bear42
Freshmen Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by bear42 on Nov 27, 2012 18:09:33 GMT -6
We hear it all the time, "he's a great coach" and the program is very successful.
What make's a coach, Specifically the HC, a great coach and why are they successful.
This can't be a simple answer.
What do you think it takes?
Or if your successful, What do you think you contribute this to?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2012 20:19:56 GMT -6
I have always heard there are far more good coaches than there are good programs, and I honestly believe this. I believe there are too many things that go into making a successful program, but just to name some are obvious:
Coaches-must be good and must be dedicated to the HC, the school and most importantly making men out of boys by setting a good example.
Admin.- must be willing to let the HC do his job, and not get "political" about it. Must be willing to open every avenue possible to help the HC with anything he needs.
Players- gotta have some talent, if it's just a small amount.
Facilities- This is getting more and more important the more exposure HS football is getting on TV etc. Most importantly is the weight room.
Parents- I have worked many places with differing parent structures and support. I worked one place the parents painted the field, fed the kids the pregame meal, and washed the uniforms after the games. They also helped with fundraisers and ran the chains at home games. These places soared in terms of what you could do with the players there, but there was also a lot "Coach, why ain't my boy playin' more?" too. Have worked at places where over 2/3 of the team came from broken homes, or kids didn't even know their parents (lived with other relatives such as aunt, uncle, or grandparents). Unity was tough at those places, most kids were out for themselves, very little support meant the coaches and players had to do more themselves, fundraising was ridiculously difficult (very poor areas), yet when it came to what you could do and get away with the players it was the "sky's the limit". Basically, when it comes to parents "pick your poison". I can say this, the latter is a very fun challenge to tackle, especially if the kids are tough and hard working.
Money- Can't do anything without it, poor rural communities are tough to fundraise in. It can be done, but to what length and what extent I'm not sure. I was HC in a place like this, we were lucky to raise between 4 and 6 thousand a year in fundraising monies. I have a good friend who's annual fundraising minimum is $60,000 (if he doesn't get that, he's in trouble). Money makes some of the above listed things a lot easier to come by.
I know there's more, but that's probably the biggest contributors to being successful. I'm sure others will chime in with their ideas.
Duece
|
|
|
|
Post by coachseth on Nov 27, 2012 20:24:39 GMT -6
You have to have great facilities, decent talent, and at least three types of coaches.
A motivator, a teacher, and someone who will murder you with X's and O's.
When you combine those, you get Nick Saban.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Nov 27, 2012 20:44:07 GMT -6
You have to have great facilities, decent talent, and at least three types of coaches. A motivator, a teacher, and someone who will murder you with X's and O's. When you combine those, you get Nick Saban. At the HS level I think that great facilities are overrated. I think that you need adequate practice facilities and a weight room but you can have a great program without great facilities. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 27, 2012 21:03:43 GMT -6
You have to have great facilities, decent talent, and at least three types of coaches. A motivator, a teacher, and someone who will murder you with X's and O's. When you combine those, you get Nick Saban. At the HS level I think that great facilities are overrated. I think that you need adequate practice facilities and a weight room but you can have a great program without great facilities. John Curtis High School --perfect example. Have a weight room... small grass practice field behind the school... no stadium... 500+ wins and only 54 losses. |
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Nov 27, 2012 21:19:01 GMT -6
As far as the HC goes he's gotta have a vision that he believes in, and then be able to communicate and sell that vision.
