What makes for a good position coach?

Submitted by EGD on

With Michigan trying to fill out the rest of the position coach slots, I find myself not knowing what to think about most of the candidates.  There are a handful of position coaches out there who have proven their skills beyond a shred of a doubt—a guy like Soup Campbell, for instance, and his string of overachieving WRs or Drevno and his all-all-pro line.  But for most of the candidates, I have no clue. 

Take Wheatley, for instance: I loved watching him play tailback for Gary Moeller—but that doesn’t mean he’s a great coach, and it also doesn’t mean he isn’t.  Many of the seemingly common sense indicators can be interpreted multiple ways; does Jimmy Graham’s success prove that Terry Malone is a good TE coach?  Or does Terry Malone just look like a good TE coach because of Jimmy Graham? I suppose the most obvious indicator is whether the players at a particular coach’s position group consistently perform well over time despite significant personnel turnover—but this information is not always easy to ascertain, particularly when position coaches may change teams frequently or where (as in the Malone example) a star player might occupy a position for a prolonged period of time.

So, this is an attempt to figure out what information to look for in deciding whether a particular position coach candidate is appealing or not.  What kinds of information would you look for in a position coach’s record to decide whether we’d want him or not?  What kinds of things would you discount?  How would you prioritize ancillary factors, such as a coach’s reputation as a recruiter or history as a player?  

MGoBoard
Football
Assistant coaches

glewe

January 6th, 2015 at 5:35 PM ^

Same things that make a good teacher: An ability to break it down into manageable learning objectives, problem diagnostic skills, effective rhetorical skills, appropriate level of balance between practice and instruction, and technical prowess at the position being taught.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 08/25/2010

MGoPoints: -7293

corundum

January 6th, 2015 at 5:38 PM ^

Connects well with younger people, experience playing said position, previously successful at coaching said position, good recruiter, works well with other coaches. TL;DR - People skills, successful, respected, and probably knows who Bobby Shmurder is.

Joined: 05/10/2012

MGoPoints: 47323

Magnus

January 6th, 2015 at 5:42 PM ^

A position coach has to be the guy that players can connect to, confide in, etc.

When it comes to analyzing from afar, I think it's important to look at overperformance/underperformance (does he take mediocre players and make them good?) and performance relative to predecessors (did the position suck before said guy was hired, and did he improve it?).

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166007

Magnus

January 6th, 2015 at 5:58 PM ^

I think that's part of it. I think the head coach is somebody that players need to be at least a little bit afraid. I'm sure most of the players didn't want to disappoint Hoke, but I'm not sure they were afraid of him. I think that's one reason so many of his former players loved him - he was somebody who truly cared about them, who rooted for them, etc. Unfortunately, I just don't think that's the best quality in a head coach.

Obviously, there are a**holes who are head coaches, instill fear in their players, and still lose games. So it has to be done in the right way.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166007

Tagg

January 6th, 2015 at 6:45 PM ^

I look at it somewhat like a family. Coordinators and position coaches are kind of like an uncle that you trust and can have a more relaxed relationship where the head coach is more like a father figure. Someone who will handle discipline/accountability, take on the big issues with you and someone who you respect but still have a little fear of and is clearly in command.

I've read about guys at other programs talking about how their HC was like a father and how they were a little bit afraid of him but loved and respected him. That's what made them play hard for the HC because they didn't want to disappoint him.

Joined: 09/02/2008

MGoPoints: 897

ThadMattasagoblin

January 6th, 2015 at 5:43 PM ^

position coaches know their positions inside and out and are the ones who teach technique. Part of the reason we struggled under the last coaching regime might have been that the position coaches came from nowhere to Michigan. Head coaches and cordiantors are generally the ones who manage the morale/speeches, figure out what's wrong with the team and how to fix it, make halftime adjustments etc.

Joined: 08/24/2011

MGoPoints: 64039

turtleboy

January 6th, 2015 at 6:00 PM ^

In college I'd imagine it's even more important that a position coach be a good mentor/developer of talent than being a great scheme coach. Analogy: my first programming teacher in college was great at teaching neophytes the basics of programming, the whole class did very well, I'm now a professional programmer. My intro to Networking teacher was a networking wizard, and could teach anybody who already knew networking how to do it better, but he was bad at teaching neophytes the fundamentals. We all struggled and failed the midterm. Similarly I think a college position coach needs to be better at shaping young talent into fundamentally sound players, than coaching x's and o's in order to have success at the college level.

