|
Post by jlenwood on Mar 15, 2012 7:00:48 GMT -6
"It seems to me that some COACHES can't comprehend the fact that just because some kid is not going a hundred miles an hour, "He must not have heart"."
Again, my original post was with the coach, and not the kid, who talks about a player having heart instead of ability.
Look, everybody loves the "Rudy", hardworking kid, but the reality is that some are not as talented as others. So why do coaches continue to play that player over someone else and put the kid in a position to fail. That is my biggest complaint. Now this might just be a case of a younger kid who isn't ready yet, but may turn out to be quite good over time.
Here is an example that I observed from basketball this season. Kid is a freshman, never been a great player in the lower grades, but he shows up this year and makes an impression because he "hustles and gets after it". OK, so they move him up to JV where he just can't do it. He turns it over like crazy, bad shots, you name it. So he gets discouraged, tells his friends he hates it, again because he is being put into a position to fail. At the awards the coach says "This kids got heart!". I saw it with girls BB. Senior plays with heart, but the sophomore is 10 times better, but the senior plays. FULL DISCLOSURE...I have no kids on these teams.
Now because they saw a kid that moves at a fast pace (not performs at a fast pace, big distinction), he/she has heart in the coaches eyes. My internal thought has always been "Activity does not mean accomplishment". But to some activity (heart) does mean accomplishment. I am sure everyone on here can tell a similar story.
As an assistant coach have I been guilty of playing someone because they hustled, probably. But I make every effort to make sure that I know the kids I coach, because the differences in personality can cloud how we perceive a young persons "heart". Maybe some kids just get it done with out the cloud of dust. Some might glance and say that kid is not even trying. Well some players can look effortless and yet they are some of your best players.
|
|
|
Post by veerman on Mar 15, 2012 9:04:00 GMT -6
I think most teams have those kids that come out and go hard, and are at every thing on time and do what you say to the letter but have zero ability. Those kids we try and find other ways they can be rewarded. I agree I don't cut my own throat by playing them and loosing. I will say this if they are close in talent then I play the kid that may have a little less talent, but a lot more heart than the guy with a little more talent, but don't care as much. Want to say the Coach's name was Tim Murphy (listen to him speak at a glazier clinic) was a great speaker, and got a lot of great stuff from him. He had a rubric scale that rated kids 1-10 on 4 different categories, he and the coaching staff rated the kids while the kid rated himself. The kid with the higher overall score was the starter. Trust and effort was the tie breaker if need be. Thought it was a great thing to help us keep ourselves in check. He even brought up the example of a kid that maybe a 9 or 10 in trust and effort but 2 in athletic ability is probably not going to start, and if he does your going to struggle anyways.
|
|
mhs99
Junior Member
Posts: 250
|
Post by mhs99 on Mar 20, 2012 5:54:05 GMT -6
There is a place for kids with big heart and little talent; special teams (and as backups).
|
|
|
Post by jlenwood on Mar 20, 2012 10:21:01 GMT -6
"having "heart" isn't enough to get you on the field, but NOT having heart is enough to keep you off of it."
Very well put.
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on Mar 20, 2012 13:32:44 GMT -6
"having "heart" isn't enough to get you on the field, but NOT having heart is enough to keep you off of it." Very well put. Very similar to a quote I heard about coaching: "You can lose with talent, but you can't win without it."
|
|
|
Post by bcurrier on Mar 21, 2012 13:25:00 GMT -6
I believe the opposite situation is much more prevalent -- talent and presumed "ability" is used to justify playing and sticking with players who don't play with "heart" and have character issues. I see this happening much, much more often than the situation described by jlenwood. And I can't recall ever hearing "potential" used as a justification for staying with a "heart" player who can't get the job done -- it is always used to justify staying with an underperforming player who is said to have the talent, "the measurables," to be a great player.
