You're the Coach: How do you Win?

[The Tris]

The first step sequentially isn't necessarily the most important. Besides, part of your plan would include identifying the schemes so that you'd know what kind of players would fit it.

I think the establishment of goals is the first step, then follows the implementation of a plan to reach those goals. That plan has several parts including the formation a strategic plan (schematic identity) as well as a talent acquisition plan (team building philosophy).

I have never once had the sense that the Redskins under Dan Snyder's ownership have sound goals, and have also lacked a schematic identity and a team building philosophy. This has been due not solely to the constant changing of coaching staffs, but also due to the lack of a strong front office presence (not a coach) to form the goals and hire people to impliment the plans. We are still lacking this front office presence.

Player acquisition for a team in the dumps is very different then player acquisition for a team that is on the cusp of being competitive or a team that is already competitive.

I agree on a microscale, but overall, you should not be sacrificing your long term goals to add players simply in the name of competitiveness.

My question is, what do you value more complimentary players or talented players?

I think it is harder to add the right complimentary players, therefore, I agree that they are more "valuable" in a sense.

[MassSkinsFan]

Let me put it this way. As Atlanta's coach, I would consider Vick's unwillingness to put in the time to grasp the offense much more of a problem than the concern that he might someday be thrown in jail for dog fighting.

And, I would consider Plaxico's unwillingness to cooperate in my program more of a problem than worrying that he might someday shoot himself and get tossed in jail. In fact, I would probably feel relieved that he was no longer my headache.

As for Haynesworth, in Shanahan's shoes, I'd be rooting for jail time to break the contract.

I agree, especially with the last one.

These are all character issues related to work ethic and cooperation, and while my statement was hyperbolic it didn't preclude these sorts of problems.

[Mahons21]

Never said anything about "issues".

My mistake, to clarify then what did you mean by this:

It's also my position that the little things include off the field matters.

Those guys established the ability to have a good moral code in relationship with teammates, for the most part. And for the record, this discussion isn't just in regards to the NFL, but to any level you want it to be

Well for the sake of this thread(and actual football discussion on ES) not going in a million different directions I'm going to try and keep it related to football, rather than just morality/character in general which could easily top 1000 pages of thread, though I do love the topic.

What exactly do you mean they have a good moral code in relationship with teammates?

Does that just mean they treat their teammates w/ respect? If so, I'd say morality doesn't have much to do with it, rather they just have a good relationship with teammates.

---------- Post added June-14th-2011 at 12:55 PM ----------

I agree on a microscale, but overall, you should not be sacrificing your long term goals to add players simply in the name of competitiveness.

That all depends on the team the situation is in, if an older team that has been competitive for 2-4 years needs a big-play threat to push them over the hump, then yes they should make some longer term sacrifices for short term gain. But it all has to be weighed out, is the potential of winning a championship so much so that you'd risk giving up a 3rd rd pick? a 2nd rd pick? or even a 1st?

I think it is harder to add the right complimentary players, therefore, I agree that they are more "valuable" in a sense.

-I agree you might have to spend more time searching and also perform a much more in-depth search.

You're no longer looking for the best OLB, rather you look for the best OLB for your team and they're not always one in the same.

[KDawg]

My mistake, to clarify then what did you mean by this:

Well for the sake of this thread not going in a million different directions I'm going to try and keep it related to football, rather than just morality/character in general which could easily top 1000 pages of thread.

What exactly do you mean they have a good moral code in relationship with teammates?

Does that just mean they treat their teammates w/ respect? If so, I'd say morality doesn't have much to do with it, rather they just have a good relationship with teammates.

I would like to address this point, I just dont know when I'll have time to do so. So a response is coming. Just may be a while.

[The Tris]

That all depends on the team the situation is in, if an older team that has been competitive for 2-4 years needs a big-play threat to push them over the hump, then yes they should make some longer term sacrifices for short term gain. But it all has to be weighed out, is the potential of winning a championship so much so that you'd risk giving up a 3rd rd pick? a 2nd rd pick? or even a 1st?

