Norman Dale, the head coach in Hoosiers says to his players, "If you
want to play on this team, you must abide by the following: whatever I say is
the LAW!" Do you believe in this philosophy for coaches? Explain.
This is a good philosophy and a bad philosophy. It's good because the coach has probably be through what the player will be faced with so he doesn't want then to fail. It's also a bad thing because the kids are the people playing and they can notice things that the coach might not notice him or herself.
Yes, I believe in this philosophy for coaches. If your team doesn't lesson to the coach, your not going to win games. The coach coaches and tell you plays and what to do for a reason. He knows how to win games if he's a good coach. Coaches can frustrate the player by over working them or making them play too hard. The player will sometimes get mad, but at the same time they have to think it's the law and they have to follow it if you want to play. So I think whatever the coaches say, or tell you should be considered as a law.
I disagree with you because what if the players do not like the style of the coach? I think the players should play how they think is the best way that will get them to success.
I disagree with you because players can listen and mesh with a coach even if the coach is not a dictator. It requires a strong philosophy and everyone to work together, but when that happens, it is much better than having one central figure and people submitting to them.
Yes Sir, I beleive this is a goos Philosophy because this rule PUSHES his coaches players to their limits and KEEPS pushing them till they have reached a new set, of circumstances and become better players on their own.
I do not think this is a good approach to coaching because it confines the players to a system where their limits are set. Sometimes as a coach, it's better to sit back and let your players make their own decisions before you step in to guide them. It helps let the players mesh together on a team, and it also gives the coach more insight on the characteristics of his or her players. I'm not saying that coaches should be completely out of the picture, but they should be more of a guiding hand and a mentor rather than a dictator.
I agree, if they are under the coaches "law" some players are bound to dislike the coaches style of play. If they were able to do their own thing it would help improve their performance. Of course, as a player they would have to adapt to certain things but after all they're on the team for their skill set they showed at tryouts and if players work together and give every teammate some shine it would make it a more enjoyable game to play and coach.
I also agree with you because what if the players don't like the coaches style? Every player of any sport should know how to play good and everyone has their own style of playing, if the players don't like the coaches style I don't think they will get far.
I do not believe this a good philosophy. I feel that the coach is limiting his teams ability. I feel that a does best when the coaches and players are on the same page. But also the coach must take charge and players must not cross that line. I think a good coach realizes that he shouldn't be a dictator and should be open and understanding to his players.
i disagree with you. A law doesn't mean that he is limiting the team, it means that they should follow those laws in order to succeed. They can all be at the same page if everyone follows the law.
I agree with you because because some coaches try to control their players too much. They should always have an open mind when it comes to the game. But at the same time they need to demand respect from their players.
This is an good philosophy, but it is also not. Yes, you do have to listen to your coach, but you also must have common sense. Common sense is a must have when listening, because what if your coach wants you to jump off a cliff, do you do it? No, there is an fine line between listening to your coach and then saying this is stupid.
I think that coach Norman Dale is right. I believe his philosophy can lead a team to a successful season. In any team there can only be one leader that tells you what you have to do. If everyone decided to lead then there would be chaos and no teamwork. If one person tells the team to play defensively and another person tells the team to play offensively then everyone would run around the field as if they were lost. If only one person leads a team then the team can play as a team and do the same thing.
This is a bad philosophy because then if he's a terrible coach they will never make it anywhere as a team. Some of the players might have a better idea that might be more efficient than the coaches way. I mean yes you should always listen to your coach but, sometimes it is alright to go against what he says if it will benefit you in a better way.It was proven in the movie they lost there first two games because of his coaching style. Passing the ball four times before you shoot the ball. I believe this is a bad coaching style because it doesn't give anyone a chance to try new things.
I have to disagree, you have to give the new coach a chance to work with team, I mean he has to figure them out, work with them and make them a better team, they seemed lazy before he came.
In a way I believe in it. The coaches lead the team they tell the team what to do, what plays to play, and how to play them. You have to listen to your coaches because most likely they know best. I also think that sometimes the players can see a little bit more than the coaches on what’s happening on the floor. The players then can tell the coach for example that the other team is holding their jersey so he can tell the referee. I believe that if both the players and the coaches work together and decide what plays to play that their team will be more effective.
