What makes a good vs. great coach?

[Horton]

On 2/5/2023 at 2:21 PM, bullets13 said:

So with my previous post taken in my mind, I’ll say a good coach treats the kids well and consistently accomplishes what should be accomplished based on the level of talent he has, and other factors (such as being in the same region as Carthage).  A great coach is able to accomplish more than what should be expected with the level of players he has year in and year out.  That doesn’t have to be trips to state.  If his community doesn’t produce a lot of size and athletes, and have a history of going 1-9 and 2-8 every year, but he’s able to squeak into the playoffs most years, and even win a playoff game or two some years, that could be a great coach.  It’s really situational.  A good coach could probably win a state championship at Carthage with the talent they have now and the program that surratt has built.  But there are plenty of programs where a great coach could spend his entire career at and never make it to the regional finals.  

Carthage never won a state championship until Coach Surratt got there. He hired all new coaches except one. Coach Surratt will go down as one of the best coaches in Texas high school football history. We Dawg fans are blessed to have him. All his coaching staff would make great head coaches after learning from him. 

[bullets13]

12 hours ago, Horton said:

Carthage never won a state championship until Coach Surratt got there. He hired all new coaches except one. Coach Surratt will go down as one of the best coaches in Texas high school football history. We Dawg fans are blessed to have him. All his coaching staff would make great head coaches after learning from him. 

absolutely agree with you about how great of a coach he is.  But he didn't take over a team devoid of athletes that routinely goes between 0-10 and 2-8.  If he came here and did that with some of our local schools, he would not be winning state titles in 7 years.  

[oldschool2]

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

absolutely agree with you about how great of a coach he is.  But he didn't take over a team devoid of athletes that routinely goes between 0-10 and 2-8.  If he came here and did that with some of our local schools, he would not be winning state titles in 7 years.  

Sounds like you're a kid blamer.  He would absolutely have West Hardin winning a state title within 7 years.  Max.

[Bigdog]

Ok, I have an example,  Odessa Permian.   They won 6 championships over 4 decades, only one coach got 2 (Wilkens).   Gary Gaines coached when they won in '89 his fourth year.    He left and returned back in 2009, and didn't even get to the third round in any of the seasons '09 - 2012.   He went 23-21 during that period.  Did he suddenly forget how to coach?  I mean he is an "elite " coach by Reagans standards for the first 'chip but then just fell off??  Or was it that the population shifted in that area due to the fall off of jobs in the oil patch?

[oldschool2]

12 minutes ago, Bigdog said:

Ok, I have an example,  Odessa Permian.   They won 6 championships over 4 decades, only one coach got 2 (Wilkens).   Gary Gaines coached when they won in '89 his fourth year.    He left and returned back in 2009, and didn't even get to the third round in any of the seasons '09 - 2012.   He went 23-21 during that period.  Did he suddenly forget how to coach?  I mean he is an "elite " coach by Reagans standards for the first 'chip but then just fell off??  Or was it that the population shifted in that area due to the fall off of jobs in the oil patch?

No matter how many examples you give, it will be an "exception to the rule".  

[Reagan]

No matter how many examples they give — the end result is the kids ALWAYS get the blame!  

[oldschool2]

3 minutes ago, Reagan said:

No matter how many examples they give — the end result is the kids ALWAYS get the blame!  

When you win a championship or more.. then come back to the SAME SCHOOL and go 23-21, who's fault is it?  Who should get the blame.. because you know it's gonna be placed somewhere.  I'm curious now.

[purpleeagle]

14 hours ago, Horton said:

Carthage never won a state championship until Coach Surratt got there. He hired all new coaches except one. Coach Surratt will go down as one of the best coaches in Texas high school football history. We Dawg fans are blessed to have him. All his coaching staff would make great head coaches after learning from him. 

Yes, because he has a winning system and the kids have bought into it. Newton, Carthage and WO-S all had elite defenses when they went to state. It isn’t hard to figure out that the more three and outs you have on defense the more opportunities your offense has to score. 

[WOSdrummer99]

1 hour ago, Bigdog said:

  I mean he is an "elite " coach by Reagans standards for the first 'chip but then just fell off??  

@Reagan we need some clarification. I thought the coach needed 2 chips to qualify. Or does winning 1 in the 1st year like coach beatty at china spring make the cut?

Another interesting thing with China Spring. They have 3 titles, and 2 were by 1st year coaches.

Overall, rookie coaches have won 22 state championships. With an additional 17 by a coach in his first year at a new school.

[oldschool2]

8 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

@Reagan we need some clarification. I thought the coach needed 2 chips to qualify. Or does winning 1 in the 1st year like coach beatty at china spring make the cut?

Another interesting thing with China Spring. They have 3 titles, and 2 were by 1st year coaches.

Overall, rookie coaches have won 22 state championships. With an additional 17 by a coach in his first year at a new school.

I'm excited to hear the explanation for this stat.... 39 exceptions to the rule is quite a few.

