What Matters More in a Coach?

[compusatman]

The next part of this discussion should be directed toward system or talent coaches. Which do you prefer? A system who forces the talent to play his system or a talent coach who changes his everything based on the talent available. I've seen both. One takes time to implement but once in place it seems to be self replicating. The other is always new and fresh and always changing. What are the pros and cons of each?

[Cactus Jack]

The next part of this discussion should be directed toward system or talent coaches. Which do you prefer? A system who forces the talent to play his system or a talent coach who changes his everything based on the talent available. I've seen both. One takes time to implement but once in place it seems to be self replicating. The other is always new and fresh and always changing. What are the pros and cons of each?

 

 

I prefer the system, with flexibilty to adjust with talent levels. A good system can develop talent, a lot of schools have talented 9th graders that never get any better because there is no system for them to go through and they get changed around a lot and never get any better. Even a talented player must be developed and taught, a good system does that.

[noonesfool]

I prefer the system, with flexibilty to adjust with talent levels. A good system can develop talent, a lot of schools have talented 9th graders that never get any better because there is no system for them to go through and they get changed around a lot and never get any better. Even a talented player must be developed and taught, a good system does that.

 

Maryville or Alcoa as examples, maybe?

[OwnTheEdge]

The ideal coach should be able to evaluate talent and place that talent in their system in the best position for the team to be successful overall. They should also have the ability to translate their grand scheme into the little things they need from players in order to win. Xs and Os are of little importance except for the fact that a coach needs to select a scheme that fits his talent and/or adjust a scheme to the talent levels of the players.

[Pantherman85]

It is chicken and egg, but as someone who's not gotten to coach a game I'd put my money on leadership and interpersonal skills. You can be the greatest wizard with strategy that the world has ever known, but if you're a pure ###### you're not going to have a team to coach. Sometimes assistants at the highest levels can get away with having terrible people skills because their job is almost exclusively focused on Xs and Os (by that I'm lumping in knowledge of technique and ability to coach positions, as well--it's still really about fundamentals).

 

The thing is, even if you're a total moron with Xs and Os, if you can get kids fired up and know your limits you can buy a few books and plug in a bonehead simple scheme to turn them lose. Most of the "genius" coaches have very thin playbooks. Texas Tech routinely scores 60+ a game with only about 16 plays, which are mostly called by the QB at the line. I've heard of teams winning games against good competition by only running 5 plays all season!

 

 

I agree with your post. I do think if a coach is loaded with talent he can rely more on X's and O's than motivation at this level. However,since most HS teams aren't loaded with talent, I'll take the leadership and interpersonal skills and ability to motivate 16-18 year old kids.We have been looking for that type of coach for years at Lenoir City and continue to strike out each time.

[compusatman]

When I say system I am predominately speaking of a particular offense and defense. Especially offense. If in the middle school and lower grades the dominate offense is under center regardless whether it is the Bone, I, WingT or other then when those athletes are suddenly expected to be incerted into a Spread Read Option offense then their might be issues. It's interesting because this kind of situation requires positional relearning by not only the skill positions but also (and especially so) the linemen. However it is interesting to note that when a high school runs one offense religiously and does not sway from his intended goal that the talent seems to evolve to that offense. It takes a few years and with incremental success through this course of time but in the end becomes a precedent and things just seem to fall into place. I have always been an advocate of talent coaching. It only makes sense. Or at least it used to. I mean we are talking about the kind of coaching that will adjust talent, schemes, even complete offenses for the sake of winning the game. And I was always an advocate of this method. Never considered another.

 

Then came (5 years ago) our coach. A coach who was so stubborn that he would demand that we will run this offense or we will lose trying. And now it works. And it works the way he said it would. I was totally against it. I said this is idiocy. And now I praise him and his offense and his schemes. His goal was not to win at all costs. His goal was (is) to bring out the best from his athletes. He taught them to dig deep into their hearts and find what it took to enable their survival for the rest of their lives. To rely on each other. The all for one and one for all mentality. Kind of corny huh? I mean...does this even exist anymore? Anyway, his point is...if you can achieve this gutsy attitude and the personal responsibility that goes along with it...then the wins will come. They will be a by-product of your superior state of mind, heart, and soul. And when you do lose, maybe it was just the way it was meant to be. Of course there are those times that we are dealt marked cards and nothing we can do will change the outcome. Sad to say life is unfair sometimes. But the point is to deal with it as it comes. That is our system coach. Make it work or else.

 

I think GQ is an example of an alter ego of this type of coaching. GQ, on the other hand plays to win. At all costs. I'm not saying he doesn't impart endearing qualities of life to his players but the bottom line of his mentality is do what you have to do to win. As I watched him on TV in the Blue Cross Bowl I saw on his face the epic understanding of fate. He new he was going to lose and that there was nothing in his playbook that would change that. That's just the way the cards fell.

 

I am not regarding him less of a man for his method. I am merely giving examples of two differing styles of coaching. So I think one is more successful than the other? Well you can't argue with GQ's record. I guess my point is that you can be a master of x's and o's and be a militaristic genious at logistics but in the end what matters is what is in the heart the day we win and of course the day we lose. And a coach who can prepare his warriors with that simple understanding will extract the best his men have to offer...win or lose.