I believe in this one hundred percent. I think the more strict and more in control he is, the better the team will be. The coach should be the enemy during the season and then the team will be more together and they will be better. If the coach is lenient and doesn't care if the team does good. Then the players will be the same way and they will just mess around during the practices and games. I think the meaner the coach, the better the team will be. And the more together they will be. But if the players see something wrong with what the coach is doing, then he should listen to the players sometimes.
I have to disagree with your opinion. Even though the team might be getting closer together, they shouldn't want to be close because of how they feel towards their coach but because of the love and dedication to the sport.
I believe this to be true, though the law may be bent. The coach is more experienced and he may know what's best most of the time, but there are a few times when the athlete actually out there playing knows what's best. One example to this may be when a football coach calls a for a run straight down the middle. The quarterback may make a sudden change if play due to blitzing linebackers. Though he didn't follow his coaches call, he still made a positive choice.
I do not believe in this philosophy. I think that yes the players have to listen to the coach because he is the coach for a reason and is far more experienced than the players but sometimes the players might have a little more insight on the game. If the coach is strict sometimes the players might turn against him and not listen to him at all just because they dislike him. If the coach is a little more laid back the players will listen more and hopefully take his advice if not they will learn form their mistakes and realize what they did wrong. I think no one is perfect at what they're doing and everyone makes mistakes even a coach. Because of that the coach and the players should work together and learn from each other. Another reason that I think this philosophy is bad is that if the coach is really strict the players can't have fun. If you don't have fun playing a sport it's just going to make you not want to play the sport which could spread around the whole team and bring the team's motivation down.
I believe the all the way, yes it may be weird but its right. Coach Norman came there to do a job and that's take this team to state and win a championship. The players don't realize but they have been brought a gift and their old coach isn't as experienced as Norman. Norman knows his way of basketball and the reason he said whatever I say is the law, well basically whatever he says should be sinked into his players head and get them better. He's teaching them to be a well state playoff team that will be tough to beat and they soon had to realize that and also the rest of the town people. Norman is a great coach and everyone will start to see it and start saying 'we shouldn't get rid of this guy at all'.
Your point is incorrect because at the end of the movie, his word isn't law and he allows Jimmy to take the last shot. I agree that kids should be told what to do to a certain extent, but at one point they need to branch out and be confident in their own abilities like Jimmy did.
I don't think this is a philosophy at all. Coaches cannot control the players by players listening to him . Players should have some freedom in the field too. Coaches may have experience but we as players have some experience to. It's not fare for a player not to do what they want , it's like them being slaves . When I play soccer my dad is my coach he played since he was small and still does and he's 40 years old. While I'm playing on the field he tells me what to do , me I listen and try my best to do it right if I don't do it right he can't do anything because he's telling me what to do and if I don't do it then I'm the problem not him. This is why I don't think this is a philosophy
This coaching method has its pros and cons. The pros are that it will keep every player on the same page. It will also make sure that the play is run the coach’s way instead of each player trying to do their own thing. The cons are that some players may not be able to shine by do what they do best. The coach my also not see things that the players see on the court and notice what is going on to fix the problems.
Even though I do not agree with the philosophy I agree that it will keep every player on the same page because if they weren't, plays would be sloppy, it would be hard to defend and score, and their spacing on the court would be horrible.
I agree with you 100%. Everything you said is on point. The players will be more together if the coach uses this philosophy but the kids might be scared to do what they do best because the coach might yell at them for not following there law.
I think that this is not a good philosophy. I believe that every coach should let their players have some sort of freedom. If a player is forced to do something by their coach it takes the fun out of playing the game how they want to play it. If a player isn't having fun I think it will affect their performance. Also, the players are the ones out there on the field/court so they see what is going on and they can adjust their game plan and play style depending on the offense and defense. Even though I don't think it's a good philosophy I also believe that the coach should set some ground rules for them to follow, but not control every aspect of the game.
I agree with you, if you're playing a game you love you should be having fun while doing this. There should be hard work but there also should be some fun.