[WOSdrummer99]

2 minutes ago, oldschool2 said:

I'm excited to hear the explanation for this stat.... 39 exceptions to the rule is quite a few.

Let me add some more stats...

505 total state championships

By 323 different coaches

39 = 7.7% have been won in the coach's first season at a new school

22 rookies = 4%

[oldschool2]

14 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

Let me add some more stats...

505 total state championships

By 323 different coaches

39 = 7.7% have been won in the coach's first season at a new school

22 rookies = 4%

What's the percentage of state champion coaches that only won one?

[Reagan]

54 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

@Reagan we need some clarification. I thought the coach needed 2 chips to qualify. Or does winning 1 in the 1st year like coach beatty at china spring make the cut?

Another interesting thing with China Spring. They have 3 titles, and 2 were by 1st year coaches.

Overall, rookie coaches have won 22 state championships. With an additional 17 by a coach in his first year at a new school.

Now, again, this is my definition of an Elite coach:  A coach needs to win 2 or more State Titles to qualify.  Winning one doesn't qualify.  

[oldschool2]

3 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Now, again, this is my definition of an Elite coach:  A coach needs to win 2 or more State Titles to qualify.  Winning one doesn't qualify.  

Only in high school football.  You forgot that part..

[bullets13]

3 hours ago, oldschool2 said:

Sounds like you're a kid blamer.  He would absolutely have West Hardin winning a state title within 7 years.  Max.

Hard to blame a kid for being small, or unathletic, or for being large and athletic, but going to a school that has few other kids like you.  I'm not a kid blamer, just a realist.  

An example from another sport:

I hunt in a little town called Avinger.  Their basketball team won a 1A state championship in 2016, going 32-2.  The next season the coach moved down the road to Jefferson, and took several players from Avinger with him (only 7 players suited out the year before for Avinger, 1 graduated, and 4 went with the coach).  Avinger didn't even make the playoffs the next year.  Jefferson had three very good years (3 district titles) under their new coach and with their new players, but only won one playoff game a year each of those three years. despite having a state championship coach, as well as 3 of his starters from his state championship team.  Jefferson couldn't even make it past the second round of the playoffs in all of three of his seasons there.  It's pretty obvious what the problem was: he didn't become a lesser coach when he moved, and if anything, his players would've improved as they got older.  But his 1A talent wasn't nearly enough to compete in the playoffs in 3A.  There is a threshold where coaching ability can't overcome talent disparity.  A great or elite coach will certainly have a much higher threshold than an average or poor coach, but there is a point where no coach can exceed past a certain point without a certain amount of talent and players.

[Reagan]

4 hours ago, bullets13 said:

absolutely agree with you about how great of a coach he is.  But he didn't take over a team devoid of athletes that routinely goes between 0-10 and 2-8.  If he came here and did that with some of our local schools, he would not be winning state titles in 7 years.  

Well, that's not 100%, now is it.  Let me explain:  Since you are part of the "it's the kids" cabal, what if on day one that Surratt stepped foot on whatever campus you choose, the Championship kids started showing up also like the "it's the kids" crowd would say happened at Carthage?   So, yeah, according to some him winning a Title is very possible in that case scenario!  

BTW, you stated Carthage wasn't devoid of kids when Surratt showed up.  So, why no Titles before Surratt and 9 After Surratt showed up?!  Maybe is it because bad to mediocre coaches, even with decent kids, can't do what "actual" Championship coaches can do with the same kids?!

[oldschool2]

3 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Hard to blame a kid for being small, or unathletic, or for being large and athletic, but going to a school that has few other kids like you.  I'm not a kid blamer, just a realist.  

An example from another sport:

I hunt in a little town called Avinger.  Their basketball team won a 1A state championship in 2016, going 32-2.  The next season the coach moved down the road to Jefferson, and took several players from Avinger with him (only 7 players suited out the year before for Avinger).  Jefferson had three very good years (3 district titles) under their new coach and with their new players, but only won one playoff game a year each of those three years. despite having a state championship coach, as well as 3 of his starters from his state championship team.  Jefferson couldn't even make it past the second round of the playoffs in all of three of his seasons there.  It's pretty obvious what the problem was: he didn't become a lesser coach when he moved, and if anything, his players would've improved as they got older.  But his 1A talent wasn't nearly enough to compete in the playoffs in 3A.  There is a threshold where coaching ability can't overcome talent disparity.  A great or elite coach will certainly have a much higher threshold than an average or poor coach, but there is a point where no coach can exceed past a certain point without a certain amount of talent and players.

There was mucho sarcasm in my post that you replied to.  A joke, in fact.  Anyone with any sense knows that it isn't the coach's fault when they obviously have nothing to work with. 

[bullets13]

4 minutes ago, oldschool2 said:

There was mucho sarcasm in my post that you replied to.  A joke, in fact.  Anyone with any sense knows that it isn't the coach's fault when they obviously have nothing to work with. 

