|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 29, 2007 8:50:59 GMT -6
Anyone else watch parts of the draft yesterday? I must have heard "He has so many fundamentals to work on" or "Once he gets his mechanics improved" or "Once he gets coached up" 30 times over a couple hour span. Almost as if the Nfl draft analysts were simply throwing the college coaches under the bus.
I know I wouldn't be very happy to hear all of these analysts completely adoring my protege's athletic attributes and then completely discrediting any of the work I had done over the past 3 to 4 years with the kid.
Any comments? I know that sometimes these same thoughts are echoed by college coaches with regards to high school coaches...and high school coaches with regards to jr high coaches..but in those instances, it is much easier to see why? I mean all through those levels, the coach must split his time between coaching all-state players and the kid who can't get in a 3 point stance yet. With that varied ability level, as well as encountering various stages of physical development, the tasks of the H.S coach is daunting indeed.
I just can't get over the analysts saying about BYU's Beck (i think) " Once he gets some coaching and works on his mechanics, he will be able to throw a spiral"
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 29, 2007 9:17:29 GMT -6
good point.
IMO, I have to believe that on the MAJORITY, there is MORE coaching at the college level than there really is at the professional level.....ESPECIALLY at the DII / DIAA level.
I think probably the biggest thing at the pro level is the dedication of the (good) athletes at the pro level. When you're 20 - 22 years old you won't be PAYING ATTENTION to the minutiae of the game ......as compared to when you're 24 - 30 years old trying to stay ahead of competition breathing down your neck, trying to take away your paycheck / livelihood. Most DI athletes are "DI athletes" by the time they are 16...they know it...and although they work hard, they know that they ARE getting recruited. They get to college and if they start in the first 2 years, then they've pretty much got it locked up. In the NFL, EVERY player is the best of the best, and every player is replaceable.
The amount of "coaching" really depends on what the staff is comprised of. SOME staffs at the HS/College/Pro level put an emphasis on teaching it "their" way, others are fine with just whipping it out there.
Just like how all "scouts" are, no recruit is flawless - every player has flaws and you have to nit-pick it so you can say "I told you so - laissez faire" IF that player busts.
Analysts have a tough time trying to fill 15 - 30 seconds of dead air with something intelligible....the more cliches you can whip out there the more 'knowledgeable' you'll sound. Ron Jaworski has seen all the throws of every QB every thrown with a football.......yeah, okay.....
Glad to see Randy Moss out of the West coast.
that, and..........mmmmmm......Susie Kolber........
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 29, 2007 11:20:55 GMT -6
brophy..i guess it depends on what you consider "coaching" when you say there is more coaching at college than in the NFL. I know when I visited with the Giants camps/practices they coached on the run at a pace that made the SEC camps I have visited look like rec ball. But if you consider coaching doing lots of backpedal drills, form tackle drills etc... then they didn't hit on that as much.
But I still can't get over hearing BOTH Ron Jaworski and Steve Young saying that the BYU kid is going to need NFL coaching to learn to throw spirals.
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Apr 29, 2007 11:38:25 GMT -6
I remember what they said about a j hawk in last years draft. he was to stiff when he ran, he played to upright and so on and so on. Hawk at a good year I think in the nfl.
so the talking heads on espn do not know much.
what I find sad is how much time is devoted to the nfl draft on tv. I like reading about the players and the like but espn has taken it to a new level.
I just wonder why espn does not do a outside the lines which would last as long as the nfl draft. say on graduation rates at ncaa d 1a colleges.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 29, 2007 11:54:46 GMT -6
airman I agree the airtime of the nfl draft is shocking..BUT the ratings support their actions. If nobody was watching, it would be sent to the back burner as quickly as "LAX" was cancelled by NBC..lol
With regards to their comments on A J hawk though, I consider that a bit different. They were talking aobut his overall athletic ability. There isn't much you can "coach" about play posture, fluidity, etc. I am talking about listening to the analysts...many of whom were ex players (college and pro) talking about how the player needs some coaching on his blocking technique, or his throwing technique, route running etc. Basically coming off like "well, they haven't really gotten any coaching the last four years..but once the NFL coaches get to them, maybe they will turn into something.."
