Jack’s Blog

There are differing styles of coaches just as there are different styles of coaching.  As with the varied ways coaches choose to attempt to win games strategically, the overall coaching philosophy of reaching players and bringing out the best they have to give crosses just as wide a spectrum.When I first got involved in athletics, the most popular coaching style undoubtedly was the one based on fear and respect of authority figures.  Being a “Baby Boomer,” I am part of a generation who saw their fathers rush to serve their country in World War II and be enormously proud of it (mine included).  Speaking at coaching clinics, I often made mention that the difference between the players of my day and the players of today is that, if I ever went home and told my father the coach yelled at me, my dad would “dress me down” and wonder what I did to make the coach so upset (to the point that punishment may have followed), while when today’s player informs his father (or mother) the coach yelled at him (or her), the parent immediately starts searching for the lawyer’s number.

The coaches of this breed usually shared a mantra.  It is, “Tear them down so we can build them back up.”  Those who experienced the most success employing this method are John Thompson, Bob Knight and Pat Summitt - each a Hall-of-Fame Coach, the last of whom is the current leader in career wins.  Each of the three were known for their unquestioned authority and Pat, whom I got to know well during my seven years in Big Orange Country and whom I consider the best coach - man or woman - I’ve ever seen (keep in mind, I coached with and against some of the nation’s best over 30 years), is still famous for her “Stare.”  Many a player and assistant of hers have told me you don’t want to be on the receiving end of IT (caps intended).

A similar style is the coach whose number one key to success lies in the toughness of the team.  Examples of this type range from Billy Martin and Woody Hayes to Bob Huggins and Tom Izzo.  Every name mentioned truly believed/believes in the saying, “A team takes on the personality of its coach” and consider that to be a bonafide compliment.

Maybe in a class by himself for winning the way he did was Vince Lombardi who religiously felt that all players should be treated equally and as one of his star players confirmed, “Coach Lombardi treated each of us the same - like dogs.”  Consider, also, that he might be believed to be the greatest football coach of all-time.

Another popular style is that of the coach who gives his/her players the utmost respect as people, realizing the team is going to be only as good as the players on it perform.  This is not a new philosophy.  It was successfully used by Dean Smith, Tommy Lasorda, Jerry Tarkanian (a coach I worked under who excelled in people skills ) and Tony Dungy.  Modern versions of this coach are Sean Payton, Doc Rivers and Brad Stevens.

Which method is the best method is an easy question to answer.  It’s the one in which the style suits the coach’s personality.  In other words, “To thine own self be true” is a perfect fit for one to decide which type of coach to be.

The one trait that all these highly successful coaches had in common was that they all truly cared about their players.  In addition, there are two other areas I think must be mentioned.  One is that it’s difficult (although maybe not impossible) for a coach to be successful if his or her ego is out of control.  However, the other is a virtual lock for the unsuccessful coach (especially one in charge of adults) and that is you’re digging an awfully deep hole, one which you may never be able to extricate yourself from, if you choose to motivate by humiliating people.  Because, as Lord Chesterfield remarked:

“He makes people pleased with him by making them first pleased with themselves.”

College football coaches are always claiming their game is the ultimate team sport.  They make a pretty good case.  Some of the players have next to no athletic ability, yet are vital cogs in the success of the team because they can move people in their way or hold their ground as impenetrable walls.  Others are good at throwing, or catching, or running, but may not be as inclined to contact as some of their brethren.  As a former kicker, I remember speaking to another in our “fraternity” and recall him saying, “The other guys might resent that our uniforms are always clean, but when it comes to the end of the game, with the outcome on the line, they fully realize we’re the only player on the team who can deliver a win.”

Fans need to keep that all-for-one attitude in mind when discussing last night’s toying of the New York Giants by the Indianapolis Colts.  After hearing Tony Dungy, Peyton’s former “boss” respond to Dan Patrick’s pre-game question regarding who on the Colts made the call when it was 4th & 1, that let football fans know how valuable - and powerful - Peyton Manning was - and is.  Dungy’s answer was, “I did.”  When asked “What if Peyton didn’t like it?” the former coach said, “He’d better,” but then admitted that his QB could change it at the line of scrimmage.  This wasn’t said to illustrate Manning’s defiance, just to show how much Dungy respected all the preparation his on-the-field general did for each game.

Tom Coughlin is much more of an authoritarian leader and while he may give Eli Manning the same decision-making power (undoubtedly, Eli puts in an inordinate amount of preparation time for each game as well), it’s fairly well known throughout the league that the Giants’ QB is on a much shorter leash than his older brother.

