|
|
Post by silkyice on Dec 8, 2013 13:05:57 GMT -6
We have asked the question many times on here on whether players or coaching is more important.
I think a good analogy to answer this question is what I call the gun analogy. The actual gun is the program - school, administration, tradition, community, finances, facilities, potential. The players are the bullets. The one aiming and firing the gun is the coach.
Sometimes you have bb gun, sometimes a .22, or .44, or machine gun, or howitzer, or whatever. Sometimes you have lots of bullets. Sometimes few or none. Sometimes the coach is a sniper. Sometimes he doesn't know which end is which.
I can beat a great gun shooter if a have a much better weapon and a lot more bullets. I also have no chance against a 10 year old boy if he has a fully loaded m16 and I have a red rider bb gun with one bb.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 8, 2013 13:22:37 GMT -6
Couldn't we make the analogy a race car----fuel----and driver?
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Dec 8, 2013 13:35:32 GMT -6
Couldn't we make the analogy a race car----fuel----and driver? Perfect. |
|
|
|
Post by coach2013 on Dec 8, 2013 13:39:50 GMT -6
You can have a "championship program" in every way except players and you still stink.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 8, 2013 13:44:08 GMT -6
Or maybe even better it could be race car-- ENGINE-- drive. Because in theory, if you have a good enough engine, even if the rest of the car is crappy, you could probably beat some other competitors. But you wouldnt be able to beat other decent engines on good quality cars with good drivers if you had the BEST engine, crappy tires, poor aerodynamics and a bad driver... Figure that analogy might be more "user friendly"
|
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Dec 8, 2013 14:33:32 GMT -6
Or maybe even better it could be race car-- ENGINE-- drive. Because in theory, if you have a good enough engine, even if the rest of the car is crappy, you could probably beat some other competitors. But you wouldnt be able to beat other decent engines on good quality cars with good drivers if you had the BEST engine, crappy tires, poor aerodynamics and a bad driver... Figure that analogy might be more "user friendly" I dunno man.. if the wheels are off the best engine in the world won't win races |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 8, 2013 14:59:36 GMT -6
Or maybe even better it could be race car-- ENGINE-- drive. Because in theory, if you have a good enough engine, even if the rest of the car is crappy, you could probably beat some other competitors. But you wouldnt be able to beat other decent engines on good quality cars with good drivers if you had the BEST engine, crappy tires, poor aerodynamics and a bad driver... Figure that analogy might be more "user friendly" I dunno man.. if the wheels are off the best engine in the world won't win races That is kind of the point. The best players (engine) may beat schools with weaker engines and other deficiencies, but probably won't beat many programs (race cars) who are well built and have some type of engine. I don't know if time is very well spent trying to create the exact car racing to high school football program analogies...but the over arching one fits. |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Dec 8, 2013 17:18:50 GMT -6
I have yet to see a jockey carry a horse across the finish line in first place.
How's that for an analogy?
|
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Dec 8, 2013 20:27:30 GMT -6
I think the issue with all the analogies is that all the pieces that represent the players remain static. This is not true, good coaches develop players to be better.
Now could the best coach develop me into an NFL stud, doubt it; but I have to believe that the best coach can turn his players into better athletes/football players than the worst coach. And in that vein he is changing the bullets/fuel/whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 8, 2013 20:51:21 GMT -6
I think the issue with all the analogies is that all the pieces that represent the players remain static. This is not true, good coaches develop players to be better. Now could the best coach develop me into an NFL stud, doubt it; but I have to believe that the best coach can turn his players into better athletes/football players than the worst coach. And in that vein he is changing the bullets/fuel/whatever. Why do you say that? I believe the original post was simply designed to help show OTHERS exactly how this whole success things works. That there are several components to success in high school football (players, coaching, and & 'other'). Simplistically, in order to be a successful in auto racing, you have a car (tires, suspension, steering, fuel, aerodynamics etc--- the other) you have an Engine (the players) , and you have the driver (the coach). In the context of this, why can't you simply say that good drivers can make better engines over time? It doesn't have to be spot on..I am fairy certain this is not a Phd thesis |
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Dec 8, 2013 20:56:48 GMT -6
That gun analogy is the best I've ever heard
I gotta find a way to get rid of this slingshot
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Dec 8, 2013 21:16:14 GMT -6
I think the issue with all the analogies is that all the pieces that represent the players remain static. This is not true, good coaches develop players to be better. Now could the best coach develop me into an NFL stud, doubt it; but I have to believe that the best coach can turn his players into better athletes/football players than the worst coach. And in that vein he is changing the bullets/fuel/whatever. I agree completely. I meant to put that in there. That the gun can be upgraded by the gunslinger by changing the caliber or sights or action or whatever. You take bullets that are .22 and turn them into a .357. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 8, 2013 21:31:37 GMT -6
That gun analogy is the best I've ever heard I gotta find a way to get rid of this slingshot I agree the gun is also pretty spot on, I just think it is less user friendly (because your "competition" is kind of a gun fight...) |
|
|
|
Post by coach2013 on Dec 9, 2013 3:42:01 GMT -6
The development of players is much easier said than done. This is why the best coaches in the world cut players and buy new ones. This is why they spend millions preparing for the draft.
This is why millions are spent on scholarships at the college level.
Its why the players are paid more than the coach in many cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Dec 9, 2013 6:57:21 GMT -6
If you and your opponents are all doing Sub-Varsity, Off-Season, and Pre-Season (Summer) player development at roughly the same level - the team with the best players still wins.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmiller716 on Dec 9, 2013 8:35:08 GMT -6
I love the analogies and was thinking:
What does the tripod represent if one was used?
In my mind, I was thinking that the tripod is the football program plan, goals, expectations and proper implementation. A sniper could have a tripod on him, in his bag, but he must attach it to the gun and use it.
I thought more about it and though that a tripod for a slingshot would have to be extremely engineered and have a strong foundation in order for it to properly work, where as I could use a simple "tripod" for a military issued rifle, or even a log if needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Dec 9, 2013 9:02:32 GMT -6
The development of players is much easier said than done. This is why the best coaches in the world cut players and buy new ones. This is why they spend millions preparing for the draft. This is why millions are spent on scholarships at the college level. Its why the players are paid more than the coach in many cases. Agree, I was refering more to the HS level where the difference between the best coaches and the worst is probably relatively greater than in the Pros or College where you can offer scholarships and draft. |
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Dec 9, 2013 9:52:22 GMT -6
I agree the gun is spot on because some people can make pretty good bullets at home out of the required materials too.
|
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Dec 9, 2013 10:12:01 GMT -6
ive taken some time to think about this...its sort of like rock, paper, scissors.
understanding that a bad program comes from bad coaching...so im going to simplify it and loop them together.
a bad program can win with good players
a good program can lose with bad players
basicly comes down to this at the JR High and HS level...the team with the best players wins.
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Dec 9, 2013 10:20:37 GMT -6
A bad coach can do more to hold back a good team than a good coach can do for a bad team in terms of winning games.
|
|
|
|
Post by joris85 on Dec 9, 2013 10:36:33 GMT -6
A bad coach can do more to hold back a good team than a good coach can do for a bad team in terms of winning games. This is SO painfully true. |
|
|
|
Post by realdawg on Dec 9, 2013 20:42:30 GMT -6
Coaching+players=program?
|
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Dec 9, 2013 20:59:53 GMT -6
Coaching+players=program? thats overly simplified. coaching+support[0=>parents,1=>boosters,2=>school, 3=>town]+players = program |
|
