MGoBoard Thoughts on Coaching Style as a Barometer of Success?
It's no secreet that JH is an emotional, high octane coach whose style infects his players with enthusiasm. I personally find that style of coaching entertaining and seemingly a great fir for the college game. However,there are other college and professional coaches who have been a bit less demonstative, yet also experienced a great degree of success. I think Harbaugh is reminiscent of the Bo, Lombardi and George Allen school of coaching. The other side of the coin: Tom Landry, Bill Walsh and other, more stoic coaches.
What are your thoughts regarding style, fit and potential for generall overall success (wins) and more specifically, at Michigan?
I'd rather be on the intense side of the fence than the other side. It's just what we need right now.
April 16th, 2015 at 10:06 AM ^
Couldn't agree more... our coaching staff's lack of apparent intensity over the last few years was so clearly displayed in the way our guys played (in general). I think it really made it easier for teams / players to walk all over us.
From everything we've heard / seen so far, JH and co. are working on adding an intensity and toughness to this team that we have been missing.
April 16th, 2015 at 10:30 AM ^
And intensity doesn't have to equate to yelling and screaming. I've seen a lot of coaches have VERY intense talks/speeches with players. Lets not confuse intensity with the yelling/screaming type of coaches.
I'll take the intense side, but I dont really care how demonstrative a coach is as long as they can win.
I think that high octane can work (Exh. A-1, Jim Harbaugh) and lower octane can work (Exh. A-2 John Harbaugh). Commitment to details, enthusiasm, loyalty, etc. are - to me - the real barometers of potential success. Emotionalism is secondary at best, but won't be a problem for future Michigan classes because they damn well know what they're getting into when they sign up with Jim Harbaugh.
I do think that high octane is less likely to work in the pros. Pros are mostly more mature, more professional, and less likely to be motivated by in-yo-face tactics.
I think there is some truth to the pro/college divide, but I also think it's largely overrated. Yes, it's harder to yell at a guy when he's making millions of dollars and is a professional. But there are plenty of coaches that made it work.
There are a couple keys that I think are more important, and you listed many of them. But beyond that, it's bringing in players that react positively to your style of coaching, and surrounding you with a staff that allows the staff to be balanced. If your staff is balanced in their approach, then you better have a damn good feel for your team and how they react to your type of motivation.
April 16th, 2015 at 10:20 AM ^
I'm with you (and wholly support your comment below that it's imperative that a coach be himself/herself rather than fake intensity), but there's a critical difference between the pros and college - the element of choice. For college, absent a coaching regime change, the athletes know what they are getting into. If you come to Michigan with Harbaugh as coach and are surprised the head coach is intense, I've got no sympathy for you.
In the pros, you've got little say in who your head coach is. You might get Harbaugh, you might get Jim Caldwell, depending on who drafts you. (Some choice comes out of free agency, but that's not a real factor for most of the team at any given time.)
Also, in college you know that you're out in 4-5 years. It's much easier to put up with coaching styles you don't like if you can see the finish line - even if the finish line is a few years away.
burn out. Then the question is can they modify their approach. For a long time I thought that Izzo would have a heart attack, but he seems to be effecting some kind of transition.
genuinely concerned for Izzo's health during the middle of the 2013-14 season(Appling/Payne). He was not in good shape at all and I suspect hitting the bottle a little bit. Your right though, he seems to have some life back.
The thing with Izzo(and the type) v. Bielien, however, that bothers me a little bit is that while JB is clearly a classier guy who would rather coach then argue with refs, there is no doubt that refs walk on us quite a bit with the knowledge that they are really not going to get much flack. A perfect example was the Wisconsin game in the BTT. Bielien watched calmly as the refs bent us over for 39 minutes while Ryan was turning purple and staring the refs down and actually getting correct calls to be reversed to incorrect calls in their favor. Granted, JB got a tech late but it was really pointless by then.
The National Championship game was another perfect example, he needed to throw a fit after the 3 pointer-foul on Burke and Burke probably does not get called for the foul on the block. He needed to raise holy hell when they did not give the foul to what-his-face(Hancock if I remember correctly) and they probably would have gone to the monitor.
JB is as cool as the other side of the pillow, sure, but Michigan gets boned on the regular by the refs.
I know a lot of screamer coaches, and a lot of them have coached for a long time, long after their peers have retired.
What would cause a screamer coach to burn out would be to not be a screamer coach anymore. If you tell Harbaugh or Izzo or Bo or Rich Rod that they need to remain calm on the sideline, they'd burn out after a few seasons.
actually really funny to watch Izzo try to be calm. He sometimes sits on the bench during bad stretches and it is clear that he is in nearly full blown panic attack, and that if he does not remain seated and ball his fists together he may actually physically attack somebody.