Every situation is different, I agree.

But, if your goal is consistent from when you were a team in the dumps, to when you were a team competing, usually the answer is the same regardless of the situation.

(My idea of a sound long term goal would be "We want to be competing for a Super Bowl for the next 5 years". My idea of an unsound goal would be "We want to win the Super Bowl")

I think sometimes teams change their goals to rationalize moves they would not normally make. Some times you have to take high risk, high reward shots. But make no mistake, your goals change when you do so.

Question: Did you agree with the Patriots trade of Richard Seymour in 2009?

[Mahons21]

I would like to address this point, I just dont know when I'll have time to do so. So a response is coming. Just may be a while.

Take your time, something tells me I'll still be around

[Pwyl]

I think of character (and some of what I think KDawg is talking about when he speaks of morality) as the focusing agent of talent. It multiplies talent. It looks to me like we have two ends of the spectrum on our roster:

Haynesworth and Fletcher. Haynesworth's low character is like multiplying his talent by a number less than one, and Fletcher's high character is like multiplying his talent by a number greater than one.

So I think, as a coach, if I could foster an environment that helps players increase their character, (however you want to define the compontents of character, be it hard work, determination, whatever), I would get more out of my players than otherwise.

[Mahons21]

Every situation is different, I agree.

But, if your goal is consistent from when you were a team in the dumps, to when you were a team competing, usually the answer is the same regardless of the situation.

My point is I think goals change when the team changes. For example a team in the dumps goal may be: to acquire as many young players as possible, four years later this same team may now be on the verge of a championship and they might trade away draft picks for more ready players.

I think sometimes teams change their goals to rationalize moves they would not normally make. Some times you have to take high risk, high reward shots. But make no mistake, your goals change when you do so.

Not necessarily. Again if a team has been competitive for 2-4 years and is in the verge of a championship their goal is not to build a contender but rather to win it all, therefore a high-risk high-reward move is entirely inline with their goal.

Goals dictate offseason moves in my opinion not the other way around.

Let's take the Redskins offseason last year for example, in my opinion the goal was to see just how close the team was to being competitive, clearly we were much further off than the FO had expected. However it was that goal that led us to acquiring McNabb/Brown etc.. it wasn't that we acquired those players and then decided hey let's give it a shot.

Question: Did you agree with the Patriots trade of Richard Seymour in 2009?[/QUOte]

Yes and no, yes because they got above market value, no because the NE defense has been struggling now for the past couple of seasons as the young guys try to put it together. If these young guys don't get it together in the time Brady is still in his prime, BB may have wasted numerous years of one of the best QB's of all time.

[Oldfan]

I think of character (and some of what I think KDawg is talking about when he speaks of morality) as the focusing agent of talent. It multiplies talent. It looks to me like we have two ends of the spectrum on our roster:

Haynesworth and Fletcher. Haynesworth's low character is like multiplying his talent by a number less than one, and Fletcher's high character is like multiplying his talent by a number greater than one.

So I think, as a coach, if I could foster an environment that helps players increase their character, (however you want to define the compontents of character, be it hard work, determination, whatever), I would get more out of my players than otherwise.

I agree completely with your analysis of the problem. However, I think your idea of what football coach can do to fix the problem is unrealistic. When Mike Shanahan took over, Albert Haynesworth's personality had been formed by the combination of inherited genes and 28 years of environmental conditioning. If Mike had an effective way to change him for the better, he shouldn't be coaching football, he should appointed Czar of the USA's mental health and criminal rehabilitation programs.

The best a coach can do is to minimize the damage. He can't allow one player's lack of cooperation to infect the squad. Some players (Clinton Portis) only need to be told, "You aren't going to get away with your crap in my regime," and they will straighten up. But, Albert has a severe problem with authority. That's not going to work with him.