I am fed up with our profession's worship at the altar of talent and believe it is hurting our game. Someone mentioned Brandon Marshall earlier in the thread -- he is a great example of this. No one questions his athletic ability, his potential to be a dominant player at his position. And his stats are extremely impressive...but what has he done for his teams? No playoff appearances and plenty of off-the-field troubles. (As a life-long Bears fan, I hope that changes, but the start of his career in Chicago doesn't give reason for optimism.)
As I tell the players I coach, when it comes to results, there's no difference between "can't" and "won't." And given the choice, I will take a lesser-talented player whom I can count on to go hard and perform his assignment to the best of his ability consistently over a more-talented player who is inconsistent and can't be relied on. If I know what I can count on, I can coach to compensate for where there are shortcomings. There's no way to strategize around not knowing what I'm going to get from a player.
The bottom-line? My job as a coach is to maximize the performance of each of the players I coach -- getting each to play to the best of their physical ability with the most "heart" they can muster.
|
|
|
Post by 42falcon on Mar 21, 2012 14:51:01 GMT -6
Job as a coach: To put players in the best position for them & the team to succede.
The saying "heart" makes me puke bugs me a little and I resisited the urge to read the thread. But when I read the OP there is a difference between seeing a players ability in his "heart or effort" and seeing a players ability as actually his ability.
There is something to be said for a player with "heart" or a player with lots of "try". I love those kids and need them on our team. Some of those kids who have "heart" and talent are the superstars. The ones with just "heart" are great they motivate others, promote the integrity of the program.
Do we base playing time on "heart"? No. Do we try to find a place or a time for the kid to play? "Yes, when the situation is favorable to the player & team" ie: specials, or bracketing him in for a series between 2 stronger players.
|
|
|
Post by mattyg2787 on Mar 21, 2012 17:32:35 GMT -6
Here it is. If kids really have "heart" they will work their A$$ off to perform. Everything in football is a learnt skill. Everything. Now genetics will determine some factors (height mainly) but everything else can be improved. If a kid really has "heart" he will be at every off season thing working harder then anyone else. Genetics may make gains slower but on a good program, anyone can squat 300lbs for reps. ANYONE (I know guys that are 60+ Years old who can do it) So if little Jimmy with great heart wants to play, he has to work for it. If Johnny doesn't have "heart" but is more of a natural athlete the guy working harder will soon overtake him.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Mar 21, 2012 17:38:08 GMT -6
Here it is. If kids really have "heart" they will work their A$$ off to perform. Everything in football is a learnt skill. Everything. Now genetics will determine some factors (height mainly) but everything else can be improved. If a kid really has "heart" he will be at every off season thing working harder then anyone else. Genetics may make gains slower but on a good program, anyone can squat 300lbs for reps. ANYONE (I know guys that are 60+ Years old who can do it) So if little Jimmy with great heart wants to play, he has to work for it. If Johnny doesn't have "heart" but is more of a natural athlete the guy working harder will soon overtake him. Sorry, but speaking from personal experience as player and coach, that's just not true.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Mar 21, 2012 18:15:38 GMT -6
Here it is. If kids really have "heart" they will work their A$$ off to perform. Everything in football is a learnt skill. Everything. Now genetics will determine some factors (height mainly) but everything else can be improved. If a kid really has "heart" he will be at every off season thing working harder then anyone else. Genetics may make gains slower but on a good program, anyone can squat 300lbs for reps. ANYONE (I know guys that are 60+ Years old who can do it) So if little Jimmy with great heart wants to play, he has to work for it. If Johnny doesn't have "heart" but is more of a natural athlete the guy working harder will soon overtake him. Sorry, but speaking from personal experience as player and coach, that's just not true. No, it's not even close to true. I don't care if you can get any slapd!ck to squat 300, some things in football are genetic. If what you're saying was true, I think the majority of this board wouldn't be posting here, but we'd be playing in the NFL or sitting on our asses by a pool somewhere after having long NFL careers.
|
|
|
Post by mattyg2787 on Mar 21, 2012 18:52:14 GMT -6
When your talking NFL, your talking genetic freaks. At HS level, last time I checked, most high schools aren't getting 20-30 future NFL players. Even D1 guys your hitting top end of human genetics.