As for the graduation rates...well I have a different opinion on that. If that was TRULY TRULY explored, the racial ramifications would be more explosive than the unwarranted Don Imus fiasco
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Apr 29, 2007 12:15:52 GMT -6
as a middle school/jr high/frosh guy...yeah, we have all heard it enough to make us puke. no level is better than the next, coaching is teaching period.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 29, 2007 12:29:01 GMT -6
Calande--I agree 100%...no LEVEL is better. They are very different, and require different skill sets.
However, most of teh college coaches I have worked with are/were better teachers than those at the H.S. Level because they have refined their football teaching skills more (professional necessity)
Most of the H.S. coaches I have worked with were/are better teachers than jr high level, but that is probably due to a lack of commitment by SOME of the Jr high guys
Obviously, there are Jr High coaches out there that are better teachers than H.S. coaches..and H.S. teachers that are better teachers than college guys.
What I am surprised at though, is this apparent glaring difference between the mechanics used in the NFL that requires 2 and 3 time all conference players to "get coached up" to be a productive NFL player.
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Apr 29, 2007 12:41:10 GMT -6
I sort of agree and disagree with college coaches being better teachers. it is easy to teach kids who get it after a few reps. most d1 guys really want to be there. they all have dreams of making it big time, paying off moms house adn having a hummer or 3. those kids are easy to teach, even the head cases who know they are great still get it after a few reps.
most jr coachs get kids who may or may not want to be there. most do not know how to walk and chew gum at the same time. it is sad that at the jr high level there are not more coaches. I do not know how they do it often 2 coaches for 50 to 100 kids. how do you coach detail in that situation.
most important coaches in a h.s. varsity program are the jr high coaches. you get them on board wtih your mission and they will make your program go. I heard the 70/30 rule should apply. 70 percent of what you do on offense and defense should be what the varisty is doing the other 30 is letting the coach be creative which allow him to feels ownership of a team.
best varsity coach i know told me one time, treat your assistants and jr coaches with respect and teach them what you want. actually hold clinics for them, send them your handbook. work with them on developing relationships. invite them to the banquet adn give them a gift. make sure they are recognized at the banguet and in the newspaper. this coach I know used to write a letter to the editor to show the people of the town and his apprecition for the jr high on up to the varisty. as he woudl say, they give the head coach too much credit for winning and for losing.
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Apr 29, 2007 12:44:33 GMT -6
airman I agree the airtime of the nfl draft is shocking..BUT the ratings support their actions. If nobody was watching, it would be sent to the back burner as quickly as "LAX" was cancelled by NBC..lol With regards to their comments on A J hawk though, I consider that a bit different. They were talking aobut his overall athletic ability. There isn't much you can "coach" about play posture, fluidity, etc. I am talking about listening to the analysts...many of whom were ex players (college and pro) talking about how the player needs some coaching on his blocking technique, or his throwing technique, route running etc. Basically coming off like "well, they haven't really gotten any coaching the last four years..but once the NFL coaches get to them, maybe they will turn into something.." As for the graduation rates...well I have a different opinion on that. If that was TRULY TRULY explored, the racial ramifications would be more explosive than the unwarranted Don Imus fiasco I do agree to some point on the racial ramifications. however i think maybe we have to look at things. why can d3 schools graduate the majority of there players while 50% is considered great in d1. maybe it is time to get rid of spring practice, winter conditioning and let them be college students first and college athletes second. I heard a kid I know who was d1 say, football was 40 to 60 hr work week and school was a 50 hr work week. then you get some sleep. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 29, 2007 13:02:04 GMT -6
Oh, I don't disagree one bit that the STUDENT part of STUDENT ATHLETE needs to be examined (One thing being the actual process for determining the graduation rate).