I think it is bad because the players need a say in a team. If they don't have a say, all they become are pawns in a game of chess. The players need the freedom to be able to communicate with their team and offer words of advice that will contribute to winning. If the coach misses an opportunity to exploit the opposing team, a player on the floor could recognize it and pick it up himself. There is a fine line when it comes to how strict the coach should be, and giving the coach complete power and the final say in all cases is crossing it.
I disagree with as the players should be able to play more as a team under one leader they can trust which is the coach. If the players have freedom they are all going to want to do their own thing.
I disagree with you Sebastian because I do not believe that players are going to want to do their own thing if they get a little bit of freedom. If they should only have one leader which is the coach, why are there team captians?
I agree with you because when the coaches and players are working together they do better. It's more ideas and different opinions that help the team to be better and more victorious
I think What the coach said is one of the best philosophies in history of sports. I say that because a team always has a coach, without the coach theirs no team. Part of the coaches job is to put laws on his players because he has the right to do such thing. The most experienced guy on the team is the coach and he knows whats best for the team. The coaches job is to coach the team to victory, so it is probably the best idea to follow what he has to tell us and do it. Than we can watch the results.
I agree with you, if there wont be a coach the players might be running around like chickens with there heads cut off because they wont know any plays or be together in anyway.
I agree with you to a certain point. I think the coach should be clearly in charge and have the final say in things but the players should work with the coach so they're on the same page
I think this is a good philosophy because it works. If you want to win, you should listen to what your coach is saying. Although this philosophy might not be as fun sometimes, it wins you the games. Coaches have more experience, and know how a game should be properly played. If they let their players have more freedom, and never corrected them, or have never pushed the players to their limits the team would not be as good. Although this philosophy can also be enforced too much, sports are also about having fun with your team. So I think that his philosophy is good, and its defiantly helping them win games.
I strongly agree with what you said how players should just let the coach's coach because they know what's best and the coach will push them to the limit so that they can get better.
Yes, I believe in this philosophy for coaches. I think that if a coach won’t be coaching you hard you won’t get any better because you will keep practicing mistakes and not having the correct form in shooting a basketball, hitting a baseball, hitting a volleyball etc. This philosophy will help the team get closer together and play with confidence because they will know each and every player knows what they’re doing. If teams were not coached with this philosophy there will be chaos at the games. The only thing bad about this kind of coaching is that the players will not be able to their own game they have to play by the coaches laws.
I don't believe in this concept and philosophy because yes the coach is a very important person but the on the court, in the field, and in the ring the future of the game is unpredictable. The players need to be able to make their own calls and adapt to the ever changing game. If you listen to a coach for everything you lose the chance to be independent because you might not always have a coach by your side. Coaches should discipline their players and give them a game plan but also give the players the freedom to make their own judgment calls. Also not every coach is a good coach, if players follow everything a coach says it prevents the players and the team from succeeding.
I agree with you because if the players feel like nothing they say matters, they are going to lose confidence in themselves and their ability to succeed individually and as a team.
I think you are absolutely wrong. Players get hot-headed or caught up in their own task and they don't catch everything a spectator would. The coach is a spectator who's trained to catch the little nuances throughout a game. He knows everyone's strengths and weaknesses, no one is better suited to make adjustments for the team than the coach. His word should be law.
I agree with this philosophy because it will help the team come together and stay on the right track but then again it will be ok for a player to do what he thinks is best if he has no other choice. Plays will be broken up during the game and that's when the players have to man up and improvise. Other than that the players have to do what the coach says because that's his job, coaches' coach and players play. If players did their own thing then they wouldn't execute as well because they might not be on the same page and what if some players are ball hogs. You can't get a win by being selfish because you need team work. That's where the coach comes in; the coach will make the players run the plays during practice to get prepared for the game. That way when game day comes everyone knows what their job is because coach made them do the same play over a 100 times and the players would know that if they don't go by the play then they will get in trouble with the coach. It's the coaches' job to intimidate players because that will make them stronger on the field because they will just think about all that hard work the coach put them through to get a win, and they are not going to let all that hard work go to waste.
