The myth of player development

Donate To GopherHole
Ogee Ogilthorpe

Ogee Ogilthorpe

Tattooed Millionaire
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
22,171
Reaction score
15,294
Points
113
All too often we hear people gripe about coaches (or bosses) who don't develop players/employees, players don't improve, certain schools don't send many players to the NFL, etc. "Players never developed or improved under Mason", "players haven't developed under Brewster and this staff," etc... What a ridiculous argument.

Let's clear one thing up right away; 90% of player development and improvement is on the PLAYER. Players who have the desire, the drive, and the work ethic to be great generally turn out to be great regardless of who is running the show. People who want to succeed will become successful. On the flip side, if you're a player and you sit there waiting for a coach to waive his magic wand to make you a great player, good luck.

Lack of coaching or mentoring is usually a way for an employee to justify his own mediocrity. He or she hasn't progressed further up the ladder because they just didn't get enough coaching or mentoring along the way. Copout. Look in the mirror, you usually don't have to look much further than that.

Does it matter? Obviously. It's a big factor. But it's nowhere near as significant as some people make it out to be.

Some people have talent, some people have work ethic; then there are the somewhat rare occasions where somebody has both. Those people are successful, it never fails.

One of the greatest myths ever perpetuated on the general public:

Knowledge is Power

Completely and utterly false. The IMPLEMENTATION of knowledge is power. Knowledge without the drive to put it into action is useless. The same can be said for talent.

The individuals themselves determine who is going to be great and who is not. Any time you hear somebody saying they weren't or haven't been successful because they didn't get the proper mentoring or coaching is somebody who's just not owning up to their own shortcomings.
 

So, it's a big factor, but a myth. Scolding people for not improving themselves isn't relevant. Yes, the best will have raw talent, and the will and knowledge to make themselves better. But the reality is you don't get that too much. It's a coach's job to make the players better, even if they don't have the will or knowledge to do it themselves.

You shift the focus to the individual, which misses the point.
 

RodentRampage said:
So, it's a big factor, but a myth. Scolding people for not improving themselves isn't relevant. Yes, the best will have raw talent, and the will and knowledge to make themselves better. But the reality is you don't get that too much. It's a coach's job to make the players better, even if they don't have the will or knowledge to do it themselves.

You shift the focus to the individual, which misses the point.
Click to expand...


How do you use the ignore function. Thanks in advance. I hold the moderators responsible for the last post. The should have made it better.
 

truth

There is truth to what you are saying. The player has to take it upon themselves to want greatness.

That said, knowing the system (and your assignments) like the back of your hand allows you to play fast and not think so much.

Spread, complicated pro, simple pro...

Attacking man to man, takeaway Tuesday, soft zones...

We change so much that our seniors are learning new systems just like the freshmen every year.
 



RodentRampage said:
So, it's a big factor, but a myth. Scolding people for not improving themselves isn't relevant. Yes, the best will have raw talent, and the will and knowledge to make themselves better. But the reality is you don't get that too much. It's a coach's job to make the players better, even if they don't have the will or knowledge to do it themselves.

You shift the focus to the individual, which misses the point.
Click to expand...

Wow. I'm beyond speechless. Really??
 

The upper classmen (senior and 5th senior) would mainly be Mason. Junior and below would be Brewster.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe said:
Wow. I'm beyond speechless. Really??
Click to expand...
As a coach, if your players don't have the will to excel, you better kindle it in them. If you can't do that, you suck and should to either bench them and/or not offer them a roster spot in the first place. In business, employees ask for a job. In college FB, "employers" ask to "hire". Recruit motivation and DO YOUR FRICKING JOB and you will rarely have this problem.

