|
Post by hawkfan on Sept 18, 2007 9:00:20 GMT -6
I asked this question on another board...
Do you need to have significant playing experience to be a coach? There are the Charlie Weis's of the world, who have no playing experience. But for the most part, most coaches have had at least a high school playing experience, if not college.
I played through junior high, but due to a series of circumstances, I didn't play in high school. But I've been very diligent in my free time in absorbing as much as possible learning about the game and I've been coaching the past 5 years as a head coach at the youth level (although this year is at the Jr High level as an OC).
Eventually, at some point, I'd love to coach at the high school level or even beyond. Since the guys on this site are such a fantastic resource on everything football, I thought I would open it up to you all.
How important is prior playing experience in coaching?
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Sept 18, 2007 9:03:43 GMT -6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I stopped playing in 10th grade due to a series of injuries. Its not the playing experience that makes the coach, its the work ethic and study habits. just my opinion
|
|
|
Post by gacoach on Sept 18, 2007 9:08:17 GMT -6
I played from 7th through high school. Tore my A/C joint in my left shoulder before signing to play college ball. Went to have a physical and got the bad news...playing days over.
It helped me because I played QB and kind understand what they go through mentally, but since I last played in 1982 everything I was taught is outdated. I don't use the "when I played phrase". They don't care. Sometimes they'll ask what I played, but that's about where it ends.
To answer your question, I think it helps but isn't necessary to be a good coach. Just a willingness to learn....like anything.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Sept 18, 2007 9:16:24 GMT -6
It certainly isn't a prerequisite, and probably doesn't really carry much importance. One of the few advantages to having played however, is that you have an understanding of how difficult certain things are to do. (For example, It is easy to say "key 2-1 while easing out of the three step". "Key through the guards to the FB" ..but much harder to actually DO it. )
|
|
|
Post by flexspread on Sept 18, 2007 10:00:51 GMT -6
Like everyone else said, I think that it makes everything a little easier but you certainly don't have to. I feel that playing gave me two things: first, it made it so I had a better understanding of how everything works, from the terminology, to the setup of practice, to understanding offense and defense, pregame, etc. second, I feel that I am able to relate to the kids better by giving them examples of my plaing days. I think that is about all though. Did Charlie Weis really not play ANY football?
|
|
|
Post by hawkfan on Sept 18, 2007 10:19:22 GMT -6
Perhaps it's just that he didn't play college football. I'm sure there are more, but he's the one I remember hearing about the most around the time he accepted the ND job.
|
|
|
Post by pantherpride91 on Sept 18, 2007 10:59:47 GMT -6
Why are so many ADs and high up big wigs concerned if someone played college ball. I had the opportunity to go play D II ball after high school but made a tough decision to not play. I wanted to focus on school and had a couple nagging injuries. My love for the game of football is something that has never been in doubt. Now that being said I have been a student of the game since then. I do not just watch games but I try and think my way through them and figure out the next move a coach might make.
Now I wonder why just because people played college ball they are automatically out on another level than those that did not. No matter what level of knowledge I have I get the feeling I will be fighting an uphill battle in the coaching ranks. I made a conscience and personal decision to not play college ball, and feel it may be something that I am looked down upon for.
In my eyes, if you are student of the game and welcome thoughts and ideas from all angles it does not matter how much you played. Coaching comes down to understanding the game, your players, and your surroundings.
Any one else share this opinion or think I am going off the deep end here?
|
|
|
Post by hawkfan on Sept 18, 2007 11:15:01 GMT -6
Any one else share this opinion or think I am going off the deep end here? I'm of the same opinion you are. I wanted to see what the collective board thought...seems to be the sentiment so far.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Sept 18, 2007 11:53:16 GMT -6
I will say this--someone who was exposed to college style organization and coaching via playing, (especially a very scheme inclusive position like QB or LB) probably has an advantage over someone that has never been exposed to that methodology (practice structure, pace, organization, attention to detail).
But those things can easily be experienced by visiting a local college for practice.
|
|
|
Post by spartancoach on Sept 18, 2007 12:10:11 GMT -6
I began playing football at 9 years old and played through college, and I still can't coach a lick. So apparently playing experience has little to do with coaching ability.
|
|
|
Post by 7384729737 on Sept 18, 2007 12:21:18 GMT -6
My high school coach played in high school and won a state championship while playing. He then went to college at Va Tech to play baseball. Last year he won his first state championship and Richlands (his school) has the longest active winning streak in Virginia right now.