[Pwyl]

I agree completely with you analysis of the problem. However, I think your idea of what football coach can do to fix the problem is unrealistic. When Mike Shanahan took over, Albert's personality had been formed by the combination of inherited genes and 28 years of environmental conditioning. If Mike had an effective way to change him for the better, he shouldn't be coaching football, he should appointed Czar of the USA's mental health and criminal rehabilitation programs.

The best a coach can do is to minimize the damage. He can't allow one player's lack of cooperation to infect the squad. Some players (Clinton Portis) only need to be told, "You aren't going to get away with your crap in my regime," and they will straighten up. But, Albert has a severe problem with authority. That's not going to work with him.

Well, I wasn't speaking specifically to fixing Haynesworth, but as an overall environment that encourages and fosters good character development. (again character being open to defining, but most specifically being football related)

[Oldfan]

Well, I wasn't speaking specifically to fixing Haynesworth, but as an overall environment that encourages and fosters good character development. (again character being open to defining, but most specifically being football related)

You used Haynesworth as an example. I worked with your example. The point I made wasn't limited to Albert.

[MartinC]

Well, I wasn't speaking specifically to fixing Haynesworth, but as an overall environment that encourages and fosters good character development. (again character being open to defining, but most specifically being football related)

If we are talking about pro football, which was what my contribution to this thread assumed, I think character (however defined) is pretty much already well formed by the time a player enters the league. I agree with Oldfan that the best a coach can do is try to minimize any negative aspects of a players character and create an environment that maximizes on field production.

As per off field behavior in the character discussion it's well established that NFL teams have a sliding scale in terms of how they deal with and view off field bad behavior. If you are a talented and productive player all manner of minor and sometimes more serious off field incidents will be forgiven or at least tolerated though there are limits of course. I think of John Riggins who is rightly still a fan favorite and beloved former Redskin - he did things off the field mainly drink related which are hardly what you would want a young player to emulate but when he played he produced when it mattered and his wider behavior was tolerated.

[Pwyl]

You used Haynesworth as an example. I worked with your example. The point I made wasn't limited to Albert.

I used H as an example of the mathematical concept, not as a specific example of someone I would try to fix, which is why I responded with the clarification that I did. I don't disagree with your point, it's just that your "however" statement wasn't addressing what I was trying to say. If I was coach H would be cut, so he's not even in my mind as I'm thinking about how to win.

---------- Post added June-14th-2011 at 03:34 PM ----------

If we are talking about pro football, which was what my contribution to this thread assumed, I think character (however defined) is pretty much already well formed by the time a player enters the league. I agree with Oldfan that the best a coach can do is try to minimize any negative aspects of a players character and create an environment that maximizes on field production.

I disagree, and there are numerous instances where a player will, after having been in the league for some time, start to "get it" and work and study harder. ST in his last couple of years would be a good example. Don't forget that these guys coming into the league are still basically kids at 21-23 years old on average. Learning how to hone your craft isn't something that is well established in young men of that age on average.

As per off field behavior in the character discussion it's well established that NFL teams have a sliding scale in terms of how they deal with and view off field bad behavior. If you are a talented and productive player all manner of minor and sometimes more serious off field incidents will be forgiven or at least tolerated though there are limits of course. I think of John Riggins who is rightly still a fan favorite and beloved former Redskin - he did things off the field mainly drink related which are hardly what you would want a young player to emulate but when he played he produced when it mattered and his wider behavior was tolerated.

This I completely agree with. LT is another example, and more recently Ray Lewis.

[Rigginswasright]

Don't work for anyone with the name Dan Snyder.

[Skinsinparadise]

As an employer who has worked with a host of people, and with a degree in psychology, none of which makes me any authority on the subject but I am using it from the stand point of my own perspective, its extremely hard i believe to change someone's character, work ethic, and how they go about dealing with people. It's really hard to get a leopard to change their spots and I have tried with employees and friends and tried hard and for the most part failed miserably.

