|
|
Post by coachcalande on Sept 20, 2007 6:26:41 GMT -6
so Dexter Manley would probably be a great coach? You can play at the highest level and NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO READ!!! Coaching is TEACHING. Teaching is a gift that some of us have and some do not. Having the knowledge doesnt mean squat if you cant pass it on to the kids...playing experience doesnt guarantee that you will have that ability, thats my point of view on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachjim on Sept 20, 2007 7:48:56 GMT -6
"Smartmodest guys that want to learn, embrace challenges and compete and are good managers ( settng priorities) are nearly always good choices. "
Dave, yes, exactly! The ones that played, don't usually remember squat. The ones that need to learn, will take initiative to study and can be coached up that first year. You build a quality coaching dynasty like that.
No offense to you ex-player acceptions out there. There are definately acceptions.
Who's just out there wingin' it?
And who's in here for five hours a day, bringin' it?
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Sept 20, 2007 7:50:51 GMT -6
so Dexter Manley would probably be a great coach? You can play at the highest level and NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO READ!!! Coaching is TEACHING. Teaching is a gift that some of us have and some do not. Having the knowledge doesnt mean squat if you cant pass it on to the kids...playing experience doesnt guarantee that you will have that ability, thats my point of view on it. I think he said that a lot of players might not make good coaches, but there are some things that a book or a clinic or a DVD can't teach you. There is a huge difference in many cases between theory and practice. So no, not all former players would be good coaches, but the ones that are good coaches, have an extra leg up on those who weren't players. To coach, you have to be able to teach. I had a lot of really good teachers growing up. The very best ones though, and the ones I remember learning a lot from, are the ones that could draw on their real world experiences. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Sept 20, 2007 7:51:05 GMT -6
I DONT THINK ANYONE IS SAYING THAT GUYS WHO PLAYED AT THE HIGHER LEVEL MAKE POOR COACHES. I THINK THE POINT IS THAT IT DOESNT MEAN THEY MAKE GREAT COACHES.
|
|
|
|
Post by pantherpride91 on Sept 20, 2007 7:55:53 GMT -6
so Dexter Manley would probably be a great coach? You can play at the highest level and NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO READ!!! Coaching is TEACHING. Teaching is a gift that some of us have and some do not. Having the knowledge doesnt mean squat if you cant pass it on to the kids...playing experience doesnt guarantee that you will have that ability, thats my point of view on it. Exactly....Just because you did not play college ball does not mean you do not have the same football IQ as a guy who did. If you made that decision, for whatever reason, it should not be held against you. Teaching the game and knowing the game are two totally different things. Guys that play in college do not have to know the game on all aspects. Ask a defensive lineman what a wide reciever is doing and why and he proably will not be able to tell you. As a D-line coach the same thing and if he is well rounded should be able to give you an educated answer. That does not come from playing time that comes from film time and educating yourself. No one claims to be a great coach because they went to one clinic or read a book. A great coach has gone to many clinics and read many books and can take that knowledge and translate it some their players can understand and perform at the best of their ability. That goes the same for a person who played college ball. Just because you played 1 position out of 24 on the field for a few more years than someone else did does not automatically grant you a step up on the coaching rung. |
|
|
|
Post by coachdbs on Sept 20, 2007 8:00:13 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. CoachJ hit it on the head with his response. We all have different experiences. Some have met coaches with no experience who can get the job done and some have met coaches with college experience who could not get the job done and vice versa. I have seen both in my short 5 year career. |
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Sept 20, 2007 8:11:00 GMT -6
Dave, yes, exactly! The ones that played, don't usually remember squat. The ones that need to learn, will take initiative to study and can be coached up that first year. You build a quality coaching dynasty like that. No offense to you ex-player acceptions out there. There are definately acceptions. Who's just out there wingin' it? And who's in here for five hours a day, bringin' it? The problem I have is that you and a lot of others assume that all ex-players don't want to put in the time to continue to learn. That is an equal insult to me telling you that you don't know anything about the game because you never played. What makes you think their aren't a lot of ex-players out there who have enough pride and desire to win to actually make sure they are teaching current information. I think a lot of non-player coaches feel like they are better than players because they studied books and "put in the time." What the heck do you think we were doing in practice all those years? Learning the game. In 5 years of college ball, I probably spent 60 hours a week either playing football, reviewing practice film, reviewing film of the next opponent. I probably watched opponents game film 3-4 times, not to mention rewinding and slow-motion. In reviewing film I had to recognize defenses, determine the techniques the defenders were using. Check their tenancies to blitz out of certain formations. What their favorite pass rush moves were. What coverages they were in. How they reacted to different offensive formations, etc. Now would I have been better served reading a book on football or watching a series of DVDs? I am not sure how that is true. I didn't need to learn the concepts, I need to live the concepts. Now I do STRONGLY AGREE that you also have to have the gift to teach those lessons to other people. Maybe 20 out of 120 guys on my team could also teach the concepts. That is no different than the non-playing population. Not every average person CAN teach either. The difference is you were a player and you CAN teach, what you CAN teach is exponentially greater than those who never have lived it. If you don't have experience you need to work that much harder, in my opinion to make it up. It is possible to be a good coach without ever playing, but it is harder and you might never be as great as the guy who can both play and teach. |
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Sept 20, 2007 8:23:16 GMT -6
No one claims to be a great coach because they went to one clinic or read a book. A great coach has gone to many clinics and read many books and can take that knowledge and translate it some their players can understand and perform at the best of their ability. That goes the same for a person who played college ball. Just because you played 1 position out of 24 on the field for a few more years than someone else did does not automatically grant you a step up on the coaching rung. I actually played 5 of 24 positions on the field. All 5 OL positons at one time or another. That means I know OL. But I also have to understand what the DL is doing because in order for me to stop them, I have to know what they do exactly. I also have to know what the RB's are doing because I have to create the hole for them to run through and have to position myself to allow them to make cuts. I also have to know who the RB's have in pass pro because it is part of my job to call the blocking scheme and thus I am responsible for everyone including RB's and TE's. I also take a vested interest in what LB's do because on various blocking schemes I am responsible for the LB. How is the LB going to take me on? Is he going to try to avoid or use a power step and initiate contact? What is the LB's responsibility on any particular play? Does he have pass drop responsibility or is he spying the QB? It makes a difference on the angle I take. Same with scraping responsibilities for the LB. Is he going to blitz the gap I responsible for? Am I one of his read keys? If so, I better make sure I give a pretty good play action read. There are only 5 positions I didn't need to know as a player: QB, WR, DB, K, P. You still can't help but watch them though on film 100's of times. They are the ones making the plays with the ball. Not to mention with a fascination for coaching, I had a valuable resource with many coaches brains to pick. |
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Sept 20, 2007 8:23:59 GMT -6
Great topic fellas
I think that either you have it or you don't as coaches. Period. Same goes for teachers. With that being said, I look at it like being a student. A good coach needs to be a "student" of the game. A good academic student needs to have good background knowledge of the subject area (gathered from prior experience, questioning others, seeking answers).
Upper level playing experience just adds to the coach's background knowledge of the subject area of football. Starting out they have been exposed to more football than a guy who does not play at a higher level.
Playing helps, but is not necessary for great coaching to occur.
I believe that the higher up the coaching levels you go, the more that playing experience is important.
|
|