I think its both because the coach wants them to listen to what he has to say without anyone to talk back or question his logic. He wants them to be able to run plays in there sleep. He wants them to respect what he says n do as he says. Its bad because the coach isn't in the game and the player could see a chance to score that the play could mess up. But sometimes players want to be the star player and make all the plays but that doesn't always work out when you aren't playing as a team. It both because the coach should say something and it gets done buy the player and bad because the coach decision isn't always the best at the time.
I think this is a bad philosophy because it might make the players feel like they will not be able to voice their opinions or concerns to their coach without being shut down. What the coach says is very important but I also think that what the players might want to say is as equally important as the coach. When I played softball in 4th grade my coach was kind of like Norman Dale, she told us that we had to listen to her or that we would not play. I was having a little bit of trouble with my swing and the coach did not try to tell me how to fix it. One of my team mates' saw what I was doing and tried to help me but the coach got mad and said that my swing was fine even though I could barely hit the ball away from the foul line.
I think that this is a bad philosophy because the coach isn't your boss he is there to help you and give you good advice not tell you what to do and when to do it. Maybe back in the day this might of have worked because people back then I think were taught to listen to important people like there coaches, but now people have no respect for anyone I think. In conclusion I think that this is a bad philosophy because like I said a coach is your coach not your boss.
I disagree, it's a great philosophy. If kids don't have respect, they need a strict coach to teach them some discipline and respect. This philosophy would definitely work today, and, in my opinion, it will work forever.
I disagree with you sammon because if they have something that's working good for them then why change it? A new coach might come and ruin eveyrhing they have been working for if it does fail.
I think that this is a good philosophy. You should have trust in your coach and his play calling. You don't need to understand why he calls a certain or why he subs you out, he's doing it for the good of team and that should be enough for you to stand behind him. This kind of coaching style builds a mentally tough team, which is very important if you want to win. It also makes the coach a common enemy, much like the coach of the 1980's Men's US Olympic team. With a common enemy, a team could come together and bond much easier. These components build a strong team, much like the Hoosiers. Coach Carter of Richmond, Vermont also coached with a my-word-is-law attitude. He also brought that team to the state championship. I think that it's a good philosophy.
I don’t think that the “My way or the highway approach” is an effective coaching style. Being a coach means that you are the team leader, and you are responsible for the success and failures of the team. The best way to win in any team sport, whether it’s football, baseball, or basketball is to have a team that is comprised of individuals that, beyond talent, have a great knowledge and understanding of all the aspects of the sport and each of their teammate’s roles. There are five core players on an offensive line in football. There are two tackles, two guards, and a center. Each of these players should know their role, their counterpart’s role, and the roles of the other three positions. With a strict coaching style, you inhibit the learning of the game into the narrow confines presented by the coach. When you empower players, or anyone, they will in turn want to know more and do more. That is the best kind of coach or leader.
I believe this philosophy is a good one because it shows the ownership of the coach to the team. The coach should always show dominion over his team because it is the most important thing in a coach's life to own his team, lead them, and improve them over the days that come. It is important for a coach to have his team ready for anything that comes there way such as an invite from a different school or a tournament. Every coach needs to have their team in order. But the most effective way to keep a team on their top performance for a game is teamwork and sportsmanship.
This is a good philosophy and a bad philosophy. It's good because the coach has probably be through what the player will be faced with so he doesn't want then to fail. It's also a bad thing because the kids are the people playing and they can notice things that the coach might not notice him or herself.
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe in this philosophy for coaches. If your team doesn't lesson to the coach, your not going to win games. The coach coaches and tell you plays and what to do for a reason. He knows how to win games if he's a good coach. Coaches can frustrate the player by over working them or making them play too hard. The player will sometimes get mad, but at the same time they have to think it's the law and they have to follow it if you want to play. So I think whatever the coaches say, or tell you should be considered as a law.
ReplyDeleteI agree because if he didn't do this then there could be no progression.
DeleteI agree as well, having a coach that wont push you to be better wont make you to a championship
DeleteI disagree with you because what if the players do not like the style of the coach? I think the players should play how they think is the best way that will get them to success.