It's much easier to find people who are talented and have the will to succeed and THEN channel THOSE people to success. Shanny talks about it in his book, he wanted to bring to Denver players that had the reputation of being hard workers/leaders. From what i recall he didn't so much talk about setting the right atmosphere and the bad seeds will just fall in line. If anything seems like Shanny's approach is just to dump the bad seeds and get them out of the way. He hasn't done it with AH but there seems to be extenuating circumstances about him taking a big check and supposedly breaking his word about it so instead of releasing him, he's making an example of him. Whether its the right approach or not, that's a different debate. But yeah am not a big believer that the bad character players are turned around in the right atmosphere or if it happens i think its rare. Look at guys like Burress. he was a headache with the Steelers. He goes to a club that has a good clubhouse reputation like the Giants and he STILL goes back to his old ways. You see it with Brandon Marshall and the Dolphins. Brandon Lloyd was supposed to turn a new leaf with a new team and under the leadership of Joe Gibbs, it didn't happen.

Not to get overly psychological but the bad character types sometimes have a window where they are happy and it looks like they turned a new leaf, ala T-O when everything goes right when he starts off at a new club but ultimately when things turn ugly and or get stressful the old T-O comes out -- whether its under strong leaders like Andy Reid or more lenient guys like Wade Phillips.

My point -- i don't see the culture as the ultimate factor in the character of the players, IMO its their talent and inherent character and the coach tweaks it coupled with the right strategy to being out the best in his team.

[Oldfan]

SIP writes ~ My point -- i don't see the culture as the ultimate factor in the character of the players, IMO its their talent and inherent character and the coach tweaks it coupled with the right strategy to being out the best in his team.

We're on the same page here.

I think Pwyl makes a valid point, though, in saying, "I disagree, and there are numerous instances where a player will, after having been in the league for some time, start to "get it" and work and study harder." This does happen. Immaturity is a factor. However, I would not spend a draft pick on an immature player.

If you want a smart, hard-working team, draft smart, hard-working players. Don't be awed by, and make exceptions for, players with "great potential."

EDIT: A few minutes after posting this, I read John Keim's 6/14 comments:

Left tackle Trent Williams has yet to show up to any offseason workouts. Attending these sessions does not mean a player has been working hard. Rookie Maurice Hurt doesn't appear to have spent a ton of time working out yet he's been to four of these sessions. However, the knock on Williams in college was that he didn't work, or study, hard enough. It would be smart to make an appearance here just to stay sharp with his playbook if nothing else.

[KDawg]

Still need to address mahons point, but still don't have time (bah, work!)...

But let me throw this one out there...

It seems to be that everyone, including OF, are looking for guys who are more mature than others. Maybe I read that wrong, I don't want to misrepresent your views... But, surely that means that a coach somewhere along the lines taught them sound morals and ethics, correct?

Should there be a stronger focus on morals and ethics at the youth and interscholastic levels of athletics so that when these guys become pros they have a stronger code to live by?

[bedlamVR]

We're on the same page here.

I think Pwyl makes a valid point, though, in saying, "I disagree, and there are numerous instances where a player will, after having been in the league for some time, start to "get it" and work and study harder." This does happen. Immaturity is a factor. However, I would not spend a draft pick on an immature player.

If you want a smart, hard-working team, draft smart, hard-working players. Don't be awed by, and make exceptions for, players with "great potential."

EDIT: A few minutes after posting this, I read John Keim's 6/14 comments

Left tackle Trent Williams has yet to show up to any offseason workouts. Attending these sessions does not mean a player has been working hard. Rookie Maurice Hurt doesn't appear to have spent a ton of time working out yet he's been to four of these sessions. However, the knock on Williams in college was that he didn't work, or study, hard enough. It would be smart to make an appearance here just to stay sharp with his playbook if nothing else:

I kind of get the point but I think there are too many people wanting to hang players for supposed infractions of what we would do in an ideal world . Lets wait to see if Trent really is doing anything wrong before we tar and feather him for not turning up to these casual "social" gatherings .

I also think the OL is a special case especially in shorts and Ts with limited contact- I am not sure there is any sense in Williams turing up to these events if the rest of the Oline is not there and risk potential injury for no real gain .

