Development

[TheOriginalCane]

My question is this: why are there so many 3 star players in the league that weren’t coached by these top coaches or went to playoff teams?
Why are we crowing these coaches that get freaks of nature to coach and they get all the credit while the coaches of these 3 star guys get no love?
Everybody loves Raymond while he gets top 5 corners every year.
Everybody loves saban while he gets freaks too.
But nobody wants Josh Norman’s coach from coastal Carolina.

We never asks how the **** did Josh Norman get Drafted and what he did to get there.
We never ask how AB went unnoticed in sofla. We never asked if we can get his coach from central Michigan to come here and “develop” receivers like he did with AB.

First of all, Antonio Brown was not "unnoticed", he had horrible academics.

As for some of the 3-stars and below who make it to the NFL, again, it can often be a factor of the circumstances. Some kids, if they get 4 years to start in college (at a lesser school) will develop into something special. But those odds are not high.

"Development" is a grab-bag term that covers a host of different ways that coaches, teams, and the players themselves can transform themselves between HS and the NFL. Some players are more "self-made men". Other players give huge amounts of credit to their position coaches in college. There is no "one-size-fits-all" method of developing a player.

 

[Tetragrammaton Cane]

I disagree to a certain extent on the mental aspect...Football IQ, Having a Feel in basketball to make a play, having the correct approach at the plate at the right time in a big moment etc, can’t be taught. You can talk it, drill it and teach it but some guys, even if they have the requisite athleticism or are smart freeze up under the fire of competition. And the most successful of those players just have it. Very few have the physical and mental to dominate elite comp at this and the pro level...as a coach/ program you want to identify the guys with the athletic ability needed AND guys who love their craft and the mental aspect of the game. Because even at this level talent and coaching only takes u so far

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I’m not try to get all Malcolm Gladwell “10,000 hours” on you, but whether it’s Denis Rodman knowing where a rebound would be or Michael, Kobe or Larry just knowing, or Ted Williams, Gretzky, Brady … the amount of perfect practice and mental reps they take outweigh the mythical “can’t be taught” line of thinking.

Talent and coaching will take you all the way — assuming you actually have a passion for the game. It’s when an athlete is short of either of those (again, assuming passion for game) that you find suboptimal players.

 

[JgDaCane]

First, an 18 year old is NOT a "kid." At 18, you're a legal adult. You're old enough to drive, you're old enough to ****, you're old enough to work, buy a house, and go to war. You're an ADULT. At that age, you need to take responsibility for yourself.

Second, it IS insulting. It's taking credit for someone else's accomplishments. Do you think some coach "developed" Tom Brady or Ed Reed? No... they put in the work themselves.

Blaming the teacher is the lamest thing ever. Develop your own **** self and handle your own **** ****. Anything else is just soft, plain and simple.

I agree you're an adult at 18 but as far as having all the knowledge & tools as a football player you aren't even CLOSE yet. As far as Tom Brady & Ed Reed I'd bet they'd both use the word developed & both name multiple coaches. Sometime coaches do **** players up, even at the pro level. That's just the facts. Don't understand this one at all. Also I'm not some latte sipping coddler ***** before you think I am. Far from it.

 

[pacusmc]

I would love someone to do a documentary of the 2 and 3 star nfl players and interview their college and high school coaches. I guarantee you that the common denominator with al those players was their work ethic and preparation.
Yes the likely had and athletic gift that went unnoticed and untapped. But they weren’t gonna let not being in a top P5 program deter them from developing it on their own. I guarantee you many players come to college and expect some one on one time every day with their position coaches and aren’t ready when that doesn’t happen and don’t have the mental discipline or work ethic to go out there and do it in their own.

How many times have we heard the stories of how hard the teams that won here worked.
How many film sessions did they run without any coaches being present.
How many drills did they do at green tree? How many hrs on the jugz machine etc etc.

 

[305to954]

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I’m not try to get all Malcolm Gladwell “10,000 hours” on you, but whether it’s Denis Rodman knowing where a rebound would be or Michael, Kobe or Larry just knowing, or Ted Williams, Gretzky, Brady … the amount of perfect practice and mental reps they take outweigh the mythical “can’t be taught” line of thinking.