I was simply saying that IF the "student-athlete" structure was torn apart and truly analyzed, and IF graduation rates were really explored at the depths they should be, the results would very likely fall right down racial lines and the fall out would be Imus like.
When I was talking about college coaches being better teachers, i was referring to the fact that those that I worked with, and encountered were :
more articulate in expressing their information
more organized
used better instructional methodology
more dedicated to professional development.
I was not judging based on the outcomes, because I am pretty sure anyone could teach Adrian Peterson to hit the hole hard.
I feel the difference is logical. Their jobs depend in it to a much greater degree than H.S. coaches, AND their jobs are such that they are allowed more time to do such things.
Obviously again, their are excellent JR high and HS coaches...and I know that each element requires different skill sets for success.
Getting back to the original Post though..I still find it very interesting to hear talking heads...who have had major college playing experience as well as NFL...really kind of slight the college coaches.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Apr 29, 2007 13:18:40 GMT -6
airman I agree the airtime of the nfl draft is shocking..BUT the ratings support their actions. If nobody was watching, it would be sent to the back burner as quickly as "LAX" was cancelled by NBC..lol With regards to their comments on A J hawk though, I consider that a bit different. They were talking aobut his overall athletic ability. There isn't much you can "coach" about play posture, fluidity, etc. I am talking about listening to the analysts...many of whom were ex players (college and pro) talking about how the player needs some coaching on his blocking technique, or his throwing technique, route running etc. Basically coming off like "well, they haven't really gotten any coaching the last four years..but once the NFL coaches get to them, maybe they will turn into something.." As for the graduation rates...well I have a different opinion on that. If that was TRULY TRULY explored, the racial ramifications would be more explosive than the unwarranted Don Imus fiasco There are a lot of people who love to watch the draft and I'm one of them. I enjoy watching who's getting drafted and projecting who will be there for my favorite team on the next pick. Some people fish. This is what I like to do. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 29, 2007 13:28:44 GMT -6
phantom--i like it too. I do find it a bit HYPE driven...and what amazes me is the day to day ups and downs of the prospects months after they have played their last game.
Still, i much prefer the Draft hype to National Signing Day. THAT hype is actually hurting kids and the college game.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 29, 2007 13:28:51 GMT -6
I don't know if it was a 'slight', IMO.
The bottom line in college is WIN GAMES.
Do we think Jimbo Fisher & Les Miles encourage JaMarcus Russell to get out of a throwing rhythm / mechanics when he is on the run in the pocket, when the guy can flick the pill 103 yards with his wrist? I think they'll take what they can get as long as the job gets done.
Sometimes when coaching, you let the athletes play, and don't OVERCOACH them.
In the NFL, there are no classes to attend, it is your full-time job to maintain your body and improve your mechanics and knowing your assignments. OLine & Dline in the NFL are worlds better than anywhere else - there is nothing close to how meticulous line coaches are in the pros. The routes and ball placement on throws become more refined as the window for errors diminishes as the athletic medium is considerably higher
If a guy can 62 yard kick field goals while doing handstands - you let him keep doing it....you don't tinker with it. However, if you can improve his CONSISTENCY by tweaking his game, then the fundamental things you can do to retrain the athlete to be more efficient.
The "fundamental" things that they nit-pick every year (David Carr, Vince Young, Alex Smith, Jay Cutler, etc) are usually just minutiae....nit-picking on the little things doesn't discount what the college coaches actually did with the studs they get ( the amount of coaching required to make them a draft pick in the first place ).
Speaking of hype, most of the "highlights" that ESPN / NFL network show to showcase a draft pick are showing plays that really don't why the athlete is such a great pick, but serve as the "shiny object" for fans who wouldn't see the player making "plays" otherwise. Most of the WR highlights are catches when they are WIIIIIIDE open (who COULDN'T look like a stud when they aren't covered?), but the play that makes them 'special' would be them making a 3 yard catch in traffic, but its not sexy enough for TV.
that and......mmmmmmmmmmm.......Rachel Nichols!!
