berg
Freshmen Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by berg on Mar 6, 2007 13:56:37 GMT -6
This has been a debated topic on our staff as well. Someone posed this hypothetical: Say a team is 1-7 or 2-6 or 3-5. If you brought in Bill walsh to tak eover, is that team record going to be dramatically different?
We agreed tht over the course of a season, there are about 2 to 3 games that can go either way. So there can be very little difference between a 1-7 team and a 3-5 team. It could have been a ball bouncing funny, slipping out of the punter's hands, or a field goal off the crossbar. Teams throughout the course of a season end up on both sides of many breaks like that, not all of which have an effect on the outcome.
So for one to surmise that good coaching (which to buy this hypothetical, you have to agree that Walsh is a good coach) would be able to really change the course of a team, this 1-7 team would have to go 5-3 to consider Bill Walsh as actually having an effect on said team.
Dealing with similar talent, is this scenario likely? Probable? Possible?
Not relly an opinion here, just more food for discussion...
|
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Mar 6, 2007 14:05:34 GMT -6
If I am not mistaken Walshes West coast offense was developed to take advantage of the strengths his players had at the time and to minimize their weaknesses- so I'd say he made a difference in that case, with that team. And of coourse with better players it was a tremendous offense but at the time it was what he felt they could do to move the ball and score.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Mar 6, 2007 17:37:04 GMT -6
Wow! I am impressed with the answers given. I am surrounded by people who love to say that phrase. I always have felt it was an excuse for them not having been able to get the job at their respective schools. I am no guru by any stretch, but to say that it is all about the players you have is insane to me...if that were true, then why are we here? What purpose do we have, what role do we play as coaches? I also know you need talented players to win, but it is the coaches who win the close ones, not the players. I agree that talent is often used as an excuse. Although I believe that you need talent to win consistently I also believe that, over the long haul, the talent in most leagues is generally pretty even. Coaching does make a difference but we're not miracle workers. You're not going to X and O to the top instantly. Teaching great technique builds winners but it takes time. Developing work ethic does, too. So does developing mental and physical toughness. I also believe that success breeds success. If your team typically has gone 2-8 and you coach them up to 5-5 then you're building interest in the hallways so you get better "Jimmies". |
|
|
|
Post by wingman on Mar 6, 2007 23:19:28 GMT -6
I think every team has a parameter governing their capability. One average team might be 3 - 7 to 7- 3. A mediocre coach will go 3 - 7 with that group and a great coach 7 - 3. I'm speaking of the vast majority of high school coaches. An idiot might lose them all and Knute Rockne might be 10 -0 but for most of us there's a range. We always want to be on the upper end of that range. But coaching has limits. We have played our rival several years when they had 10+ D1 guys and we had 1 or 2. There was no way in hell we were going to beat them unless they turned it over 5 times and beat themselves. I also remember talking to a great Wing T coach who had won section titles and won in more than one state. He said he thought he could win with any group of players and I had seen him have teams play way over their heads. But then he became coach at a very strong league in So Cal and went 1 - 9.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 7, 2007 9:03:19 GMT -6
"coaching has limits"- I certainly agree with that, however to play devils advocate I would suggest that I have never been part of any team where the coaching staff didnt make a few mistakes along the way. Even when we have won em all, we have left stones unturned ....fortunately we still won. There were some pretty good coaching jobs during losing years too but again, its not like we were perfect. We COULD HAVE pulled out a couple of other games had we prepared better in my opinion. to me the most clear cut "jimmies and joes" thoughts come when we have our feature player get hurt...ie one year we lost our fullback who also happened to be our kicker and our mike backer...yeah, that hurt. we averaged over 40ppg in games that he played...we avged about 23 ppg without him.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsrood on Mar 7, 2007 9:27:20 GMT -6
I think it is a combination of both, but realistically, those programs that win consistently don't always have the best talent. What they have, as others have mentioned is the best drive, attitude, and probably coaching that allows them to win on a regular basis. Talent is important, but coaching is just as important if not more so. Didn't they used to say about Coach Paul "Bear" Bryant that "He could take his and beat yours, or he could take yours and beat his!" The really consistent programs might have a drop off in talent, but for them a bad year might be a 6-3 or ar worst a 5-4. Rarely do you see the top programs fall below that level and you can believe that there is a lot of soul searching going on when they drop to a 6-3 or a 5-4. So while "Jimmie and Joes" play a factor, I think the "Bears" of the coaching world play just as important a factor.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Mar 7, 2007 9:38:59 GMT -6
I can coach my team up at practice, and they can execute flawlessly during the week. Then we can sleep on Thursday night knowing that we coached our a$$es off and the kids are ready. You could say they were coached very well all week long.
Then, come friday night, they go out and don't execute. Maybe the stud RB got hammered the night before, or your your QB gets in a fight and is suspended. Your team gets smacked.
