CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Jan 4, 2007 9:18:32 GMT -6
I was wondering a little bit about this topic. In the organization I coach with (youth football), we have two types of coaching staffs.
Coaching Staff A-
Schemes are top down, meaning OC and DC design schemes and other assistants help to implement the scheme. Suggestions are highly encouraged among the staff and all suggestions are at least considered and discussed. The final decision does go to the OC or DC. Head coach takes care of program stuff and game time decisions (ie punt or go, timeouts, discipline, practice schedules, facilitating, etc.) In general a collaborative effort. Drills are the responsibility of the position coach, but are done in the context of what the OC and DC want to accomplish for the day. All of the assistants are experienced in the system and have helped design the system. So they are aware of the goals and have buy in.
Coaching Staff B-
The head coach is the primary decision maker on all things. He chooses the offense, he choses the defense, he makes all the decisions. No drills are run unless explicitly approved by the head coach in the specific manner in which he has designed it. Assistant coaches basically become the equivalent of robots carrying out a function. Minimal amounts of collaboration or idea sharing.
Both teams are very successful, so apparently both of these concepts are workable. It think many people see danger in concept A because of potential for disloyalty or dissention. Yet it works. There is some danger in staff B because no one likes to be micromanaged. Yet it works.
Just wondering people's thoughts on these two different approaches to forming a staff. I am not saying one is better than another nor am I saying it is the only two options. Like most extremes a little of A and a little of B is probably more closer to the reality. Just wanted to open up some discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 4, 2007 9:55:41 GMT -6
 this is a great book you might want to check out. Wisdom is justified by her children I would hate being on staff B (unless I was a novice and felt I needed the mentoring). I've been on both kinds, and LOVE staff A. Staff A only works if the other coaches buy into being responsible (not everyone is) and investing in the program. If you just want to show up and collect a paycheck and 'prestige', staff B would be fun to work on. |
|
|
|
Post by steamroller on Jan 4, 2007 11:22:32 GMT -6
I worked two year on as a freshman coach on a staff like STAFF A. Loved it. Each coach takes responsibility and buys into the program and holds thier position players accountable. The OC and DC have the final decision making power on O and D. The head coach would add his input and help where needed. He handled all the Booster Club and business side of the program..the man was great at it.
Now i work for a guy that is totally STAFF B. And I can not stand it. He goes around making decisions without letting anyone know, steps in (IN FRONT OF COACHES) and starts yelling at kids or running the drills because its not being done his way. He says he's open to suggestions, but anytime you speak up you get attacked. He has had success at other places, but only when he has had more talent.
|
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Jan 4, 2007 12:07:57 GMT -6
As a Head Coach, you have to tailor your coaching style to what you have around you. In youth sports, it's common to have a head coach that coach's football, and 2 or 3 Dad's to help out. In that situtation, Staff B is best.
I coach like Staff B because I just have Dad's helping me out. Overtime, I get them really good at drills and give them 100% control of the drill. Then hand more and more off. Even listen to their ideas and be very diplomatic about turning them down. (one Dad did have a great idea for punting last year, long story, but I used it and it worked)
Problem is, Dad leaves when the kid leaves, so I'm back to square one.
If a situation came up where I had an assistant who was a solid coach, I would absolutely change things up.
I think in youth football, the biggest thing is plays, and play calling. People love to make up a play, coach it, and then call it in a game. There is something about that. Especially trick plays. That is where you can have the largest amount of animosity.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Jan 4, 2007 13:34:54 GMT -6
I coach in Staff A right now for the organization. I definitely see the point of Staff B though. Like Wingt74 said, it is the best route when you have coaches that are Dad's and might not know a ton, but love to help.
Luckily our situation is rather unique. We have 6 coaches for our team. For no other reason then we all 6 are good friends and wanted to help out together. Everyone of us has played at HS or college level, so we understand basic football concepts. We designed our systems from scratch. We don't do anything new or different, but terminology and blocking schemes are our own language. I am sure if one were to break it down it is the same thing as 1000's of other coaches do we just don't have the standard wording and may have tweaked an idea or two. Basically everyone had a hand in the design from the beggining, so there is tremendous buy in. Ideas are always taken in consideration, but the final decision comes down to the OC and DC. I have some suggestions shot down, but I am always given thorough reasoning, not just "that's not the way I want it." Our Head Coach actually acts like a manager. He designs the schedules, makes sure we keep on task, handles discipline issues, parents, makes major decisions on game days.
It all seems to work out very well. Being friends for a long time we don't really deal with disloyalty or disscention. We definitely have a rule that all disagreements are settled away from the kids. The OC and DC have final say, with the HC having a little more input power. The HC is the overall boss when it comes to big decisions about the team.
It is an enjoyable situation, but also unique.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluecrazy on Jan 4, 2007 13:53:09 GMT -6
I think the Head coach has the staff go in the direction that the Head coach wants to go, Like what def & off He is comfortable with, set up the Philosophy that He has for the team. Once everything is talked out, than the head coach has to let his assistants coach. If He See's anything that he don't like, than talks to the coach later, in a one on one when they are alone. After all, it is the head coach that will loose the job. He has to be in control, but not like a dictator situation. He has to look over everything, but like I said, let your coach's coach. bluecrazy
|
|
|
|
Post by redandwhite on Jan 4, 2007 14:11:24 GMT -6
As a HC, I definitely foster the environment of Staff A. I firmly believe that if you are able to hire good people you should provide them with the framework and let them work. I have consistently found that empowering coaches to get their job done in the way that works best for them and their position group is the best way to foster ownership in the program. With ownership comes the best work ethic and the freedom to feel as if they can contribute in staff meetings - many of the best things that we have done have started as a "throw-away" comment that, after a lot of input from a lot of coaches has enhanced what we do. I strongly believe in being a "we" staff.
|
|
coachbronk
Sophomore Member
[F4:@coachbronk]
Posts: 249
|
Post by coachbronk on Jan 5, 2007 13:11:28 GMT -6
this is a great book you might want to check out. Wisdom is justified by her children I would hate being on staff B (unless I was a novice and felt I needed the mentoring). I've been on both kinds, and LOVE staff A. Staff A only works if the other coaches buy into being responsible (not everyone is) and investing in the program. If you just want to show up and collect a paycheck and 'prestige', staff B would be fun to work on. I agree 100%, this is a great book we all should read. |
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Jan 5, 2007 18:37:07 GMT -6
Worked on several Type A staffs and learned tons early on. Worked on a Type B my first year here, actually more like an A- or B+ we had some things we could do but always had to justify why we did things so differently back in Oregon.
|
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on Jan 5, 2007 19:47:41 GMT -6
I believe it also depends on the experience the HC has in his current situation. At the end of the day, no matter what type of staff situation, A or B, the buck stops at the HC. That said, in the beginning, an HC needs to foster an environment more like staff B, until he knows that his coaches are loyal, competent and want the program/team to go in the same direction as the HC. Once the HC knows for certain he has a core group (not necessarily all of his coaches) of quality coaches that all see eye to eye, then the HC can create an environment like staff A. On a side note, I've seen this time take weeks and I've seen this time take years. It just depends on the staff.
|
|
