forums

Different Perspectives

LuCane

LuCane

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
16,201
I'm waiting on official word for the Coordinator and position coach hirings. Regardless of who's brought in, one thing I want to emphasize is the importance of bringing in guys who have different perspectives. If anyone studies team dynamics and high performance, it almost invariably involves complementary teams or what are called "heterogenous teams."

That may sound nerdy, but it's as simple as having people who will see things differently, perhaps because of varying experiences and previous exposure(s), and all join together toward a common goal. It's why I think the defensive staff is alright, but could be even better with a Defensive Coordinator. Ideally, someone who's seen different offenses or been exposed to some different problems. Apart from the obvious of having someone who's called plays before, we need more eyes.

As it relates to offense, if we really hire a guy like Fedora, with virtually the same team/players, I think we can see a leap similar to what players looked like post-D'Onofrio. That's partly commentary on philosophy, scheme and execution. But, it's emphatically commentary on having different eyes working toward a common goal. These last few seasons, problems would be identified late, corrected on a lag and overall adjustments made incrementally. On gamedays, it felt like we had limited eyes and perspectives.

This goes for everything and it's why coaching is trending toward analytical people. Because they tend to better understand the root of problems or at least try to measure and adjust accordingly. One of the biggest problems in football coaching staffs are groups of professionals who are all "friends" (friends tend to see things the same way and/or agree) and "get along."

F that. Embrace debate, conflict, work toward a common goal and watch the results come in.
 
Advertisement
Love the "team of rivals" approach and wholeheartedly agree. It certainly appears we'll be hiring a DC, and I'm actually okay with Fedora or Applewhite. They've both had successes and failures and I like Fedora better, but strictly speaking "scheme/identity"-wise they appear to run two sides of the same spread, if you get me. When I have time I'll maybe do a comparison in another thread, but this post is spot-on.
 
OCC Choppers mentality? Fight but we still family? It was successful but in the end it fell apart.

As long as the head coach knows what he is doing, it will trickle down no matter who the coaches are. It starts at the top. See Saban, Urban, Jimmy, etc.
 
Group think / crowd theory.

Bring in people who hate each other’s opinions while still respecting them. That’s how we’ll rise again.
 
ghost2 said:
Love the "team of rivals" approach and wholeheartedly agree. It certainly appears we'll be hiring a DC, and I'm actually okay with Fedora or Applewhite. They've both had successes and failures and I like Fedora better, but strictly speaking "scheme/identity"-wise they appear to run two sides of the same spread, if you get me. When I have time I'll maybe do a comparison in another thread, but this post is spot-on.
Click to expand...
I like Fedora for sure but schematically you can make the case of Applewhite being not too far off if not having a more advanced offensive scheme since he would be running an O really similar to what tom Herman had at Ohio state and running exactly what Houston did on offense when they went on that run in 2015 and 2016. Which is when they were exciting and running that offense that always seemed to work. I have Really warmed up to potentially applewhite coming here to call plays honestly. I forgot How well he did at Houston in tom Herman’s first 2 years coaching there. They were pretty gutsy with applewhite as the OC and played a lot of teams really well including FSU and Oklahoma
 
@LuCane I said something similar in the DC thread and I am absolutely in lock-step with you here. I actually want as many people challenging suggestions as possible. Once suggestions become decisions, everyone should be together, but there is a diminishing returns impact if everyone comes from the same background.

Often times when I was hiring for my teams I would assess what my team currently did well and what they didn't do well and tried to find candidates who filled those gaps. At times there would be certain candidates that I might've hired for another team, but went a different direction for diversity in thought/backgrounds.

Richt's group was basically a Facebook friends list.
 
Advertisement
LuCane said:
I'm waiting on official word for the Coordinator and position coach hirings. Regardless of who's brought in, one thing I want to emphasize is the importance of bringing in guys who have different perspectives. If anyone studies team dynamics and high performance, it almost invariably involves complementary teams or what are called "heterogenous teams."
Click to expand...

Had a boss eons ago who gave me this sage advice when I was about to hire my first subordinate...told me "never hire your clone". The urge to do that is very tempting but he was right. Nothing wrong with hiring a similar personality if you want, but as far as skill set goes, hire someone who complements you and brings something different/new to the table.
 
Might be a stupid question, but do the offensive guys ever get with the defensive guys to find out what's hard to defend, and vice versa? I don't think they necessarily need to fight and hate each other, but having an opposing unit's coaches critique and make suggestions would seem to be a good source for ideas on innovations on both sides of the ball.
 
Lance Roffers said:
@LuCane I said something similar in the DC thread and I am absolutely in lock-step with you here. I actually want as many people challenging suggestions as possible. Once suggestions become decisions, everyone should be together, but there is a diminishing returns impact if everyone comes from the same background.

Often times when I was hiring for my teams I would assess what my team currently did well and what they didn't do well and tried to find candidates who filled those gaps. At times there would be certain candidates that I might've hired for another team, but went a different direction for diversity in thought/backgrounds.