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Apr 29, 2007 13:40:56 GMT -6
It's tough to compare college and NFL. I think the analysts are largely blowhards, but there is at least some merit to it.
The issue is kind of how do you earn your salt as a coach at your level. You get good by coaching up your team, not just your superstars. In fact, your NFL caliber players are so talented that it is difficult to squeeze out the final ounce of perfection. Also, since you need 11 guys on the field, you probably win more games by getting the max out of guys 2-11 than your superstar.
Also, most of your coaching is to turn 18 year old kids in 21-22 year old football players. That is a bit different than what the NFL does.
I do think, at least to a large extent, that the NFL guys do require a level of detail and "coaching" in that sense that you don't quite see at the college level, but that's because at the college or HS level you're teaching so many of the broad fundamentals. It'd be like perfecting this particular head-bob at the top of your post-corner route but not working on stances and starts for an hour. In the NFL, that can be the difference between winning and losing, but that's because every receiver who wants ANY SHOT in the NFL better be explosive in his start.
So I just think it is different. Good coaching in HS is taking kids and turning them into football players. College requires taking athletes and fitting them into a system and teaching them to be men. The NFL is about that 1000% attention to detail that only comes into play when everyone is in the top 1% of raw natural talent.
Plus, the added factor you have to think about, is take a 6'3" 240 lb 4.45 LB in HS. Chances are, while he may be very coachable, he's so talented he doesn't squeeze that last ounce out of himself. Then he goes to college. He is pushed harder, but say he is quickly established as an all-conference player, and he is the best on his team and the other side has a hard time blocking him. Again, he works hard, but how does he know what "maximizing his potential" really is?
Now suddenly, he's a third round draft choice and is desperate to make his team, get playing time, and not get forced out of the league. Now, he truly knows what "maximizing his potential" is all about.
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Apr 29, 2007 13:44:44 GMT -6
I don't know if it was a 'slight', IMO. The bottom line in college is WIN GAMES. Do we think Jimbo Fisher & Les Miles encourage JaMarcus Russell to get out of a throwing rhythm / mechanics when he is on the run in the pocket, when the guy can flick the pill 103 yards with his wrist? I think they'll take what they can get as long as the job gets done. This is a good point with QBs. The NFL guys always talk about redoing a guy's throwing motion. Indeed, it may even be an advantage in the long run (I'd like to see some evidence of this though). But it's certainly not worth it to the a college coach, as anyone who has ever coached (or been) a QB knows any change in the throwing motion has the potential to leave you screwed up and in disarray for some period of time. It's like your golf swing. At least for a time, the cure is often worse than the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Apr 29, 2007 13:50:32 GMT -6
Remember, ESPN is about entertainment and the talking heads will say almost anything in their efforts to fill dead air.
As far as the quality of coaching at different levels... the amount of TIME you have to work with players sometimes get lost in this discussion. When I first went from high school to college coaching I just couldn't believe all of the time I had both on the field - players only playing one side of the ball - to classroom time with individuals and groups. It's just so much more than I had as a high school teacher/coach.
