Offseason fun thread: What’s the difference between a great Head Coach and a decent/bad one

#26
#26
Great coaches are CEOs who assess their program needs for sustained success. Then hire a staff that share his vision and are equipped to carry those goals at the highest level. He then along with his staff periodically assess everyone's performance to identify areas of improvement, modification if called for and always has a plan B or C in place for any adjustments such staff departures. There's the personality aspect. That is knowing if the program needs him to be a General Patton, an easy-going aw-shucks Reagan, a master strategist Geronimo, an adaptable Quanah Parker, or a mix of them all.
 
#28
#28
Recognizing talent regardless of ranking and has the ability to develop that talent.Able to make changes during the game.
 
#30
#30
I don't think the Fulmer/Cutcliffe comparison fits the argument. I personally feel that the majority of Fulmer's success revolved around when Cutcliffe was the OC. I also think Cutcliffe was a better coach.
Put the two together and you had the perfect storm. Cutcliffe couldn’t recruit at a high enough level so he needed Phil. Phil needed Cutcliffe for the X’s and O’s and player discipline. Together they were great, apart they were both above average to good.
 
#31
#31
1. Player Development
2. Game day management and decision making.

Recruiting helps but it isnt more important than those two things.
Game day management is really huge in my opinion.

I watched the Ga/South Carolina game last season, and Muschamp just smoked Kirby in the final minute and also going into overtime. Did some things where he made Kirby waste some timeouts. It wasn't like GA had one chance to salt that game away, they had many, and couldn't pull it off.

There is also those that have a knack of letting the ref know he's "on notice" for making a bad call. Living rent free in the refs head. Saban is good at this. And I'm not insinuating money is changing hands here, (am I?).

Other things roll down to the assistants. Illegal shifts, too many men on the field and delay of game all can be killers. Honestly though, that isn't game day management - that is practice habits - get that stuff right in the offseason or in game prep.

One other point - I lost respect for Jones with a 4th and inches on the goal line against OU. This won't apply to every situation, obviously, but I think when you choose to kick - you are sending a subliminal message to your line and the other team that you don't have confidence that they can get an inch. So what if you get stuffed? Other team is still backed up. This even applies for going for it on 4th down (on the correct side of the 50 of course). Take that OU game.. It went into overtime. With a touchdown instead of a field goal, OT wouldn't have happened. And we lost.. Just saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhoenixAZVol
#32
#32
Put the two together and you had the perfect storm. Cutcliffe couldn’t recruit at a high enough level so he needed Phil. Phil needed Cutcliffe for the X’s and O’s and player discipline. Together they were great, apart they were both above average to good.
I guess I should've said that Cut was a much better OC than Phil was. I do agree with what you said in general though.
 
#33
#33
Coaching is not unlike business. HC's are upper managers in a different market. You surround yourself with good assistants and hire good employees (players). Ultimately, the buy in comes from the corporate tier down. Just like in industry, if their is not total support and commitment from the top, you will never exceed middle ground. When all components come together, you have teams that compete at a higher level.
 
#34
#34
Closing out close games in the 4th quarter. The best coaches seem to be able to manage the game and the clock in the closing 5 min or so. They always seem to find away to hold onto leads and keep their team in the best position to win. Example - they don’t snatch defeats in the jaws of victory (it however the saying goes). Example: 2001 Georgia, 2015 and 2017 Florida, 2019 BYU.
 
#35
#35
I don't think the Fulmer/Cutcliffe comparison fits the argument. I personally feel that the majority of Fulmer's success revolved around when Cutcliffe was the OC. I also think Cutcliffe was a better coach.

I definitely think Cutcliffe's discipline and quarterback tutoring helped Fulmer a lot, but Fulmer was a very good CEO and deserves credit for running a very good ship for 10 years. I think sometimes his loyalty was a benefit but also a negative when he didn't demand accountability from certain coaches. All and all though, Coach gave Tennessee a great run.
 
#37
#37
I was thinking about this and wanted VNs take.

What differentiates a Phil Fulmer from a Cutcliffe?
Nick Saban from a Will Muschamp?
Dabo from Dana Holgerson?

Guys at the top of their craft and guys falling anywhere from the bottom to the mid tier.

Is it a product of their location? Luck? Curious to hear VN’s take.

You should change it to "Head Coach" not just coach. Plenty of great Coordinators or position coaches that sucked as HBC.

Chad Morris is a very good OC. Awful Head Coach.
Dabo Sweeney was a good position coach. And now a great Head Coach.
Saban maybe the GOAT.
Yet he and Dabo are complete opposite ends of the spectrum.

I would say ALL good HCs understand all the talent available from the players AND coaches. IOW they know how to surround themselves with talented players and football minds. They then are able to get them all bought in to the dream. Also good HCs know when and what buttons to push.
They are masters of psychology to go along with a great knowledge base of life.
 
#38
#38
It varies b/c some great HCs know x&o’s and some don’t know squat. Biggest factor is:

1. Identify/Hire good assistants and then,
2. Step aside and let them do their jobs.


Regardless of actual FB knowledge, HCs at big programs now have to be a true CEO. Create culture, recruit kids & parents, coordinate with academics, network with boosters and be media competent, at minimum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols4evah
#39
#39
Successful head coaches aren't necessarily great at coaching. Head coaching success is more management, assembling a great staff, identifying talented players and getting them on the team, dealing with off field issues, knowing when to cut dead weight staff/players, etc.
Agree.
 
#40
#40
We've had great coaches like Neyland, clueless coaches like Dooley, bad coaches like Butch and what could be call coaches with potential that just weren't ready for prime time like Kiffin.

I'm hoping that Jeremy is more like Neyland. but only time will tell, but we are due for better.
 
#41
#41
I definitely think Cutcliffe's discipline and quarterback tutoring helped Fulmer a lot, but Fulmer was a very good CEO and deserves credit for running a very good ship for 10 years. I think sometimes his loyalty was a benefit but also a negative when he didn't demand accountability from certain coaches. All and all though, Coach gave Tennessee a great run.

I think that Cutcliffe deserved much more credit than he got when he was here as he was most definitely the secret sauce that made everything run.

I agree that discipline was lacking when he left and you could see the breakdown as neither Fulmer or chief could or would.

Fulmer was without a doubt a great recruiter, but Cutcliffe made the team go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alaVOL
#43
#43
Pride
Guts
Determination
Knowledge of the game
The ability to relate to young athletes
The ability to sell yourself and your program
Brains enough to hire quality people
Success in recruiting top notch talent
 
#44
#44
In the short run - variance

Long term - the great ones identify and exploit competitive advantages over competitors. Simple.
 
#46
#46
Great coaches are CEOs who assess their program needs for sustained success. Then hire a staff that share his vision and are equipped to carry those goals at the highest level. He then along with his staff periodically assess everyone's performance to identify areas of improvement, modification if called for and always has a plan B or C in place for any adjustments such staff departures. There's the personality aspect. That is knowing if the program needs him to be a General Patton, an easy-going aw-shucks Reagan, a master strategist Geronimo, an adaptable Quanah Parker, or a mix of them all.
Bear Bryant wasn't a CEO.

Wrong
 

VN Store



Back
Top