While last night’s game may have been a testament to how seriously Peyton dislikes losing (the Colts were coming off an opening game loss), watching it showed one team’s other guys were better.  In all, Peyton Manning and the Colts had a sensational game plan, but their overall talent was far superior to their opponent’s.  Had the teams had each other’s quarterbacks, the score might have been different but the winner would have been the same.

Although one extremely talented individual can influence the outcome of a game, teamwork usually wins out in football.  Henry Van Dyke’s quote sums up the value of each player on a football team:

“Use what talents you possess; the woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best.”

There’s one thing that’s the same for all of us, independent of how much - or little - money we have.  That thing is time.  Each person has 24 hours in a day.  The difference is how we choose to use that time.

One of the most difficult challenges in life is balancing work and family.  Coaches, especially those who are ultra-competitive, are a highly driven bunch.  In addition, the great ones (and to be honest, the not so great ones) form such a tight bond with their teams that that group becomes, as corny as it sometimes sounds, their second family.

So, although Doc Rivers’ older two children, Jeremiah and Callie, are student-athletes in their senior year in college, the former a basketball player at Indiana, the latter a volleyballer at Florida, and his second son, Austin, a star hoopster at Winter Park (FL) HS, he’s decided to return to coach the Boston Celtics.  Is he choosing work over family?  Hardly.

Four years ago, Doc reportedly spent over $200,000 of his personal money to charter planes to be there at his kids’ games.  It made for a hectic schedule but for guys like Rivers, it’s the only way he’d have it.  Work and family.  Expensive, time consuming, tiring - but worth it.  He happens to be someone with two passions - and finds makes the time to successfully accomplish both at championship levels.

As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, I enjoy audio books when I’m driving.  One I recently listened to was entitled Fifth Quarter by Jennifer Allen.  Other than the fact that it must have been a cathartic experience for her to do the book, I can’t imagine why someone would publicly go into detail assassinating her entire family.  The contents of the book might be the topic of a blog someday, but for now, suffice to say that when Papa George did find time to drag away himself from his job to spend with his family, he - and they - were miserable.

On the other hand, Tony Dungy, no less a coach in the win-loss column than Allen, managed to strike a balance between his two families - the biological one and the team he happened to be in charge of - by encouraging his assistant coaches to have their wives and children around the team and the franchise’s facilities as much as reasonably feasible.

Another coach, Phil Jackson, whose family is grown, but whose body is broken down, made the identical decision as Rivers - even though he has yet to sign a contract and there have been rumors that, while Laker owner Jerry Buss wanted his leader to return, he planned on cutting his $12 million salary in half.  I imagine Phil will get his dough (in addition to the $12M, he received another couple mil for winning the championship).  It just seems that coaching and the competitive drive fuel these guys - so much so that, although one would be content watching his children play and the other happy to allow his body to heal, their lives would somehow be incomplete without their profession.

After Doc’s performance as head coach following the acquisition of, among others, Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen, I would imagine the Celtics, who compensate him quite handsomely, have inserted a clause which states that he needn’t shell out his own hard earned cash in order to maintain a somewhat normal relationship with his wife, Kris, and their four children.  Leading a team to two NBA Finals in three years, winning one and going to a Game 7 in the other, earn a coach a longer leash.            

Meanwhile, keep in mind that a man of this makeup doesn’t want to leave his other family, especially when the window for winning is closing fast.  That’s why Doc said, “We want to go after it one more time with this group,” meaning, in all likelihood, that Paul Pierce, who recently opted out of his contract to be a free agent, and Ray Allen, whose contract is up, will be offered contracts and will most likely rejoin the Celts to make another run at a title - one they felt, barring the injury to center Kendrick Perkins, would have been their second in three years. 

Rivers’ priorities are properly in line and even the most cynical critic can’t question his integrity, work ethic or results.  The wrap up quote belongs to Doc: 

“It’s not the perfect way to live, but it’s the right way.  I know there are Boston fans out there who think I should live up there.  But if it comes down to upsetting a million people in Boston, or the five people in my family, I’ll figure out a way to deal with the million.”

Some coaches are fire-breathing, aggressive and competitive types, while others are more laid-back, introspective - and competitive.  It’s been said coaches get too much credit when teams win and too much blame when teams lose.  (Note: The same is said about quarterbacks).  So, which model is recommended?

If any research has been done, undoubtedly, it would show that both types (and any other leadership style) have a number of coaches who have been big winners as well as coaches who’ve lost - games and their jobs.  Vince Lombardi and Mike Ditka in one group and Tom Landry and Tony Dungy in the other.  Jimmy Johnson was gregarious as a head coach; Bill Belichick is anything but.

I found the answer in one national wire story I read yesterday.  It discussed the coaches in today’s AFC title game and had the following quote from New York Jets coach, Rex Ryan, when asked about his bravado approach: “Believe in yourself and believe in your team.”  He does, and expresses himself in a way that endears him to Jets’ fans and players.