DeleteI disagree with you because players can listen and mesh with a coach even if the coach is not a dictator. It requires a strong philosophy and everyone to work together, but when that happens, it is much better than having one central figure and people submitting to them.
DeleteYes Sir, I beleive this is a goos Philosophy because this rule PUSHES his coaches players to their limits and KEEPS pushing them till they have reached a new set, of circumstances and become better players on their own.
ReplyDeleteI do not think this is a good approach to coaching because it confines the players to a system where their limits are set. Sometimes as a coach, it's better to sit back and let your players make their own decisions before you step in to guide them. It helps let the players mesh together on a team, and it also gives the coach more insight on the characteristics of his or her players. I'm not saying that coaches should be completely out of the picture, but they should be more of a guiding hand and a mentor rather than a dictator.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with you, if you allow the team to do what they want to do then everyone will be doing thier oownthing
DeleteI agree, if they are under the coaches "law" some players are bound to dislike the coaches style of play. If they were able to do their own thing it would help improve their performance. Of course, as a player they would have to adapt to certain things but after all they're on the team for their skill set they showed at tryouts and if players work together and give every teammate some shine it would make it a more enjoyable game to play and coach.
DeleteI also agree with you because what if the players don't like the coaches style? Every player of any sport should know how to play good and everyone has their own style of playing, if the players don't like the coaches style I don't think they will get far.
DeleteI disagree I think players need to be in a system so they are able to function as a team not as a individual.
DeleteI do not believe this a good philosophy. I feel that the coach is limiting his teams ability. I feel that a does best when the coaches and players are on the same page. But also the coach must take charge and players must not cross that line. I think a good coach realizes that he shouldn't be a dictator and should be open and understanding to his players.
ReplyDeleteI agree because sometimes the players can see things that the coach can't notice from the side lines.
Deletei disagree with you. A law doesn't mean that he is limiting the team, it means that they should follow those laws in order to succeed. They can all be at the same page if everyone follows the law.
DeleteYou got a good point, some coaches do take advantage of their power and cause players to do worse or make them doubt themselves.
DeleteI agree with you because because some coaches try to control their players too much. They should always have an open mind when it comes to the game. But at the same time they need to demand respect from their players.
DeleteI agree with you because the coach and the players on a team need to make a strong bond and require equal respect to allow that connection.
DeleteI agree with you because it's better if the players and coach are on the same page. It takes a whole team to win, not a few players.
DeleteThis is an good philosophy, but it is also not. Yes, you do have to listen to your coach, but you also must have common sense. Common sense is a must have when listening, because what if your coach wants you to jump off a cliff, do you do it? No, there is an fine line between listening to your coach and then saying this is stupid.
ReplyDeleteYou are right. Sometimes a coach does not give the best advice, but most of the time they do.
DeleteI agree because sometimes the coach isn't right you need to explore new ideas. The coach isn't always right about everything.
DeleteI think that coach Norman Dale is right. I believe his philosophy can lead a team to a successful season. In any team there can only be one leader that tells you what you have to do. If everyone decided to lead then there would be chaos and no teamwork. If one person tells the team to play defensively and another person tells the team to play offensively then everyone would run around the field as if they were lost. If only one person leads a team then the team can play as a team and do the same thing.
ReplyDeletei agree with you. i think a coaches job is to lead the team to victory and the only way he will reach that is when he sets his laws.
DeleteI don't believe in this philosophy but i think you make a good point with the teamwork and organization.
DeleteHe did lead the team to victory but also the players were the one who played
DeleteThis is a bad philosophy because then if he's a terrible coach they will never make it anywhere as a team. Some of the players might have a better idea that might be more efficient than the coaches way. I mean yes you should always listen to your coach but, sometimes it is alright to go against what he says if it will benefit you in a better way.It was proven in the movie they lost there first two games because of his coaching style. Passing the ball four times before you shoot the ball. I believe this is a bad coaching style because it doesn't give anyone a chance to try new things.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree, you have to give the new coach a chance to work with team, I mean he has to figure them out, work with them and make them a better team, they seemed lazy before he came.
