Ever Notice Coaches are......

[g8terh8ter_eric]

There's not but a handful of coaches that have made one or the other transition and been really successful.....wonder why that is???

 

[ruslt]

Well if you watch both you can see their is as big difference in the two. Most of the coaches that go pro are from schools with high scoring offences. They aren't use to playing great defenses. The coaches that do well in the pros are ussually defense oriented like Saban.

 

[GAVol]

I don't think it's as much about the Xs and Os as it is management style. There's just a huge difference between motivating a bunch of 18-22 year old college kids vs. a bunch of 22-35 year olds making six figures plus.

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

Yeah. I really think some of the NFL head coaches are just there for PR and they really don't do anything that affects play on the field.

 

[dan4vols]

Originally posted by GAVol@Dec 12, 2005 8:36 AM
I don't think it's as much about the Xs and Os as it is management style.  There's just a huge difference between motivating a bunch of 18-22 year old college kids vs. a bunch of 22-35 year olds making six figures plus.

[snapback]213332[/snapback]​

you are correct , try telling a 25 year old who 1 mill a year or more to run stadium stairs. The two jobs require different talents brought to the table by different men.
And after thinking about it for a moment. Does anyone agree with me that one of the reasons Pete Carroll has had such huge success is he treats his players pro style? Like grown men? Not a micromanaging disciplinarian, but like a boss that says you know your responsibilities, our expectations. Your a grown man , there it is. Do Young men of this day and time respond better to that style of coaching now?

 

[GAVol]

I think there may be something to be said for that, but face it, Carroll's style will look good as long as he's winning. Eventually, things will stop going his way all the time and then we'll see just how good a coach he is.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Even though it maybe different there is still an objective to the game and that is to win. So there should be no excuse in motivation on either side of the tape.

 

[Liper]

Originally posted by GAVol@Dec 12, 2005 11:16 AM
I think there may be something to be said for that, but face it, Carroll's style will look good as long as he's winning.  Eventually, things will stop going his way all the time and then we'll see just how good a coach he is.

[snapback]213388[/snapback]​

Great point. It's not very often that after Carson Palmer you get a Matt Leinart to go with a Reggie Bush. He may never have two players that good again -- ever.

I'm not even sure what Carroll's "style" is, but there will come a time when he doesn't have NFL level players at every skill position; some of those close games will be lost; a PAC-10 team will be really good; he'll lose a couple; and the kids' sense of invinsibility will go away.

We've seen this with Tennessee, Florida, Miami, Nebraska, FSU, Notre Dame, etc. Once that hot streak ends -- and especially the players that were there for the streak -- teams come back to earth and have to scrap and claw like the rest of 'em. Then we'll see how good -- err, great; he's already good -- he is. Consistency and being able to repeat the process of winning on purpose is the key.

 

[cotton]

Originally posted by g8terh8ter_eric@Dec 12, 2005 3:10 AM
There's not but a handful of coaches that have made one or the other transition and been really successful.....wonder why that is???

[snapback]213291[/snapback]​

The skill sets are different, although they overlap. The biggest difference is probably in recruiting, as you can cover a lot of sins by walking into talented kids' living rooms and convincing them that coming to play for you would be the best thing on earth. In the pros, the coach may have input on player selection, but they have nowhere near the control of the recruiting process.

Where college coaches--in football and basketball--focus on recruitment and player developement, pro coaches focus on trying to meld a bunch of already talented adult millionaires into a cohesive unit. Sure, there are a lot of similarities in the jobs, but just because you are good at one doesn't necessarily mean you'll be good at the other.

I would disagree that NFL coaches don't have a great deal to do with the success of their teams, though. I think Bill Parcells and Bill Bellicheck (sp?) would disagree, too.

 

[Jmxvol]

Originally posted by GAVol@Dec 12, 2005 11:16 AM
I think there may be something to be said for that, but face it, Carroll's style will look good as long as he's winning.  Eventually, things will stop going his way all the time and then we'll see just how good a coach he is.

[snapback]213388[/snapback]​

Maybe things go his way because he is a good coach?
:dunno:

 

[OWB]

Originally posted by Jmxvol@Dec 15, 2005 6:56 PM
Maybe things go his way because he is a good coach?
:dunno:

[snapback]215688[/snapback]​

Anyone else heard the rumor that the Texans are interested in Carroll?

 

[volinbham]

It's even more pronounced in basketball. The NBA keeps recycling the same coaches or they bring in guys that you never heard of. (where the hell did the Van Gundy's come from?) The college guys don't seem to make it and I can't think of many pro guys that lasted in the college ranks.

PJ Carlisemo (sp?), Rick Pitino and Tim Floyd just didn't cut it in the pros. Westpaul (sp?) had a good year or two with Loyola Maramount but who else?

The games are totally different.

 

[volinbham]

Originally posted by GAVol@Dec 12, 2005 11:16 AM
I think there may be something to be said for that, but face it, Carroll's style will look good as long as he's winning.  Eventually, things will stop going his way all the time and then we'll see just how good a coach he is.

[snapback]213388[/snapback]​

Yep, Stoops, Coker and even Fulmer's styles look good for a while!