oldsmithie;1878723 wrote:I think some of you need to realize what a head coaches job is all about! A school can have all the talent in the world but if the head man does not know what to do with it, they will be mediocre!! I have read all the posts and still have to disagree with alot of what is being said!! Harbour came in at Norwayne and installed a new offensive scheme!!! I am very old school and being "respectable" in a sport is NOT good enough!!! The head Coach needs to hand pick his assistants, When Smithville got rid of Schrock, the entire "crew" of long time assistants left too! I have tried to give the current Smithville coach time to build a Champion, but here we are 6 seasons later and no Championship! It is not like Bescanson inherited a bad program and needed to turn things around, he came into a winning program at Smithville.
Eh, I've seen decent (not great) coaches win titles if they're working with generational talent.
I certainly agree that you can't be a terrible coach and succeed, no matter the talent. Just as the best coach in the world cannot win with kids who don't care enough or won't buy into the program. There's a sum total of quality between the players and the coach that has to exist, and there's some wiggle room between each.
Make no mistake, I'm not discrediting the value of a truly great head coach. A great coach can take a team with less than elite athletic talent (but a good work ethic and a commitment to the program) and win underdog games. I've seen that first-hand plenty of times, and experienced it a few myself.
All I'm saying is that an elite level coach can make up for a team that is less than great, athletically, as long as the two are on the same page and that an elite athletic team can make up for a coach who is talented but inexperienced or less than elite, as long as the two are on the same page.
I'm not saying Harbour came in as a sub-par coach at all. I think he was a good, solid coach that had exceptional, generational athletes to work with.
As for Coach B, you're correct that he inherited a decent program at Smithville, but not a consistently good one by that point.
To my knowledge, Schrock only had one conference title in the first six years (which I believe came with a conference loss). I can certainly say the Smithies had a worse record in his first six than they have under Besancon, and yet, Schrock did turn out to be far and away the best HC Smithville has had to date. Heck, one of the best the WCL/WCAL has ever seen.
And let's be fair to Coach Besancon as well. It isn't as though they've not been in the hunt for the playoffs almost every year, and they did, in fact, win an underdog game during the season in which they did make the playoffs under Coach B.
They've not had a title in the last six years, but they've been in the hunt, and they've been in the playoffs. Besancon has his own system, but I'd still venture to guess that much of it is informed by the Schrock system he played and coached in. I'd like to see more from him before bringing the axe down. I think the teams he's led on the field have done well enough to earn him a stay.