Guys are always going to "get it" quicker then others. Thats just fact (same with any other subject in school) However, even the dunce of a class can still learn if they want to. Look, I'm the first to attest to this. I grew up playing no sports (I think I did a year of softball when I was like 10) being a fat kid. When I found football over here I was 22 and still just fat guy. Since then I've gotten hooked on this sport. I'm stronger, slimmer and faster then I've ever been in my entire life. I have started every snap for our last 2 seasons and a lot of the guys I play with have played some sort of sport their entire lives. Why have I been successful? Hard work. I don't make it look like I work hard by "hussling" between drills. I step into every drill that I do and make it game time. 100%.
I'm not saying there aren't limits to what you can physically do. You can't magically make yourself 6" taller. You can make yourself faster. You can make yourself stronger. You can learn to catch, block and tackle. These are all learnt skills. Sure if a kid has been playing since Peewee he is going to be better at these skills but the only reason they are good is because they have practiced them.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Mar 21, 2012 19:18:02 GMT -6
When your talking NFL, your talking genetic freaks. At HS level, last time I checked, most high schools aren't getting 20-30 future NFL players. Even D1 guys your hitting top end of human genetics. Guys are always going to "get it" quicker then others. Thats just fact (same with any other subject in school) However, even the dunce of a class can still learn if they want to. Look, I'm the first to attest to this. I grew up playing no sports (I think I did a year of softball when I was like 10) being a fat kid. When I found football over here I was 22 and still just fat guy. Since then I've gotten hooked on this sport. I'm stronger, slimmer and faster then I've ever been in my entire life. I have started every snap for our last 2 seasons and a lot of the guys I play with have played some sort of sport their entire lives. Why have I been successful? Hard work. I don't make it look like I work hard by "hussling" between drills. I step into every drill that I do and make it game time. 100%. I'm not saying there aren't limits to what you can physically do. You can't magically make yourself 6" taller. You can make yourself faster. You can make yourself stronger. You can learn to catch, block and tackle. These are all learnt skills. Sure if a kid has been playing since Peewee he is going to be better at these skills but the only reason they are good is because they have practiced them. I was saying that football coaches generally had a ton of "heart" as players, so if heart is what could make you a player then we'd have a ton of NFL guys on here. And, skills alone won't make you a good football player. You must have the speed, strength, explosion, power, etc to go along with it. You have to have some genetics in order to have those things. Which reiterates the fact that heart alone doesn't always make you better than a guy with better physical ability, which was what your original point was.
|
|
|
Post by mattyg2787 on Mar 21, 2012 19:29:49 GMT -6
but speed strength and explosion are all things that can be trained. Every single person is capable of squatting 1.5x their bw (especially when we are talking HS age) Same thing with big hang cleans, bench, jumps etc. Some will always be better then others simply due to genetics. Skills can be learned and trained. What I'm saying is, kids that REALLY want to play (which is what I would consider "heart) will work hard to play. If you are doing weight training 3x a week in the off season, the kid with "heart" will also be running in the mornings. Will this alone get you to the NFL or a D1 scholarship? No, you are competing against absolute genetic freaks. Will it get you good enough to compete with other HS level football players? Absolutely. How many of the coaches on here had starting spots in HS? and If not, why not?
