-
Welcome!
Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!
Or simply create a new Huddle account.
Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!
-
-
-
-
Topics
-
-
-
-
Posts
-
I hear you and I have said the same thing at times, but blanket statements are accurate part of the time at best. I have also coached kids who had the "tools" but they were slow and unproductive on the field--and a few adjustments to the scheme or teaching techniques, and the light comes on. We call them "late bloomers." Based on my limited experience, it should be called "coaching." As a former coach, if you gave me kids with the tools and I could not get them to perform at the level of their ability, then I have failed. The coaches know this, so their timetables to win may be shorter than the time they have to develop a player--I think a lot of talent goes down the disposal, which is why the success rate for drafted players is so low. In my view, based on my career as a professor and researcher, my job is to produce successful people for the workplace. I use data to identify central problems and I use my relationships with my students to strengthen weaknesses. I have a limited amount of time to do this before a decision is made about their development. In this case, I would look at the variables (data and the situational influences unique to this individual that may have stunted growth) and not the ineffective player as the center of the problem. The team has already interviewed him, talked to his college coaches, measured him, etc. So I would minimize the assumption that the kid is the problem and look at his system of support and teaching strategies. Nobody wants to admit THEY might be the problem. To blame a first-rounder for failing, you have to admit either you did not properly identify the prospect's potential (which is your job) or you were unable to prepare that prospect (with all the tools that got him the job) to succeed (also your job). So are we going to blame the 24-year-old kid with all the tools to succeed for sucking or are we going to take responsibility for his success as his mentors and teachers? I also find it curious that we give our first-rounders much more time to develop than an UDFA or day three pick. I get the pressure to succeed and the investment, but If I were a professor (I am one) and I was sent the elite students to pass a professional examination, I would expect my elite students to pass and I expect my bottom feeders to need more time. If my elite students were not passing after being given more time, then I would question my teaching methods--so would the University. -
i was hoping they might bring robinson back but he went to the darkside -
Flexibility. If they don’t work out we simply walk away. If they look great we have the first crack at extending them.
-
-
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.