|
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Nov 27, 2012 22:34:09 GMT -6
As far as the HC goes he's gotta have a vision that he believes in, and then be able to communicate and sell that vision. I've been fortunate to be a head coach the last 6 years of my coaching career. It's a role I wouldn't trade for any other in football. It's what I've always wanted to do since I knew I was done playing football following my college career. I understood I needed to and I wanted to pay my dues but, at the same time, I always felt like I was on the fast track to being a head coach. I embrace the responsibilities and the corresponding accountability associated with the position. I understand that with all of the positive impact you can make, there is a level of scrutiny that will always come with leading a high school football program. But you take the bad with the good because you are confident in the football experience you will provide to help develop young men. I'm one of the most competitive people you will ever meet when it comes to football, but I'm not so shallow that it's just about x's and o's. If I don't feel like we've done everything in our power to help each of our kids become the best person, student, and football player that he can be, then I will reassess what I'm doing because that should be the mission of a high school football program. When I was developing my philosophy, part of that included clarifying what the roles of the head coach are. I believe a head coach has 5 specific roles he needs to perform throughout a program. 1) Leader-must have the ability to develop and articulate a clear vision for the eventual success of the program 2) Motivator-must have the ability to motivate and mobilize people to commit to the program building process 3) Manager-must have the ability to organize and manage all of the people committed to the program building process 4) Teacher-must have the ability to develop coaches and players within the program to their greatest potential 5) Strategist-must have the ability to develop schemes, game plans, and adjustments Of course there are numerous duties that need to be taken care of on the part of the head coach, particularly administratively. But, these are the significant roles of a head coach in my opinion. The ones that perform these roles well are the ones who are successful. The ones that fall short in just one of these areas have significantly diminished the likelihood they will be successful. I believe at a small school, the head coach most of the time, must fulfill all of those roles. His assistant coaches will obviously make a contribution within the teaching aspect as positions coaches and in the strategy aspect as possible coordinators. However, at larger schools with more assistants on staff, some head coaches have the ability to emphasis roles 1-3 and leave the teaching to position coaches and the strategy to the coordinators. I could keep going but it's late in the eastern time zone and I've got to get my a$$ out of bed early. Until next time coaches... |
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Nov 27, 2012 23:52:55 GMT -6
You have to have great facilities, decent talent, and at least three types of coaches. A motivator, a teacher, and someone who will murder you with X's and O's. When you combine those, you get Nick Saban. At the HS level I think that great facilities are overrated. I think that you need adequate practice facilities and a weight room but you can have a great program without great facilities. By and large I would agree. We have a decent weight room, but our practice and game fields are both terrible, and we manage to win a lot of games in our area each year. Of course there is a private school in our state with literally tens of millions of dollars worth of athletic facilities and no "enrollment zone", which attracts all of the best players and nobody can compete with, but that's not an apples to apples comparison for most of us. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2012 6:11:44 GMT -6
At the HS level I think that great facilities are overrated. I think that you need adequate practice facilities and a weight room but you can have a great program without great facilities. I agree, but they do help to play a role in getting and keeping players. It's no coincidence that the programs around here who get a lot of transfers and out of district kids showing up to play for them rather than nearby programs also have better facilities. If you're a 15 year old kid or a parent of one, where would you rather be: the school with a new, multimillion dollar stadium, fieldhouse, and practice facilities that put some div 1 colleges' to shame or the school who doesn't even have working toilets in the locker room and has a crumbling stadium that reeks of swamp gas? Sent from my Desire HD using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Nov 28, 2012 6:21:43 GMT -6
It comes down to the community around here. I have seen places that Lombardi himself couldn't make winners out of the kids and I have seen places where any Slappy with a whistle and a clipboard could win 10 games.
|
|
|
|
Post by CS on Nov 28, 2012 7:30:56 GMT -6