|
|
|
Post by pantherpride91 on Sept 18, 2007 12:31:39 GMT -6
I will say this--someone who was exposed to college style organization and coaching via playing, (especially a very scheme inclusive position like QB or LB) probably has an advantage over someone that has never been exposed to that methodology (practice structure, pace, organization, attention to detail). But those things can easily be experienced by visiting a local college for practice. It is impossible to argue with you on the fact of not being exposed during the college years. However, as you move up the ranks towards higher levels (I mean starting at middle school or a small HS), dont you learn all the small details needed with coaching. Especially if you are interested in taking your career as far as it can go, you will go out and soak up everything like a sponge. Playing and coaching are two different things all together. No doubt in my mind that there are plenty of great future coaches in the college football ranks today. That being said, I do not think someone should be looked down upon because they chose to not play college ball. There is no one set method to be successful. I am sure Joe Pa runs his practices a worlds different than Pete Carroll and both are needless to say very successful. No matter if you played college ball or stopped in H.S. or even middle school its about hard work, educating yourself at all cost, and dedication.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Sept 18, 2007 12:35:22 GMT -6
I will say this--someone who was exposed to college style organization and coaching via playing, (especially a very scheme inclusive position like QB or LB) probably has an advantage over someone that has never been exposed to that methodology (practice structure, pace, organization, attention to detail). But those things can easily be experienced by visiting a local college for practice. well maybe, in theory,...some of the dumbest dudes I have ever met were football players at the college level...wouldnt want any of them coaching my kids. dont get me wrong, but im just saying that playing experience at even the division I level doesnt mean a guy can teach. I took calculus in college and certainly cant teach it.
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Sept 18, 2007 12:41:48 GMT -6
it does help having playing experience. I am 19 and many of the teams we play havent changed much so i know what to tell my O linemen because I know what the other teamd D line will do beforehand from my playing days a couple years ago. I know which teams pentrate hard, slant, 2 gap etc.
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Sept 18, 2007 12:43:02 GMT -6
I think you can learn more about coaching by working under outstanding coaches than by playing the game.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Sept 18, 2007 13:46:14 GMT -6
I have seen this before, and I personally believe that it should have no bearing on the issue of coaching. In fact, if a school states that they are an "equal opportunity employer" and your reason for not playing was due to either a short term medical condition or a long term disability, then they are out of compliance. In otherwords, they are discriminating against you as an applicant.
This is assuming that they are stating that it is a "requirement" to coach and not a desired qualification.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 18, 2007 15:13:52 GMT -6
quick.
Who do you want coaching your quarterbacks? ........Gill Jimmijonojackamock or Joe Montana
Thats about what it comes down to for administrators and boosters.
Playing experience at high levels usually translates to being exposed to a high level of competition that is not readily available. The one thing playing experience gives you is (more experience thinking as a player, dealing with 'player issues', contacts and networking).
How can you explain how "Good" you can coach? Coaching in football (teaching the X's & O's) is a very small part of what being a coach actually is. Image, spokesperson, public speaker, mentor, etc all play a part in the ever increasing political office called, "Coach".
Lots of guys that get lauded for their playing experience I've encountered haven't been much as far as teaching the game, but that doesn't mean that there aren't really good coaches out there with high level of playing experience.
Playing experience in high school vs playing in college are two separate issues. The college player can offer a different perspective of how to prepare an athlete for a higher level of play and also how to deal with the "college experience".
Playing experience in college vs playing in the pros is another dynamic. Usually with those pro players you will find someone who has a tremendous amount of knowledge of a specific position and the technique involved, who have a broad spectrum of philosophies that they have experienced.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Sept 18, 2007 17:06:38 GMT -6
I think you can learn more about coaching by working under outstanding coaches than by playing the game. Bingo! This is the common link in good coaches------learning from other good teachers/mentors--------------like Mike Leach from Hal Mumme.......................
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2007 19:42:26 GMT -6
But after you've been coaching this long (16 years for me) I don't remember what I learned when I was playing or what I learned when I was coaching.
|
|
|
Post by tripleoption61 on Sept 18, 2007 19:48:42 GMT -6
I think playing experience helps but not necessary. The ability to transfer information and the ability to teach athletes is what i look for in hiring coaches
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Sept 18, 2007 20:39:49 GMT -6
Irishblitzer--very valid point. After a few years, any of the advantages I spoke about would probably be negated.
|
|
|
Post by coachmoore42 on Sept 18, 2007 20:41:37 GMT -6
I believe that the college/pro experience will help someone land a job. Good hard work, regardless of playing experience, will keep it.