His "look of disbelief" is also quite entertaining. There was a great one this year at Breslin against us when a Staee player through the ball to him on the sidelines and he had the most puzzled look on his face like he was actually watching pigs fly.
April 16th, 2015 at 11:06 AM ^
MGlobules: I adored Rich Rod, and would even still prefer him over Harbaugh. Provided he had support.
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/michigan-dark-secrets#comment-3130517
AFAIC, "style" encompasses a lot more than whether one yells or not. I think the abliity to convey one's message and get people to "buy in" are the most important, followed closely by player development and scheme.
If everyone buys in, a coach can get great assistant coaches and the players will listen to them. Then it's a matter of coaching/developing the players to execute what the coaches want done.
In any case, Harbaugh is perfect for Michigan right now. The few who were against his hire quickly realized that it would be in their best interests to support the current coaching staff. His track record speaks for itself.
At any level, no matter what kind of teacher, the important thing is to be yourself. If you're not a screamer and start screaming at players, they'll see right through you. If you are trying to stay composed the whole time but your natural reaction is to go ape shit, players will see right through you.
As far as winning, I don't think it really matters one way or another what type of coach you are. The first thing I was told when I got into coaching was "make sure to be yourself; you don't have to be the vision of what you think a coach should be." The key is just that you be yourself, coach within yourself, and when you can, recruit players that react best to that type of coaching. Any type of coach can win, and any type of coach can lose. When a coach loses, people want the coach to be the other type of coach, but that's not necessarily the right thing to do. I think all coaches need to ability to flash the other type - there are times to yell and there are times to be calm - but you have to pick and choose very carefully when to divert from your natural instinct.
When Rich Rod screamed on the sideline, people didn't like it. But that's who he was and he was being true to himself. If he didn't do that, he probably would have been a worse coach.
Hoke clapped and tried to remain positive. When he did that at the end of his tenure, people wanted him to yell and get in player's faces during the game. If he would have done that, he probably would have been a worse coach.
Bo screamed at everyone and anything during games. He won. People liked him.
Beilein almost always stays positive during games, rarely yells, and never yells at his players during a game. He wins. People like him.
approach rubs off on his players too. They rarely engage in any shenanigans and while they do get emotional, it is rarely if ever directed at a player or the other team. They also barely ever show displeasure with calls, sometimes almost to a fault. Pretty clean cut outfit he runs.
April 16th, 2015 at 10:28 AM ^
Probably the two coaches I try to emulate most, while still being myself. I yell when needed, which isn't often, but mostly I can talk and reason with kids. You are 100% right, kids will see right through a fake personna.
I think it comes down to teaching and accountability. So long as our coaches are good teachers and the players understand that they have to perform or else the guy behind them is going to play, I think the coach's personality (barring extreme examples) is secondary. Harbaugh, Meyer, Carroll, Belichick, these guys all have different styles, and they all win. It's because they're good at what they do, so the other stuff doesn't mean as much.
Harbaugh can be as intense as they come. If he didn't know what he was doing, he wouldn't be successful. The dude can coach, and he surrounds himself with other guys that can coach.
I can appreciate the value of a coach showing enthusiasm, excitement, and intensity during the game even if it's just to get the players motivated. But I also feel it is somewhat contradictory to teach the players to play under control when the coach is a fire-breathing maniac on the sidelines.
I think a coach that is engaged as Harbaugh is and makes results and progress as transparent as he does is someone who typically builds and sustains success wherever he goes, and indeed he has. What the transparency is doing is driving the accountability - for one's own results as well as well as the team's - and giving players a very real sense of how what they do affects team results. You have to be intense to enacy something like this, and I would say you can only be successful generally.
April 16th, 2015 at 10:00 AM ^
and high expectations are more important than a specific style in my opinion. I always got the impression that the last staff ignored a lot of the small stuff and didn't expect excellence from the players. A player should never come off the field smiling and getting his ass slapped after he screws something up.
I think with Harbaugh you'll see a much tighter team. Players being exactly where they're supposed to be and doing exactly what they're supposed to do.
April 16th, 2015 at 10:03 AM ^
thing started with Denard a little bit, but when he smiled after a particularly horrendous interception of something it was more of a nervous reaction tic more than a genuine smile. At times he was being asked to do things that he was constitutionally incapable of doing and was really embarrased at times and that is how he handled it.
Then it kind of became everybody, and it is sort of disconcerting for fans to feel that they are markedly more upset than the players.
