Does coaching actually matter?

[Baron Winnebago]

This is cut out from the Assistant coaches thread tomorrow and lots of the best most smartest people think it merits more discussion.

Your prompt brought to you by TrueColors sponsored by The Night Before Lounge

At some point, individuals have to take responsibility for their own development. Nobody else can put the work in for them.

Which always brings me to a question that coaches should be thinking about and I’ve thought about myself. Which is “What makes a good coach?” You can’t do the work for them. You can’t play the game for them. You’ve got so little control. What makes a coach any good?

I’m not saying that we are 3-7 simply because of the players. What I’m saying is that there does have to be some level of ownership on their part right?

What makes a good coach good and what makes a bad coach bad? For example, Was Greg Austin teaching something completely different than someone like Sam Pittman? Can Austin just take Pittman’s methods and apply them at his next stop and boom, he’s just as good?

And...... Go

 

[huskermack]

Jimmies and Joe’s.
That and a good coach.
Maybe?

 

[Blackshirts_Win_'ships]

The ability to teach and motivate. Also, like in anything, having accountability to yourself and others. Lead by example.

 

[Bootleg11]

If it didn’t matter Texas wouldn’t get beat by Kansas. Kansas St would rarely win a Big 12 game. Florida wouldn’t give up 50+ to Samford, and Miami and Florida St wouldn’t be mediocre ACC teams.

 

[BingoDingo]

Coaches set a framework of accountability in their "culture" and coach to that framework. Good coaches do this well. Great coaches do this well and also recruit well. I don't think football is like baseball in that the Manager/Coach barely sways W/L...I think coaching matters a great deal, of course. Then again, I'm an absolute idiot, so I could be wrong.

 

[Pipe Line]

It does but to a certain extent. You can teach and preach something to a team all day long, but at the end of the day, players have to execute what's being taught on and off the field. I'd like to think it's about 60/40 coach/player execution on and off the field, but there's still some grey area there.

 

[God is a Husker]

 

[BIG TONE SOPRANO]

Opee is a potato/mango. He doesn’t have the sense God have a bedbug

 

[Tsakoi]

This is cut out from the Assistant coaches thread tomorrow and lots of the best most smartest people think it merits more discussion.

Your prompt brought to you by TrueColors sponsored by The Night Before Lounge






And...... Go

There are some teams that don't have highly rated players but are good because they have a good coach.

Examples: Northwestern with coach Fitz
KSU with Snyder
Virginia Tech with Beamer (the old one)
ISU with Campbell

There are some teams with a bad coach but are good because they have great players.

Examples: Most Miami teams
Texas with Vince Young
Louisville with Lamar Jackson

Then you have a few teams where there are great players with a great coach.

Examples: Alabama with Saban
Nebraska with T.O.


So coaches matter. The players matter.
If you really want something special then you need both.

 

[Pipe Line]

There are some teams that don't have highly rated players but are good because they have a good coach.

Examples: Northwestern with coach Fitz
KSU with Snyder
Virginia Tech with Beamer (the old one)
ISU with Campbell

There are some teams with a bad coach but are good because they have great players.

Examples: Most Miami teams
Texas with Vince Young
Louisville with Lamar Jackson

Then you have a few teams where there are great players with a great coach.

Examples: Alabama with Saban
Nebraska with T.O.


So coaches matter. The players matter.
If you really want something special then you need both.

So fuck Texas every single day of the week, but you think Mack Brown is a bad coach?

 

[Drue629]

It's both, good coaches make great players.

 

[djw004]

I think sustained success is just by chance - Like a coach is either so blessed, or sold his soul, and THAT is what accounts for his success.

Devaney? Blessed
Osborne? Blessed
Bryant? Blessed
Bowden? Blessed
Spurrier? Little bit of Both
JoePa? Blessed, right?
Saban? Sold soul
Dabo? Sold soul
Urban? Fingers it into submission, so blessed.

They had nothing else that made them great. Just blessing or sell outs.

 

[Jim14510]

There are some teams that don't have highly rated players but are good because they have a good coach.

Examples: Northwestern with coach Fitz
KSU with Snyder
Virginia Tech with Beamer (the old one)
ISU with Campbell

There are some teams with a bad coach but are good because they have great players.

Examples: Most Miami teams
Texas with Vince Young
Louisville with Lamar Jackson

Then you have a few teams where there are great players with a great coach.