I have always heard there are far more good coaches than there are good programs, and I honestly believe this. I believe there are too many things that go into making a successful program, but just to name some are obvious: Coaches-must be good and must be dedicated to the HC, the school and most importantly making men out of boys by setting a good example. Admin.- must be willing to let the HC do his job, and not get "political" about it. Must be willing to open every avenue possible to help the HC with anything he needs. Players- gotta have some talent, if it's just a small amount. Facilities- This is getting more and more important the more exposure HS football is getting on TV etc. Most importantly is the weight room. Parents- I have worked many places with differing parent structures and support. I worked one place the parents painted the field, fed the kids the pregame meal, and washed the uniforms after the games. They also helped with fundraisers and ran the chains at home games. These places soared in terms of what you could do with the players there, but there was also a lot "Coach, why ain't my boy playin' more?" too. Have worked at places where over 2/3 of the team came from broken homes, or kids didn't even know their parents (lived with other relatives such as aunt, uncle, or grandparents). Unity was tough at those places, most kids were out for themselves, very little support meant the coaches and players had to do more themselves, fundraising was ridiculously difficult (very poor areas), yet when it came to what you could do and get away with the players it was the "sky's the limit". Basically, when it comes to parents "pick your poison". I can say this, the latter is a very fun challenge to tackle, especially if the kids are tough and hard working. Money- Can't do anything without it, poor rural communities are tough to fundraise in. It can be done, but to what length and what extent I'm not sure. I was HC in a place like this, we were lucky to raise between 4 and 6 thousand a year in fundraising monies. I have a good friend who's annual fundraising minimum is $60,000 (if he doesn't get that, he's in trouble). Money makes some of the above listed things a lot easier to come by. I know there's more, but that's probably the biggest contributors to being successful. I'm sure others will chime in with their ideas. Duece Duece, Would you happen to know what their test scores were like at your poorer schools |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2012 8:52:33 GMT -6
I have always heard there are far more good coaches than there are good programs, and I honestly believe this. I believe there are too many things that go into making a successful program, but just to name some are obvious: Coaches-must be good and must be dedicated to the HC, the school and most importantly making men out of boys by setting a good example. Admin.- must be willing to let the HC do his job, and not get "political" about it. Must be willing to open every avenue possible to help the HC with anything he needs. Players- gotta have some talent, if it's just a small amount. Facilities- This is getting more and more important the more exposure HS football is getting on TV etc. Most importantly is the weight room. Parents- I have worked many places with differing parent structures and support. I worked one place the parents painted the field, fed the kids the pregame meal, and washed the uniforms after the games. They also helped with fundraisers and ran the chains at home games. These places soared in terms of what you could do with the players there, but there was also a lot "Coach, why ain't my boy playin' more?" too. Have worked at places where over 2/3 of the team came from broken homes, or kids didn't even know their parents (lived with other relatives such as aunt, uncle, or grandparents). Unity was tough at those places, most kids were out for themselves, very little support meant the coaches and players had to do more themselves, fundraising was ridiculously difficult (very poor areas), yet when it came to what you could do and get away with the players it was the "sky's the limit". Basically, when it comes to parents "pick your poison". I can say this, the latter is a very fun challenge to tackle, especially if the kids are tough and hard working. Money- Can't do anything without it, poor rural communities are tough to fundraise in. It can be done, but to what length and what extent I'm not sure. I was HC in a place like this, we were lucky to raise between 4 and 6 thousand a year in fundraising monies. I have a good friend who's annual fundraising minimum is $60,000 (if he doesn't get that, he's in trouble). Money makes some of the above listed things a lot easier to come by. I know there's more, but that's probably the biggest contributors to being successful. I'm sure others will chime in with their ideas. Duece Duece, Would you happen to know what their test scores were like at your poorer schools Not that good, don't know exact number to compare though. Fantom, I disagree with facilities, it may work for JT Curtis, but I come from a "school of choice" area and teams are losing player b/c of facilities. Now don't get me wrong it isn't like players are going to places that have worse records, most are moving laterally when it comes to that, but facilities do matter to a 17 year old, at least in my experiences they do. Duece |
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Nov 28, 2012 9:16:42 GMT -6
HUH??
Where you headed Coach?
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Nov 28, 2012 9:20:16 GMT -6
Personal experience - good assistants. It is never just one guy, it takes a village (staff) all rowing the boat in the same direction. In the programs I've been with when we were successful and the program was going in the right direction the stadium was the same, the weight room was the same, uniforms were the same, community was the same, the difference was everyone on staff was all rowing the boat in the same direction. Coaches took ownership of their position groups, took pride in their work, minimal amount of time was spent by the HC coaching coaches. The HC could trust his assistants to do what they were suppose to be doing and to be doing it on time and right. In the program I've been in (my own) that were dysfunctional that was not the case. As a head coach I should not have to be over the shoulder of 4-5 guys, basically make them write out a practice plan for their individual period drills and turn it in to me like homework and then get on them constantly about being off schedule. (that's bullchit), I also shouldn't have to tell them EVERYDAY that we are meeting after practice, or films at 8:00 every saturday or tell them everyday what the practice schedule is (it doesn't change). But then again, I also shouldn't have had to hire those slapd!cks in the first place. /vent /rant so happy to be heading back to SW Ohio where a football coach takes pride in coaching and isn't just a slapd!ck trying to get a little extra money. To me this is absolutely the biggest difference between good programs and bad ones. |
