Off the beaten path coaching question

[Jhollenbeck41]

been on this site for a little over a year now. Pattern I’ve seen is a lot of close minded arguing and rarely any agreement on anything except for how shitty creighton and Iowa fans are, and how sick things were in the 90s. I feel like my approach to life is to try and unify things and bring pure logic and rational ideas to conversations. That’s what I wanna do in this post.


I feel like a lot of this boards ideas and perspective and opinions are slightly distorted about what “good coaching” actually looks like based on personal agendas that try to get pushed instead of just pure facts and logic of situations.

So my question is, what does “good coaching” look like to everyone on this board? I’m not talking anything crazy, just solid, effective, efficient coaching that brings out positive results.

 

[resdog851]

"Good coaching" is everything the Tom Osborne years was to me. He had a ton of position coaches that took raw talent along with Boyd Epleys weight room and made them great players. Milt Tenopir and Frank Solich were the epitome of this in my eyes. Charlie McBride was pretty close. They took guys that wanted to play and elevated them to All-American status. Tom Osborne had a bunch of assistants go onto Head coach status with much less success, but excelled when they went back to position coach ala Kevin Steele.

 

[husker2612]

been on this site for a little over a year now. Pattern I’ve seen is a lot of close minded arguing and rarely any agreement on anything except for how shitty creighton and Iowa fans are, and how sick things were in the 90s. I feel like my approach to life is to try and unify things and bring pure logic and rational ideas to conversations. That’s what I wanna do in this post.


I feel like a lot of this boards ideas and perspective and opinions are slightly distorted about what “good coaching” actually looks like based on personal agendas that try to get pushed instead of just pure facts and logic of situations.

So my question is, what does “good coaching” look like to everyone on this board? I’m not talking anything crazy, just solid, effective, efficient coaching that brings out positive results.

They don't make excuses. They find ways to win in any situation good or bad. They are able to get the most out of their players and coaches. They are able to recognized mistakes and fix them. Good coaches just find ways to win and do it long term over and over and over.

 

[Jhollenbeck41]

They don't make excuses. They find ways to win in any situation good or bad. They are able to get the most out of their players and coaches. They are able to recognized mistakes and fix them. Good coaches just find ways to win and do it long term over and over and over.

That's fair. I agree. I'm one that believes that good coaches, and players, just make shit happen day in and day out. I think the question needs to be asked though and I think the word gets thrown around too much because fans don't normally have much insight to their respective program. Are they excuses? Or do people just not like/accept brutal honesty anymore because of how the world works and because of their lack of important information?

 

[The_Man_Behind_The_Man]

been on this site for a little over a year now. Pattern I’ve seen is a lot of close minded arguing and rarely any agreement on anything except for how shitty creighton and Iowa fans are, and how sick things were in the 90s. I feel like my approach to life is to try and unify things and bring pure logic and rational ideas to conversations. That’s what I wanna do in this post.


I feel like a lot of this boards ideas and perspective and opinions are slightly distorted about what “good coaching” actually looks like based on personal agendas that try to get pushed instead of just pure facts and logic of situations.

So my question is, what does “good coaching” look like to everyone on this board? I’m not talking anything crazy, just solid, effective, efficient coaching that brings out positive results.

Well this is a free site, so anyone with internet and a sign on is going to have thoughts good or bad.

Good coaching to me is running a clean, disciplined program on and off the field. On the field is teaching smart play - knowing your assignments, gap integrity. Teaching a team to be good at basic fundamentals: On offense some examples: solid blocking technique, QB progressing through reads and finding the open receiver. On defense: wrapping up on tackles, getting off blocks.

We haven’t been good at any of these things in over 20 years really and that is why we’re losing games. By just getting good at these details will allow us to win more games.

 

[huskerfan66]

I think your question is a good one for topic of discussion. But if your attempt is to "unify" things, you may or may not achieve that.