BSter promised the moon and the stars and has delivered a trailer load of elephant dung. Yeah, I can't imagine how any of our guys could possibly be unmotivated...... :rolleyes:
 

SickAndTiredOfLosingToWI said:
As a coach, if your players don't have the will to excel, you better kindle it in them. If you can't do that, you suck and should to either bench them and/or not offer them a roster spot in the first place. In business, employees ask for a job. In college FB, "employers" ask to "hire". Recruit motivation and DO YOUR FRICKING JOB and you will rarely have this problem.

BSter promised the moon and the stars and has delivered a trailer load of elephant dung. Yeah, I can't imagine how any of our guys could possibly be unmotivated...... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

+1

Brewster suffers from both poor recruiting and very little ability to coach. The sooner he is gone the better.
 



Ogee Oglethorpe said:
All too often we hear people gripe about coaches (or bosses) who don't develop players/employees, players don't improve, certain schools don't send many players to the NFL, etc. "Players never developed or improved under Mason", "players haven't developed under Brewster and this staff," etc... What a ridiculous argument.

Let's clear one thing up right away; 90% of player development and improvement is on the PLAYER. Players who have the desire, the drive, and the work ethic to be great generally turn out to be great regardless of who is running the show. People who want to succeed will become successful. On the flip side, if you're a player and you sit there waiting for a coach to waive his magic wand to make you a great player, good luck.

Lack of coaching or mentoring is usually a way for an employee to justify his own mediocrity. He or she hasn't progressed further up the ladder because they just didn't get enough coaching or mentoring along the way. Copout. Look in the mirror, you usually don't have to look much further than that.

Does it matter? Obviously. It's a big factor. But it's nowhere near as significant as some people make it out to be.

Some people have talent, some people have work ethic; then there are the somewhat rare occasions where somebody has both. Those people are successful, it never fails.

One of the greatest myths ever perpetuated on the general public:

Knowledge is Power

Completely and utterly false. The IMPLEMENTATION of knowledge is power. Knowledge without the drive to put it into action is useless. The same can be said for talent.

The individuals themselves determine who is going to be great and who is not. Any time you hear somebody saying they weren't or haven't been successful because they didn't get the proper mentoring or coaching is somebody who's just not owning up to their own shortcomings.
Click to expand...

You are missing a couple of important points. You have to provide an environment that encourages and allows those that want to succeed those oppertunities. Be it through teaching or providing a chance to perform.

Secondly it is critical that the leader, or coaches, motivate the players to want to succeed.

You could take the exact same players under different systems and the results would be totally different. This is true in athletics or the work place.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe said:
All too often we hear people gripe about coaches (or bosses) who don't develop players/employees, players don't improve, certain schools don't send many players to the NFL, etc. "Players never developed or improved under Mason", "players haven't developed under Brewster and this staff," etc... What a ridiculous argument.

Let's clear one thing up right away; 90% of player development and improvement is on the PLAYER. Players who have the desire, the drive, and the work ethic to be great generally turn out to be great regardless of who is running the show. People who want to succeed will become successful. On the flip side, if you're a player and you sit there waiting for a coach to waive his magic wand to make you a great player, good luck.

Lack of coaching or mentoring is usually a way for an employee to justify his own mediocrity. He or she hasn't progressed further up the ladder because they just didn't get enough coaching or mentoring along the way. Copout. Look in the mirror, you usually don't have to look much further than that.

Does it matter? Obviously. It's a big factor. But it's nowhere near as significant as some people make it out to be.

Some people have talent, some people have work ethic; then there are the somewhat rare occasions where somebody has both. Those people are successful, it never fails.

One of the greatest myths ever perpetuated on the general public:

Knowledge is Power

Completely and utterly false. The IMPLEMENTATION of knowledge is power. Knowledge without the drive to put it into action is useless. The same can be said for talent.

The individuals themselves determine who is going to be great and who is not. Any time you hear somebody saying they weren't or haven't been successful because they didn't get the proper mentoring or coaching is somebody who's just not owning up to their own shortcomings.
Click to expand...