DeleteIn a way I believe in it. The coaches lead the team they tell the team what to do, what plays to play, and how to play them. You have to listen to your coaches because most likely they know best. I also think that sometimes the players can see a little bit more than the coaches on what’s happening on the floor. The players then can tell the coach for example that the other team is holding their jersey so he can tell the referee. I believe that if both the players and the coaches work together and decide what plays to play that their team will be more effective.
ReplyDeleteI believe in this one hundred percent. I think the more strict and more in control he is, the better the team will be. The coach should be the enemy during the season and then the team will be more together and they will be better. If the coach is lenient and doesn't care if the team does good. Then the players will be the same way and they will just mess around during the practices and games. I think the meaner the coach, the better the team will be. And the more together they will be. But if the players see something wrong with what the coach is doing, then he should listen to the players sometimes.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with your opinion. Even though the team might be getting closer together, they shouldn't want to be close because of how they feel towards their coach but because of the love and dedication to the sport.
DeleteI agree with you because the coach knows more. The coach is a coach for a reason. So if the players follow the coach's rules, they'll most likely win.
DeleteI believe this to be true, though the law may be bent. The coach is more experienced and he may know what's best most of the time, but there are a few times when the athlete actually out there playing knows what's best. One example to this may be when a football coach calls a for a run straight down the middle. The quarterback may make a sudden change if play due to blitzing linebackers. Though he didn't follow his coaches call, he still made a positive choice.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe in this philosophy. I think that yes the players have to listen to the coach because he is the coach for a reason and is far more experienced than the players but sometimes the players might have a little more insight on the game. If the coach is strict sometimes the players might turn against him and not listen to him at all just because they dislike him. If the coach is a little more laid back the players will listen more and hopefully take his advice if not they will learn form their mistakes and realize what they did wrong. I think no one is perfect at what they're doing and everyone makes mistakes even a coach. Because of that the coach and the players should work together and learn from each other. Another reason that I think this philosophy is bad is that if the coach is really strict the players can't have fun. If you don't have fun playing a sport it's just going to make you not want to play the sport which could spread around the whole team and bring the team's motivation down.
ReplyDeleteI believe the all the way, yes it may be weird but its right. Coach Norman came there to do a job and that's take this team to state and win a championship. The players don't realize but they have been brought a gift and their old coach isn't as experienced as Norman. Norman knows his way of basketball and the reason he said whatever I say is the law, well basically whatever he says should be sinked into his players head and get them better. He's teaching them to be a well state playoff team that will be tough to beat and they soon had to realize that and also the rest of the town people. Norman is a great coach and everyone will start to see it and start saying 'we shouldn't get rid of this guy at all'.
ReplyDeleteYour point is incorrect because at the end of the movie, his word isn't law and he allows Jimmy to take the last shot. I agree that kids should be told what to do to a certain extent, but at one point they need to branch out and be confident in their own abilities like Jimmy did.
DeleteI don't think this is a philosophy at all. Coaches cannot control the players by players listening to him . Players should have some freedom in the field too. Coaches may have experience but we as players have some experience to. It's not fare for a player not to do what they want , it's like them being slaves . When I play soccer my dad is my coach he played since he was small and still does and he's 40 years old. While I'm playing on the field he tells me what to do , me I listen and try my best to do it right if I don't do it right he can't do anything because he's telling me what to do and if I don't do it then I'm the problem not him. This is why I don't think this is a philosophy
ReplyDeleteThis coaching method has its pros and cons. The pros are that it will keep every player on the same page. It will also make sure that the play is run the coach’s way instead of each player trying to do their own thing. The cons are that some players may not be able to shine by do what they do best. The coach my also not see things that the players see on the court and notice what is going on to fix the problems.
ReplyDeleteEven though I do not agree with the philosophy I agree that it will keep every player on the same page because if they weren't, plays would be sloppy, it would be hard to defend and score, and their spacing on the court would be horrible.
DeleteI agree with you 100%. Everything you said is on point. The players will be more together if the coach uses this philosophy but the kids might be scared to do what they do best because the coach might yell at them for not following there law.