April 16th, 2015 at 10:22 AM ^
But the expectations need to be properly conveyed and stressed to the team. I've coached kids and they have overperformed and beaten competition that they had no business even hanging with, because they knew I expected that out of them. You can trick a kid into thinking they are better than they really are, the power of mental perperation. Your players also have to buy into you personally as a coach. Everyone craves discipline, stay on them and don't let anything slide (your attention to detail point) and they will conform with little resistance.
April 16th, 2015 at 10:02 AM ^
I don't care what the style is as long as its winning games. I say just let him do what he do.
April 16th, 2015 at 10:10 AM ^
April 16th, 2015 at 10:10 AM ^
April 16th, 2015 at 12:40 PM ^
I think he's a very good coach, and his intense style is entertaining as a fan.
I think he was the best coach available when Michigan had an opening and I 100% think he was the correct hire. Not just beacause he can probably win at a lot at Michigan, but he'll most likely do it with the high-character that Michigan expects.
However, if I JUST wanted to win, it would be a no-brainer. Saban, and particularly Urban Meyer are the best coaches in the league and no one else is even close.
Honestly, Jim Harbaugh doesn't even belong in that conversation.
April 16th, 2015 at 10:18 AM ^
and observations, that it is not neccesarilly the coach's personality, but rather his ability to motivate INDIVIDUALS. Lets take the John Wooden approach, for example. He had a different set of rules for each player because he knew how they would respond as individuals, and because everyone is different. You cannot have a blanket coaching/motivational style. The best coaches that I have been around and observed have always been able to figure each player out mentally and knows how to push their individual buttons. With that being said, multiple styles are equally as successful, you just need to know which style to impliment with each player. You've got the whole spectrum covered, from Larry Brown to JH. I'll never forget when Larry Brown broke a timeout huddle, in the NBA Finals, game 6 or 7, he drew up a play, dismissed the team, then called them back and said, "One more thing guys, I forgot to tell you I love you" and then they went on to win a close game. You look at a coach like Bo Schembechler who yelled at JH4 until the day is long, told him he would never play a down, and look how he responded. Its fascinating, the psychological approach to each individual. It is probably the most enjoyable thing to me as a coach.
April 16th, 2015 at 10:23 AM ^
April 16th, 2015 at 10:24 AM ^
April 16th, 2015 at 10:52 AM ^
It doesn't matter whether you're talking about a small business, non-profit institution, or a football team—if the head guy or woman is in charge long enough, their personality will suffuse and define the organization.
In college football, I think there are four distinct personality types that characterize most coaches. All coaches display mixtures of these traits, but each coach has a dominant characteristic.
A. Demanding taskmaster—aggressive, military-style, devoted to extremely rigorous work regimen, details and execution, but not necessarily innovators; frequently an asshole; doesn't give a shit if you like them, but demands that you respect them. Knows exactly who they are and what they want, and will not let anybody stand in their way; generally places supreme importance on a stout, aggressive defense; frequently hired to revive foundering program; Woody Hayes, Fielding Yost, Bear Bryant, Darrel Royal, Tom Coughlin (coached at BC), Nick Saban, Jim Harbaugh, Barry Alvarez, Mark Dantonio
B. Innovator—thinking, cerebral, or creative in developing offensive or, less-frequently, defensive schemes; doesn't give a shit if you like them, but demands that you be a thinker too. Does not tolerate dullards or the mistake-prone. Generally an outside hire; Fritz Crisler, early RR, Urban Meyer, Mike Leach, Brian Kelly, Chip Kelly, Paul Brown, early Steve Spurrier, early Bob Stoops, Bill Walsh, Emory Bellard; (maybe even Frank Beamer if you include special teams); sometimes reputation for genius is entirely undeserved (Charlie Weis) or is at best ill-suited to the college game
C. Program manager—Frequent inside hires as replacement for iconic coaches; bureaucratic stewardship; generally bland, unassuming public demeanor in contrast to predecessors; always says "the right things" in public; not generally innovators but can be very successful in the right conditions and with good instincts in choosing assistants; very attentive to program reputation and tradition; normally very loyal to assistants and players; Tom Osborne, Frank Solich, Earle Bruce, Fred Akers, Kirk Ferentz, Bret Bielema, Bob Davie, John Robinson
D. Player's coach—Prizes relationships with players and enjoys being seen as one of them; frequently inspirational, sometimes innovative, strong recruiter; occasionally tolerant if not encouraging of player misbehavior on and off the field; Barry Switzer, Jimmy Johnson, Pete Carroll, Les Miles
.....................