As long as he is working out (which I have no reason to assume he is not (when he turns up to camp as BMWs eating buddy from a few years ago then there will be complaints)) and not getting arrested then I have no issues .

[Oldfan]

Still need to address mahons point, but still don't have time (bah, work!)...

But let me throw this one out there...

It seems to be that everyone, including OF, are looking for guys who are more mature than others. Maybe I read that wrong, I don't want to misrepresent your views... But, surely that means that a coach somewhere along the lines taught them sound morals and ethics, correct?

Should there be a stronger focus on morals and ethics at the youth and interscholastic levels of athletics so that when these guys become pros they have a stronger code to live by?

As a grandparent, I would hope you would try to teach the kids that, if they give their very best effort, they should walk off the field with their heads held high regardless of the score. And, teach them good sportsmanship. If you get those messages across, you'll be a great coach, win or lose.

---------- Post added June-15th-2011 at 08:22 AM ----------

I kind of get the point but I think there are too many people wanting to hang players for supposed infractions of what we would do in an ideal world . Lets wait to see if Trent really is doing anything wrong before we tar and feather him for not turning up to these casual "social" gatherings .

I think there are too many people wanting to hang others for jumping to conclusions when no conclusions were jumped to.

[KDawg]

As a grandparent, I would hope you would try to teach the kids that, if they give their very best effort, they should walk off the field with their heads held high regardless of the score. And, teach them good sportsmanship. If you get those messages across, you'll be a great coach, win or lose.

It's my stance that instilling those values in a young athlete (and more specifically) a team of young athletes, would create a winning team by virtue of the "little things" (which is what I call the things that no one accounts for on the field of play, such as off the field characteristics like giving it their all in everything they do, being responsible, being self-disciplined, and sportsmanship among many, many others). Now, if there is a vastly superior team talent wise going against them, this rule will be broken. However, a team of athletes that work together (thus representing your true definition of what a team is) should beat a slightly superior talented "team" who does not work well together every single time.

I agree with you, for the record. Winning and losing, at the youth and interscholastic levels should NOT be priority. Every coach and player wants to win every game they are in, but it should be a sub goal, after teaching lifes lessons and basic skills to the youth that you can attain THROUGH those practices and not in spite of or neglecting them.

[Oldfan]

It's my stance that instilling those values in a young athlete (and more specifically) a team of young athletes, would create a winning team by virtue of the "little things" (which is what I call the things that no one accounts for on the field of play, such as off the field characteristics like giving it their all in everything they do, being responsible, being self-disciplined, and sportsmanship among many, many others). Now, if there is a vastly superior team talent wise going against them, this rule will be broken. However, a team of athletes that work together (thus representing your true definition of what a team is) should beat a slightly superior talented "team" who does not work well together every single team.

I agree with you, for the record. Winning and losing, at the youth and interscholastic levels should NOT be priority. Every coach and player wants to win every game they are in, but it should be a sub goal, after teaching lifes lessons and basic skills to the youth that you can attain THROUGH those practices and not in spite of neglecting them.

That all makes sense.

You mention self-discipline. Strong self-discipline is the key to personal growth. So, whatever you, as a football coach, can add to strengthen the self-discipline in a young personality, he can use long after his playing days.

[Skinsinparadise]

We're on the same page here.

I think Pwyl makes a valid point, though, in saying, "I disagree, and there are numerous instances where a player will, after having been in the league for some time, start to "get it" and work and study harder." This does happen. Immaturity is a factor. However, I would not spend a draft pick on an immature player.

If you want a smart, hard-working team, draft smart, hard-working players. Don't be awed by, and make exceptions for, players with "great potential."

EDIT: A few minutes after posting this, I read John Keim's 6/14 comments:

I see that point and I agree no doubt players mature and things kick for some at certain times. And heck yes even a guy with problems can turn things around. But decisions about your roster as you know is about playing the odds, risk/reward. People's personalities tend to be fairly consistent. I don't think a coach has the power to transform personalities that much. Even at 21-24 years old when most players come out their personalities are pretty cemented -- I had to study this some when I worked in a Senate Office when we dealt with juvenile justice issues, its hard to transform people's personalities post 16 years old never mind after college. Yes it happens but again playing the odds, I don't have much faith in a team's culture being the ultimate factor in the character of players. That's why yes the choosing of players IMO is key.