Talent and coaching will take you all the way — assuming you actually have a passion for the game. It’s when an athlete is short of either of those (again, assuming passion for game) that you find suboptimal players.

So when you have top talented guys attend Bama with the top coaches, support system etc etc and they don’t pan out what is the reason? Or a kid in the pros with all the talent and a professional atmosphere don’t pan out?
There’s are certain guys who just have “IT” when it comes to performance. And it can’t be taught. If it could there would be way more of Kobe’s, jeters, MJs, lebrons etc etc. and imo opinion a lot of it is self accountability, work ethic, of course elite traits physically, and a hunger to get better.
Preparation is key but at the end of the day it’s about performance during competition. Some guys just shrink. Others rise above it

 

[RightSaidFred]

I would love someone to do a documentary of the 2 and 3 star nfl players and interview their college and high school coaches. I guarantee you that the common denominator with al those players was their work ethic and preparation.
Yes the likely had and athletic gift that went unnoticed and untapped. But they weren’t gonna let not being in a top P5 program deter them from developing it on their own. I guarantee you many players come to college and expect some one on one time every day with their position coaches and aren’t ready when that doesn’t happen and don’t have the mental discipline or work ethic to go out there and do it in their own.

How many times have we heard the stories of how hard the teams that won here worked.
How many film sessions did they run without any coaches being present.
How many drills did they do at green tree? How many hrs on the jugz machine etc etc.

Glad somebody gets it. It's about taking responsibility for your own success or failure.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

People need to stop feeding Troll Fred.

He's trying to argue that coaches and coaching have no impact on player development.

Ri-goddam-diculous.

 

[Ironmanfootball]

Teaching a kid proper technique (in the gym or elsewhere) isn't anywhere near as hard as teaching a kid that he needs to be in the gym (or elsewhere) working on maximizing his ability. Getting them to do it "on their own time" is where it gets difficult. Some kids walk through the door with that work ethic, others need to have it instilled in them.

That's why you have to do the leg work to vet the prospects before you sign them.

There are 1800 3-star players / year (1900 two stars, 311 four stars, 30 five stars)... how do you know you're getting the one with #1- room to develop into a 4/5 star, and #2- intrinsic motivation?

#1 is a physical development thing, #2 takes leg work meeting with coaches, teachers, AP's, AD's, counselors, watching the player in camps/combines, media etc. Understanding a transcript (absences, tardies, suspensions) and knowing the school itself helps, too.

 

[RightSaidFred]

Ok, I'll play. So how does a player learn better technique? How do they know their throwing mechanics are off or they're not reading keys correctly?


Would you not say that some position coaches are better at teaching than others?

So maybe it's not clear the point I'm making here. Coaches have a vital role to play, but the RESPONSIBILITY AND CREDIT for how well a player develops is on the PLAYER.

Nobody is developed. They develop themselves using their coaches as tools along the path.

The difference is the mindset. You either believe your success/failure is someone else's fault, or you man up and take responsibility for your own self, never leaving your fate up to anyone else but yourself. It's a big difference.

 

[RightSaidFred]

People need to stop feeding Troll Fred.

He's trying to argue that coaches and coaching have no impact on player development.

Ri-goddam-diculous.

That's not even close to what I'm arguing, but of course you would completely miss the nuance.

Interesting attitude though. Anyone who disagrees with you is a troll to be ignored. Very fashionable way to see the world.

 

[3FW]

If Al Golden had fired D'Onofrio he may still be here. The rest of it he did pretty well. He just needed very good coordinators. He hired a very good OC in Fisch and he probably could have hired a good DC. Fisch is a HC, Golden is filing dumb lawsuits, and D'Onofrio is working at Buffalo Wild Wings.

 

[JD08]

So maybe it's not clear the point I'm making here. Coaches have a vital role to play, but the RESPONSIBILITY AND CREDIT for how well a player develops is on the PLAYER.

Nobody is developed. They develop themselves using their coaches as tools along the path.

The difference is the mindset. You either believe your success/failure is someone else's fault, or you man up and take responsibility for your own self, never leaving your fate up to anyone else but yourself. It's a big difference.