When his counterpart, Jim Caldwell, head man of the Indianapolis Colts, was questioned about his soft-spoken ways (especially in comparison to Ryan), he summed their differences - which are also their strengths - perfectly:

“The great thing about this game is that it requires an immense amount of authenticity, so you have to be who you are.”

Countless numbers of fans were disappointed and enraged when Norv Turner and Wade Phillips were given contract extensions.  Each coach has been roasted by fans and radio talk hosts alike for their inability to go deep into the playoffs.  The fact that they get to the playoffs doesn’t matter in the slightest.

Listen to a conversation among fans or tune into talk radio and those coaches are getting skewered.  What I find extremely amusing is that the dialogue nearly always consists of a (as in one) play call or a decision or a play not called that, had the fan’s or caller’s suggestion been used instead (always after the game has been decided), the Cowboys, Chargers, fill in the blank with whichever team they’re pulling for, would still be alive and on their way to a Super Bowl.  And these feelings are not limited to the professional ranks.  The rash of college coaching changes that take place each year seems to be on the rise.

We all have heard that fan is short for fanatic, so on this topic, emotions run high.  Which is good because we need something to get excited about and give us feelings of success(when the team wins) or vent over (when they don’t).  But let’s think about what happens to the team when the coach is fired.  I’m not being heartless when I say not to consider the coach’s feelings, family, stress level, etc. when he gets fired.  In this case, I’m focusing on what should be the main concern to the fan - the team. 

In college, when a coaching change is made, there is (usually) a period of time before the new coach is hired.  During that time period, the fans are still giddy because that “SOB who couldn’t get the job done” is finally gone.  However, just as fans have emotions, so do the players. 

Since these are young guys, they tend to make statements or decisions during a time when it probably would be better to sit back, take a few deep breaths and let things play out.  But that type of reaction doesn’t make for good reading or listening, so these young adults (or spoiled kids) shoot from the lip because it’s their right that everyone knows how they feel.  Many of the comments made fall under the “I wish I hadn’t said that” category.  Even worse are the decisions some of them make in haste, e.g. to “un”commit, transfer, or even quit. 

Move on to just as important matters, yet ones that are devoid of emotion and there’s a better reason why several coaching changes that are made are not in the best interests of the team.  One is that with a new coach comes a new system.  No two coaches have identical styles and the players who are at that institution were recruited to play in the now-gone coach’s system.  Some “blue chippers” might not be the best fit for the incoming staff.  It’s not easy to replace good players.  Depending on when the change is finally completed, an entire recruiting season may be lost.

In addition, in college football, most programs like to redshirt many of their freshmen (some coaches have the philosophy to redshirt the entire freshmen class - to get them more familiar with the style of play, to get them stronger - and a year older and more mature, to get them acclimated to college life - especially academics).  Combine the fact that recruiting has got to suffer because the coaches of schools where there was no coaching change are using all this turmoil against a new staff and it becomes an uphill battle.  Sure, the new coaches have been recruiting these kids for quite a while, but you’d better be a slick talker to change your sales pitch - from why where the institution you, the coach, just left was the perfect place, to why your new employer presents an even better situation.  Which is the reason why recruiting seasons are lost.  Another thing that’s often lost is a great deal of money, but that’s another story for another blog.

Finally, take into account the new guy may be worse than the last one.  “Impossible!” the fan claims, yet when the following season kicks off and the fan’s team loses, I defy you to catch that same backer saying, “Well, we might have lost, but at least we don’t have that other guy here - making calls that cause our team to . . .  oh yeah.”

I wonder how the Charger and Cowboy fans would feel if Dallas and San Diego had fired their coaches - and then the Cowboys hired Norv Turner and the Chargers hired Wade Phillips?  What their fans really want is for Norv to coach the Chargers and Wade to coach the Cowboys during the regular season.  Then, replace them with, maybe Bill Cowher and Tony Dungy or better yet, Vince Lombardi and Chuck Noll.  Just remember:

“If the grass is greener on the other side, there’s always a guy on that side who thinks your grass is greener than his.”�

It’s Norv Turner-bashing time.  Once again, a team Turner has led lost early in the playoffs.  Talk radio show hosts will have an absolute field day!

If it seems I’ve been on an anti-talk radio show host kick, it’s probably because I’m waiting for some audiobooks I’ve ordered and have had the radio on while I’ve been driving.  Anyone who knows me will tell you sarcasm is something I’m fairly well-versed in.  Then why is it I get so riled up when I hear talking heads doing it?

