I was discussing this with another coach the other day: do great players make great coaches?

 

Immediately off the top of my head there are two great player/coaches: Tom Landry and Steve Spurrier.

 

Conventional wisdom would have thought that the qb for Vince Lombardi's Packers (Bart Starr) would have been a great coach. Starr was a good coach, but is probably not considered a great coach.

 

Are there others? One theory was that overachievers make the best coaches.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Try to keep it positive and follow the guru's rules! :popcorn:

Overachievers are usually the best coaches. Most the time the greatest players have the game come to them naturally and don't really develop the love for the game that some of us do. Look at the greatest coaches ever in the sport of football and their careers were not the most decorated.

On the surface most would think this is a clear cut answer, a yes, or a no. But, I think if you put some thought into it, it is a deep subject.

 

Great coaches and great players have a lot in common, both are normally perfectionist, overachievers, and leaders. But, to say that simply being a great player would make you a great coach, is not the answer.

 

I think some great players can, and have proven they are great coaches. But, I think if you look closely, their are more, good or less then then good players that have become great coaches. Dungy, Gruden, Singletary, and many other were good players (Some would say Singletary was great, I am one of them), all have gone on to coach, and many would say they are, or were, great coaches.

 

I have seen, and I would say you have as well, many average or good high school players that have become great, or at least very good coaches. The athletic ability may have not been there for them, or the opportunity, or the size, to be great players, or to play college football, let a lone NFL football. But, the desire, know how, and ability was there to be great coaches.

 

We could name average players all day that have become good, or great coaches in the state. Nathan McPeek played at Russell and had a great career at Marshall University. Was he a great college player, I think at the very minimum he was a very good college player. He is now coaching at Fairview. He is doing a great job, and I think we will see him at a bigger program some day, and he will do well.

 

Randy Vanderhoof was a very good high school player, had a career as a player at Morehead State. He is not huge and did not have the size that is expected for college football. But, I would say that he would say he was an average player that played above his ability. He has had a great coaching career at Raceland, and people have tried to lure him away, so I would say he is a great high school coach.

 

I am sure the list could go on. But, I don't think one necessarily makes the other, I think that both share a lot of the same attributes.

 

You don't have to be a great player to be a great coach, but it is possible to be both.

Going with your Bart Starr analogy: how about Vince Lombardi? From all that I have read, he was an average player, that played above his ability. He started out as a FB and was moved to guard in college at Fortman University. Was he a great player? I seriously doubt that he, or any of his coaches would say he was. But, I don't think it is arguable that he was a great coach.

The overachievers as players usually had to study the game inside and out to find any possible advantage in order to get playing time. They were the guys who knew how to look for the little things -- such as spotting an opponent's tendencies and weaknesses -- and exploit them to their advantage. Because they may not have been as physically gifted as the next guy, they were forced to stress things such as technique, timing and precision, and use those to help close the gap between them and their opponent.

 

I think it's only natural that a person who has been doing this all their life would be much better equipped to teach these things (of which the ability to do so is what coaching is all about) than someone who may not have had to scrape and claw as much because of being more physically gifted.

 

That's not to say the superstar athlete is automatically precluded from being a good coach, however.

Depends on what you mean by great coaches? I think people get caught up to much on just wins & losses when they talk about great coaches.

 

I have met several men across this state that are great X and O’s guys and they have won a ton of games. Some have won state championships. But when you look at the entire team picture there are kids that that are left out of that success on that team.

 

In my opinion, a great coach at the high school level is someone who can relate to kids and the needs of each kid on their team. Some kids play for other reasons that winning championships. Some kids play because they are looking to find something for themselves.

 

For example a great coach takes that kid that can’t walk and chew bubble gum at the same and turns that kid into someone that has developed the confidence and pride in them. With the confidence they are able to take on real life problems.

 

Or

 

A coach that can take an athlete that has all the ability in the world and makes them understand that there is more to the game of football than the number of touchdowns the score. In return this kid understands when you hang up those cleats there has to be a plan.

 

In today’s world, it is tough to do either because of all the distractions around the high school kids. Especially when you have people that are telling kids to do things outside of what you’re coaching staffs philosophy.

 

So if you are talking about teaching all kids about the game of life through football, then I think the great coaches are those who involve all kids and get something out of each of them on and off the field. And most of those types of coaches come from coaches that have touched them and turned their life into something other than a football stat.

 

Once a coach realizes this is the best way to build a program through all kids, then the winning games come with it.