So it does depend on the quality of the teaching. A player can't improve if he doesn't know how.

 

[Tetragrammaton Cane]

So when you have top talented guys attend Bama with the top coaches, support system etc etc and they don’t pan out what is the reason? Or a kid in the pros with all the talent and a professional atmosphere don’t pan out?
There’s are certain guys who just have “IT” when it comes to performance. And it can’t be taught. If it could there would be way more of Kobe’s, jeters, MJs, lebrons etc etc. and imo opinion a lot of it is self accountability, work ethic, of course elite traits physically, and a hunger to get better.
Preparation is key but at the end of the day it’s about performance during competition. Some guys just shrink. Others rise above it

There are any numbers of reasons a player doesn’t pan out at a particular school, but when they have talent and coaching (again, assuming they have passion for the game, they’ll stand out). Alvin Kamara was behind Derrick Henry, T.J. Yeldon and Kenyon Drake. Considered a “cancer” he was banned from the team, later transferred to TN. Talent Matters. I can’t think of a single person who had talent and coaching and passion for the game who didn’t pan out. One of those 3 will be missing.

That “IT” is real, but aside from Usain Bolt, I’ve never seen it in another athlete. ”IT” = talent + ability to be coached + passion. The greats LIVE their sport because it‘s a discipline.

You will never be able to perform without preparation against similarly talented players.

 

[RightSaidFred]

So it does depend on the quality of the teaching. A player can't improve if he doesn't know how.

Do you think they're teaching some magic, secret, special techniques at Alabama that we aren't teaching at Miami? Not only that, but players here have access to all kinds of former NFL players who come back and help.

Coaches can provide the opportunity for players to get better, but in the end, it's on the player. It's up to the player to take advantage and make the most of the coaching.

If a player wants to get better at Miami, he can do that as well here as anywhere. The difference between a good player and a JAG comes down to two things - natural ability, and their own desire and work ethic to get better.

 

[DTP]

Some very good points being made here. One thing I will say in regards to using the NFL as a measuring stick, the college game is still a pretty different animal. There’s still a ton of guys who are great college players but the league is completely uninterested. Usually they don’t fit the league’s preferred size requirements. Sometimes they play in a “college” system and their skill set doesn’t translate to the pro game. D’Eriq King is a great college player but it’s unlikely he becomes an NFL quarterback. Then you have guys who are better pro players than what you saw in college. I mean Tom Brady was a very average college quarterback. Gus Edwards couldn’t beat out Joe Yearby in college but he became a starter for the Ravens. So just because a guy isn’t drafted or gets drafted late, that doesn’t necessarily mean he hasn’t developed into exactly what his college team needed.

 

[Ethnicsands]

I would love someone to do a documentary of the 2 and 3 star nfl players and interview their college and high school coaches. I guarantee you that the common denominator with al those players was their work ethic and preparation.
Yes the likely had and athletic gift that went unnoticed and untapped. But they weren’t gonna let not being in a top P5 program deter them from developing it on their own. I guarantee you many players come to college and expect some one on one time every day with their position coaches and aren’t ready when that doesn’t happen and don’t have the mental discipline or work ethic to go out there and do it in their own.

How many times have we heard the stories of how hard the teams that won here worked.
How many film sessions did they run without any coaches being present.
How many drills did they do at green tree? How many hrs on the jugz machine etc etc.

Great comment. This is exactly the discussion I wanted to have in this thread. I agree with you and think that the better evaluators know how to see this in kids. They may or may not even be able to articulate what they're looking for, but they know it when they see it. I'm sure Butch would be able to talk about this. @caneinorlando may have a view here.

One of the things that's been nagging on me on this topic is people love to talk about the high rated kids we get who under-perform (we all know this list). But then we know we've also gotten some high rated kids who performed (Duke Johnson, e.g.) ... and some lower rated kids who did relatively well (Rousseau, Rayshawn, Jaquan). So what gives? @Rellyrell and I were talkimbout this in a thread recently, and he's asking me how it can be that all our top kids fail, it's gotta be our 'development', because the ratings services can't all be wrong all the time.