Good coaching on the college or pro level is much different than the HS level because you get to choose the type of player you want vs playing with what the local gene pool serves you. So that said good coaching ultimately above all should translate into Ws. Good coaching can evolve and tweak but rarely succumbs to major wholesale philosophy changes. Good coaching has a clean, respected program that does things the right way on and off the field. Good coaching either develops a ton of assistant coaches into head coaches and has little problem refilling those spots OR has an extremely loyal staff that stays together for years with few defections. Good coaching on the college level never has a rebuilding year because their recruiting isn't constantly trying to fill an immediate need. Good coaching results in playing for their conference championship every year with an occasional hiccup.

 

[Nebraska_Reality]

I think your question is a good one for topic of discussion. But if your attempt is to "unify" things, you may or may not achieve that.

Good coaching on the college or pro level is much different than the HS level because you get to choose the type of player you want vs playing with what the local gene pool serves you. So that said good coaching ultimately above all should translate into Ws. Good coaching can evolve and tweak but rarely succumbs to major wholesale philosophy changes. Good coaching has a clean, respected program that does things the right way on and off the field. Good coaching either develops a ton of assistant coaches into head coaches and has little problem refilling those spots OR has an extremely loyal staff that stays together for years with few defections. Good coaching on the college level never has a rebuilding year because their recruiting isn't constantly trying to fill an immediate need. Good coaching results in playing for their conference championship every year with an occasional hiccup.

I agree with your entire 2nd paragraph...until the last 2 sentences.

I think we're entering an era where very few schools aren't ever going to have a rebuilding year (of course, the definition of that can differ). To me, Nick Saban and Urban Meyer is/were beyond just being "good coaches".

I think what a coach does and where he does it are also a consideration. For example, to me, Ken Niumatalolo and Troy Calhoun (and Fisher DeBerry before him) are also examples of good coaching. They win more often that not with limited talent...but won't be playing for conference titles year in and year out, and will have rebuilding years more severe than others, simply because of the schools they're at. Pat Fitzgerald doesn't have the same ability to recruit as others due to the nature of the school, but he has taken Northwestern about as far as one can expect.

Tom Osborne is awesome....without a doubt....and there is tons of pressure with maintaining the quality of a program for as long as he did. However, the road from where he started to where he ended up was much shorter than what Bill Snyder or Bill McCartney had to travel from where they started to where they ended up.

 

[Jhollenbeck41]

One thing I'll put out there to everyone, and not just in a response, I think the terms "excuses" and "honesty" are also too often confused and misused.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

One thing I'll put out there to everyone, and not just in a response, I think the terms "excuses" and "honesty" are also too often confused and misused.

This I can't agree more with. A good coach will get his players to play for each other, create a real team, recognize and raise up leaders and return partial leadership to them.
A good coach will try to get all players to be a part of that team, but sometimes thats just not possible, and he then must make those hard decisions.
A good coach won't lie, which is but an excuse, but hopefully graciously tell it like it is, as he owes nothing to the fans as a head of a family does any more than to a close neighbor, and that honesty plays to the coaches integrity.
Making excuses are lies to buy time imo.

 

[Jhollenbeck41]

This I can't agree more with. A good coach will get his players to play for each other, create a real team, recognize and raise up leaders and return partial leadership to them.
A good coach will try to get all players to be a part of that team, but sometimes thats just not possible, and he then must make those hard decisions.
A good coach won't lie, which is but an excuse, but hopefully graciously tell it like it is, as he owes nothing to the fans as a head of a family does any more than to a close neighbor, and that honesty plays to the coaches integrity.
Making excuses are lies to buy time imo.

I believe that when someone calls something an "excuse", it's because they don't agree with an honest assessment someone else makes of a situation, based on their own opinion and knowledge, and it differentiates from person B, who calls it an excuse because it doesn't align with their own personal agenda and opinion trying to be pushed. Where in all reality, two people just don't agree on something, even if what they don't agree with is still the truth. That doesn't make the truth an excuse, two people just can't agree on something.