Richt's group was basically a Facebook friends list.
Click to expand...

I use the same concepts in my everyday work life - the team i put together all has the same vision but their strengths compliment one another and fills in the gaps/weaknesses other team members might have. It allows them to train and develop each other without doing anything different than doing what they're good at. Everyone benefits. Everyone grows.
 
Lance Roffers said:
@LuCane I said something similar in the DC thread and I am absolutely in lock-step with you here. I actually want as many people challenging suggestions as possible. Once suggestions become decisions, everyone should be together, but there is a diminishing returns impact if everyone comes from the same background.

Often times when I was hiring for my teams I would assess what my team currently did well and what they didn't do well and tried to find candidates who filled those gaps. At times there would be certain candidates that I might've hired for another team, but went a different direction for diversity in thought/backgrounds.

Richt's group was basically a Facebook friends list.
Click to expand...

Lance - what's your view on Applewhite? Board seems to be already against him.

I'm not sure - I think I'm in the middle.

Definitely don't want anything to do with Coley though.
 
Lance Roffers said:
@LuCane I said something similar in the DC thread and I am absolutely in lock-step with you here. I actually want as many people challenging suggestions as possible. Once suggestions become decisions, everyone should be together, but there is a diminishing returns impact if everyone comes from the same background.

Often times when I was hiring for my teams I would assess what my team currently did well and what they didn't do well and tried to find candidates who filled those gaps. At times there would be certain candidates that I might've hired for another team, but went a different direction for diversity in thought/backgrounds.

Richt's group was basically a Facebook friends list.
Click to expand...


Lance what js your take on an applewhite or Fedora hire?
 
LuCane said:
I'm waiting on official word for the Coordinator and position coach hirings. Regardless of who's brought in, one thing I want to emphasize is the importance of bringing in guys who have different perspectives. If anyone studies team dynamics and high performance, it almost invariably involves complementary teams or what are called "heterogenous teams."

That may sound nerdy, but it's as simple as having people who will see things differently, perhaps because of varying experiences and previous exposure(s), and all join together toward a common goal. It's why I think the defensive staff is alright, but could be even better with a Defensive Coordinator. Ideally, someone who's seen different offenses or been exposed to some different problems. Apart from the obvious of having someone who's called plays before, we need more eyes.

As it relates to offense, if we really hire a guy like Fedora, with virtually the same team/players, I think we can see a leap similar to what players looked like post-D'Onofrio. That's partly commentary on philosophy, scheme and execution. But, it's emphatically commentary on having different eyes working toward a common goal. These last few seasons, problems would be identified late, corrected on a lag and overall adjustments made incrementally. On gamedays, it felt like we had limited eyes and perspectives.

This goes for everything and it's why coaching is trending toward analytical people. Because they tend to better understand the root of problems or at least try to measure and adjust accordingly. One of the biggest problems in football coaching staffs are groups of professionals who are all "friends" (friends tend to see things the same way and/or agree) and "get along."

F that. Embrace debate, conflict, work toward a common goal and watch the results come in.
Click to expand...
You mean you don't endorse hiring people who have the same exact thinking of the HC and who are yes men? Odd lol
 
Advertisement
Lance Roffers said:
@LuCane I said something similar in the DC thread and I am absolutely in lock-step with you here. I actually want as many people challenging suggestions as possible. Once suggestions become decisions, everyone should be together, but there is a diminishing returns impact if everyone comes from the same background.

Often times when I was hiring for my teams I would assess what my team currently did well and what they didn't do well and tried to find candidates who filled those gaps. At times there would be certain candidates that I might've hired for another team, but went a different direction for diversity in thought/backgrounds.

Richt's group was basically a Facebook friends list.
Click to expand...

Lance, you are spot on!!

I remember talking to my head coach, Carm Cozza, when I played for him about organizations and philosophy around the coaching staff, the "team within a team"

He was very focused on three things for staff: character, loyalty to the program/system/head man, and confidence to learn new things and challenge the status quo.

He believed that you should always be testing your best practices to make them better.

If he ha dever heard mark richt say: "but these same plays have worked for 30 years!," he might have punched someone in the face.
 
LuCane said:
Two things:

1. It happens all the time, even in the NFL, but certainly everywhere in College football
2. One step further: I encourage open challenges and wildly varying perspectives across both sides of the ball
Click to expand...
You're bringing great points and my comment was affirmation sarcasm. Manny seems to me completely different than Richt in that he is not set in his own ways and who is open to entertain opposing ideas from his assistants and even learn from them. Richt's downfall was he just couldn't do that.
 
Southcane said:
You're bringing great points and my comment was affirmation sarcasm. Manny seems to me completely different than Richt in that he is not set in his own ways and who is open to entertain opposing ideas from his assistants and even learn from them. Richt's downfall was he just couldn't do that.
Click to expand...

True...my post is also a little subtle concern. I hope Manny and admin really dig in here and execute on Plan A. Or, that Plan B has the same diversity of exposure and experience, at least.
 
Back
Top