Of course, they're not wrong 'all the time.' But it could well be the case that we are too often winning highly rated kids that other top schools de-prioritize ... and maybe that in itself is a sign of what they screen for that we don't screen for? It could also be a self-selection thing, where kids who value work ethic are more drawn to programs that exude it, and the country club ice cream social atmosphere we've had for too long repels some kids we should want. Becomes self-fulfilling, I guess.

Anyhow, long winded response but interested in other takes.

 

[JD08]

Do you think they're teaching some magic, secret, special techniques at Alabama that we aren't teaching at Miami? Not only that, but players here have access to all kinds of former NFL players who come back and help.

Coaches can provide the opportunity for players to get better, but in the end, it's on the player. It's up to the player to take advantage and make the most of the coaching.

If a player wants to get better at Miami, he can do that as well here as anywhere. The difference between a good player and a JAG comes down to two things - natural ability, and their own desire and work ethic to get better.

Some people are better teachers than others. Unless you want to die on the "Jon Richt is a top level QB coach" hill.

 

[Ethnicsands]

@Ethnicsands , it never ceases to amaze me of the number of people on this site who can’t answer simple questions.

warning: tl;dr

Unfortunately, most schools don’t develop. Like most sales people don’t sell, like most managers don’t manage — most coaches, S&C included, don’t coach. They’re ”coloring by numbers” and hoping for the best. Not necessarily incompetent, but not exactly capable either. Coaching is development. (Recruiting though part of a coaches job is not development — yet it’s brought up every time the topic turns to development.)

Development consists of two things: physical development and mental development. Physical development is measurable and should answer the question of whether the athlete is faster/stronger/more explosive. If they’re not, in comparison to high school, they haven’t been physically developed, or developed to the point to where they’re useful to the program.

Mental development is improving an “athletes IQ”. Recognizing patterns, play calls, balance, situations, weight shift, leverage, eyes and utilizing/overcoming/understanding them to your advantage. Richard Sherman was never the fastest corner, but he knew what to do — something developed athletes all share in common. Reading/watching Clemson talk about defense and they mention “eyes” and “eye discipline“ a thousand times … clearly they believe it’s taught and use 2/3-stars to prove it.

The issue: are these just self-directed and/or ”natural” athletes or are they coached/taught? Obviously the answer is both to an extent, but the prevailing sentiment of the board would imply that “you have to get the right kids” (which usually means better/higher starred kids that in essence do NOT have to be coached) — and I don’t believe that’s true. Any athlete can be made faster/stronger. Any. Every athlete can improve their “IQ”. Every. I’m NOT saying you can give every receiver Tyreek Hill speed or a Metcalfe body... but if kids are leaving your S&C after 3-5 years with similar numbers to when they arrived, then you’ve failed. If your OL can’t identify a blitz or your DL a screen, you’ve failed. If your LB constantly fall for miss direction or can’t defeat blocks, you’ve failed. If your QBs can’t run your offense? You’ve failed.

Your question. My belief: no. My standard for development is higher than “got drafted/made the practice squad”, My standard is significant contributor; they actually play in the NFL. And in the past 4 years Miami has produced very few of them (Temple, Buffalo and UCONN may have drafted more players in the top 4 rounds in the last 4 years than Miami. Hyperbole alert). Also (and this is important because every contributor isn’t going to make the league), have they improved physically/mentally on the college level? And from 3rd/4th year kids not being able to block/get a push, catch, tackle, defeat block, turn head or just understand situational football on a college level … Miami is middling — like **** near every other program in college football. Because a “developed” Miami, given the talent advantage Miami has over all ACC schools not named Clemson (with UNC on the way up and FSU on the way down, temporarily) would go 11-1, 12-0 every year had the kids been properly developed.

Thanks for your response, it's really thoughtful.

I agree with most if not all of that, but there's a big difference between saying all people can learn to do X, and predicting the probability that each individual person will learn it (or how well). Because in life, not everyone will learn to do it well. Some of the reason why is coaching, but some is also embedded in the going-in probabilities -- personality, work ethic, whatever you want to call it. I suspect good evaluators are better than most at seeing which kids will self-actualize. I'm not actually sure anyone is that good at seeing which kids can break through to become MJ or Brady. That may be impossible to predict prospectively (everyone's a genius in hindsight).