DeleteI think that this is not a good philosophy. I believe that every coach should let their players have some sort of freedom. If a player is forced to do something by their coach it takes the fun out of playing the game how they want to play it. If a player isn't having fun I think it will affect their performance. Also, the players are the ones out there on the field/court so they see what is going on and they can adjust their game plan and play style depending on the offense and defense. Even though I don't think it's a good philosophy I also believe that the coach should set some ground rules for them to follow, but not control every aspect of the game.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, if you're playing a game you love you should be having fun while doing this. There should be hard work but there also should be some fun.
DeleteI think it is bad because the players need a say in a team. If they don't have a say, all they become are pawns in a game of chess. The players need the freedom to be able to communicate with their team and offer words of advice that will contribute to winning. If the coach misses an opportunity to exploit the opposing team, a player on the floor could recognize it and pick it up himself. There is a fine line when it comes to how strict the coach should be, and giving the coach complete power and the final say in all cases is crossing it.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with as the players should be able to play more as a team under one leader they can trust which is the coach. If the players have freedom they are all going to want to do their own thing.
DeleteI disagree with you Sebastian because I do not believe that players are going to want to do their own thing if they get a little bit of freedom. If they should only have one leader which is the coach, why are there team captians?
DeleteI agree with you because when the coaches and players are working together they do better. It's more ideas and different opinions that help the team to be better and more victorious
DeleteI think What the coach said is one of the best philosophies in history of sports. I say that because a team always has a coach, without the coach theirs no team. Part of the coaches job is to put laws on his players because he has the right to do such thing. The most experienced guy on the team is the coach and he knows whats best for the team. The coaches job is to coach the team to victory, so it is probably the best idea to follow what he has to tell us and do it. Than we can watch the results.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, if there wont be a coach the players might be running around like chickens with there heads cut off because they wont know any plays or be together in anyway.
DeleteI agree with you to a certain point. I think the coach should be clearly in charge and have the final say in things but the players should work with the coach so they're on the same page
DeleteI think this is a good philosophy because it works. If you want to win, you should listen to what your coach is saying. Although this philosophy might not be as fun sometimes, it wins you the games. Coaches have more experience, and know how a game should be properly played. If they let their players have more freedom, and never corrected them, or have never pushed the players to their limits the team would not be as good. Although this philosophy can also be enforced too much, sports are also about having fun with your team. So I think that his philosophy is good, and its defiantly helping them win games.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with what you said how players should just let the coach's coach because they know what's best and the coach will push them to the limit so that they can get better.
DeleteYes, I believe in this philosophy for coaches. I think that if a coach won’t be coaching you hard you won’t get any better because you will keep practicing mistakes and not having the correct form in shooting a basketball, hitting a baseball, hitting a volleyball etc. This philosophy will help the team get closer together and play with confidence because they will know each and every player knows what they’re doing. If teams were not coached with this philosophy there will be chaos at the games. The only thing bad about this kind of coaching is that the players will not be able to their own game they have to play by the coaches laws.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I'm trying to say, but at the end it still counts as a win so who can complain.
DeleteI don't believe in this concept and philosophy because yes the coach is a very important person but the on the court, in the field, and in the ring the future of the game is unpredictable. The players need to be able to make their own calls and adapt to the ever changing game. If you listen to a coach for everything you lose the chance to be independent because you might not always have a coach by your side. Coaches should discipline their players and give them a game plan but also give the players the freedom to make their own judgment calls. Also not every coach is a good coach, if players follow everything a coach says it prevents the players and the team from succeeding.
ReplyDeleteYou are right, you always have to account for yourself.
DeleteI agree with you because if the players feel like nothing they say matters, they are going to lose confidence in themselves and their ability to succeed individually and as a team.
DeleteI think you are absolutely wrong. Players get hot-headed or caught up in their own task and they don't catch everything a spectator would. The coach is a spectator who's trained to catch the little nuances throughout a game. He knows everyone's strengths and weaknesses, no one is better suited to make adjustments for the team than the coach. His word should be law.