Bo Schembechler's legendarily fiery, aggressive and combative personality (Bo could be a real dick if you weren't on his side) was coupled with extremely high standards for production and a tremendous grasp of fundamental details, and the result was what came to define Michigan football for the vast majority of us growing up. Bo was major part A
Gary Moeller was fundamentally different in personality from Bo (at least outwardly) but he was a thinking offensive innovator who put together some high-powered offenses that were among the nation's best, and got a Heisman for one his guys in the bargain. Combination of B and C.
Lloyd Carr was thoughtful, reflective, and cautious—frequently maddeningly so—but he was extremely intense nonetheless, and when his back was to the wall, was able to throw his natural caution to the wind and let the dogs out, so to speak. That's why most of the great comebacks in Michigan football history happened under his watch, and also why he was able to break with tradition and give a significant offensive role to his best defensive player, leading to another Heisman and a national title. Extremely devoted to the tradition and reputation of Michigan. Strong part C
RR was an offensive innovator with much of the same fire and intensity as Bo, but unfortunately he almost completely lacked Bo's ability to discern and hire great assistant coaches, especially on the defensive side. That was crippling, since RR also played surprisingly little role in the defensive side of the game himself, another huge contrast to Bo. Combination of B and A
Which brings us to Hoke in terms of football personality. Fiery, aggressive, or combative demanding asshole taskmaster chewing players or assistants out either in practice or on the sidelines? Nope. Cerebral offensive or defensive innovator whose ideas and theories are copied by other coaches? Nope.
Bland, unassuming public demeanor, always saying "the right things" in public, very attentive to program reputation and tradition, very loyal to assistants and players? Bingo.
I think Hoke is a mixture of heavy C with the best elements of D. The big question is whether Hoke is able to assemble a top-notch staff. If he can, he can be very successful. If he doesn't, he won't last.
..............
There are some MGoBloggers who have played for Michigan, and I'd be curious if my view of Bo, Mo, Lloyd, RR, and Hoke are at all accurate. I'll re-emphasize that I think most if not all coaches have a variety of traits, but the above is attempt to discern dominant ones.
April 16th, 2015 at 11:47 AM ^
April 16th, 2015 at 12:15 PM ^
Thanks for the insight, and I'm glad to have the correction, as it were.
I chatted up Lloyd at one of his car washes about a decade ago, and he was extremely personable and willing to talk to a random nobody like me. I've never understood the bile that a portion of the Michigan fanbase has expressed toward him—he might have his faults, but his record is damn good in the context of Michigan football history.
April 16th, 2015 at 11:14 AM ^
Coaching style isn't a barometer of success. Style is a broken barometer. As mentioned by many above, the STYLE of a coach (a yeller, cerebral, manipulative, fiery, etc.) doesn't mean you will either succeed or fail. I think there are tendencies, but not direct correlations.
April 16th, 2015 at 11:39 AM ^
Good question. I will admit that I did have some ambivalence about Jim Harbaugh becaues of all stories coming out about how he alienated the 49ers players with his intensity. I grew up in a military household, and tend not to respond well to screaming authoritation drill seargeant approaches. I more related to Brady Hoke's personna. However, I have progressively warmed up to Jim Harbaugh as I've watched the video clips and reading the news stories because I get this sense he being genuine in how he presents himself publicly. He really is that intense and enthusiastic and doesn't put up with other's bullshit. it is not an act. Space Coyote makes this point above about a coach just being himself. I get that sense from Harbaugh and I like it.
One caveat I would make for the more screamer/demonstrative types is that sometimes they are not taking accountability for their own emotional shit and are vomiting it out on others around them. The purple-faced Brian Kelley comes to mind. Contrast to Brady Hoke's approach when Hagrup wiffed the punt in the 2011 Ohio game. So, being yourself doesn't justify being a dick in my mind.
April 16th, 2015 at 11:32 AM ^
April 16th, 2015 at 11:56 AM ^
in an of iteself.
April 16th, 2015 at 11:56 AM ^
You gotta win to get love. I mean, that's just life. Look at...look at Don Shula. Legendary coach. Look at that Asian guy who holds the world record for eatin' all those hot dogs in a row. Look at Rue McClanahan. From The Golden Girls. Three people, all great champions, all loved.
April 16th, 2015 at 11:19 PM ^
There is no one single style for success. Quiet, stoic Guys like Tom Landry, Bud Grant, and Joe Gibbs were very successful. And their complete opposites, extroverted cheerleader guys like John Madden and Jim Harbaugh were aslo very successful.