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Mar 21, 2012 19:37:10 GMT -6
but speed strength and explosion are all things that can be trained. Every single person is capable of squatting 1.5x their bw (especially when we are talking HS age) Same thing with big hang cleans, bench, jumps etc. Some will always be better then others simply due to genetics. Skills can be learned and trained. What I'm saying is, kids that REALLY want to play (which is what I would consider "heart) will work hard to play. If you are doing weight training 3x a week in the off season, the kid with "heart" will also be running in the mornings. Will this alone get you to the NFL or a D1 scholarship? No, you are competing against absolute genetic freaks. Will it get you good enough to compete with other HS level football players? Absolutely. How many of the coaches on here had starting spots in HS? and If not, why not? yes, this is why i didn't play division i football or make it to the nfl... i simply didn't have enough heart. i could have been a world class sprinter in the olympics, too, but i didn't have enough heart. at one time my mom thought i had the footwork, hips, balance to be a big time dancer in the movies ... but, alas, i didn't have enough heart. This is getting silly. i'm going to be honest. your 'experience' (what, 4-5 years coaching a non-native sport to similar youth/young adults?) really is trumped by what these others have said. heart is effort. and with effort you tend to plug through something. but, heart doesn't equate to footwork, fast-twitch, lung capacity. "learning" football is not the whole thing... you need to "move, run, etc." ... you don't "learn" yourself into the olympics. you don't "heart" your way to a division I scholarship. God-given talent will always play a factor. at every level. some people are simply better at things from the start than others. everyone has a ceiling. some people play at their ceiling all the time (they have heart) ... but if that ceiling isn't very high, you get a guy that plays hard, is smart, won't give up, but is still a step slower than the other guy. can we move on?
|
|
|
Post by mattyg2787 on Mar 21, 2012 20:13:36 GMT -6
Bah, I'll leave it at that. But yes, kids with Talent should play first. The point is to win right?
|
|
|
Post by 4verts on Mar 21, 2012 20:17:06 GMT -6
but speed strength and explosion are all things that can be trained. Every single person is capable of squatting 1.5x their bw (especially when we are talking HS age) Same thing with big hang cleans, bench, jumps etc. Some will always be better then others simply due to genetics. Skills can be learned and trained. What I'm saying is, kids that REALLY want to play (which is what I would consider "heart) will work hard to play. If you are doing weight training 3x a week in the off season, the kid with "heart" will also be running in the mornings. Will this alone get you to the NFL or a D1 scholarship? No, you are competing against absolute genetic freaks. Will it get you good enough to compete with other HS level football players? Absolutely. How many of the coaches on here had starting spots in HS? and If not, why not? you take your 5'9 kids that have a 5.4 40 and 5.3 pro agility make them squat and clean the whole weightroom so they can lower that 40 to 5.1 and pro agility to 5.0. then have them cover my 6'3 kid that runs a 4.6 40 and has a 4.4 pro agility and never sees a weightroom. after that your kid will still have all that heart and my kid will have tons of confidence because he just got his highlight tape put together. and whether you are great at developing players or coaching fundamentals or scheme the crap out of me, i am still seen as the better coach because i had the better player. this is why recruiting at the college level is as important as coaching ball.
|
|
|
Post by mattyg2787 on Mar 21, 2012 21:37:28 GMT -6
Both of my posts, I've mentioned height as a limiting unchangable factor. Your not wrong, doesn't matter how good my 5'9 kid is, against a 6'4 moderate wide receiver it's still a terrible match up. I did write that genetics comes into it. What I'm saying is 2 6'4 kids come into the school at the same time. One is already athletic by simple chance. If the other one works hard enough, they can potentially take the more "naturally talented"" kids spot IF his performance shows he should. I'm not saying, nor did I ever say that hard work alone will get you a D1 scholarship otherwise I would be getting D1 offers from over here.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 25, 2012 13:16:48 GMT -6
but speed strength and explosion are all things that can be trained. Every single person is capable of squatting 1.5x their bw (especially when we are talking HS age) Same thing with big hang cleans, bench, jumps etc. Some will always be better then others simply due to genetics. Skills can be learned and trained. What I'm saying is, kids that REALLY want to play (which is what I would consider "heart) will work hard to play. If you are doing weight training 3x a week in the off season, the kid with "heart" will also be running in the mornings. Will this alone get you to the NFL or a D1 scholarship? No, you are competing against absolute genetic freaks. Will it get you good enough to compete with other HS level football players? Absolutely. How many of the coaches on here had starting spots in HS? and If not, why not? The problem with your line of thinking here is that it is not physiologically sound. In fact the research shows that the kid with "heart" running in the mornings is actually IMPEDING his strength gains and therefore his "heart" is leading to counter productive actions. Something else to consider that hasn't been discussed here yet is that SOMETIMES, natural ability allows things to LOOK effortless. More than once I have witnessed coaches harping on talented athletes for coasting in sprints and praising the more spastic kids for hustling when the "hustle" was just really poor inefficient running style.
