Are Division 1 caliber players easier to coach, by their nature, than non-Division 1 caliber players?

I don't think coachability is a function of whether a kid is a D1 player or not. Some D1 kids are very coachable, some aren't. And the same thing goes for non D1 players.

I would say there is no correlation.

I'd like to hear a few more opinions, and then I'll see if we can't get the individual who stated otherwise to defend their statement.

 

"Easy to coach kids that are DI"

I'd like to hear a few more opinions, and then I'll see if we can't get the individual who stated otherwise to defend their statement.

 

"Easy to coach kids that are DI"

 

I would take that statement to mean that D1 players make coaches look better...in other words, if you've got D1 guys and your opponent doesn't, you don't have to be a great coach to win with D1 talent at the high school level.

I will go out on a limb and coach as many "D1" players as possible.:banana:

D1 talent takes less coaching at the high school level IMO.

Are Division 1 caliber players easier to coach, by their nature, than non-Division 1 caliber players?

 

Way too much of a generalization. I could go on a rant here of how much things like character, knowledge of the game and ability to communicate can be completely ignored if the recruit has the right attributes. Many are primadonnas.

I wouldn't say all D-1 bound players are easier to coach, but I can confidently say that being very coachable is an attribute that could give an under-skilled/undersized athlete more opportunities to go D1.

I wouldn't say all D-1 bound players are easier to coach, but I can confidently say that being very coachable is an attribute that could give an under-skilled/undersized athlete more opportunities to go D1.

 

An undersized, underskilled kid isn't going to go D1 even if he is the most coachable kid in the world.

Easier to coach is to vague . A bench warmer can be easy to coach.

 

The better statement is its easier to win with D1 talent.

An undersized, underskilled kid isn't going to go D1 even if he is the most coachable kid in the world.

 

True, but I meant relativity undersized, and underskilled. Meaning players who have Division 2 talent and size. My apologies for not specifying.

True, but I meant relativity undersized, and underskilled. Meaning players who have Division 2 talent and size. My apologies for not specifying.

 

Again, coachability isn't going to elavate a kid with D2 talent/size to a D1 player. D2 locker rooms are full of coachable kids who have no prayer of being D1 contributors. Sure there are some Kids playing D2 ball that could play D1...but it's not just because they are coachable.

It is easier to win games with D1 players, there is no correlation on rather or not a D1 player is easy to coach or not.

Are Division 1 caliber players easier to coach, by their nature, than non-Division 1 caliber players?

 

Talent wins. Easier to coach is probably not an accurate statement, but it is easier to win with D1 talent. That is a definite.