Quote:Do you think that contributes to a player becoming a bust as much as just about any other factor?  If a coach is not sufficiently flexible/interactive such that a player under his tutelage can't develop the proper technique to succeed, can't that lead to a player failing even if the player was drafted into the right scheme, etc.?

 

I absolutely believe that's the case, but I'm not ready to state that it is the biggest reason. There are just so many things that go into professional development at any level.

 

I think the idea that the coach-player interaction is a two-way street is something that does not get enough credence. I see it all the time as I frequent a few coaching discussion boards and there are several Old School types that believe that it's the Player's job to do what the coach tells them to do. That if the coach was not on the Sideline, then the team would simply not be able to function. Then, there is another line of thinking that strives to get the players to own the team and that as time went on the coach would become less and less important as the player understood more and more about the philosophy and became self sufficient.

 

To me, the two biggest factors required for a unit's success is the Player's work ethic and the Coach's ability to adapt the scheme to the Player's strength. The Player must be willing to constantly improve and the Coach must work to develop trust from the Player that what he is trying to teach them is in their best interest. I say trying because if a player can't do something, then no matter how many times you talk about it, drill it, encourage it, etc. if the Player can't do it then you didn't teach it.

 

Teaching / Coaching isn't done until the skill is learned and is repeatable. And that is on both parties.

---