Acid Test for Coaches

Well I think you need to add a dimension to your question. What level are we talking about? A good high school coach is different than a good NFL coach. A good NFL coach is determined by wins, losses, and rings. There are other factors but those are the main ones. High school coaches should be judged by the quality of kids the put out. I'm not talking quality of athlete. I'm talking overall quality of person. Now its important for them to win to varying degrees. But the biggest part of being a high school coach is to make kids into productive young men.

well, how about this?

Quantifying "good" & "bad" coaches to determine what would make Coach A a better HIRE than Coach B............

(yeah, yeah....I know....there is more to it than that, right? .......)

chris
i think a good coach is someone that learns from and admits to their mistakes

people, or so called "coaches" that continually drop names or just try and lay blame on others are lame and fail my test for sure

I think there are far too many variables to describe what a good coach is. Easier to describe a bad coach, though it's easier to describe those PERSONALITY TRAITS that are negative rather than why they are a poor coach.

What works for me works well for me--but it may not work for someone else, it may not work for me in a different place, and it may not work for me in 10 years.

Consider someone like Woody Hays. No argument that the guy was a good coach, though many would argue now that his style wouldn't work now. Yet a lot of people say that Urban Meyer is very similar but with a 21st century style.

I just think there are way too many variables. As my buddies in the Math department would say, "not enough information to solve."

Great coaches have the ability to take person where they cannot go by themselves.

To varying degrees I would agree with many of points noted above. I think that Dave's "program" view for high-school is right on target. I know that this may sound odd, but at the high school level you need a person sees the big picture but is also a good coach. You need to create a program that creates a productive feeder system from the youth leagues up. Everybody running the same system, using the same terminology, etc. This is tough. At the high school level I think that it is critical that HC recognize the importance of having good coaches at the FROSH level. This often gets overlooked. Personally I think the stipends for the FROSH guys should be higher and and that the HC should try to get his better coaches working with them; he can concentrate on coaching up the younger assistants that might not know as much football.

How great is Charlie Weis? He could win with somebody elses, but has yet to win with his own.
Bum Phillips said it best about another coach when he said "he can beat ya with his'n and he can beat ya with your'n".
With Ditka at Chicago- it was chemistry. He was the right man, at the right place at the right time with the right people. I don't think that I ever have enjoyed the pro game as much since.

How about consistency. A coach can be defined by how he/she is consistent with the myriad of issues that come up. As we all know there are peaks and valleys every day, every week, but if the plan is in place and it is conveyed to the players and then executed when needed then most issues, good and bad, can be dealt with.

Look at the De La Salle program. Coach Lad doesn't talk about winning streaks and such and churns out machine like precision each year with different players. They have a consistent plan and execute it. The "win" factor that TCM says, is the result of the week of preperation and the execution of the plan Friday night.

I have been described as a "good coach", but I don't know if that is true. Brophy's question is a good one. What is the fans perception of "good" and what is the coaching fraternities perception and what about administration? I know a "good" coach is one who consistently tries to find the way to make their program and players get better. The motto at our place is "get better each week". It really doesn't matter who our opponent is or what we did last week on the scoreboard.

Also, can you be a good coach if you are a known a$$hole? I know some programs win and are considered "good", but have a complete prick as a HC. Does that make you good?

great coaching starts with a great vision and plan, surrounding yourself with good people is a huge chunk of the battle. with ditka Id say surrounding himself with hall of fame players and a guy like buddy ryan didnt hurt, even if it wasnt his doing. my guess, da bears won despite ditka. now, about ditka...IF, IF IF ...ricky williams wasnt a drug user could things have turned out differently for him in NO?

A great coach is defined by winning consistently BUT, IN ORDER TO WIN, HE MUST-

1.Know and be able to teach the game.
2. Get the most out of his players- COMMUNICATION AND MOTIVATION
3. Get the most out of his staff- COMMUNICATION AND MOTIVATION
4. Get the most out his organization in general.
5. Be adult enough to shoulder the blame for something- AND BE ADULT ENOUGH TO FIX IT!.

I think that Ditka was great coach in '85 and doesn't get near as much credit as he should for leading that team. That '85 team...that was one of the greatest collections of flakes, misfits, and egos ever assembled. Guys like Steve McMichael, Otis Wilson, Jim McMahon...heck, even the offensive linemen thought that they were rock stars! Buddy Ryan...well, he was a heck of a DC, but he was also a complete p r i c k. And Brophy has already mentioned the disasterous management practices of Michael McCaskey and others who ran that team into the ground.

Ditka was the perfect coach for that team...not sure if any of the other head coaches in the league at the time could have handled those personalities...maybe Parcells, but Ditka kept everything together.

So, is Ditka a "great coach"? Well, I'm not sure he was a "great coach", but he certainly is well above average.