But then doesn't that say something about the coaches who are recruiting them? The recruiters should be asking the athletes head coaches "What is this guys drive?" "How bad does he want to play college/NFL football"

I would assume the coaches are fully aware of how much work ethic these kids have before they allow them to go to school for free. If not that is an indictment on the coaches not doing their homework.

Now some players I'm sure falter once they get to college because they don't understand the work ethic and dedication it takes, but that shouldn't be happening with "90%" of your players.
 

SickAndTiredOfLosingToWI said:
As a coach, if your players don't have the will to excel, you better kindle it in them. If you can't do that, you suck and should to either bench them and/or not offer them a roster spot in the first place. In business, employees ask for a job. In college FB, "employers" ask to "hire". Recruit motivation and DO YOUR FRICKING JOB and you will rarely have this problem.

BSter promised the moon and the stars and has delivered a trailer load of elephant dung. Yeah, I can't imagine how any of our guys could possibly be unmotivated...... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

+1000. That's coaching 101. If it isn't a coaches job to make the players get better, why do teams do conditioning? After all, the self-motivated player would already come into training camp in perfect physical fitness. No one would ever accept "my players weren't self-motivated" as an excuse from a coach. The motivation level of players is simply a fact that a coach has to deal with. A coach needs to push players to improve, because the fact is, there are a whole lot of players who won't push themselves.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe said:
All too often we hear people gripe about coaches (or bosses) who don't develop players/employees, players don't improve, certain schools don't send many players to the NFL, etc. "Players never developed or improved under Mason", "players haven't developed under Brewster and this staff," etc... What a ridiculous argument.

Let's clear one thing up right away; 90% of player development and improvement is on the PLAYER. Players who have the desire, the drive, and the work ethic to be great generally turn out to be great regardless of who is running the show. People who want to succeed will become successful. On the flip side, if you're a player and you sit there waiting for a coach to waive his magic wand to make you a great player, good luck.

Lack of coaching or mentoring is usually a way for an employee to justify his own mediocrity. He or she hasn't progressed further up the ladder because they just didn't get enough coaching or mentoring along the way. Copout. Look in the mirror, you usually don't have to look much further than that.

Does it matter? Obviously. It's a big factor. But it's nowhere near as significant as some people make it out to be.

Some people have talent, some people have work ethic; then there are the somewhat rare occasions where somebody has both. Those people are successful, it never fails.

One of the greatest myths ever perpetuated on the general public:

Knowledge is Power

Completely and utterly false. The IMPLEMENTATION of knowledge is power. Knowledge without the drive to put it into action is useless. The same can be said for talent.

The individuals themselves determine who is going to be great and who is not. Any time you hear somebody saying they weren't or haven't been successful because they didn't get the proper mentoring or coaching is somebody who's just not owning up to their own shortcomings.
Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of truth here. What really seems to help players more than anything is OTHER PLAYERS. A star player or two can help improve the rest of the players by adding confidence and also by making the other team expend more attention on the star. Last year we say Sidney Rice and a number of Vikings suddenly get better when Favre was added. Same coach but the team got a lot better with the addition of one player. This is an even bigger factor in basketball. A star running back, middle linebacker or quarterback might have done a lot to change the "development" of players on this Gopher team. We've all seen a team catch fire due to a big play, or a big hit.

A former pro football player friend of mine told me that football, due to it's intense and violent nature has a ton to do with emotion and confidence-even moreso than other sports. I would guess that it's easier for players to infuse that in each other than for a coach to do it. Behind that must lie a basic trust in the coach's system however.
 




I'm not sure why just about every coach in America, including Brewster, talks about "coaching up" his players. Guess the players should just do it themselves and let the coaches just call plays.
 

jovs said:
You are missing a couple of important points. You have to provide an environment that encourages and allows those that want to succeed those oppertunities. Be it through teaching or providing a chance to perform.

Secondly it is critical that the leader, or coaches, motivate the players to want to succeed.

You could take the exact same players under different systems and the results would be totally different. This is true in athletics or the work place.
Click to expand...

