Qualities of a great Coach

I am not a coach; I am a psychologist.

I have played lots of sports, but none at the college level.

I work in federal law enforcement with men and women at the GS-15 and SES level, some of whom are Presidential appointees. My job is to advise them on how to keep the men and women, who put their life on the line everyday, performing at their best. In 13 years I have worked with senior leadership through 26 line-of-duty deaths, and the myriad of other travails that are a part of this line of work. So I have a pretty good idea of what makes a good leader in adversity, both through study and observation.

So with all the talk about who the new coaches might be, and especially all the posts I read here on CC, I wonder what you all think are the qualities of a great coach. I have read (with a bit of surprise) posters whom I have come to judge as pretty level-headed, but who seem to hold fast that some coaches shouldn’t be (i.e. – Hawkwing’s doggedness that Doman was a poor OC and Mars’ persistence that Detmer would bring far more risk than any reward he might fetch).

So a couple of questions:

1 - What makes a great coach? Knowledge, Passion, Communication skills, Credibility, Concern. I know there are more, and I am genuinely curious to know what you folks would add to the list.

2 – Which of the aforementioned qualities (including those that you add to the list), do the current candidates/selectees have, and have not?

3 – And I humbly ask what inside information or life experience do you have, that leads you to your conclusion? For example, Mars, what quality is it that you think makes Detmer a liability, and what brings you to that conclusion?

I will start with a couple of necessities for good coaches:



1. Knowledge of the skills required

2. Ability to teach those skills in such a way as to replicate what is taught successfully on the field.



From my own personal example, my son played baseball for a very poor coach who spent all practice simply hitting balls to players and telling them where to throw the ball. That was pretty much every practice. He never spent any time working with them on how to throw the ball, fielding techiniques, etc. Plus he was a hothead that screamed at the kids when they lost, which they did a lot because it was a young team.



I decided to coach next year. I never played baseball, so I had to buy a coaching book from someone who did. It had the skills and drills in it. Instead of just sending the kids out into the field, we actually spent time learning skills such as throwing and catching, fielding grounders. I taught the catcher to receive throws from the outfield by bouncing the ball to him and then having him block up home plate. He ended up putting more than a couple of base runners on their back sides. I had the kids run out like they were catching an over the shoulder pass so they could learn to catch fly balls over the shoulder. The second baseman actually did that and made a great play. The point is, the first coach just said do this better. I actually tried to teach the kids how to do it better and communicate it in a way they understood. I also rotated them all through the infield, much to the dismay of some parents, but it developed depth when some of the better players couldn't make it or were sick.



We lost more games than my son's previous team since we all started out learning togehter, but guess which team won more games in the tournament at the end of the year, even though it had far less actual talent.

I think I'm flattered to be mentioned as pretty level headed.



I think an average coach is one who can impart the skills of a position or team needed for success.

I think a good coach is someone who can do the above as well as define a clear vision or identity for a position group or team and have the players buy into it.

I think a great coach is someone who can do the above as well as inspire his players to perform at a level higher than a reasonable assessment would show them being at.



That's why I would say Doman was at best an average coach.

i think a good coach is able to idenitfy weakness. has the knowledge to fix it. has the communication skills to communicate it and help somneone implement those changes.



a good coach does this over and over again. each time the player actually makes a weakness strength he grows in confidence.

Experience brings wisdom and knowlege. I had a small can light in a hall ceiling in my house in Hawaiu that did nit work. Ir was totally unneeded, but it drove me nuts that it would not turn on. I probably had 5 electricians or handymen look at it over the years. None could figure it oyt as a decade went by. Now I am renovating the house to sell it. A 30+ year electrician checked it out and found nothing. But then he was looking horizontally across and adjacent wall and said, "I see a tiny bump on that wall. Maybe someone removed a light and patched the drywall." He poked a tinyhole and sure enough, there was an aabandoned fixture and the person who abandoned it did nit realize that power used to flow from it to the ceiling light in question. BAM. Without having ti tear out ceiling and wall - my ceiling light was fixed. Experience. The guy has seen it all.



Of course, Lane Kiffin's dad apparently had too much experience and could not adapt USC to defend modern offenses.



Teaching skills. Strategy. Recruiting.