DeleteI agree with this philosophy because it will help the team come together and stay on the right track but then again it will be ok for a player to do what he thinks is best if he has no other choice. Plays will be broken up during the game and that's when the players have to man up and improvise. Other than that the players have to do what the coach says because that's his job, coaches' coach and players play. If players did their own thing then they wouldn't execute as well because they might not be on the same page and what if some players are ball hogs. You can't get a win by being selfish because you need team work. That's where the coach comes in; the coach will make the players run the plays during practice to get prepared for the game. That way when game day comes everyone knows what their job is because coach made them do the same play over a 100 times and the players would know that if they don't go by the play then they will get in trouble with the coach. It's the coaches' job to intimidate players because that will make them stronger on the field because they will just think about all that hard work the coach put them through to get a win, and they are not going to let all that hard work go to waste.
ReplyDeleteI think its both because the coach wants them to listen to what he has to say without anyone to talk back or question his logic. He wants them to be able to run plays in there sleep. He wants them to respect what he says n do as he says. Its bad because the coach isn't in the game and the player could see a chance to score that the play could mess up. But sometimes players want to be the star player and make all the plays but that doesn't always work out when you aren't playing as a team. It both because the coach should say something and it gets done buy the player and bad because the coach decision isn't always the best at the time.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a bad philosophy because it might make the players feel
ReplyDeletelike they will not be able to voice their opinions or concerns to their
coach without being shut down. What the coach says is very important but I
also think that what the players might want to say is as equally important
as the coach. When I played softball in 4th grade my coach was kind of like
Norman Dale, she told us that we had to listen to her or that we would not
play. I was having a little bit of trouble with my swing and the coach did
not try to tell me how to fix it. One of my team mates' saw what I was
doing and tried to help me but the coach got mad and said that my swing was
fine even though I could barely hit the ball away from the foul line.
I think that this is a bad philosophy because the coach isn't your boss he is there to help you and give you good advice not tell you what to do and when to do it. Maybe back in the day this might of have worked because people back then I think were taught to listen to important people like there coaches, but now people have no respect for anyone I think. In conclusion I think that this is a bad philosophy because like I said a coach is your coach not your boss.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, it's a great philosophy. If kids don't have respect, they need a strict coach to teach them some discipline and respect. This philosophy would definitely work today, and, in my opinion, it will work forever.
DeleteI disagree with you sammon because if they have something that's working good for them then why change it? A new coach might come and ruin eveyrhing they have been working for if it does fail.
DeleteI think that this is a good philosophy. You should have trust in your coach and his play calling. You don't need to understand why he calls a certain or why he subs you out, he's doing it for the good of team and that should be enough for you to stand behind him. This kind of coaching style builds a mentally tough team, which is very important if you want to win. It also makes the coach a common enemy, much like the coach of the 1980's Men's US Olympic team. With a common enemy, a team could come together and bond much easier. These components build a strong team, much like the Hoosiers. Coach Carter of Richmond, Vermont also coached with a my-word-is-law attitude. He also brought that team to the state championship. I think that it's a good philosophy.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that the “My way or the highway approach” is an effective coaching style. Being a coach means that you are the team leader, and you are responsible for the success and failures of the team. The best way to win in any team sport, whether it’s football, baseball, or basketball is to have a team that is comprised of individuals that, beyond talent, have a great knowledge and understanding of all the aspects of the sport and each of their teammate’s roles. There are five core players on an offensive line in football. There are two tackles, two guards, and a center. Each of these players should know their role, their counterpart’s role, and the roles of the other three positions. With a strict coaching style, you inhibit the learning of the game into the narrow confines presented by the coach. When you empower players, or anyone, they will in turn want to know more and do more. That is the best kind of coach or leader.
ReplyDeleteI believe this philosophy is a good one because it shows the ownership of the coach to the team. The coach should always show dominion over his team because it is the most important thing in a coach's life to own his team, lead them, and improve them over the days that come. It is important for a coach to have his team ready for anything that comes there way such as an invite from a different school or a tournament. Every coach needs to have their team in order. But the most effective way to keep a team on their top performance for a game is teamwork and sportsmanship.
ReplyDelete