ABSOLUTELY!!! That is exactly the way I would have stated it; the coaches/mentors need to provide and environment that facilitates the development. The good coaches are the ones that have the best structure in place, the continuity of that structure, and deliver the consistent message that that particular path needs to be followed.

My point is, I think the angle/argument regarding Coach XXXXX developing or not developing players is overblown. The big programs turn out better players not just because they get the best talent; they also have the luxury of getting the players that have the drive to succeed.

You make the perfect point though. The continuity of the system and the structure of the system itself is paramount. This is an area where the current regime has struggled; each for a variety of different reasons, there has not been continuity with the coordinators. THAT's why the team is struggling at the moment.


Regarding putting the same players into different systems; I think "results" is a subjective term, or at least I'm not sure what you mean. I will say, I fully believe that you could put the same group of people in completely different environments and the same people would rise to the top. Without question. It's like the distribution/re-distribution of wealth; if you gave everybody the same amount of money, the smarter and more driven people will eventually wind up with the majority of it. "A fool and his money were probably pretty lucky to get together in the first place."
 

Nine

I guess rumors of your demise have been exaggerated. Its about time.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe said:
ABSOLUTELY!!! That is exactly the way I would have stated it; the coaches/mentors need to provide and environment that facilitates the development. The good coaches are the ones that have the best structure in place, the continuity of that structure, and deliver the consistent message that that particular path needs to be followed.

My point is, I think the angle/argument regarding Coach XXXXX developing or not developing players is overblown. The big programs turn out better players not just because they get the best talent; they also have the luxury of getting the players that have the drive to succeed.

You make the perfect point though. The continuity of the system and the structure of the system itself is paramount. This is an area where the current regime has struggled; each for a variety of different reasons, there has not been continuity with the coordinators. THAT's why the team is struggling at the moment.


Regarding putting the same players into different systems; I think "results" is a subjective term, or at least I'm not sure what you mean. I will say, I fully believe that you could put the same group of people in completely different environments and the same people would rise to the top. Without question. It's like the distribution/re-distribution of wealth; if you gave everybody the same amount of money, the smarter and more driven people will eventually wind up with the majority of it. "A fool and his money were probably pretty lucky to get together in the first place."
Click to expand...

The same people might rise to the top, but the levels to which they rise would vary DRAMATICALLY.

You put a smart, driven kid at Saint Paul Academy he graduates valedictorian and he potentially goes to Harvard. You put him at North High School he graduates valedictorian, gets into the U and everyone calls him a success. Same kid rises to 'the top' in each environment, but the kid that goes to Harvard is FAR more likely to be President someday. The 'better' environment has exposed him to broader opportunity, let him know that Harvard is in the realm of possibility. His friend's parents are doctors, lawyers, and executives, so that's what he expects of himself. His teachers are comparing him to students that all get A's, not to students who occasionally make it to class. They're not letting him slide by taking Algebra, they're telling him he needs to get through Calc II, join the debate team, and quarterback the football team.

The environment is critical, in football as in academics. It's not at all overblown.
 

tato2001 said:
The same people might rise to the top, but the levels to which they rise would vary DRAMATICALLY.

You put a smart, driven kid at Saint Paul Academy he graduates valedictorian and he potentially goes to Harvard. You put him at North High School he graduates valedictorian, gets into the U and everyone calls him a success. Same kid rises to 'the top' in each environment, but the kid that goes to Harvard is FAR more likely to be President someday. The 'better' environment has exposed him to broader opportunity, let him know that Harvard is in the realm of possibility. His friend's parents are doctors, lawyers, and executives, so that's what he expects of himself. His teachers are comparing him to students that all get A's, not to students who occasionally make it to class. They're not letting him slide by taking Algebra, they're telling him he needs to get through Calc II, join the debate team, and quarterback the football team.

The environment is critical, in football as in academics. It's not at all overblown.
Click to expand...


