Saban can only reach a smaller percentage of players. Those he does reach can be great b/c he knows a lot of football. But he can't teach players who he can't intimidate. I don't think Philbin is as limited in who he can teach. It seems to me that Philbin just avoids players don't already want to learn. He doesn't want to have to be the motivator. He wants players who are already motivated. It depends on your definition of "teacher". Some coaches are better managers than others. They can manage troubled players better. I don't think Philbin will ever be a Pete Carroll type. My definition of "teacher" is someone who excels at teaching students of all kinds. (And a student at the professional level particularly as somebody who is already motivated to learn). Saban doesn't fit my definition of a great teacher.
I don't think its about intimidation. I highly doubt Saban ever intimiated Jason Taylor, but its clear that Taylor learned a lot from him.
I think Taylor's skill set was used to it's greatest level under Saban. Saban is a great football mind and put Taylor in the best schemes for him. But I don't agree that Saban taught him much (other than showing him the great schematic possibilities).
IIRC, Taylor was resistant to changing schemes. Saban had to get him to buy into it. There were also things that Taylor was doing under Saban that he never did before. There has to be an element of teaching there. Either way, agree to disagree at this point.
I asked the question because its a subject that sometimes I can get mixed signals on, And sometimes I defer to those who I feel have a different wheelhouse than me that I respect, and can learn from..I'm a personnel guy, always have been, but when it comes to a topic like X's and O's or teaching principles there are better opinions then mine..I'm the David Geffen of football lol, my only talent is to identify talent in others..I feel like I could put a dream team together with the smart people on this site, and I often let my imagination do that as part of the fun of this site. I think what Rafs said hits home with me, the ability to change your technique of communication relative to the personality your dealing with, when the words player development get mentioned I automatically think of a physical thing where the coach is in a three point stance showing a player how to beat his opponent better than the other guy, but I think at the NFL level player development could be more about teaching players about becoming men, taking their craft more seriously, and explaining the scheme in a way where each individual can conceptualize..
All of that sounds like managing a player and putting him in the right schemes rather than teaching a player any new skills.
I've had a lot of different teachers in martial arts. The best ones would use multiple analogies/examples and/or methods to get a concept across. For example, when teaching a certain kick the sensei may demonstrate it, use an analogy to kicking a soccer ball if he had soccer player in the group or swinging a bat if he had a baseball player, physically put the student in different positions to make him feel an aspect of the kick (like how it feels at point of extension for example) and/or explain the theory of when the kick would be used. Some students will get "it" using one or a combinations of these. Some of these won't hit home at all. A poor teacher would use only one of these probably b/c it's the way he learned or he gets it. As a result, any students who learn differently will get very little from his lesson. The better teacher uses as many of these as he needs until he sees his students are comprehending. Of course the teacher also need a level of emotional intelligence to be able to ascertain when and how his students are understanding the concepts.
Required him to do things he never did before. Any time you are switching schemes its going to require learning new things.
That doesn't make a teacher. I can not know anything about fire, and I can watch some guy accidentally catch on fire and die. I learned something but that burnt guy wasn't a teacher.
We'll see with Philbin, yr #1 and the team was pretty much "set" when he took the reins. Let's watch Miller and Clay and Matthews to see if they develop. And the best teachers are also motivators, not ones who can just build rapport. Rapport means you understand each other, a motivator can understand the other person and push the right buttons to achieve maximum performance.
I can ask you to do some schematically that you haven't done before, but if I don't teach some new skill to accomplish that I'm not a teacher. I may be brilliant for having come up with the scheme or seeing that you have the ability to work in that scheme, but I'm not a teacher.
There's no way the team was set when Philbin took over. He had to install a completely new system and turn over much of the roster. And what's impressive is that he realized quickly that he didn't have the players to play the system he wanted so he created a modified version of his system to fit the skills of the players he had on the portion of the roster he couldn't turn over. And there's nothing I said that implies that all Philbin does is build rapport. I don't see Philbin as a motivator who will make unmotivated players motivated. I don't think he wants to work with that type at all. But I do think he'll succeed at teaching players who want to learn and are willing to put in the work.
This is what I'm looking for as well. Show me a few players markedly improving from year to year like Jones did.
I would put much of Jones' progress on Coyle. Coyle has shown a knack for simplifying S reads and letting talented players play faster and think less. Obviously Jones was probably going to be better in his second year just based on having more experience too. I think Philbin has made it a point to find coaches who are teachers like him. That's important if you're going to focus on developing players. Everybody says they want to develop players but many coaches don't. Many coaches focus on finding talented/good players and motivating them. Guys like Carroll and Billick are more motivators than teachers.
Wait wait....where is this laundry list of successful Alabama players in the pros? Most have been mediocre at best.
I certainly agree that teaching ability was a huge factor in Philbin's coaching staff search. It's great to see them all coming back.
They have quite a list of players in general and that in itself is impressive, but I'm not sure they have a high abundance of "game changers" on that list. Which was more of what I was getting at. Thats a nice resource btw I never fool around with ESPN so while it may seem obvious I didnt know that existed Sorry I should have also qualified it with "coached by Saban" though without great detail most on the list seem to be. A lot of rookies and young players that are kind of TBD as well.
How many Pro Bowl players this year? 1. Tennessee, Georgia and Miami had 6 each. http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/1/25/3914020/pro-bowl-rosters-2013-college
Yea, I don't care about Pro Bowl voting. Smith had a very good year for Cincinnati last season. Demeco Ryan is a good player. Kareem Jackson had a very good season for Houston last year. Dareus is a good player for Buffalo. Ha, forgot Julio Jones. He's a game changer.
Yea, I was just messing with you. I thought quite a few of their players were going to be really good at the next level, they just haven't been. Except Jones of course.
