Players or Coaches?

[Golfer101]

After reading on SEOP about some of the new coaches hired and how they are going to turn around programs. It made me ask the question who is more important high school players or high school coaches? Who really is more responsible for their team winning? IMO I think the players are more important in getting wins.

[JayBruce]

Players

[Lightle04]

Players without question a good coach can put them in position to succeed but the players have to score the points and play the deffense it takes to win.

[Ironman92]

Players 80%

Coaches 20%

[Riverhog]

Interesting question. I would say I would give the edge to the coach. And here is my reasoning: a good coach who has the ability to teach will teach the players the right things. As well as motivate them to give their best. He/she also has the ability/ vision to build a program, so the coach  will place him/herself,  in the position to have quality players year after year, in other words a good coach will develop the good players. 

Does that mean a good coach can win numerous league titles, or have deep tourney runs when he has average or less talented players? No! But he/she will win some games that they shouldn't have, and will be a threat to any team that doesn't take them seriously. I guess long story short, they will make less talented players good, good players great and great players awesome (for lack if a better word). A poor coach can have the opposite effect. 

That is the reasoning behind my opinion. 

[TribeManiac10]

I agree with Ironman. A good example would be the North Adams teams over the past five years. Dave Young is one of the best coaches in the district and in the aformentioned timespan his earlier teams(Kraig Unger, etc.) did significantly better throughout the entirety of the season than that of his most recent teams. I dont believe it was a shift in philosphy that allowed for these discrepancies but rather the general level of talent available at the moment. A good coach is able to get more out of his players but a team with a ton of talent and a mediocre coach, in my opinion, will, more often than not, make it further than a team that has a good coach and relatively no talent.

[run-n-gun]

It's obvious. The players do. You can take a look at programs who have had the same coach in place for 10-15 years. Some years they have great teams, some years they don't. One year, the team will win a League Title and make District Finals/Regionals. Then the next year, they graduate 5 players and finish in the middle of their League and are Sectional Runner-Ups. It depends on how talented your players are.

[Dr Lou]

I'd say about 80/20. Players

[Binary]

The answer depends on if you are a jock sniffing coach crony who believes the coach can do no wrong. Those are the guys who say, "he wins with less talent," and then the crony blames the kids and parents when the coach loses. Usually those coaches also blame the kids for losses, hence the crony is just regurgitating how the coach justifies losing. Or, if you are a coach basher who thinks the coach does nothing well, you will say, "he's lucky he has by far the best players or he would never win a game." Then you have those people who are grounded in reality and who know that no coach wins without talent. Those are the folks who might say, "no coach could have won with that team." Or, "any coach could have won with that team."

[ManitouDan]

you can't make chicken salad outta chicken ____ PLAYERS !!!!! but a good coach makes a difference

[el savior]

I'd say it's about 70% players and 30% coaches. I mean the players make the plays. However the coach has/should install everything within the players. I've been apart of many games where coaching decisions have cost a team the game. Without players/athletes no coach is going to win games though.

[J8fusl]

I say its about 50-50. They players play and win the games. But no matter how good the players are they need a system that works for them. I see this often, team1 is overly athletic not much bigger, but are stronger and faster, not much shooting vs team2 that is slower good shooters but weak. Team1 runs a half court zone and tries to play inside. this lets team2 stay close throughout because they hit a few open shots. Anything can happen in the last two minutes. Whereas if team1 presses and opens up the lane it plays into there athletisism and they roll up a big lead that is insurmountable. IMO coaches make your team 20 points better with gameplanning and preperation.

[amazinghocks]

players 80 coaches 20.

[Steely Dan]

Ya can't coach height, and you can't coach talent. You get those two, especially together, then coaching is not all that hard to do. Don't have either, you can be a great coach, and have very little success.

[Mercerville Monster]

Perfect example - 2006-07 Huntington High team with O.J. Mayo, Patrick Patterson, etc. Anyone could have coached these guys. The year after they left HHS took many beatings.

A good coach can help in critical situations but mostly the players play the game and won or lose the games.

[G.W.A.]

Players win games.
Coaches lose games.

[crazymidgets]

honestly a team with the best fundamentals night in and night out wins, that means defense, free throw shooting, boxing out, etc, these teams will win the games they are supposed to and sneak out a few they arent, take the same caliber players and they dont do these things then well you know the story. so im going with coaching.

[gymrat88]

60% players, 40% coaches: Talent comes and goes at every school with every class of players. I think that when you have a talented group, coaching really does not play a very big role. However, normally a school doesn't have a superior group of athletes every year. Good coaches will take an average group of athletes and make them into good teams.

[Softball_skids]

Kind of different philosphy... I believe the coaching at the younger levels greatly impacts the success at the high school level. I think that is how programs are built, not just relying on talented players but teaching the fundamentals at the lower levels. When high school varsity starts I believe it is the players... The coach can have an effect on the game but the players definately determine the outcome (in most cases)

[gymrat88]

Kind of different philosphy... I believe the coaching at the younger levels greatly impacts the success at the high school level. I think that is how programs are built, not just relying on talented players but teaching the fundamentals at the lower levels. When high school varsity starts I believe it is the players... The coach can have an effect on the game but the players definately determine the outcome (in most cases)

I totally agree with you about coaching at the younger levels. That's where large schools with lots of resources have an edge over smaller, rural schools. Also when you have a city school or a school district that only encompasses 1 township it makes it a lot easier to organize youth teams versus schools whose districts are spread over a large area.