Those are my additions.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Communication is one of the most important skills. A coach must be able to communicate in such a way that the players perform in a way that execute in a manner that allows the team/unit/position to be the best it can be.

hawkwing wrote:
I think I'm flattered to be mentioned as pretty level headed.



I think an average coach is one who can impart the skills of a position or team needed for success.

I think a good coach is someone who can do the above as well as define a clear vision or identity for a position group or team and have the players buy into it.

I think a great coach is someone who can do the above as well as inspire his players to perform at a level higher than a reasonable assessment would show them being at.



That's why I would say Doman was at best an average coach.

I like this list and agree with your assessments. This is why I think Bronco is a fantastic DC and an average HC. His inability to get the offensive coaches to perform better than average is a problem.



If things change under Anae going forward, then my take on Bronco as a HC will change.

Integrity - word is gold

Positive - abounding in optimism (it is contagious)

Encouraging - able to motivate to higher level

Aggressive - need to have a warrior approach

Decisive - can't be wishy, washy - damn the torpedos and full steam ahead

Strong work ethic - must display it and players will follow

Respect - it is earned (see L. Edwards)

northerncougar wrote:

I think I'm flattered to be mentioned as pretty level headed.



I think an average coach is one who can impart the skills of a position or team needed for success.

I think a good coach is someone who can do the above as well as define a clear vision or identity for a position group or team and have the players buy into it.

I think a great coach is someone who can do the above as well as inspire his players to perform at a level higher than a reasonable assessment would show them being at.



That's why I would say Doman was at best an average coach.

I like this list and agree with your assessments. This is why I think Bronco is a fantastic DC and an average HC. His inability to get the offensive coaches to perform better than average is a problem.



If things change under Anae going forward, then my take on Bronco as a HC will change.

Bronco has gotten offensive coaches to perform above average. Well above. Just not since 2009 for myriad reasons. But some fans are blind to that and will not be happy unless the BYU offense makes an Alabama defense look like NMSU.



Hint: BYU has never had an offense that good. Simply never. BYU has on rare occasions had an offense good enough to be competitive vs great defenses. Beck and Hall put up sone pretty good numbers under Bronco even though neither of them were a Young, McMahon, or Detmer in talent. That took some coaching.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

There are a lot of things I'd like to add to this thread, but find myself short on time. The one glaring thing that I haven't seen yet on here is that a coach is constantly learning and adapting. The minute you think you know it all is the time you know you should hang 'em up for good.

hawkwing wrote:
I think I'm flattered to be mentioned as pretty level headed.



I think an average coach is one who can impart the skills of a position or team needed for success.

I think a good coach is someone who can do the above as well as define a clear vision or identity for a position group or team and have the players buy into it.

I think a great coach is someone who can do the above as well as inspire his players to perform at a level higher than a reasonable assessment would show them being at.



That's why I would say Doman was at best an average coach.

According to the James Lark interview today Doman wouldn't even qualify as average because he couldn't coach skills or position mastery. This is the 2nd or 3rd time Lark has mentioned it.

Cougarbib wrote:
Beck and Hall put up sone pretty good numbers under Bronco even though neither of them were a Young, McMahon, or Detmer in talent. That took some coaching.

There is some endogeneity here--maybe with some good coaching, Beck and Hall would have developed into a Young, McMahon, or Detmer.



Aren't counterfactuals are great!

hawkwing wrote:
According to the James Lark interview today Doman wouldn't even qualify as average because he couldn't coach skills or position mastery. This is the 2nd or 3rd time Lark has mentioned it.

This doesn't surprise me. Doman never struck me as a QB fundamentals coach, especially compared to the offensive staff BYU had under Coach Edwards. I know that college coaches don't like to mess with players' throwing motions, but by overlooking anomalies in the throwing motion, they do a disservice to the player. And even putting aside throwing motion, there are other fundamental skills like footwork and proper aiming that the QB coach is responsible for making sure his players know.



The best coach I ever had was Carl McGown, and he always drilled fundamentals. In fact, I had to relearn several basic skills that had been improperly taught to me as a young volleyball player because Coach McGown had found better ways of approaching the skill. There's a reason why Carl McGown was an assistant coach/consultant for the US national volleyball team and his coaching tree includes coaches who have won Olympic medals and NCAA championships.

hawkwing wrote:

I think I'm flattered to be mentioned as pretty level headed.



