Been thinking alot about what makes a successful coach....(long post).....

[Hollerboy]

I have spent a lot of time thinking about coaches the last few months…what the different types of coaches are, what makes them successful…how they relate to different school situations….and here is my long-winded analyses…if anyone really cares, but here it is anyway.  I have tried to be objective.  I have not been against Dooley, I hoped he would succeed.  I have been completely on the  fence on whether or not to fire him.  After putting my thoughts down on paper and trying to be objective, I have reached my own conclusion….finally. 

It seems to me there are three major types of coaches.  First is the offensive coordinator background coach, who has some level of offensive genius or at least highly innovative and smart. Second is the defensive minded/genius/coordinator level coach. Lastly is the true manager type of coach.  Each brings different strengths and weaknesses.  All three of these types of coaches have to be able to recruit.  This is a given throughout the course of my analysis.  I have four categories of recruiting situations….poor, mediocre, good, and excellent.   There are about 8 or 9 states in the country that I put in the excellent category, these are schools with built-in advantages and talent to choose from: Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, California, Mississippi, South Carolina, maybe another one or two.  I put Tennessee in the good category.  We have tradition and a big winning history and top-rated facilities….but we don’t have a lot of in-state talent and must recruit nationally. Thus the good not excellent  situation.

First, the Offensive coordinator head coach.  The strength of this type of coach is continuity of offensive system.  He doesn’t care if an O coordinator leaves, the system is his and he runs his system.  He can hire another OC to help but these guys set the tone of the offense and create stability on that side of the ball.  Offense is more complicated than defense and continuity on this side of the ball would probably be more important.  The weakness of this type of coach is that they depend on their DC to be good.  This type of coach may have a particular defensive philosophy that they believe in and stick with, but are not experts on defense and still are capable of being derailed by a bad DC hire.  This type of coach can be effective in recruiting at a poor situation IF his offense is good enough to be attractive to recruits and is exciting.  He can be fairly successful in a mediocre situation, can be great and win the MNC in a good or excellent situation.
Urban Myer, Steve Spurrier, Mike Leach, Chris Peterson are examples of this type of coach. You plug Peterson into a school with an excellent recruiting advantage and I would predict a MNC.

Second, the Defensive coordinator head coach.  This type of coach is similar to the offensive coach in that he brings stability/continuity  to at least one side of the ball.  He does not care if a DC leaves for another job, he runs his system and can hire a new DC to work under that system.  The good is that you maintain some stability on defense from year to year.  The weakness is that this type of coach is dependent on  a good OC to dictate what type of offense they have.  If an OC leaves, there is a significant chance of losing stability on that side of the ball.  Offense being more complicated than defense, it could be very costly to the program if this coach makes a bad hire at OC. These types must maintain some sort of offensive philosophy even though it is not their specialty.  This type of coach also tends to be more of a disciplinarian type and usually is successful when they dictate every facet of the program and tend to be micro-managers.  These coaches are less likely to be able to recruit well at poor situations, and are usually only mediocre in good recruiting situations but can win MNCs at an excellent recruiting situation.  This type of coach would be Saban, Beamer, Patterson, Stoops. 

The third type of coach is the True Manager. This type of coach was probably not a super good coordinator, or was not one for a long time, or maybe they were a coordinator for a head coach who micro-manages and didn’t really run their own system.  Maybe they were good position coaches that spent a short time at a coordinator position before moving into a HC. Whatever the reason, the true manager has the greatest set of liabilities and the fewest strengths.  This type of coach is free to focus on all aspects of the team and is not as tied to one side of the ball or other.  This type of coach has the time to run a very efficient program and probably has a little more time to recruit.   The weaknesses of this coach are many.  They are dependent on  both the OC and DC to run their team and dictate their philosophy/plan. They cannot step in and do a great job if a coordinator leaves and must make good hires.  They can be derailed by one bad hire on either side of the ball.   These kinds of coaches also have a different dynamic with regards to recruiting than the other two types.  The true program manager can be good if he hires good coordinators.  He can win MNCs at the excellent recruiting places but at the schools with good recruiting situation, things must happen in a certain way to build enough momentum to put you into the excellent category. Les Miles, Mack Brown, Fulmer, and Dooley are examples of this type of coach.  In order to build momentum at a mediocre or good recruiting situation, this type of coach has to win some big games early in the process.  He has to do something to kick the snowball off the mountain so that it can start to grow and build momentum.

Lets cut straight to it, this was the year for Dooley to upset a few folks and kick the snowball off the mountain.  Beating UF, UGA, or UAT would have probably started the momentum….but we didn’t win those.  We needed some upsets in order to get it started….two more wins would have probably done it.  But it is too late to kick the snowball off the mountain now. I don’t think winning the last 4, considering who they are, will create any buzz, excitement and will not generate any better results in recruiting than we will get to this point.  Had we won two big upset games, we would have likely gotten a few blue-chippers.  But, the snowball is still sitting on top of the mountain.  I think maybe next year Dooley can upset a couple of teams, but maybe not.  Can we afford to take a chance that next year will start the ball rolling? 

After a lot of thought….too much thought, I believe that Dooley is not the coach for us.  I believe we have the greatest chances of success going with a type1 offensive coach.  This type of coach has the least risk and greatest upside.  These types of coaches represent about 8 of the top 10 programs in the country.  I hate to say it but Dooley was a bad hire and must be replaced.   

These are my own thoughts and I alone am responsible for any mistakes or stupidity in this po

[UTnbama]

You are absolutely correct.........you have been thinking a lot about it!

[murfvol]

That's an interesting read Holler. My theory is a bit more simple-minded. I think a lot of fans and media members think an individual's most obvious trait is what makes him successful. I don't.

Successful people are a) very organized and b) aware of their weaknesses. That may be oversimplified, but my guess is Muschamp is doing well because he is organized off the field, not because he is emotional on it. In fact I think even keel wins in the long run.