|
|
|
Post by jgordon1 on Nov 28, 2012 9:42:27 GMT -6
Personal experience - good assistants. It is never just one guy, it takes a village (staff) all rowing the boat in the same direction. In the programs I've been with when we were successful and the program was going in the right direction the stadium was the same, the weight room was the same, uniforms were the same, community was the same, the difference was everyone on staff was all rowing the boat in the same direction. Coaches took ownership of their position groups, took pride in their work, minimal amount of time was spent by the HC coaching coaches. The HC could trust his assistants to do what they were suppose to be doing and to be doing it on time and right. In the program I've been in (my own) that were dysfunctional that was not the case. As a head coach I should not have to be over the shoulder of 4-5 guys, basically make them write out a practice plan for their individual period drills and turn it in to me like homework and then get on them constantly about being off schedule. (that's bullchit), I also shouldn't have to tell them EVERYDAY that we are meeting after practice, or films at 8:00 every saturday or tell them everyday what the practice schedule is (it doesn't change). But then again, I also shouldn't have had to hire those slapd!cks in the first place. /vent /rant so happy to be heading back to SW Ohio where a football coach takes pride in coaching and isn't just a slapd!ck trying to get a little extra money. To me this is absolutely the biggest difference between good programs and bad ones. Exactly...In our county the facilities are basically the same (except from where I was) anyway there are 3 jobs open in the county..I have only applied to two of them because at the third I know I wouldnt be able to get assistants that I know and trust |
|
|
|
Post by tigerpride on Nov 28, 2012 10:08:46 GMT -6
It comes down to the community around here. I have seen places that Lombardi himself couldn't make winners out of the kids and I have seen places where any Slappy with a whistle and a clipboard could win 10 games. I cannot agree more with this statement. I know some head coaches that win 9-10 games a year, don't know a damn thing about offense or defense, never step foot into a weight room, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Nov 28, 2012 10:12:53 GMT -6
Personal experience - good assistants. It is never just one guy, it takes a village (staff) all rowing the boat in the same direction. In the programs I've been with when we were successful and the program was going in the right direction the stadium was the same, the weight room was the same, uniforms were the same, community was the same, the difference was everyone on staff was all rowing the boat in the same direction. Coaches took ownership of their position groups, took pride in their work, minimal amount of time was spent by the HC coaching coaches. The HC could trust his assistants to do what they were suppose to be doing and to be doing it on time and right. True. I completely agree that a highly competent, committed, hardworking, and organized staff will lead a football program to success. It does indeed take everyone rowing as hard as they possibly can but the key is rowing in the same direction. So, with that in mind, did the successful coaching staffs always function in that manner? How did they get organized so there was no misunderstanding about what responsibilities each person had? Is everyone just born with the ability to know what needs to be done as a staff to prepare a football team? Who managed the change process which modified the way the staff did things? It got started at some point by someone. That point is from the very beginning and the person is the head coach. |
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Nov 28, 2012 10:22:56 GMT -6
It comes down to the community around here. I have seen places that Lombardi himself couldn't make winners out of the kids and I have seen places where any Slappy with a whistle and a clipboard could win 10 games. Very true. Some places with the culture that is deeply embedded in the fabric of the community will never allow for success within a football program take place. I also believe the opposite could be true as well. |
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Nov 28, 2012 10:35:19 GMT -6
It comes down to the community around here. I have seen places that Lombardi himself couldn't make winners out of the kids and I have seen places where any Slappy with a whistle and a clipboard could win 10 games. I cannot agree more with this statement. I know some head coaches that win 9-10 games a year, don't know a {censored} thing about offense or defense, never step foot into a weight room, etc. To piggy back on what duece said...what if you have great assistants that do all the work? Either the head coach brought those guys on or he developed them. Regardless, the staff is definitely solid and the program is successful because of it. |
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Nov 28, 2012 10:50:10 GMT -6