I think an average coach is one who can impart the skills of a position or team needed for success.

I think a good coach is someone who can do the above as well as define a clear vision or identity for a position group or team and have the players buy into it.

I think a great coach is someone who can do the above as well as inspire his players to perform at a level higher than a reasonable assessment would show them being at.



That's why I would say Doman was at best an average coach.

According to the James Lark interview today Doman wouldn't even qualify as average because he couldn't coach skills or position mastery. This is the 2nd or 3rd time Lark has mentioned it.

I'm curious Hawk, Just to, admittedly, and pharasitically, ( and since you seem to be receiving such high praise and high self-regard ;-)) stir the pot a little......

Do you buy Larks opinion of Doman? Or are you just quoting him for convenience to support your views about Doman? And if you agree with Lark, which you seem to, how do you reconcile Broncos previous quote of Doman being the best QB coach in the country?

Can someone provide an exact quote with appropriate and complete text of what Lark said. Hipefully nobody is putting words in his mouth.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Cougs_Rule wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
I think I'm flattered to be mentioned as pretty level headed.



I think an average coach is one who can impart the skills of a position or team needed for success.

I think a good coach is someone who can do the above as well as define a clear vision or identity for a position group or team and have the players buy into it.

I think a great coach is someone who can do the above as well as inspire his players to perform at a level higher than a reasonable assessment would show them being at.



That's why I would say Doman was at best an average coach.

According to the James Lark interview today Doman wouldn't even qualify as average because he couldn't coach skills or position mastery. This is the 2nd or 3rd time Lark has mentioned it.

I'm curious Hawk, Just to, admittedly, and pharasitically, ( and since you seem to be receiving such high praise and high self-regard ;-)) stir the pot a little......

Do you buy Larks opinion of Doman? Or are you just quoting him for convenience to support your views about Doman? And if you agree with Lark, which you seem to, how do you reconcile Broncos previous quote of Doman being the best QB coach in the country?

Bronco saying Doman is the best QB coach in the country is just sad. Sad that Bronco is such a poor judge of talents and abilities. It's in the same category as Bronco saying he didn't take Ziggy seriously for a full 2 years, when nfl scouts say just his physique is enough to get them all sorts of giddy. Bronco should have seen this huge, strong, blazing fast beast of a man and taken him seriously from day 1 instead of squandering his talent until its too late. People give Bronco credit for discovering Zigggy but it seems that Ziggy has succeeded despite a pathological lack of sincere coaching interest.



I don't know what Bronco was basing his opinion of Doman on when he said that a couple years ago, but based on what we know of Bronco what he probably meant was Doman is the most driven and gritty and hard-nosed QB coach in the country and that is all that matters in Bronco's book. Sometimes I think Bronco values blind and unrelenting determination over creative thinking and adaption, almost as if he views adaptation as a sign of weakness that you can't simply power thru your obstacles.

Cougs_Rule wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
I think I'm flattered to be mentioned as pretty level headed.



I think an average coach is one who can impart the skills of a position or team needed for success.

I think a good coach is someone who can do the above as well as define a clear vision or identity for a position group or team and have the players buy into it.

I think a great coach is someone who can do the above as well as inspire his players to perform at a level higher than a reasonable assessment would show them being at.



That's why I would say Doman was at best an average coach.

According to the James Lark interview today Doman wouldn't even qualify as average because he couldn't coach skills or position mastery. This is the 2nd or 3rd time Lark has mentioned it.

I'm curious Hawk, Just to, admittedly, and pharasitically, ( and since you seem to be receiving such high praise and high self-regard ;-)) stir the pot a little......

Do you buy Larks opinion of Doman? Or are you just quoting him for convenience to support your views about Doman? And if you agree with Lark, which you seem to, how do you reconcile Broncos previous quote of Doman being the best QB coach in the country?

Lark was at BYU, in uniform, for five seasons. He was a very highly sought after recruit. He was a 4-start recruit and the #16 QB in 2006 (per Scout.com). But when he got to BYU he only appeared in 14 games and threw just 77 passes (57 of which came in his final two appearances and only two starts).



He played very well in one game and somewhat poorly in the other. It's understandable for him to be miffed with BYU and how he was handled. In 2005, he couldn't wait to play for BYU and be coached by Doman.