I passed on playing college ball because I had a chance to begin coaching straight out of high school (I would have probably only gotten playing time at the D2 level or lower anyway, I wasn't a stud athlete). I always wonder which would have been more beneficial to my coaching career. I still don't know the answer, but I did enjoy the early years of coaching.
|
|
|
Post by coachdbs on Sept 19, 2007 7:46:54 GMT -6
I agree and disagree. I played my last year of organized football in 9th grade (long story but poor judgement and a horrible work ethic had a lot to do with it) before I started coaching frosh football at the age of 33. I did help coach a few youth teams along the way but cannot say I learned a whole lot. I started coaching WR's and was fortunate to have another asst. coach who played WR in college (also played comp. flag football and played with a number of college experienced WR's). I learned how important fundamentals and technique are in being successfull. I went to every clinic possible and spent a lot of time on the internet. I was fortunate enough to be hired as a 1st year teacher the following year and was also promoted to varsity WR coach. The next year I was promoted to ST Coord. This is when I started to question my lack of experience. However, it was more from a physical perspective and the ability to make decisions while going full speed on the field. So...what did a dumb old guy do? Why, signed up to play semi-pro football of course. I cannot tell you how much that experience helped me as a varsity coach. At my age, I had to work my arse off in the offseason and had to master technique in order to compete with the young bucks. I learned how physical the game really is (more darn stingers in 3 years that I can count). How easy it is to coach things like keys,reads,tech but how hard it can be when things are going a million miles an hour on the field. How hard it is to get up and lift the day after a tough game. What it's like to take on two blocks while running full speed on KO. What it's like to try and get up and run when the whole field is turned on it's side because you just got buckled. Long story...long....I don't know that college playing experience makes you a better coach but I do believe that at least playing at the level you coach does make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Sept 19, 2007 8:33:23 GMT -6
it does help having playing experience. I am 19 and many of the teams we play havent changed much so i know what to tell my O linemen because I know what the other teamd D line will do beforehand from my playing days a couple years ago. I know which teams pentrate hard, slant, 2 gap etc. we learn all of that from film...
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Sept 19, 2007 8:34:15 GMT -6
quick. Who do you want coaching your quarterbacks? ........Gill Jimmijonojackamock or Joe Montana Thats about what it comes down to for administrators and boosters. Playing experience at high levels usually translates to being exposed to a high level of competition that is not readily available. The one thing playing experience gives you is (more experience thinking as a player, dealing with 'player issues', contacts and networking). How can you explain how "Good" you can coach? Coaching in football (teaching the X's & O's) is a very small part of what being a coach actually is. Image, spokesperson, public speaker, mentor, etc all play a part in the ever increasing political office called, "Coach". Lots of guys that get lauded for their playing experience I've encountered haven't been much as far as teaching the game, but that doesn't mean that there aren't really good coaches out there with high level of playing experience. Playing experience in high school vs playing in college are two separate issues. The college player can offer a different perspective of how to prepare an athlete for a higher level of play and also how to deal with the "college experience". Playing experience in college vs playing in the pros is another dynamic. Usually with those pro players you will find someone who has a tremendous amount of knowledge of a specific position and the technique involved, who have a broad spectrum of philosophies that they have experienced. Montanas kid is 3rd string right now...
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Sept 19, 2007 8:42:21 GMT -6
I will give a weightlifting analogy. Take your starting running back and let him lift weights. Take McFadden from Akansas and say that he never lifted weights (I am sure that he probably has). Who is going to be the better RB?
Now, take McFadden and let him lift weights. McFadden lifting will be better than McFadden not lifting, but he was always better than your staring RB.
My point is this: the better coach is the better coach, but the more you have played the better you will be. I didn't play college ball. If I would have, I would more than likely be a little bit better coach than I am today. But, I bet that I am a better coach than 90% of former NFL players.
I am making any sense at all?
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Sept 19, 2007 8:44:28 GMT -6
quick. Who do you want coaching your quarterbacks? ........Gill Jimmijonojackamock or Joe Montana Thats about what it comes down to for administrators and boosters. Playing experience at high levels usually translates to being exposed to a high level of competition that is not readily available. The one thing playing experience gives you is (more experience thinking as a player, dealing with 'player issues', contacts and networking). How can you explain how "Good" you can coach? Coaching in football (teaching the X's & O's) is a very small part of what being a coach actually is. Image, spokesperson, public speaker, mentor, etc all play a part in the ever increasing political office called, "Coach". Lots of guys that get lauded for their playing experience I've encountered haven't been much as far as teaching the game, but that doesn't mean that there aren't really good coaches out there with high level of playing experience. Playing experience in high school vs playing in college are two separate issues. The college player can offer a different perspective of how to prepare an athlete for a higher level of play and also how to deal with the "college experience". Playing experience in college vs playing in the pros is another dynamic. Usually with those pro players you will find someone who has a tremendous amount of knowledge of a specific position and the technique involved, who have a broad spectrum of philosophies that they have experienced. Montanas kid is 3rd string right now... But Elway's kid is 1st string and Dad is the qb coach!