All good points CoachBuckett. And points that I agree with, the greatest things that I was taught threw football, had little to do with football.

 

Bill Tom Ross (as a Head Coach):

State Titles: 0

Regional Titles: 0

Great Coach?: Yes

The overachievers as players usually had to study the game inside and out to find any possible advantage in order to get playing time. They were the guys who knew how to look for the little things -- such as spotting an opponent's tendencies and weaknesses -- and exploit them to their advantage. Because they may not have been as physically gifted as the next guy, they were forced to stress things such as technique, timing and precision, and use those to help close the gap between them and their opponent.

 

I think it's only natural that a person who has been doing this all their life would be much better equipped to teach these things (of which the ability to do so is what coaching is all about) than someone who may not have had to scrape and claw as much because of being more physically gifted.

 

That's not to say the superstar athlete is automatically precluded from being a good coach, however.

 

Bill Cowher and Jeff Fisher are 2 prime examples. Basically, special teams players in the NFL, but both are outstanding as a coach.

This is great stuff. Thanks for sharing these thoughts. Hope there are others that will do the same! :thumb:

It is also very hard if you were an intense person when you played or you were kind of a win at all costs person as a player to coach. It is very hard to learn as young coach that not every kid cares as much as you did or do or has the same desire. It can make you pull your hair out! Good coaches learn to ingrain the same desire into their players others have trouble with it.

 

Maybe the biggest factor in whether you become a good coach or a good player is how were you raised, coached, or nurtured as a player.

It's on an individual basis I think. Coaching is so much different from playing. Great coaches to me are good in all areas. They are good people/leaders's, good in the X's and O's, and have an understanding of how people think and work. Great players often times do not see the differences in how easily the game came for them to how difficult the little things are to perfect in average players.

 

Great coaches are able to get the best in every player on the team not just the stars. Former great players sometimes, often times just don't know how to relate. That is why I think that the so called overachievers make better coaches. They have had to study the game and work hard on the field to be productive so they have a little more understanding of the personal side of football. It's more than the X's and O's, but if you are very naturally gifted you may not realize (1) how hard average players have to work to become good players, (2) how to get that effort out of them. A former All-state reciever may not understand why his 5-10, 140 lbs split end cannot get a release from press coverage.

 

To me being a coach of any sport is as much about things other than strategy, as it is about strategy. It's atleast 50/50. I like to think of it like teaching math. Many times someone who is naturally good at math isn't exactly the best person to teach it. A lot of times the best math teachers are the ones who had to study and work hard to get the concepts there for have a better understanding of how it works.

 

I don't know, just my $.02.

Bill Cowher and Jeff Fisher are 2 prime examples. Basically, special teams players in the NFL, but both are outstanding as a coach.

 

Wouldn't anyone that played in the NFL qualify as a "great player"? They sure would in my mind.

Wouldn't anyone that played in the NFL qualify as a "great player"? They sure would in my mind.

 

Sure, but they weren't relative to the rest of the league. There are marked tiers of talent within each level. Guys like Fisher and Cowher had to do any little thing they could just to stay in the league, and that resourcefulness has helped them to be better coaches.

Lombardi was a very good player. I agree that he was known for how hard he worked. But Fordham was a powerhouse and he was part of the "seven blocks of granite".

I believe that the players that work hard to be great, make great coaches. Coaching is a hard job that demands players to work. I don't think lazy players are motivated enough to motivate players.

I think it's an individual basis. I also think there is probably a better chance to find a great coach from the guy that worked their tail off to learn the game to overcome their lack of physical ability. They studied film in high school, put in the extra reps and noticed the little details that would give them an edge on game night. Many great athletes got by on talent alone. I also have a best friend coaching in college and one in the NFL that were two of the best I've ever seen at their positions. They are outstanding coaches even though they were very talented. The commont thing in all the guys I think of:

1. Positive attitudes

2. Enthusiastic..love the game and individuals

3. Competitive drive beyond the normal person

4. Ability to communicate

5. Drive to never stop learning

6. Loyal

7. Outwork but be efficient in what they are doing

Those are just a few things real quick of my head. I would say if I were stereotyping I've probably seen more guys that had to get everything out of their abilities make the best coaches but I do know a good bit of guys that were great players and are great coaches.

I think if you really look at the question Great players/great coaches.... the Jimmy's and Joes sure help the X+O's! There are exceptions but it sure is easier to win when you have the talent.