Joined: 04/22/2011

MGoPoints: 35131

wolverinebutt

January 6th, 2015 at 6:28 PM ^

A lot of good comments above. 

I'll add motivator to the list.  You have to motivate the starters and you have to motivate the backups to keep working for playing time.  

At my D2 program:

1 - The OL Coach worked the OL guys to death on the blocking sleds.  They pushed that thing for miles and that seemed to be his focus that I saw from afar. 

The D Coach I played for worked on techique and assignments like crazy.  

All I know is we always had a better D and the D worked half as hard as the O.  Maybe we worked smarter: )             

Joined: 06/05/2011

MGoPoints: 3461

CoachBP6

January 6th, 2015 at 6:33 PM ^

I started as a WR coach in 2009. I can tell you from experience that you are expected to know a multitude of drills right off the bat. During practice you must eliminate all down time. Every second of a practice is meaningful, treat it that way. If you are an offensive assistant you should know the entire play book by heart, symbols, audibles, and all. If you are a defensive assistant you should also know the entire play book by heart, stunts, blitzes, fronts, and all. Coach with passion. Correct mistakes immediately. Always try to get better. Most important at high school and college / semi pro level is, in my opinion, making a point to treat everyone the same, and get to know them on another level. Chemistry is extremely important.

Joined: 12/18/2013

MGoPoints: 7967

goblueva

January 6th, 2015 at 8:04 PM ^

I worked several years with D-1 programs and the coaches who I saw get the most from their players were the ones who connected with them. You could see it at Friday nights dinners and pre game meals and meetings. Those kids just had a look in their eyes like they would run through a wall for that coach.

Joined: 04/06/2011

MGoPoints: 489

mgoblue78

January 6th, 2015 at 9:43 PM ^

that often what made a head coach look like a genius was that he brought in some OL coach who implemented asubtle difference in the splits in the line that confused opponents and took the team from a pretty one to one that was unstoppable.

At one level, football is about knocking the guy across from you on his ass. At another, the game is more complicated  than you or I can imagine.

So yeah, position coaches can be a really big deal. 

Joined: 12/15/2011

MGoPoints: 6645

Reader71

January 6th, 2015 at 10:00 PM ^

College coaches deal with lots of different kids with lots of different ways of learning. The best coaches can relate to each individual, build a bond with him, teach him, motivate him, and get the best out of him. There isn't one way to go about it. The beat coaches handle each kid differently. Some need a hardass, some need some confidence, some need a father figure, some need to be left alone after a mistake, etc. Its not a matter of a hardass coach being better than a softer coach or vice versa. He coaches a group of kids, and has to get them all to perform to the best of their abilities, not just one or two. That's the challenge. Every coach at this level knows his stuff. Every coach is able to teach certain kids. The best coaches are able to teach them all.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

schreibee

January 6th, 2015 at 10:54 PM ^

I admire many of your insights R71, and I've taken note that many of the opinions you've stated and sources you've cited have turned out to be correct. See, just in case people wonder, there are Mgousers that are keeping score who knows what's up and who's just blowing smoke.

That being said, and recognizing that many different types of players thrive on many different types of coaching, I think one important element you didn't touch on is how important it is that all players (and workers in other fields as well) "FEEL" like they're being treated the same as much as possible.

The art of being a great manager/coach is motivating a diverse work team while as few as possible are pointing out they're singled out for tougher treatment, orthat others are being given preferential treatment... which is how it can appear when some are "left alone after a mistake."

One huge difference I'd point out between being a great coach, and a great manager in other types of fields, is that the coach MUST know the "playbook" forwards and backwards as someone mentioned in an earlier post, while many great managers don't know jack about what the individuals are doing, they just have a sense how to get them to accomplish thier best effort.

Coaching is tough when looked at in that light... and explains why so many fail at it!

Joined: 11/02/2009

MGoPoints: 21125