Do you second guess your coaching ability? Are your athlete's bad choices a product of your coaching style?
What I'm trying to say is- JIMMIES AND JOES
If you coach them up as best as you can, they still must execute on Friday night.
I coached at a prep school with many D1 athletes, and we had 5 days to prepare for our first game. We went out, played a powerhouse DIII team and smacked them all over the field. It came down to our players were better. We ran 6 different plays all day on offense...
|
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 7, 2007 10:48:20 GMT -6
Maybe the stud RB got hammered the night before, or your your QB gets in a fight and is suspended. Your team gets smacked.
I understand you are just using this as an example... but I would argue that at least these examples have to do with coaching... or teaching or mentoring or whatever. As we all know, coaching is scheme and technique and personnel placement, etc.- but it is also teaching young men how to be a responsible, reliable, trustworthy member of a team. We've all had players do stupid things, how those things are handled and whether or not they continue reflects on coaching (and I can look at my own career and see improvements that were made as I became a better coach).
If ever there was a coaches prayer, this is it:
"Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
We can not change genetics... we can't change a player's height (if we could I would be taller), we can have an impact on attitude and work ethic that will make a player better. We can not change someone's (lack of) mental ability, but we can find ways the player will learn or find ways we can simplify our systems. I could go on for hours. Sometimes... you know, no matter what, it will be a long and frustrating season (for us- next year)... but the really great coaches look for any way they can be competitive and do anything to help their cause, but understand that 4-5 might be a great year.
For me, I simply can not look at this in any other way- I aspire to be that type of coach; this is the impact that I want, not just on the team in terms of W-L, but in terms of helping young men achieve.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Mar 7, 2007 12:26:34 GMT -6
I agree with you blutarsky, coaching is more about life coaching than sport skills. If you are not in it to help the young guys achieve, then you should retire.
We, as coaches, cannot worry about things we can't control. We can stay on kids constantly about grades, doing the right thing, portraying the right image and they will abide when in our presence or the school setting.
But when they get home, it's a different ball game. We all know how f*cked up parents can be today, and that these kids sometimes are not getting the support that they need at home. They may not be running the halls acting a fool, but they may be running the streets at night. And this is out of our control...we're their coaches- not their parents...
I will do anything for my players (just like every other coach on this board I hope), but the line is drawn here. It's not my job or right to interfere with someone else's parenting, no matter how poor a job they are doing.
Our players know our expectations and the rules are clearly stated. We can point them in the right direction, tell them how to deal with every situation that may occur (on the field and off), but it is up to the Jim/Joe to take that first step/make the right decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsrood on Mar 7, 2007 12:37:47 GMT -6
"Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
Outstanding advice not only for coaching but for life!
"For me, I simply can not look at this in any other way- I aspire to be that type of coach; this is the impact that I want, not just on the team in terms of W-L, but in terms of helping young men achieve. "
That is a great outlook. I think all good coaches feel that way and are in the profession for that reason. When looking at ourselves as coaches we need to do that bit of soul searching: Are we doing the very best we can to have a positive impact on our players in all aspects, not just football? We all want to win and be successful, but as Senator from Faber so eloquently put it: "Sometimes... you know, no matter what, it will be a long and frustrating season (for us- next year)... but the really great coaches look for any way they can be competitive and do anything to help their cause, but understand that 4-5 might be a great year." Small victories are sometimes just as important as the big ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 7, 2007 13:29:44 GMT -6
Our players know our expectations and the rules are clearly stated. We can point them in the right direction, tell them how to deal with every situation that may occur (on the field and off), but it is up to the Jim/Joe to take that first step/make the right decision.
True. And I hope you didn't take my statements as any kind of underhanded criticism. I was just using those examples as a basis for my rationale that we can impact (though not necessarily change) a lot of things. We all do what we can to change our players in a positive way. I just think that when we say "it is all about the talent" (not that you were... just saying), we discount the tremendous value and impact we have in our players lives, including "learning how to play football better".
I still keep in touch with my HS and college coaches. They made me a better player (given my athletic ability, it is amazing that I did as well as I did). but more importantly, if not for them, at best I'm the night manager of a 7-11 with a gunshot wound or two... at worst I'm dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Mar 7, 2007 17:17:13 GMT -6
[quote author=senatorblutarsky board=general thread=1173018022 post=1173295784True. And I hope you didn't take my statements as any kind of underhanded criticism.[/quote]
None taken bro...