|
|
|
Post by 4verts on Mar 25, 2012 17:06:17 GMT -6
The kids that you are speaking of were lazy, not dominated, or beat-out by 'heart' players. If the discussion is an even playing field then the kid with 'heart' never beats out the talented kid. If the talented kid is lazy it is just as much the fault of the coach, as the 'heart' kid being in position and technically sound.
|
|
|
Post by mrjvi on Mar 25, 2012 17:31:50 GMT -6
I've had quite a few kids over the years that were average athletes but committed to serious strength training and became very good. Probably makes up more than half of my players. Ironically, other players, coaches and parents then say that those athletes are naturally talented. They don't really see the committment the kids made. Those are the players I would say have "heart". The truly natural athletes are much rarer and many times come with issues. If I get them to display "heart" then they are truly special.
|
|
|
Post by mattyg2787 on Mar 25, 2012 18:48:15 GMT -6
That's the nature of it. If a kid works hard, he will look like a "natural Athlete". When your talking NFL/Div 1 levels, you are talking Genetic freaks. Doesn't matter how hard you work, unless you have that level of potential, you ain't playing there. At HS & amaeteur (which is what I play at) levels, hard work will almost always get a kid game time (unless you've got the next Ray Lewis playing LB for you) And someone naturally talented who doesn't want to work for it won't make it past HS level anyway, regardless of how fast, agile and football smart they are.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Mar 26, 2012 8:38:57 GMT -6
You are always going to have these types of kids:
1. They work hard (have heart) during and out of the season and it shows. They get better and beat out their competition for the position.
2. They work hard all year but well, you can't make chicken salad out of chicken crap. It's a harsh reality but it's the truth. They love football but they just don't have the physical ability to play the sport. They've done a lot for three years but they'll never see the field.
3. The athletes. The kids that don't do much in the off-season but show up in August and get their starting spot. Now, this is assuming they work hard in practice. It's hard to send these kids packing when they do bust butt during football season but don't do much in the off-season. But, in my experience, the "athletes" that refuse to work in the off-season don't do so during the season either. I have had several that won't even take a weight training class in school which would be good enough for me. " Now, this is all relative to the programs we work in. It's easy to say "the hell with you, you're not going to play" when the kid won't sign up for a football weight training period. It's easy to bench them when you have numbers that will keep you afloat and winning games (i.e. keeping your job).
I mean, lazy is lazy, there's no way around it. We had an All-State basketball player with us this year who is quite possibly the best athlete in the state for our classification. But, he's lazier than hell, didn't work for sh-t and road the bench until he quit. We had two other that would start for any team in the state but were also slobs and I kicked them both off of the team for missing practice. But, I couldn't justify benching kids that worked hard and earned their spot during the season but were lazy the rest of the year.
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Mar 26, 2012 10:51:32 GMT -6
If the definition of heart is effort and commitment to the program and you have many or alot of starters who do not exhibit what has been defined as "heart" then you are going to be an average team period (at best). If you have a genectically gifted kid who does little to nothing in the off season and go's through the motions in practice because that's good enough against the competition he see's everyday in practice he'll get crushed by equal or nearly equal talent that works hard. If you fail to hold kids accountable for effort and attitude and I mean all kids then you are doing all your players a disservice. I am going to win and lose with players who have earned the right to wear the uniform on game days and much of that has nothing to do with a genectic crap shoot that happens at conception. I truly believe programs are built on the backs of average high school athletes who work hard to be successful and grow as players and people during their high school playing days- if you are fortunate enough to get a few genectic freaks thrown in to the mix who work hard too then you my friend will have a tough team to beat. However if you do not hold all players accountable to the standard we have defined as "heart" you'll be tough when you have enough gifted players to make you tough but consistantcy will not be there year in and year out, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Mar 26, 2012 16:46:11 GMT -6
Alright, I 'll jump in. I have been following this thread, and I have been thinking about a conversation I had with a kid a couple of weeks ago. He isn't a DI kid (too short) but is a great high school athlete; he can excell at several sports.