Spoiler

I do recall telling my friends in 1984 that Jordan was better than Larry Bird right then. And I was sure of it.

 

[Tetragrammaton Cane]

Thanks for your response, it's really thoughtful.

I agree with most if not all of that, but there's a big difference between saying all people can learn to do X, and predicting the probability that each individual person will learn it (or how well). Because in life, not everyone will learn to do it well. Some of the reason why is coaching, but some is also embedded in the going-in probabilities -- personality, work ethic, whatever you want to call it. I suspect good evaluators are better than most at seeing which kids will self-actualize. I'm not actually sure anyone is that good at seeing which kids can break through to become MJ or Brady. That may be impossible to predict prospectively (everyone's a genius in hindsight).

Spoiler

I do recall telling my friends in 1984 that Jordan was better than Larry Bird right then. And I was sure of it.

Great answer. I’ll try to partially rebut my own point by saying, for all those words … ****, I don’t know. lol. But, there’s debate as to whether it’s unlearned or just the ability to process mounds of information quickly. I can say that because no one knows. I mentioned Gladwell … he has a book “Blink” that touches on “thin-slicing” the “unlearned” IT ( though he never goes all in and says it‘s “unlearned”), he’s then critiqued by actual scientists …

In Think!: Why Crucial Decisions Can't Be Made in the Blink of an Eye (Simon and Schuster, 2006), Michael LeGault argues that "Blinklike" judgments are not a substitute for critical thinking. He criticizes Gladwell for propagating unscientific notions:

As naturopathic medicine taps into a deep mystical yearning to be healed by nature, Blink exploits popular new-age beliefs about the power of the subconscious, intuition, even the paranormal. Blink devotes a significant number of pages to the so-called theory of mind reading. While allowing that mind-reading can "sometimes" go wrong, the book enthusiastically celebrates the apparent success of the practice, despite hosts of scientific tests showing that claims of clairvoyance rarely beat the odds of random chance guessing.[10]

Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman, author of Thinking, Fast and Slow which speaks to rationality's advantages over intuition, says:

Malcolm Gladwell does not believe that intuition is magic. He really doesn't...But here his story has helped people, in a belief that they want to have, which is that intuition works magically; and that belief, is false.[11]

In an article titled "Understanding Unconscious Intelligence and Intuition: Blink and Beyond", Lois Isenman agrees with Gladwell that the unconscious mind has a surprising knack for 'thinking without thinking' but argues that its ability to integrate many pieces of information simultaneously provides a much more inclusive explanation than thin-slicing. She writes:

Gladwell often speaks of the importance of holism to unconscious intelligence, meaning that it considers the situation as a whole. At the same time, he stresses that unconscious intelligence relies on finding simple underlying patterns. However, only when a situation is overwhelmingly determined by one or a few interacting factors is holism consistent with simple underlying signatures. In many situations, holism and simple underlying signatures pull in different directions.[12]

 

[BoxingRobes]

There’s been an endless discussion on these boards about development. Specifically, do we do it well or not. Some of our high ranked kids have underachieved for a long time. But over the same time, we’ve had other kids who managed to get to the NFL. Did we ‘develop’ them? Did they get there on their own?

Sometimes people quote NFL stats to suggest we have had top level talent. If our kids are on NFL rosters at that level, does that mean we are good at development? Why do we keep hearing we’re bad at it?

I’m not looking for the ‘we’re terrible’ or ‘all’s great.’ Genuinely interested in what people think the real issues have been. I have a view which I will come back and share.

Also - I distinguish development from game situations. A kid can be well developed but not play in an offense that utilizes his talents well. That’s a separate issue, mostly, from did he learn his craft and position well and is he physically developed. IMO.

In any given draft year, there is a hair over 250 draft picks.

Rough math, Miami in a bad year gets like 5 Top 250-ish prospects...in a good year, like 10. If we're just shooting par, we should have guys that make NFL rosters at some level. This is whats lost in the "development" and even "evaluation" discussions...like we should be doing better than shooting par, which is what we do at best of recent vintage.