In the program I've been in (my own) that were dysfunctional that was not the case. As a head coach I should not have to be over the shoulder of 4-5 guys, basically make them write out a practice plan for their individual period drills and turn it in to me like homework and then get on them constantly about being off schedule. (that's bullchit), I also shouldn't have to tell them EVERYDAY that we are meeting after practice, or films at 8:00 every saturday or tell them everyday what the practice schedule is (it doesn't change). But then again, I also shouldn't have had to hire those slapd!cks in the first place. Sometimes Coach, just because they love football and coaching, it doesn't necessary mean they know what to do, as a coach, to help build a successful program. Sounds to me like you were teaching them the process. Good for you. Should they already have a better understanding? From the header they've worked with in the past. Absolutely. But what if you are the first head coach they've ever worked with or the first head coach they've ever worked with that made them do these things? Who's fault is that? Your assistants? Or the previous head coach if they've worked with one before or your's if you're the first header they worked with? You must "manage" the people within the program regardless of their starting point. I'm talking about players and coaches alike. This may mean the parents too. They may not have a clue about what parents contribute to the success or failure of a football program. You've got to teach them as well in the parent meetings that you have where expectations are communicated. Eventually they will become self-sufficient if they are taught effectively. When that day comes, you will be pleased with the environment you were able to cultivate as a head coach. Sometimes finding the best people in certain places isn't always feasible so you're put in a situation where you either develop the ones that are there or fail. I choose to develop coaches that want to be on board. You just don't have a choice if success is what you seek to achieve. I just think it's a huge cop out by some coaches who believe that you come in, get great people, and then everything will take care of itself. Yes, that's true. That's easy. Anybody can do that. But more often that not, the situation described above just isn't possible. What happens when those people don't choose to be a part of it? I know geographics play a huge role in this. Those experienced, competent, committed coaches needed to be in that area to even get them. What if the community is isolated to the degree that those people won't make their way there? Your back to square one of teaching somebody how to be a football coach. |
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Nov 28, 2012 11:07:19 GMT -6
Support and commitment. Those are the most important things to have from Staff, Admin, Players, Parents, Community, and on and on.
You may be able to have good teams once in a while with out those two but to have a great program they are a must.
|
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Nov 28, 2012 12:13:12 GMT -6
I don't know, IMO, being a coach comes with a degree of professional integrity and initiative. You're absolutely right. Coaches should understand that initiative is a greater part of their responsibility as a coach. But some don't. Or even if they do have the initiative, the still may not know what the specific tasks are that they need to perform. They need to be taught. Let's face it. There's no official football coaching school or degree. Either you've been around the game enough and at an advanced level, or you haven't. If your assistant coaches haven't they need to be taught. If you teach them so you're sure that they know and THEN they don't do it...now "Houston..we have a problem." I'll leave it to the icon to say what needs to be done... |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Nov 28, 2012 12:57:29 GMT -6
There's a never ending supply of football coaches but there's very few football TEACHERS around. Most people who become "coaches" associate the profession with what they see on Saturday or Sunday afternoons: a guy holding a laminated card, calling plays and giving rah-rah speeches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2012 13:07:44 GMT -6
No doubt a good staff with cohesion is a big plus and yes where I've been that was good, this was true to the point.
Duece
|
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Nov 28, 2012 14:52:33 GMT -6
No doubt a good staff with cohesion is a big plus and yes where I've been that was good, this was true to the point. Was it always that way at that school? Was there ever a time when it wasn't? Did the coaching staff have to be assembled and developed to become the cohesive and highly effective group they now are? |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Nov 28, 2012 15:04:09 GMT -6
No doubt a good staff with cohesion is a big plus and yes where I've been that was good, this was true to the point. Was it always that way at that school? Was there ever a time when it wasn't? Did the coaching staff have to be assembled and developed to become the cohesive and highly effective group they now are? I can't speak for duece but I can give you my experience. I coached in a very established program for awhile and the staff was really tight and professional. They have a solid core of coaches that have been coaching together for years. Other teachers came and went but the core group stayed the same and they built the program. But, it's one of those programs where you'd better friggin cut the mustard and do your job or you will not last. It helps that the HC knows where people 'fit'. He's really good at gauging people's personalities and their strengths and weaknesses and plugging them in accordingly. He knows how to get the most out of coaches' strengths while minimizing their weaknesses. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2012 16:48:20 GMT -6