 

[bigRed-no-BiilyC]

Tom Osborne is awesome....without a doubt....and there is tons of pressure with maintaining the quality of a program for as long as he did. However, the road from where he started to where he ended up was much shorter than what Bill Snyder or Bill McCartney had to travel from where they started to where they ended up.

Tom Osborne started at the bottom. It wasn't his fault he was brilliant and worked his way up quickly

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

Tom Osborne started at the bottom. It wasn't his fault he was brilliant and worked his way up quickly

He wasnt like a stoops who didnt wait it out, TO waited it out.

 

[Nebraska_Reality]

Tom Osborne started at the bottom. It wasn't his fault he was brilliant and worked his way up quickly

I never said he wasn't. Sensitive much?

Osborne's everything all of us think he is......I just also have other definitions of "good coaching"....one of which is taking nothing to something.

That OK with you all?

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

I never said he wasn't. Sensitive much?

Every time.
Luke warm always?

 

[Jhollenbeck41]

I never said he wasn't. Sensitive much?

Osborne's everything all of us think he is......I just also have other definitions of "good coaching"....one of which is taking nothing to something.

That OK with you all?

I mean yeah my question was extremely broad. Doesn't even have to pertain to football or even Nebraska for that matter. Could be coaching tennis for all that matters. Was just hoping we could get some people to agree to what good coaching means.

 

[scarletred]

I never said he wasn't. Sensitive much?

Osborne's everything all of us think he is......I just also have other definitions of "good coaching"....one of which is taking nothing to something.

That OK with you all?

OK, you should have then mentioned Bob Devaney if you were so much of a Husker fan..

But I’ll do it for you sense I’m a real Husker fan..
Devaney did exactly that turned Nebraska into a winning program from 20 years of losing seasons..

 

[Nebraska_Reality]

I mean yeah my question was extremely broad. Doesn't even have to pertain to football or even Nebraska for that matter. Could be coaching tennis for all that matters. Was just hoping we could get some people to agree to what good coaching means.

I understand....my previous somewhat hostile comment was addressed to a few others on here, not necessarily to you.

I think my longer post kind of pertains to every team sport. The two greatest coaches in my opinion are John Wooden (organization and process) and Herb Brooks (for taking a bunch of college kids...many of whom were bitter rivals on the ice...and molding them into a team, kind of a "nothing to something", although they were certainly talented college players).

 

[Nebraska_Reality]

OK, you should have then mentioned Bob Devaney if you were so much of a Husker fan..

But I’ll do it for you sense I’m a real Husker fan..
Devaney did exactly that turned Nebraska into a winning program from 20 years of losing seasons..

If you're such a Husker fan, why didn't you include Walter Booth?

 

[scarletred]

If you're such a Husker fan, why didn't you include Walter Booth?

Same reason why you choose Wooden over Mike Krzyewski..

Who had a bigger job ahead of them.

 

[yankeesgiants]

When you hire a Nick Saban or Urban Meyer, you're not hiring a coach you are hiring a top to bottom football operations/organization. There willingness and ability to try new techniques and strategies while having an keen eye for up and coming coaching talent is why they are outliers in the coaching profession.

 

[Husker.Wed.]

They don't make excuses. They find ways to win in any situation good or bad. They are able to get the most out of their players and coaches. They are able to recognized mistakes and fix them. Good coaches just find ways to win and do it long term over and over and over.

Wish I could like this post 10 times. I might add their teams are fundamentally sound in all phases of the game (kicking, punting, returning, tackling, etc.) and they play the best player at each position regardless of class or other circumstances.

 

[cecilB]

They don't make excuses. They find ways to win in any situation good or bad. They are able to get the most out of their players and coaches. They are able to recognized mistakes and fix them. Good coaches just find ways to win and do it long term over and over and over.

So, should we find this concerning?

 

[huskerssalts]

So, should we find this concerning?

no