Now imagine how much more time those guys will have in the pros without having classes to go to. It's not about which level has smarter or better coaches - some of the BEST fundamental teachers of technique I have ever seen are coaching MS football and some of the worst coaches, that I have seen, are at the small college level - it's more about the complexity of the game, particularly for QB's that I believe the so called NFL experts are referring to.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Apr 29, 2007 13:51:00 GMT -6
Oh, I don't disagree one bit that the STUDENT part of STUDENT ATHLETE needs to be examined (One thing being the actual process for determining the graduation rate). I was simply saying that IF the "student-athlete" structure was torn apart and truly analyzed, and IF graduation rates were really explored at the depths they should be, the results would very likely fall right down racial lines and the fall out would be Imus like. When I was talking about college coaches being better teachers, i was referring to the fact that those that I worked with, and encountered were : more articulate in expressing their information more organized used better instructional methodology more dedicated to professional development. I was not judging based on the outcomes, because I am pretty sure anyone could teach Adrian Peterson to hit the hole hard. I feel the difference is logical. Their jobs depend in it to a much greater degree than H.S. coaches, AND their jobs are such that they are allowed more time to do such things. Obviously again, their are excellent JR high and HS coaches...and I know that each element requires different skill sets for success. Getting back to the original Post though..I still find it very interesting to hear talking heads...who have had major college playing experience as well as NFL...really kind of slight the college coaches. Generally, the average D.1A coach is better than the average 1AA coach,the average 1AA coach is better than the average D.2 coach, etc. down the line. That's average. There a certainly lower level coaches who are as good as any but, on average the level of coaching improves as you go up the food chain. There are a number of reasons for this. Talent is part of it. Opportunity for learning is another. HS coaches have more opportunities to attend clinics, etc. than JH coaches. College coaches don't have to teach classes, for the most part, so they can spend their time getting better at football. NFL coaches don't have to recruit or schmooze alumni. I don't see the comments by the talking heads as a slap at college coaches. Look a HS coach's situation. I have two corners. One is a D.1 stud. The other is a marginal HS kid who I need because he's better than the rest. Who's going to get coached? The D.1 kid will excel even with technical flaws. I have to work my butt off to win wit the other kid. The same thing happens in college. The superior athlete may not take coaching because he doesn't need to. As he moves up the ladder the talent gap closes and mostly the guys who make it will be those who pay attention to coaching. Time is a factor. The time that we can work with players in the offseason in HS and college is limited by rule. The pros can work them damn near 24/7. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Apr 29, 2007 13:53:08 GMT -6
phantom--i like it too. I do find it a bit HYPE driven...and what amazes me is the day to day ups and downs of the prospects months after they have played their last game. Still, i much prefer the Draft hype to National Signing Day. THAT hype is actually hurting kids and the college game. No question. |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 29, 2007 13:53:15 GMT -6
hey, man, all I know is that Ron Jaworksi has seen every pass thrown by Brady Quinn since he was 12.  and on pass 31,821, Brady over extended his stride and made a bad read....he threw the flat when the safety rolled down....bad, bad, bad.....ball got there late and it was picked off. THAT play is why Jaws thinks Quinn needs time to develop. |
|
|
|
Post by poweriguy on Apr 29, 2007 18:39:10 GMT -6
Kind of like all the experts knocking Jeff Tedford for not producing NFL caliber QB's. Last time I checked, his job description was Head coach of Cal. Not official QB supplier to the NFL.
|
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Apr 29, 2007 22:26:45 GMT -6
as a middle school/jr high/frosh guy...yeah, we have all heard it enough to make us puke. no level is better than the next, coaching is teaching period. amen calande.... always hear the HS coaches complain about us and how they need to improve this or that... and are never given credit when they say "why can't these players be like such and such" especially when such-n-such was a mess and decided to learn from us |
|
|
|
Post by airman on Apr 30, 2007 19:47:43 GMT -6
the best wr of all time(jery rice) was a who is he pick.
|
|
kdcoach
Sophomore Member
Posts: 194
|
Post by kdcoach on May 1, 2007 8:17:18 GMT -6
Two words for QB mechanics.......Bernie Kosar! hehehe....