Coach Doman knows what he’s doing and it seemed like he’d been coaching quarterbacks at BYU for the past seven or so years. He’s so enthusiastic and I relate to him very well. Coach Doman not only convinced me that BYU was the place, but he put them way over the top. He’ll be the perfect coach to learn from and to prepare me to hopefully run BYU’s system.”

http://byu.scout.com/2/392736.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



But somewhere along the way he got disillusioned. I'm guessing it was about the time he thought/was told he would start against Utah and then didn't.



Of ALL the QBs who have been poorly handled the last three years, Lark might have been the worst. For he was the only one who really never got a chance.



Now that he's done with BYU I think he has a bit of a sour taste in his mouth. And probably rightfully so. He got to sit on the bench for three years while routinely watching some of the worst QB play at BYU in half a century. And he was allowed to do was signal in plays and hold the clipboard for the QBs who were playing at abysmal levels.



The coaches never turned to him to see if he could do any better. He even got passed over by a true freshman - for the second time in his BYU career - this season.



If he's looking for qualities of a great coach, from his personal experience, Doman probably doesn't have them.

Hawk? Playing with your crickets? ;-)

Cougy_Monster wrote:

hawkwing wrote:

I think I'm flattered to be mentioned as pretty level headed.



I think an average coach is one who can impart the skills of a position or team needed for success.

I think a good coach is someone who can do the above as well as define a clear vision or identity for a position group or team and have the players buy into it.

I think a great coach is someone who can do the above as well as inspire his players to perform at a level higher than a reasonable assessment would show them being at.



That's why I would say Doman was at best an average coach.

According to the James Lark interview today Doman wouldn't even qualify as average because he couldn't coach skills or position mastery. This is the 2nd or 3rd time Lark has mentioned it.

I'm curious Hawk, Just to, admittedly, and pharasitically, ( and since you seem to be receiving such high praise and high self-regard ;-)) stir the pot a little......

Do you buy Larks opinion of Doman? Or are you just quoting him for convenience to support your views about Doman? And if you agree with Lark, which you seem to, how do you reconcile Broncos previous quote of Doman being the best QB coach in the country?

Bronco saying Doman is the best QB coach in the country is just sad. Sad that Bronco is such a poor judge of talents and abilities. It's in the same category as Bronco saying he didn't take Ziggy seriously for a full 2 years, when nfl scouts say just his physique is enough to get them all sorts of giddy. Bronco should have seen this huge, strong, blazing fast beast of a man and taken him seriously from day 1 instead of squandering his talent until its too late. People give Bronco credit for discovering Zigggy but it seems that Ziggy has succeeded despite a pathological lack of sincere coaching interest.



I don't know what Bronco was basing his opinion of Doman on when he said that a couple years ago, but based on what we know of Bronco what he probably meant was Doman is the most driven and gritty and hard-nosed QB coach in the country and that is all that matters in Bronco's book. Sometimes I think Bronco values blind and unrelenting determination over creative thinking and adaption, almost as if he views adaptation as a sign of weakness that you can't simply power thru your obstacles.

Thank goodness Lark's "handlers" told him to fart away his collegiate career getting "handled" by a group of coaches whose legacy will be, at least in part, "the worst handling of QBs in modern BYU history."

Heaps was so stupid and such an impulsive quitter to transfer; he brought all of his problems on himself. Why couldn't he have just been satisfied to redshirt and then continue getting benched--like Lark--behind Broncos favored running-man qbs and Domans reputation as the best qb coach in history. Quitter. Loser. Traitor. Idiot. :roll:

Regardless of what some of you feckless fans have aspersed against Heaps for transferring, he, nor his handlers, don't quite look so stupid now. The chances of being successful after a transfer aren't high, what, maybe 10 or 20%? Sad by comparison to the odds of sticking around BYU under the Bronco/Doman offensive circumstances. Maybe part of that included seeing a super talented, mobile qb in THill AND yes, Heaps was responsible for a lot of his poor relationships with teammates, but regardless, Heaps knew his chances to fulfill his dreams weren't going to be met getting Lark-Ed away at BYU.

I think in some ways Doman is a fantastic QB coach. There may not be another coach in the country that is able to become friends with the starting QB like he can.



When the offense is doing well, led by a talented offensive coordinator, that can understandably look like great coaching. Especially if your QBs you've been coaching already have solid fundamentals.