No doubt a good staff with cohesion is a big plus and yes where I've been that was good, this was true to the point. Was it always that way at that school? Was there ever a time when it wasn't? Did the coaching staff have to be assembled and developed to become the cohesive and highly effective group they now are? Yes and no. I've been around the block a time or two from college to Pop Warner and so I've seen some staffs and even put together two myself. My thing is "overall" where I've been where we were good, the staff got along, and worked very well together. Where I've been at that we weren't good, the staff wasn't that cohesive. Kids can sense tension, like a shark does blood in the water, some kids shut down b/c of it, others thrive on it and do what they can to make it worse. So a staff that lacks cohesiveness, brings tension, which turns into tension on the team and amongst the players. I mean, think about it, how can you ask a bunch of players to come together for a common bond, if the 8-12 men that are supposed to be teaching them cannot do the same. Again, this is just my experience, so others may have differing opinions on it, all I can say is that "overall" where I've been the staff has done their job, and worked together quite well, with the kids best interests as their common goal. Duece |
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Nov 28, 2012 17:15:22 GMT -6
Yes and no. I've been around the block a time or two from college to Pop Warner and so I've seen some staffs and even put together two myself. My thing is "overall" where I've been where we were good, the staff got along, and worked very well together. Where I've been at that we weren't good, the staff wasn't that cohesive. Kids can sense tension, like a shark does blood in the water, some kids shut down b/c of it, others thrive on it and do what they can to make it worse. So a staff that lacks cohesiveness, brings tension, which turns into tension on the team and amongst the players. I mean, think about it, how can you ask a bunch of players to come together for a common bond, if the 8-12 men that are supposed to be teaching them cannot do the same. Again, this is just my experience, so others may have differing opinions on it, all I can say is that "overall" where I've been the staff has done their job, and worked together quite well, with the kids best interests as their common goal. Duece I wholeheartedly agree with what you're saying and have been on both types of staff also as both an assistant and head coach. The only year I felt like, as a head coach, that there was some tension between the staff was when assistants had a challenging time getting on board with the philosophy of the program. They just weren't willing to fully embrace the philosophy of the program in their first year. One of these assistants eventually became my number 1. So what factors do you believe played into the staff not being a cohesive unit. Did they just disagree and couldn't leave it in the meeting room? They took it out on the field and the kids could sense it. Or did they just flat out not like each other and found themselves attempting to work together? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2012 18:46:01 GMT -6
Yes and no. I've been around the block a time or two from college to Pop Warner and so I've seen some staffs and even put together two myself. My thing is "overall" where I've been where we were good, the staff got along, and worked very well together. Where I've been at that we weren't good, the staff wasn't that cohesive. Kids can sense tension, like a shark does blood in the water, some kids shut down b/c of it, others thrive on it and do what they can to make it worse. So a staff that lacks cohesiveness, brings tension, which turns into tension on the team and amongst the players. I mean, think about it, how can you ask a bunch of players to come together for a common bond, if the 8-12 men that are supposed to be teaching them cannot do the same. Again, this is just my experience, so others may have differing opinions on it, all I can say is that "overall" where I've been the staff has done their job, and worked together quite well, with the kids best interests as their common goal. Duece I wholeheartedly agree with what you're saying and have been on both types of staff also as both an assistant and head coach. The only year I felt like, as a head coach, that there was some tension between the staff was when assistants had a challenging time getting on board with the philosophy of the program. They just weren't willing to fully embrace the philosophy of the program in their first year. One of these assistants eventually became my number 1. So what factors do you believe played into the staff not being a cohesive unit. Did they just disagree and couldn't leave it in the meeting room? They took it out on the field and the kids could sense it. Or did they just flat out not like each other and found themselves attempting to work together? Multiple things really. The top thing that comes to my mind was egotistial little pr!cks that tried to make themselves look good and the HC look bad b/c they wanted his job. I worked for a guy that was so nice he never saw this kinda stuff, and it really bothered the ever loving sh!t outta me. Other things were guys just getting paid. They didn't care what the end results were so long as they got that stipend. To be honest, I've rarely been on a staff where something in the meeting room about scheme or players actually led to a lack of cohesiveness. Most of it was egotistical stuff or just coaches being lazy and not "buying in" to what the HC was doing. I have been VERY fortunate as a HC to not have dealt with much of this stuff. Duece |
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Nov 28, 2012 21:39:08 GMT -6
It comes down to the community around here. I have seen places that Lombardi himself couldn't make winners out of the kids and I have seen places where any Slappy with a whistle and a clipboard could win 10 games. Amen coach... Jimmy's and Joe's |
|