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Sept 19, 2007 8:50:43 GMT -6
At the youth level I "hire" and fire coaches every year. When I first got into it I always coveted the former college players and shied away from the guys that hadnt played or just played some.
Over time it became very apparant, that most of the guys that I got that were former college players were not as good as coaching youth football as they were players. In fact for me anyways, the biggest problems I had and some of my worst coached teams were coached by ex college players. On the other hand, open minded, modest guys that put in the time but had little playing experience were surprisingly often some of my best and most successful coaches I had. Some not having preconcieved notions had been a huge benefit. Actually question why do it that way, couldnt you do it this way stuff, where we had done things a certain way just because we had always done it that way. Smart modest guys that want to learn, embrace challenges and compete and are good managers ( settng priorities) are nearly always good choices.
Maybe I just got a bad taste in my mouth from hearing DI, DI, DI football player etc when they werent coaching or relating better to youth players than many of my rookie coaches.
When I do clinics and hear from first time rookie coaches, I can almost always tell you which ones will be e-mailing me at end of season with tales of them doing real well. They are the guys that have the qualities I mentioned above, they will excell at WHATEVER they do, from building their kids the best tree house on the block, to being the best manager at thier company or business to being a great coach. The complement is also true, I bet some of those great decision maker coaches with discerrnment for setting correct priorities would make good managers or business people as well.
As a former DII Bench warmer, my playing experience helped some, but I learned much more from a coach I coached with, clinics,, books and experience over time than when I played. As a former RB, I didnt know how to teach O-Line, D-Line etc, but now thats what I teach as well as being HC/OC. What I did learn as a player was the sacrifices required to excell as a player and team.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Sept 19, 2007 15:38:35 GMT -6
This is a topic I see a lot. It seems a lot I hear it as a negative that someone played college football. I think my playing experience has helped me in coaching. Everything coaches always talk about "teaching their kids" like work ethic, teamwork, desire to succeed, sacrifice, etc. Well along the way I learned that and experienced those qualities. I had them bread into me from the time I was 8 until the time I was 23. So not only have I experienced football, but all the lessons that football teaches. Lessons that are very hard to gain (although not impossible) by not being part of a team.
I do know what is like going through practice. I have experienced the drudgery of fall camp and the physical and mental toll it takes on players. So I understand what they are feeling. I can relate to some techniques being difficult to pick up and concepts that are foreign to some players. I know what it is like to make the block that sprang a TD and I know what it is like to get beat and flat backed. Trust me there are some things that are a lot harder in application then books or clinic speakers make them sound. So I do think playing experience is big plus when trying to coach. I was exposed to techniques in college that I didn't even know existed. I however also had a great college football experience, which may matter some in the overall equation. We were taught how to win and to care about winning and losing.
The one thing I see a lot former players fail at though is not knowing the techniques or being able to relate to players. What I see them fail at is the teaching aspect of the game. Some players aren't good technicians, they are just good athletes. Some players can't convey what they did because what they did was instinct. You can't ask your players to have the same instincts or thought processes you had. That is the downfall of a lot of player coaches. The ability to break down the progressions of what they did and explain to someone who knows little or nothing. That is the skill of coaching. That is why sometimes people that have never done it before are better coaches. They had to learn it painstakingly and thus they teach it to every minute detail.
In any event I don't think automatic assumptions are fair either way. It is a disservice to the individual who is being judged. Every coach is a case by case basis and the proof lies in the success of his players.
Guys that have never played, in my opinion, are missing some of the key ingredients of coaching because no matter how much the book or DVD says it is supposed to work, you just don't know for sure. Guys who have played, but can't break it down also cannot teach it.
It takes a special person to be a coach and as long as you can make up for what you lack with your attitude, you can be as good of a coach as you want to be.
|
|
|
Post by briangilbert on Sept 19, 2007 22:54:59 GMT -6
I played for a team in the Mac and I can tell you that the football IQ of the guys I played with was far higher them someone who didn't play at that level. Whether that translates them to be better HS football coaches then a non player I have no idea. But one thing I know for darn sure is that they have far more football experience on the subject of football through playing Division 1 football then those who did not play at that level.
It's not as if you WOULDN'T know the system you're playing under, you can't be stupid to play college football, I don't understand this misconception that you can just be athletic to play at higher levels. If anything, you need to have a much higher football IQ to play at this level! You are spending 40 hours a week on football at the college level, I think YOU MIGHT PICK SOMETHING UP!
If I were a HC right now I can think of 5-6 guys that I played with in college that I would hire on the spot and we'd be the best coached team in the league I currently coach in. Granted that's 5-6 out of the 105 on the roster, but don't think for a second that a guy with no playing experience knows more about the game just because he went to a clinic.
|
|