|
|
|
|
Post by izatnice on Mar 7, 2007 21:56:39 GMT -6
Yes we can put them in the right position, but with 4th and 3 on the 3 with 4 seconds left in the game and you need 6 either you have a player who will make a play or you don't. We can't snap it block it throw or catch it, or defend it. Coaches can control and manage the game but eventually somebody has to make a play.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 8, 2007 7:07:44 GMT -6
I can coach my team up at practice, and they can execute flawlessly during the week. Then we can sleep on Thursday night knowing that we coached our a$$es off and the kids are ready. You could say they were coached very well all week long. Then, come friday night, they go out and don't execute. Maybe the stud RB got hammered the night before, or your your QB gets in a fight and is suspended. Your team gets smacked. Do you second guess your coaching ability? Are your athlete's bad choices a product of your coaching style? What I'm trying to say is- JIMMIES AND JOES If you coach them up as best as you can, they still must execute on Friday night. I coached at a prep school with many D1 athletes, and we had 5 days to prepare for our first game. We went out, played a powerhouse DIII team and smacked them all over the field. It came down to our players were better. We ran 6 different plays all day on offense... yknow( and this is kinda scary really) I was thinking about this discussion as I drove to work today...I would think that if it happened once, or even twice in a season...well sure, that could happen...if it happened repeatedly then Id blame the coach. Your thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Mar 8, 2007 7:28:28 GMT -6
I can coach my team up at practice, and they can execute flawlessly during the week. Then we can sleep on Thursday night knowing that we coached our a$$es off and the kids are ready. You could say they were coached very well all week long. Then, come friday night, they go out and don't execute. Maybe the stud RB got hammered the night before, or your your QB gets in a fight and is suspended. Your team gets smacked. Do you second guess your coaching ability? Are your athlete's bad choices a product of your coaching style? What I'm trying to say is- JIMMIES AND JOES If you coach them up as best as you can, they still must execute on Friday night. I coached at a prep school with many D1 athletes, and we had 5 days to prepare for our first game. We went out, played a powerhouse DIII team and smacked them all over the field. It came down to our players were better. We ran 6 different plays all day on offense... yknow( and this is kinda scary really) I was thinking about this discussion as I drove to work today...I would think that if it happened once, or even twice in a season...well sure, that could happen...if it happened repeatedly then Id blame the coach. Your thoughts? Isn't there an old cliche about this...something like "First time, shame on YOU. Second time, shame on ME!"? If bad things are happening CONSISTENTLY, then I think the coaching staff has to re-evaluate how they have been teaching that particular skill or scenario. Like many people have said, the "Jimmies and Joes" argument goes both ways. If we can agree that, on ocassion, the other team has better football players than we do, then wouldn't it follow that, on ocassion, the other team has better football coaches than we do? |
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Mar 8, 2007 8:13:18 GMT -6
yknow( and this is kinda scary really) I was thinking about this discussion as I drove to work today...I would think that if it happened once, or even twice in a season...well sure, that could happen...if it happened repeatedly then Id blame the coach. Your thoughts? If this stuff is happening consistently, then yes, I believe that the coach is not doing enough in the character/discipline department. I was just using examples... I guess what I'm saying is that a good team is almost always well coached, but to take that team to the next level, the players have to do the work (at practice and in games). Maybe the better response to the original question "Jim/Joes or X/O?" would be- To be competitive, you have to have sound coaching going on. To become annual contenders you need the players. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 8, 2007 11:20:16 GMT -6
Thats a logical response for sure. Yknow, heres a couple of thoughts...stuff that sometimes irks me I guess....as a ms coach or frosh coach I seem to be able to get kids to play...I mean, in a year or two taking over a program that had low numbers, I can usually double or even triple a roster...it irks me that some coaches wont actively promote the sport and sell the sport to the kids and sell their program...all of the benefits of playing the game...and not just to great athletes but to all of them. never know whos buddies with whom. There are so many guys that use "low numbers" "no interest" "kids not buying in" etc as excuses...kids love the game. I think more guys need to put more emphasis on the youngsters coming up.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Mar 8, 2007 15:37:46 GMT -6
Thats a logical response for sure. Yknow, heres a couple of thoughts...stuff that sometimes irks me I guess....as a ms coach or frosh coach I seem to be able to get kids to play...I mean, in a year or two taking over a program that had low numbers, I can usually double or even triple a roster...it irks me that some coaches wont actively promote the sport and sell the sport to the kids and sell their program...all of the benefits of playing the game...and not just to great athletes but to all of them. never know whos buddies with whom. There are so many guys that use "low numbers" "no interest" "kids not buying in" etc as excuses...kids love the game. I think more guys need to put more emphasis on the youngsters coming up. ABsolutely! I think the key to a program surviving is having great lower level coaches who want to do their job...You definitely need to "love up" the middle schoolers/youth league kids and let your face/name be seen in the community. |
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Mar 8, 2007 21:35:16 GMT -6
I believe to many coaches see the lower levels as simply a means for them to move up the ranks rather then a critical step to helping build a program. I've often heard many HC say they want their best coach at the freshman level.
|
|
