaches of both styles as well. I think a good head coach will have a little of each. The biggest thing was how they treated their coaches and players. My first job was with a great coach who was more of a dictator. He had won 70 percent of his games and 10 conference titles. I shut up and listened. I worked for another great head coach for seven years because he let his coaches coach. He could be a dictator, but only when he needed to. He was open to new ideas and we felt vested. I learned how to lead from knowing that you hire good people and let them work. I think you need a little of each, and if you are a great coach you know when each style is necessary. I will say that if you are arrogant and condescending you will never have success. Especially, if you are inexperienced. As I work with coaching staffs throughout the country, the one thing I notice is that more and more young coaches think they have to know everything. Take your ego out of your decision making process. Replace your ego with your assistant coaches.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbairattack on May 8, 2007 23:20:11 GMT -6
Take your ego out of your decision making process. Replace your ego with your assistant coaches. Great point right there |
|