The kid who goes to the U is also far more likely to be a decent engineer and contributing member of society. The kid who goes to Harvard will probably just take that other guy's money and lie in commercials every four years.
 

Tee09 said:
The kid who goes to the U is also far more likely to be a decent engineer and contributing member of society. The kid who goes to Harvard will probably just take that other guy's money and lie in commercials every four years.
Click to expand...

You're right. Perfect analogy: Brewster's players are the good kids that ultimately get pushed around and taken advantage of by the kids that go to the Harvard's of the football world and laugh about it all the way to the Rose Bowl.


Actually, though, the way this year is going, it's actually more like Brewster's players are the good kids that go to community college and get pushed around by the kids smart enough to get into Saint Cloud State.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe said:
All too often we hear people gripe about coaches (or bosses) who don't develop players/employees, players don't improve, certain schools don't send many players to the NFL, etc. "Players never developed or improved under Mason", "players haven't developed under Brewster and this staff," etc... What a ridiculous argument.

Let's clear one thing up right away; 90% of player development and improvement is on the PLAYER. Players who have the desire, the drive, and the work ethic to be great generally turn out to be great regardless of who is running the show. People who want to succeed will become successful. On the flip side, if you're a player and you sit there waiting for a coach to waive his magic wand to make you a great player, good luck.

Lack of coaching or mentoring is usually a way for an employee to justify his own mediocrity. He or she hasn't progressed further up the ladder because they just didn't get enough coaching or mentoring along the way. Copout. Look in the mirror, you usually don't have to look much further than that.

Does it matter? Obviously. It's a big factor. But it's nowhere near as significant as some people make it out to be.

Some people have talent, some people have work ethic; then there are the somewhat rare occasions where somebody has both. Those people are successful, it never fails.

One of the greatest myths ever perpetuated on the general public:

Knowledge is Power

Completely and utterly false. The IMPLEMENTATION of knowledge is power. Knowledge without the drive to put it into action is useless. The same can be said for talent.

The individuals themselves determine who is going to be great and who is not. Any time you hear somebody saying they weren't or haven't been successful because they didn't get the proper mentoring or coaching is somebody who's just not owning up to their own shortcomings.
Click to expand...

great post... . Brewsters inability to recruit players who have the drive and dedication to succeed has been his number 1 failure as a head coach. Teaching x's and o's to a player makes up a really small percentage of their overall development. People act as if sports are "rocket science" in some capacity and they fail to realize that it really boils down to individual accountability.

It is very funny to me that people criticize his on field coaching but they don't critique his recruiting because that is his "assumed" strength. You can not measure a persons heart by putting four or five stars next to their name.(Marion Barber and Eric Decker being perfect examples) The most successful coaches are able to identify the players with the most dedication and passion for the game, not necessarily talent.
 



Great post Ogee. I'm probably in the middle on some things, but I agree that it's more "size of the dog in the fight than the size of the fight in the dog." The fastest pony in the world wouldn't win the Kentucky Derby.

That said, I think Brewster's biggest fault was his impatience and his inability to install a foundation of offensive and defensive systems that were going to define the program from Day 1 and then recruit athletes to fit those systems. A lot of Iowa fans come in here and imply that Ferentz runs out to farm country and takes a bunch of kids off the hayrack and turns them into All-Americans. I think Ferentz is one of the better coaches in America, but he gets solid three- and four-star guys and implements them into his system. They usually take a red-shirt year to get schooled in the fundamentals and then serve their apprenticeship and by the time they are juniors and seniors, they know what to do. Same thing with Bielema. Wisconsin has a system. They recruit great running backs to put behind a well-schooled line, get a QB who plays within the system, and then roll the dice.