Oh, i know.  You and I are on the same wavelength on this issue.

[Reagan]

There's one poster here who thinks the sun rises and sets on the Nederland coach.  Since this individual, and others, are part of the "blame the kids" cabal, then they would have you believe that there is no difference between the Nederland coach and the Carthage coach.  That it's only luck that one school had the Championship kids show up and one school didn't.  The kids are the reason that one school has "0" State Titles and one school has "9"!  Come on -- can anyone actually say this with a straight face?!  

[Reagan]

5 minutes ago, oldschool2 said:

There was mucho sarcasm in my post that you replied to.  A joke, in fact.  Anyone with any sense knows that it isn't the coach's fault when they obviously have nothing to work with. 

What, you think it's a secret you and Bullets "blame the kids" for the failures of the coach?!  LOL!!  

[bullets13]

41 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Well, that's not 100%, now is it.  Let me explain:  Since you are part of the "it's the kids" cabal, what if on day one that Surratt stepped foot on whatever campus you choose, the Championship kids started showing up also like the "it's the kids" crowd would say happened at Carthage?   So, yeah, according to some him winning a Title is very possible in that case scenario!  

BTW, you stated Carthage wasn't devoid of kids when Surratt showed up.  So, why no Titles before Surratt and 9 After Surratt showed up?!  Maybe is it because bad to mediocre coaches, even with decent kids, can't do what "actual" Championship coaches can do with the same kids?!

I'd say close to half of the schools in texas have a decent or good amount of talent in a given year, but only 12 teams a year out of over 1000 win a championship each year.  The odds of any random team winning a championship in a 20 year period is way below 1%.  Surratt is a phenomenal coach.  Possibly the best in Texas history.  Carthage started winning championships because he arrived, I'm not arguing this point. The point I'm making is that in the 30 years before Surratt showed up, Carthage had a grand total of 3 losing seasons.  They always had a pretty good team, with a pretty good groups of players, a decent amount of good athletes, and always had more coming down the pipes.  Once they had an elite coach show up, he took them to the next level, and players from surrounding areas suddenly found ways to get into the district.  But what he did there is a far cry from going to (insert whichever of our local teams) that averages 2-3 wins a season over a couple of decades, and acting like he'd be able to do what he did at Carthage.  Unless he got away with recruiting a ton of talent from other schools in the area, it would be simply impossible.  You can't turn bad football players or mediocre athletes into state title contenders, no matter how good of a coach you are.  You can certainly improve them, but again, coaching only takes you so far.  

[Bigdog]

10 minutes ago, Reagan said:

There's one poster here who thinks the sun rises and sets on the Nederland coach.  Since this individual, and others, are part of the "blame the kids" cabal, then they would have you believe that there is no difference between the Nederland coach and the Carthage coach.  That it's only luck that one school had the Championship kids show up and one school didn't.  The kids are the reason that one school has "0" State Titles and one school has "9"!  Come on -- can anyone actually say this with a straight face?!  

Football is a team game, there are multiple factors in winning.  Especially winning a SC.  The coach is only one of the factors and another is a little bit of luck as far as bracket and timing.

[oldschool2]

1 hour ago, Reagan said:

What, you think it's a secret you and Bullets "blame the kids" for the failures of the coach?!  LOL!!  

Who's blaming kids?  It's not the kids' fault when they just smaller, weaker, or slower than state championship caliber athletes.  Now.. a coach can help/motivate them to get bigger, stronger, and faster.  Possibly more so than any other coach.  And some coaches will give those kids a better chance to win than many other coaches.  But sometimes it's not enough.  That's not kid blaming.  That's reality.  There's not a 5'6, 145 kid in the world that realistically blames their old coach that they didn't get into the NFL.

But you.. you're saying that an "elite coach" can win a title with a team full of average to below average kids.

You're the dodo bird in this argument.  

[JaspD55]

58 minutes ago, oldschool2 said:

Who's blaming kids?  It's not the kids' fault when they just smaller, weaker, or slower than state championship caliber athletes.  Now.. a coach can help/motivate them to get bigger, stronger, and faster.  Possibly more so than any other coach.  And some coaches will give those kids a better chance to win than many other coaches.  But sometimes it's not enough.  That's not kid blaming.  That's reality.  There's not a 5'6, 145 kid in the world that realistically blames their old coach that they didn't get into the NFL.

But you.. you're saying that an "elite coach" can win a title with a team full of average to below average kids.

You're the dodo bird in this argument.  

Reagan is saying that for anyone that has a short stubby slow kid, from short stubby slow parents, can move to a town that has an elite coach, OR have your school hire an Elite coach, and Wala , your kid will now grow into an NFL caliber Stud, weighing over 300lbs, 6' 6", and run a 4.8 40. lol

[WOSdrummer99]

2 hours ago, oldschool2 said:

What's the percentage of state champion coaches that only won one?

222 out of 323

69%