The gist of our conversation went like this: Johnny, don't be a 100% athlete that practices at 80%.
Okay if you had a 100% athlete (kids has the genetics to excell) but he works at 80%, you end up with a 80% athlete.
If you had a 80% athlete that works at 100%, then you still end up with an 80% athlete.
Which do you take?
|
|
|
Post by bluedevil4 on Mar 26, 2012 17:46:21 GMT -6
I think what mattyg is trying to get at is that if a kid doesn't have heart/doesn't work hard, he runs the risk of NOT improving (you can either improve, or stay where you are. You can't get worse). Over time, if he doesn't put in "heart" or effort to improve, he may stay at the ability level he currently has, and other kids may eventually surpass him in ability, or may genetically pass him in ability. Of course, he may never be passed and he just "has it." This is over a span of at least one year.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Mar 26, 2012 17:54:35 GMT -6
No, mattyg is saying any kid can be taught to do any task if he "wants to" bad enough, and it's just not true.
There are different degrees of talent, and talent can't be taught.
It's a mistake a lot of coaches, especially inexperienced ones, make. When the kid can't perform a certain skill or technique satisfactorily, his attitude, effort, or "heart" incorrectly get the blame.
If a kid doesn't have speed or can't bend his knees, for example, he's not going to make plays - even if his name is "Rudy."
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 26, 2012 18:33:21 GMT -6
No, mattyg is saying any kid can be taught to do any task if he "wants to" bad enough, and it's just not true. There are different degrees of talent, and talent can't be taught. It's a mistake a lot of coaches, especially inexperienced ones, make. When the kid can't perform a certain skill or technique satisfactorily, his attitude, effort, or "heart" incorrectly get the blame. If a kid doesn't have speed or can't bend his knees, for example, he's not going to make plays - even if his name is "Rudy." There's nothing I hate more than than stuff about a guy not having "heart".
|
|
|
Post by jlenwood on Mar 26, 2012 20:26:08 GMT -6
Guys, there is no way in the world I thought this would create 3 pages of comments. I was just ranting on some things I see at our school that drive me a little crazy, and it appears we are all getting very philosophical and a little deeper than I imagined.
Here is my definition of "heart" (one that doesn't make me puke). We have a kid that is a senior this year. Not the greatest player, but he has been a starter for the last 2 years and he will start this season also. What makes me think of him having heart? He has never missed a weight room session, ever, from the eighth grade on. That is heart to me. He is quiet, goes about his business, helps other kids and gets it done. I love the kid. That's heart to me.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Mar 27, 2012 7:20:12 GMT -6
Alright, I 'll jump in. I have been following this thread, and I have been thinking about a conversation I had with a kid a couple of weeks ago. He isn't a DI kid (too short) but is a great high school athlete; he can excell at several sports. The gist of our conversation went like this: Johnny, don't be a 100% athlete that practices at 80%. Okay if you had a 100% athlete (kids has the genetics to excell) but he works at 80%, you end up with a 80% athlete. If you had a 80% athlete that works at 100%, then you still end up with an 80% athlete. Which do you take? To me, "80%" implies that he's putting out a basic level of work ethic. Maybe he's only in the weight room 80% of the time. Maybe he's takes 20% of the snaps off at practice. Either way, we plan on starting him but use the depth chart to push him. Plug that #2 (or even #3) guy in there when he starts being a lazy a-- in practice.
|
|
|
Post by pmeisel on Mar 27, 2012 18:38:39 GMT -6
I have an accountant that works for me who tries really hard, always in early, often stays late, works weekends if required.
But he doesn't know what he's doing half the time and makes a lot of mistakes. Should I promote him or fire him?
Try that on the next conversation.
|
|