And yeah sometimes its a gray area decision, you know for example that TO will be a pain in the clubhouse but the talent maybe outweighs it and perhaps you think you can minimize it to a degree especially if you bring him to a winning organization. IMO the biggest fallacy on this issue is when you bring problem players to "winning" organizations some say the coach's culture turned these players around. IMO that's far from the truth in most cases. Most people with issues explode under stress and during bad times as opposed to when everything is going right. So perhaps you can argue if you secure these players in an environment when things are more likely to go right, they are more likely to behave, but IMO that has little to do with the methods these coaches use to handle them. That IMO had much more to do with them joining a talented team and everyone is happy to be on a winning juggernaut.

Shanny himself IMO alludes to this I think when he talks about John Beck. He more or less said he wants a quarterback who lives and dies with football, who is the first to come in for practice and the last to leave at night -- he alluded to that's what he likes about John Beck and many took it as him implying that McNabb ISN'T that guy. Shanny didn't say that he can make a QB have those work traits but inferred that the QB has those work traits without any prodding.

---------- Post added June-15th-2011 at 09:45 AM ----------

I kind of get the point but I think there are too many people wanting to hang players for supposed infractions of what we would do in an ideal world . Lets wait to see if Trent really is doing anything wrong before we tar and feather him for not turning up to these casual "social" gatherings .

I also think the OL is a special case especially in shorts and Ts with limited contact- I am not sure there is any sense in Williams turing up to these events if the rest of the Oline is not there and risk potential injury for no real gain .

As long as he is working out (which I have no reason to assume he is not (when he turns up to camp as BMWs eating buddy from a few years ago then there will be complaints)) and not getting arrested then I have no issues .

On Trent, Chris Russell from 980 reported around the draft that the Skins were disappointed with Trent's work habits in season 1. It got my attention because I didn't hear anything about that during the season and yeah I was aware that it was the knock against him in college. there was some speculation by Chris and Sheehan from 980 that the Skins might feel a little burned on the character front from previous personnel moves and thus went after "clean" hard working rep type players in this latest draft, team captains and co-captains, etc. The write up on Kerrigan in particular depicts him as a lunch pail type of hard worker, leader. Niles Paul might be the exception but supposedly his issues were an aberration and he's a good guy. Will see.

[allannis]

Start with building an OL

[Pwyl]

Even at 21-24 years old when most players come out their personalities are pretty cemented -- I had to study this some when I worked in a Senate Office when we dealt with juvenile justice issues, its hard to transform people's personalities post 16 years old never mind after college. Yes it happens but again playing the odds, I don't have much faith in a team's culture being the ultimate factor in the character of players. That's why yes the choosing of players IMO is key.

.

My observations on fresh college grads has been that they don't know their keister from their elbow and have to be taught both how to work and technical details of their job. I think possibly the difference we're seeing is that you say your experience is with juvenile justice, whereas mine is with recent grads (and also interns during the summer pre-graduation) coming into a large corporate IT organization, who have been through an interview and hire process that is somewhat analagous to the draft, in that the organization intentionally chooses those individuals because they have potential to add to the team.

Also, good habits can be developed at any age. And especially for guys in their early 20's, they're easier to develop than for old guys like me.

When I speak of developing better character, I'm speaking of marginal increases, not a complete turnaround of the knuckleheads.

[The Tris]

I think this thread has gotten a bit sidetracked with morality talk, which in my mind is a component of talent evaluation, which is turn is only one piece of a team's plan to reach its goals.

I'd rather go big picture to small picture (goals to specific traits of one portion of one element of achieving said goals) than the other way around.

What are the reasonable short and long term goals ("specific and attainable") winning teams make?