Was at a clinic a few years ago when the O.C. for the University of Maryland told an entire room that once a QB got to him he didn't muck with the mechanics any. The kids that he got had been throwing the way they did since they were 4-5 years old. If they started messing with them when they were 18 or 19 they would probably mess up their accuracy and maybe even cause arm issues. That was his take on it anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on May 1, 2007 8:50:39 GMT -6
...................... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on May 1, 2007 8:54:40 GMT -6
Calande--I agree 100%...no LEVEL is better. They are very different, and require different skill sets. However, most of teh college coaches I have worked with are/were better teachers than those at the H.S. Level because they have refined their football teaching skills more (professional necessity) Most of the H.S. coaches I have worked with were/are better teachers than jr high level, but that is probably due to a lack of commitment by SOME of the Jr high guys Obviously, there are Jr High coaches out there that are better teachers than H.S. coaches..and H.S. teachers that are better teachers than college guys. What I am surprised at though, is this apparent glaring difference between the mechanics used in the NFL that requires 2 and 3 time all conference players to "get coached up" to be a productive NFL player. I cant consider a college guy any better a teacher than any other level, teaching is teaching, its not the level you do it at that makes someone better at presenting material. For one thing, I went to a qb clinic...the guy kept saying how "I wont even take a kid that does that, we will look somewhere else"...now, jr high and high school coaches do not have that luxery...we take whoever shows up and we TEACH AND CORRECT. Not saying that the college guys dont teach, of course they do...what iM saying is that just because the kids are a few years older, faster, stronger , bigger...doesnt make them better teachers. |
|
|
|
Post by dsqa on May 1, 2007 11:22:41 GMT -6
On second thought, NFL analysts are usually not coaches, and have not been. Kind of interesting, that many of those who are criticizing haven't been coaches themselves at that level.
I changed my post because I didn't even understand it. That is when you know you need to "step away from the keyboard."
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 1, 2007 19:14:10 GMT -6
Calande--thats not what I said. I didn't say that college coaches were better teachers just because they were college coaches. I said that based on my evaluation of the coaches--based on their:
articulation of information
organization
instructional methodology
commitment to professional development
Most college coaches that I worked with/came aross were better teachers than Most jr high or high school coaches. They aren't better because they are at a higher level. They are at a higher level because they are better.
|
|
|
|
Post by SAcoach on May 1, 2007 19:37:10 GMT -6
Then why are we coaching Jr. High and High School if we are better than the coaches at higher levels...
We should just avoid clinics where college and nfl coaches are speaking
We are already better at what they do anyway...
Are college and NFL coaches not there for a reason... they must be doing something right....
There are bad coaches at all levels...no matter what...
I think it depends more on the time you devout to your profession and how much you are willing to give up to be the best at what you do...
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on May 2, 2007 6:03:12 GMT -6
I dont think there are absolutes that one can say...
for example
If you coach pro football, you are at a higher level than a college coach, therefor you must be a better coach
If you coach college football, you are at a higher level then a high school coach, therefor you must be a better coach
If you coach high school football, you are at a higher level than a jr high coach, therefor you must be a better coach
If you coach jr high football , you are at a higher level than a youth coach, therefor youmust be a better coach
rediculous. Just my opinion. There were some daggone aweful coaches at all levels and there are some amazing people and amazing teachers of the game at all levels too. Each of us has different backgrounds that place us at the level we are at now. Often its about who you know and who knows you , much more than just being "better"...
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 2, 2007 6:17:31 GMT -6
Obviously there are no absolutes. Hence the word "MOST" was used in my posts. I don't think anyone here is thinking in terms of absolutes other than you. I know a guy whose career went from H.S. to BCS college, to NFL, then back to HS and now D2 coach. I thought he was a CRAPPY teacher of the game..and that is why he has moved back down. He was a poor teacher. But that is one. Not the majority of my experience.
And once again, you put the cart before the horse and keep thinking in terms of using the LEVEL to determine better or worse, instead of looking at BETTER OR WORSE to determine the level.
Simply put, the majority of the better "teachers" of the game I have encountered were at the NFL and collegiate levels. And should those teachers of the game decide to coach rec ball, or jr high ball...i maintain they would be BETTER teachers of the game...regardless of level.
|
|