Examples: Alabama with Saban
Nebraska with T.O.


So coaches matter. The players matter.
If you really want something special then you need both.

I think the idea of some of these posts are fine but ultimately it's even more complicated than this.

For example I'd agree that Fitz is a good coach but he's 3-7 this year. He can't win consistently with the talent he puts on the field. I'm not sure how much tougher his academic requirements are than the rest of the B1G but that's a decent part of it. However, his best team ever is winning a down B1G West and not even close to competing in the championship game.

Would like to see him at a school where he isn't restricted on who he could recruit. IMHO the results wouldn't be much different.

 

[djw004]

There are some teams that don't have highly rated players but are good because they have a good coach.

Examples: Northwestern with coach Fitz
KSU with Snyder
Virginia Tech with Beamer (the old one)
ISU with Campbell

There are some teams with a bad coach but are good because they have great players.

Examples: Most Miami teams
Texas with Vince Young
Louisville with Lamar Jackson

Then you have a few teams where there are great players with a great coach.

Examples: Alabama with Saban
Nebraska with T.O.


So coaches matter. The players matter.
If you really want something special then you need both.

Then there are the teams that often have strong recruiting classes stacked up - but have consistently been poor performers.

Maryland
Tennessee
Nebraska

Or are Boom/Bust

Auburn

 

[Bootleg11]

I think the idea of some of these posts are fine but ultimately it's even more complicated than this.

For example I'd agree that Fitz is a good coach but he's 3-7 this year. He can't win consistently with the talent he puts on the field. I'm not sure how much tougher his academic requirements are than the rest of the B1G but that's a decent part of it. However, his best team ever is winning a down B1G West and not even close to competing in the championship game.

Would like to see him at a school where he isn't restricted on who he could recruit. IMHO the results wouldn't be much different.

It's always an interesting debate.

Would Bill Snyder had the same success at Alabama? Would that schtick of practicing 3 hours a day every day gone over at Georgia? I dunno if it would have. I like to give K State fans shit and tell them that Bill Snyder was a great coach, but only at the scale of K State. He never won a national championship so how can he really be one of the greatest coaches ever? He got K-State to a certain level, which was amazing. He never recruited at the level high enough to actually get to the top of the mountain.

I can just say this as a coach. I have coached in games where there was nothing I could do to win a game because of the talent difference. I have coached in games where there nothing I could have done to lose the game because of a talent difference.

I know some good coaches that don't win a lot of games because of where they are coaching at. I know guys who don't know shit that win a lot of games because of where they are at.

Coaching matters when the talent is close. I have absolutely schemed up games to beat a team that had equal or maybe a little better talent than the team I coached. I have absolutely been schemed up and gotten beat by teams with equal or possibly a little less talent than the team I coached.

 

[kchusker1423]

There was a great 10-minute conversation between Sharp and Benning last week about this. Start at around the 35-minute mark of this clip and listen to the end:

 

[Tsakoi]

So fuck Texas every single day of the week, but you think Mack Brown is a bad coach?

He's ok, but I don't think he gets anywhere near a national championship without Vince's magic.

 

[Bootleg11]

He's ok, but I don't think he gets anywhere near a national championship without Vince's magic.

Colt McCoy won a lot of games too at Texas. He's also the winningest coach in UNC history isn't he?

He was an elite recruiter.

 

[Black Dean]

Texas is a powerful player

 

[slattimer]

I can just say this as a coach. I have coached in games where there was nothing I could do to win a game because of the talent difference. I have coached in games where there nothing I could have done to lose the game because of a talent difference.

I know some good coaches that don't win a lot of games because of where they are coaching at. I know guys who don't know shit that win a lot of games because of where they are at.

Coaching matters when the talent is close. I have absolutely schemed up games to beat a team that had equal or maybe a little better talent than the team I coached. I have absolutely been schemed up and gotten beat by teams with equal or possibly a little less talent than the team I coached.

This.

I will say in terms of coaching actual skills application. The best coaches are the ones that can teach their guys the technical skills and get them to translate those skills into a game setting, and apply/use them correctly.

Coaching goes far and away beyond that, but to me, that's the mark a great technical coach. Indy Skills/Techniques, Into Small Group settings, into Game-like scenarios, into Games.