I don't doubt that when it comes to 40-yard dash times and bench pressing, Brewster's teams match up fairly well within the Big 10 (save for Ohio State), but Brewster's inability to put these guys within a consistent system has held them back. There are two elements to "coaching up." One would be refining fundamentals and pretty much every kid has to learn that it ain't high school anymore when they step on a college football field. Witness Terrelle Pryor. The second would be to make sure everyone knows their assignments and it's hard for players to do that when things are changing all the time. But I've always thought these elements comprised the increment on top that makes very good players great as opposed to making average players good.

I haven't been wild about Horton, but Horton or someone like him should have been the first offensive coordinator. What we are seeing now on offense is Year 1 and Year 2 kinds of performances, which is leading to inconsistency and losses.

Again, great post Ogee.
 


raragophers said:
south dakota state /northern Illinois/NDSU all had less "talent" but still managed to win.
Click to expand...

That doesn't establish your claim that "Brewsters inability to recruit players who have the drive and dedication to succeed has been his number 1 failure as a head coach." SDSU, NIU and NDSU wouldn't have turned down our recruits. Just observe the Bison fans crowing because they signed a recruit to a scholarship when that recruit was only offered a walk on at the U. The difference isn't self motivation, it's coaching.
 

RodentRampage said:
That doesn't establish your claim that "Brewsters inability to recruit players who have the drive and dedication to succeed has been his number 1 failure as a head coach." SDSU, NIU and NDSU wouldn't have turned down our recruits. Just observe the Bison fans crowing because they signed a recruit to a scholarship when that recruit was only offered a walk on at the U. The difference isn't self motivation, it's coaching.
Click to expand...

recruiting players who are self motivated and dedicated to the sport is A SIGNIFICANT PART OF COACHING. On field results against inferior "talent" does establish this claim. Obviously game day coaching does play a role in the results but it is minor in comparison to an individuals dedication/heart mixed in with a little "talent".
 

RodentRampage said:
That doesn't establish your claim that "Brewsters inability to recruit players who have the drive and dedication to succeed has been his number 1 failure as a head coach." SDSU, NIU and NDSU wouldn't have turned down our recruits. Just observe the Bison fans crowing because they signed a recruit to a scholarship when that recruit was only offered a walk on at the U. The difference isn't self motivation, it's coaching.
Click to expand...

I don't know that it is his number 1 failure but it is still a failure none the less as well as his inability to recruit highly rated recruits (stars don't mean everything though so this isn't everything but his only blue chip recruit appears to be gray. Olson is close behind and Hagemen is hampered by having to switch positions), his inability to close the borders, his inability to get the most out of the players he has, and his inability to be a gameday coach.
 

raragophers said:
recruiting players who are self motivated and dedicated to the sport is A SIGNIFICANT PART OF COACHING. On field results against inferior "talent" does establish this claim. Obviously game day coaching does play a role in the results but it is minor in comparison to an individuals dedication/heart mixed with a little "talent".
Click to expand...

No, it does not establish this claim. Would schools like NDSU and USD take our recruits if they could get them? They certainly are eager to take the ones we - along with most other I-A programs - didn't want, and do quite well with them. For your point to be valid, these schools would have to reject our recruits even if they could get them. Coaches don't know all that well who is really self-motivated and who isn't. There is so much more to coaching than gameday coaching.
 

RodentRampage said:
No, it does not establish this claim. Would schools like NDSU and USD take our recruits if they could get them? They certainly are eager to take the ones we - along with most other I-A programs - didn't want, and do quite well with them. For your point to be valid, these schools would have to reject our recruits even if they could get them. Coaches don't know all that well who is really self-motivated and who isn't. There is so much more to coaching than gameday coaching.
Click to expand...

Of course they would want them because of their raw talent. However, there are also recruits they have that would fit our system better than our current players because of individual characteristics such as dedication to the sport and the drive to be successful . Brewster has failed as a coach because of his inability to identify the players ,which are on teams such as NDSU, who have those traits as players/people.

By the way, why do you state that "there is so much more to coaching than gameday coaching"?. This is my whole argument! LOL
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom