OT: A View Of The Ginder HC (Jim Harbaugh?) from "What It Takes"
First off, this is just something that occurred to me while reading Trevor Moawad's book "What It Takes". If you're not familiar, Trevor is a motivational guy that has worked for IMG, the Jags, Saban/Bama, Smart/UGA, etc. But, this has nothing to do with extensions, firings, or assistants...just my own thoughts of JH as I read a section on the "Consciously Competent" leaders.
So, Trevor is talking about the different types of leaders, The Unconsciously Incompetent (don't know what you don't know), the Consciously Incompetent (know your shortcomings, but don't change them), the Unconsciously Competent (have ability but don't know why and are inconsistent), and the Consciously Competent (basically Nick Saban, good and can replicate it and always evolving). He talks about many HCs tend to be grinders, as in guys that had some talent, but found success by sheer drive, grit, and effort. (I think Bo was one of these. I think JH was one of these as a player and is now as a coach). He also talks about how few supremely talented guys become head coaches because they don't know how to teach what they had nor understand why other guys can replicate it. But he makes a statement that struck a cord with me. He said
The grinder head coach sometimes develop an almost primal aversion to gifted performers who don't fulfill their gifts. Sometimes the result is a feeling of bitterness from someone who didn't have those talents and can't empathize or understand why someone who is gifted wouldn't seek to maximize their gifts. This can blind leaders and cause them to make stupid decisions. Gifted performers at 60 percent are better than their "try hard" peers at 100 percent. If someone's 70 percent is better than someone else's 100 percent you have a responsibility to recognize that and play the person who will produce better results - regardless of if you want to punish that person for not taking full advantage of the gifts you wish you had. You also have the responsibility to try and help that person maximize those gifts, but not through punishments that harm the entire organization.
If that doesn't resonate with who JH is I don't know what does. Look at the transfer rate. Look at how he idolizes Ben Mason. Look at he seems to punish kids that don't try and don't push hard enough through injuries in his eyes. Guys like Solomon, Hudson, and McCaffrey all transfer after basically not being tough enough. If you play the toughest guys rather than the best guys and if you punish your most talented players for not working hard instead of finding ways to motivate them and maximize their performances, that is bad coaching. Anyways, just thought I'd share the perspective. If you're interested Trevor's book is pretty good.
January 3rd, 2021 at 8:54 PM ^
See Tarik Black. Black tranferred because of this very reason. I would say Harbaugh also felt the same way about DPJ to an extent. DPJ came in very raw but supremely gifted. He did not want to work on route running though and Harbaugh became a huge fan of Bell, who did work non-stop.
January 3rd, 2021 at 9:10 PM ^
To be fair Black didn’t do all that great at Texas either. Sometimes talent is not enough. You still need to work hard to get better.
As for DPJ, he still played every game under Harbaugh. I don’t think Harbaugh told Patterson who to throw to. He’s supposed to throw to whoever is open and comfortable with. He was comfortable with Bell who was also open. DPJ was also open a lot but maybe he didn’t have as much of a connection with Patterson.
I’m not trying to take criticism away from Harbaugh. I think DPJ would have done significantly better if he was at Bama or OSU or another WR U where they’re good at developing talent. But at the end of the day, you have to work hard as a an athlete. Talent means nothing if you don’t push yourselves to keep getting better.
January 3rd, 2021 at 9:06 PM ^
Not trying to be a board-nazi here but this is the epitome of a diary post, right?
If not, I guess I need a refresher on what constitutes a diary post and maybe why that section is still needed.
January 3rd, 2021 at 10:01 PM ^
Easiest way to not be a board Nazi:
DON'T BE A BOARD NAZI. IDK what the book of Hoyle says. But, IMHO, if it's 3 paragraphs - Its board worthy.
January 3rd, 2021 at 9:14 PM ^
Whatever it is, his style clearly isn’t successful in developing rapport with players. This has been the case everywhere he has been.
January 3rd, 2021 at 9:15 PM ^
Does this hypothesis relate to games, practice or both? Because if player A gives 100% in practice, but is less talented and player B gives 70% in practice, but is more talented, that doesn't mean player B won't turn it on in a game where there is more incentive to perform at an optimal performance.
Although, you could make the argument that player B would still perform at less than 100% in a game situation because he's getting away with it in practice and he gets complacent and hasn't learned to flip the switch yet. It's an interesting theory. However, at the end of the day, the coach's responsibility is to get the best players on the field. So, the coach should be aware of who's talented enough to win and who is not. Anything less than the best players out there is just negligence. It's cutting off the nose to spite the face.
January 3rd, 2021 at 9:31 PM ^
Braylon definitely was a guy by his Jr year that only gave 70% until he flipped the switch. But obviously Carr chose to play him and man was he good when he flipped the switch. Not surprised he didn’t work out with the Browns. That doesn’t work in the NFL. You have to be a crazy worker at that level.
January 4th, 2021 at 8:40 AM ^
Does this hypothesis relate to games, practice or both? Because if player A gives 100% in practice, but is less talented and player B gives 70% in practice, but is more talented, that doesn't mean player B won't turn it on in a game where there is more incentive to perform at an optimal performance.
I think it applies to both, but Trevor didn't discuss this in his book. I think truly gifted players don't enjoy practice as much because they don't have to work as hard at their craft. They tend to shine when the lights are the brightest and the stage is the biggest. You also hear about this over and over from coaches where a guy gets hyped up based on practice and it never translates to games, guys like Joe Bolden, although I recognize that was a different staff.
However, at the end of the day, the coach's responsibility is to get the best players on the field.
Bingo, you don't play the guy with most potential, you play the guy with the best performance. If that's at your 60, 90, or 100%. But, Trevor does say it's OK to spend more time on your more talented, but maybe less motivated players, because you need your most talented people to shine in order for the organization to succeed. This is one of the reasons UM's W/L record doesn't match their recruiting rankings. Their highest rated recruits don't act like their recruiting rankings...guys like DPJ, Peters, Walker, Solomon, Vilain, Singleton, Filiaga, Simms, etc.
Anything less than the best players out there is just negligence. It's cutting off the nose to spite the face.
It's hard not to think this is exactly what happened with Solomon, Hudson, McCaffrey, etc.
January 3rd, 2021 at 9:20 PM ^
My HS coach was like what you describe. We had good teams and he won two state titles. However, during my time playing the best player we had never got much PT, he was definitely D1 talented.
The thing in football is you need a great staff or you aren’t going to accomplish much regardless of what “mold” you fit.
January 3rd, 2021 at 9:32 PM ^
There’s definitely some merit to this. But the flip side is what has made JH a success in his other stops. Is it that bad to demand that players work their asses off? It’s weird to think that we should all, as fans, be ok with a coach not demanding that an ultra talented recruit be a task master or that he pay attention to detail.
The key, IMO, is finding the balance. That, and learning how to manage the clock...
January 4th, 2021 at 8:45 AM ^
But the flip side is what has made JH a success in his other stops.
It's hard to compare NFL to college because that's their FT job. But, he didn't have much top talent at Stanford for example. At UM he's got several top 200 guys every year and many of them aren't being developed and/or transferring.
Is it that bad to demand that players work their asses off?
I'd say yes, you can't demand it. You can and should encourage it and motivate the player to build it, but at the end of the day you can only make him go so far. If you can only nudge him from 60% of his best to 70% and that is better than everyone else's 100% you still play that guy. You keep working on him, but you still play him. But, Trevor suggests organizations only become elite when their most talented people perform to the best of their abilities.
It’s weird to think that we should all, as fans, be ok with a coach not demanding that an ultra talented recruit be a task master or that he pay attention to detail.
I think this is what Saban at his heart tries to instill. It's not surprising he had Trevor on staff at LSU, Miami, and Bama. But, although Saban will yell and scream if you don't pay attention to details, he'll still play you if he thinks it gives him the best chance to win because winning is more important than being right. JH I don't think will. As he said to Speight in "All Or Nothing"..."This is how we do it here. If you don't like it go somewhere else."
January 4th, 2021 at 9:57 AM ^
JH I don't think will. As he said to Speight in "All Or Nothing"..."This is how we do it here. If you don't like it go somewhere else."
It's worth noting that worked for Speight and Rudock.
I honestly start to take the opposite. This team had more grit in '15 and '16 than now; but since he got rid of the competition for everything and became the 'kinder, softer' Jim the team has gotten softer too.
I really think having Shea start, if the wasn't working as reported, may have been a sign of this and may have cost us.
Talent is a huge thing. But I sometimes think people get too caught up in it. I'd rather have a kid who is 80% of the talent but busts his ass and is always in the right spot than the kid who is 20% better in some games and 30% worse in others. Again, I go back to the Spielman examples. A team of Speilmans is going to win a *ton* of games.
January 4th, 2021 at 10:07 AM ^
I'd rather have a kid who is 80% of the talent but busts his ass and is always in the right spot than the kid who is 20% better in some games and 30% worse in others.
You may be missing the point or I may not be explaining it well. The point was to play whomever performs best in games, regardless of who that is...the grinder or the supremely talented guy. He's just advising against playing the grinder if the lazy talented guy is still producing better in games as a punishment to him for not working hard enough. And, he believes the only way to become elite is if/when your most talented people perform. The 2015 & 2016 did have some quality grinders like Ruddock, Deveon Smith, Chesson, Darboh, Wormley, Glasgow, etc. Although the success of some of them in the NFL would suggest they are in fact quite talented. I mean Smith, Darboh, & Wormely were still 4-stars, but not top 150-types. But, they also had some really talented guys that produced as well like Peppers, Lewis, Charlton, Butt, Cole, Magnusson, etc.
January 4th, 2021 at 3:35 PM ^
I think I understand more clearly.
Find the kid who plays the best on game day consistently, and play him, regardless of whether or not he is living up to potential.
The problem is how do you tell? If John Smith is a grinder and John Smythe is a gamer... if Smythe dicks around at practice why the hell would you put him in the game? I don't think it is very often you have John Smythe still performing better at practice despite not trying as hard; and the coach decides to play Smith because of his work effort.
We also seem to put our coaches in a catch-22.
I hear plenty from people that Harbaugh is too Stubborn and too much the martinet; that he plays the kids he likes; then I hear from former players after some kid fumbles that 'Bo would have benched that kid; Harbaugh is just letting him play because the kid is talented...'
It just seems like this is something really easy to say and hard to actually pull off and do. REally really hard.
What I could definitely see is a situation like this: John Smythe looks great in practice when he runs the correct route and catches the ball. Phenomenal even. But... he hates route running and only learns 70% of the routes and how to run them correctly. So 30% of the time he's out of position and risking a potential INT on a timing route. So the coach bites the bullet and says 'Look Smythe, you can do great things with the ball. And if you learn the routes you'll be a Heisman candidate. But until you do you're a liability because I don't want to risk the INT...
January 3rd, 2021 at 9:38 PM ^
Interesting hypothesis. I never thought of Harbaugh as a grinder per se, including as a player, but I suppose he could be one. An implication of what you’re saying is that grinders are exceedingly self-centered—putting their own grievances above the success of the team. Doesn’t bode well for the future bc guys like that don’t change. They’re too stuck in their own mud to do so.
January 4th, 2021 at 8:47 AM ^
An implication of what you’re saying is that grinders are exceedingly self-centered—putting their own grievances above the success of the team.
I don't know that this happens to all grinders, but just that it can happen. I think Fleck, Saban, Belichick, etc. are all grinders that don't operate this way.
January 4th, 2021 at 10:06 AM ^
Of course, but wouldn't Saban, Fleck, and Belichick be examples of Consciously Competent coaches according to the book you read? If I followed what you said correctly, they are much more likely to be successful because they don't allow personal grievances to interfere w/their coaching decisions.
January 4th, 2021 at 10:11 AM ^
wouldn't Saban, Fleck, and Belichick be examples of Consciously Competent coaches according to the book you read?
Yes
If I followed what you said correctly, they are much more likely to be successful because they don't allow personal grievances to interfere w/their coaching decisions.
Those styles (Consciously Competent, etc) were separate issues from how they handle talented players. Guys can be grinders in any of those styles. JH shows some signs of being Consciously Competent by his willingness to change offensive styles, but he also shows signs of being Consciously Incompetent because he appears to keep meddling with that system and not allowing it to happen. Hard to say with certainty and this is not a black or white, all or nothing, thing, but rather an exploration into a concept.
January 3rd, 2021 at 9:45 PM ^
Two things: first, this is an interesting post, so thank you.
Second, it must be hard for a coach to give playing time to guys who aren't doing what the coach tells everyone they have to do--give everything they have. Harbaugh may well overdo it as far as rewarding effort, but I can see where he's coming from if this is indeed the case. It sends a bad message to a team if players who don't prepare particularly hard get playing time.
January 3rd, 2021 at 10:06 PM ^
Many here were bugged when Shea didn’t work out the way we wanted and we learned he spent too much time on the golf course but he got the start over McCaffrey anyway. Many charger favoritism. We can’t have it both ways.
January 4th, 2021 at 8:53 AM ^
Harbaugh may well overdo it as far as rewarding effort, but I can see where he's coming from if this is indeed the case. It sends a bad message to a team if players who don't prepare particularly hard get playing time.
Agreed, but I think it's a flawed philosophy to treat everyone the same. Everyone is motivated by different things and respond differently to different coaching styles. Some guys will cry if you yell at them. Other guys won't budge unless you yell and them. Every player needs a different approach. You can have some hard rules like not being late and maybe you don't start a guy if he's not on time for something. That doesn't mean you don't play him again. Trevor used an example of Michael Phelps swimming coach. He wanted Michael to use a certain flutter kick number and Phelps kept messing it up in practice. He knew the thing that motivated Phelps the most was being embarrassed in practice and hated getting kicked out. He said the next time you don't do the correct flutter kick I'm kick you out of practice. The next practice he kicked him out after 10 minutes. The practice after that it took until 40 minutes until he got kicked out. The next practice it was like an hour. After getting kicked out of the 3 consecutive practices at some point, then it never happened again. That won't work for everyone, but the coach knew how to motivate his athlete.
January 3rd, 2021 at 9:51 PM ^
Is this why he makes playing offense so difficult? To make sure everyone is working hard enough?
January 3rd, 2021 at 10:00 PM ^
I think you have to be very careful with that. What does a 70% guy look like? I think if Ricky Williams vs Chris Spielman. Different positions but... you have one guy too small and too slow according to many who was a force multiplier. And Ricky who blew his talent.
If the 70% guy is a cancer, or his attitude spreads, or he’s a pro bowl player one game and a guy who takes plays off another.... than you can get a whole team that is inconsistent or has another type of culture problem we all complain about.
And what about the guy who is there every day, always watching film, always working. If he’s in there and busting his butt and he’s not as talented as the 70%’er, but he’s 100% consistent and not as good but good enough... how do you give the job to the kid who can’t be bothered to work? Sure you might win one game where the 70% shines, but lose another where he is out of position.
That’s some dangerous chemistry to play with. I’ve seen teams like that. You run a real risk of the bread and butter guys you need as a core saying “f*ck it, Johnny blows off plays and fiddle f*cks around 30% of the time and still starts. I’m done. I got my scholarship...”
We all want to win and it’s easy to Monday morning QB but making a great *team* is harder than just playing the most talented guys.
January 4th, 2021 at 8:58 AM ^
Obviously there is some nuance. And, who is better may be a continually moving target. But, ultimately he says you have get your most talented players to perform. Without them you can't be elite, so they get the benefit of the doubt more often than not. You don't let a talented guy be lazy if a guy with less talent behind him that works harder performs better in games. But, if the more talented guy performs in games you have an obligation to the organization to play him and continue to work on developing his effort. But, if that laziness has an overall net negative effect on the rest of the team because of his lack of effort you'd have to consider that too. But, if the players behind him don't respect you're playing the players that give you the best chance to win, then they don't get why they're all there in the first place. Yes, you improve by working hard, but the goal isn't working hard, the goal is to win.
January 3rd, 2021 at 10:23 PM ^
Diary or not - this is a great post and a fresh take.
January 3rd, 2021 at 10:26 PM ^
Couldn't disagree more because the criteria for what constitutes talent is suspect and it is a team full of 4-stars with a losing record. I definitely do question the team's heart so I absolutely favor grinders.
Does this look like a team that puts it all on the field for 60 minutes? No. This is a team that at the first sign of adversity throws in the towel. How is their record as an underdog? How many memorable comebacks have you seen?
The hypothesis that you spelled out does have some merit with respect to playing too many practice champions rather than game-changers who have another gear in crunch time, but it has less to do with talent than finding guys that really want to play and hate to lose. Talent is no excuse when you are routinely pulling in top 15 recruiting classes. Grinding and competitiveness are talents in themselves.
If every NFL team made personnel decisions using this criteria neither Tom Brady, Drew Brees, or Russell Wilson would never have seen the field because the pure measurables didn't stack up at first glance. But you can't teach intangibles, IQ, or an indomitable will to win.
January 3rd, 2021 at 10:33 PM ^
Eh. Apparently a lot of people thought McCaffrey should have started over Shea last year. People have said he plays favorites. And it doesn't seem like Shea got the nod because he's not that talented but such a grinder.
January 4th, 2021 at 9:02 AM ^
Apparently a lot of people thought McCaffrey should have started over Shea last year. People have said he plays favorites. And it doesn't seem like Shea got the nod because he's not that talented but such a grinder.
Shea is an interesting case study and not sure if he supports this hypothesis or not. Is Shea more talented than Dylan? Hard to say until Dylan gets more live action. Is Shea a hard worker? On the one hand we heard a lot about golf over the summer. On the other hand I never recall watching him and seeing him be disengaged. He seemed to care and be invested in games. But, we didn't see what happened in practice. Maybe Shea is deemed tougher than Dylan in JH's eyes and it's more about toughness than how diligent they are in practice?
January 3rd, 2021 at 11:18 PM ^
Your idea has some merit, since Harbaugh clearly has his favorites, and those mostly seem to be the more grinder-ish guys (Mason, Bell). The Shea situation seemed different though, as it appeared he was promised the starting job and used that to work less hard.
The problem with Harbaugh goes deeper though. He has clearly lost his edge. In press conferences, he gives the appearance of someone confused and unsure of himself and his team. And this attitude permeates through the players. On offense, there is a nod to the spread but an overall emphasis on the most conservative actions. On defense, there is zone play from a team clearly unsure how to execute it properly, because the coordinator wants to run aggressive press man. This further adds to the confusion and uncertainty, when the goal should be mental toughness and confidence. The team often looks lost.
Good post -- this comes at a tired subject in a new way.
January 4th, 2021 at 10:42 AM ^
The problem with Harbaugh goes deeper though.
I agree there are other issues and this is not the only one. A glaring issues seems to be a lack of overall organization and structure. I heard from several sources that old assistants pointed out how much fewer coaching meetings are held under JH than with other HCs. You'd think if there are roster holes they'd meet about fixing those through recruiting or the portal. If there are issues with the offense the offensive staff would meet to fix those. If there are issues with penalties they'd meet to discuss how to put an end to that, etc.
January 4th, 2021 at 9:18 AM ^
I think we should be careful making assumptions about all of the transfers without knowing the whole story or how each story compares. Soloman had a decent career but also flaked out of multiple places. Hudson seemed upset about being asked to move to OL....only to become an all-AAC OT. Black got passed by other guys and seemed to be putting in mixed effort on the field....and had about the same outcome at Texas.
I do feel that this summarizes JH pretty well - and maybe some of his assistants too like Don Brown. A better example might be Joe Bolden or Devin Gill - guys who no doubt worked their tails off in practice and played ahead of more talented guys.
As someone who's coached some youth sports I can echo this challenge. Watching the talented kid goof off or be lazy in practice but knowing he's your best chance to win is tough. You have to balance living with the behavior, trying to improve the kid in any way possible, and punishing him for the behavior. No easy task - at any level and regardless of coach. Even Saban and Belichek aren't perfect with it. I also would be careful to generalize fully on the negative and imply that if JH backed off and let the kids run the kingdom that we'd be a better team. There's no way for us to know how that plays out.
But I do think there's a lot of value with this post - thanks for making it.
January 4th, 2021 at 10:48 AM ^
I think we should be careful making assumptions about all of the transfers without knowing the whole story or how each story compares.
Agreed, it's just supporting evidence, but every case is different and any real analysis would take a deeper look into each one.
Watching the talented kid goof off or be lazy in practice but knowing he's your best chance to win is tough. You have to balance living with the behavior, trying to improve the kid in any way possible, and punishing him for the behavior. No easy task - at any level and regardless of coach
Agreed, this is not an easy thing to do. This just seems to be one area coach seems to struggle with more than some of his peers. I think part of it comes down to the fact that he probably doesn't know his players all that well because he doesn't relate to them. So, he may lack the personal knowledge of what motivates each one and uses more of a cookie cutter approach when in fact each player needs an individual approach based on his own preferences if you want to get the most out of them.