While I (immensely) enjoy back-and-forth repartee (if you couldn’t hold your own in my neighborhood, you’d go home crying everyday), I don’t think people should be allowed to make a living doing it.  Comedians are great and I love stand up, but I have a hard time with people who make money by humiliating and making fun of others - especially when the person doing the ball-busting couldn’t do in a million years the job of the person they’re ridiculing.

So . . . that means I have no issues whatsoever with someone like Tony Dungy, Bill Cowher or Jimmy Johnson taking shots at someone like Turner.  And therein lies my point.  Those former coaches (as well as current coaches) never do - because they know how hard the job is and all the factors that go into winning in the playoffs.

Players (current and former) who criticize coaches are a little different story.  Granted, they have been in the arena and that alone gives them a great deal of credibility.  Before basing a whole lot of credence on what they say, though, what needs to be taken into account is what are/were they like as players?  I mean, should Baron Davis (switching sports here to make the point crystal clear) ever get a commentators job, I would expect nothing less than critical comments directed at coaches.  What else would we expect from someone whose nickname in NBA coaching circles is “CK” (”Coach Killer”)?  Keeping it in the NFL, would you think TO would be impartial when it came to whose fault it was - the quarterback or the receiver?   

Yesterday, the Chargers had a field goal kicker who had made 69 in a row inside 40 yards miss three kicks (two that he normally makes).  Their QB had three uncharacteristic turnovers.  Can you blame those on Coach Norv?  Talk radio hosts somehow, in some smart ass way, will.

Now, I don’t know Norv Turner.  But, undoubtedly, I feel the way I do because, while not in the NFL,  I coached for a long time - and I’ve heard some asinine comments made by people who’ve never coached.  Former coaches have opinions I respect because they’ve been there.  That doesn’t mean they’re the only ones who should be allowed to voice an opinion.  Everyone’s entitled to one.  At the very least, however, the criticism should be based on facts.  Bring up how many times he’s been there - with his team as a favorite - and his teams have gone down, fine.  But don’t make it sound like he’s a total incompetent and . . . that you could have done better.

Count the number of times that he’s gotten teams to the playoffs and research how many other coaches in history there are that have accomplished that feat?  Compare that to how many guys have ever coached.  Because he’s been in that position that many times means he’s in the top whatever percentage of coaches.  Maybe these talk show guys ought to equate that to whether they (or others) consider themselves in that same elite group of talk show hosts.

Many certainly will.  Then they need to ask themselves, “If I’m that good, why am I stuck in the market I’m in?  Shouldn’t I (since there are only 32 NFL teams) be in the top 32 markets?”  If they’re taking shots at college basketball coaches, they only need to be in the top 347.  There’s more wiggle room in that group.  Yet, when rating their own expertise, they need to remember the line attributed to Emmy Cosell when her husband, Howard, asked her how many truly great sportscasters she thought there were:

“One less than you think.”

Situation: The New England Patriots were up six points, 34-28, against the Indianapolis Colts, in Indy, with 2:08 to go and had possession of the ball on their own 28.             

Decision:  Punt, of course!

But head coach Bill Belichick, possibly not yet recovered from the shell shock of the Colts’ previous possession - one in which Peyton Manning took his team 79 yards in 1:52 and scored a touchdown - using no times out!), decided to go for it.  His reasoning?  His vaunted offense certainly ought to have been able to get two yards, for goodness sake.  So he went for it. 

And, got it!  Or would have, had Kevin Faulk, the receiver on the play, not bobbled the pass.  His initial reception was just beyond the 30 yard line (which would have resulted in a first down) but, once he bobbled the ball, was not given forward progress and the Pats came up about a half a yard short.

What the talking heads had only briefly mentioned, was that, on this series, due to a “miscommunication on personnel” (according to QB Tom Brady), NE was forced to take a time out.  Actually, on the possession, the Pats took two times out (their final two).  This meant that, although the completed pass was bobbled, it was by no means a foregone conclusion that Faulk came up short - and since the clock had not yet gone under two minutes, the call could be challenged.  But . . . a team needs a time out in order to challenge.  So, the Patriots had to take the official’s word for it that he spotted the ball properly.

Reactions: Sunday Night Football color man, Cris Collinsworth, vehemnetly disagreed with the decision.  ESPN analyst Trent Dilfer called it a “horrific” call and gave no wiggle room, i.e. the decision was 100% wrong - period.  Tony Dungy, a former colleague of Belichick’s (and coaches are notorious for sticking by each other because every one of them has been second guessed by people with 1/1,000,000th the amount of knowledge, so empathy runs deep) said, “You have to punt the ball.  No matter how much you respect Peyton Manning (and no one respects him more than Dungy does), you have to punt the ball.”  Even Rodney Harrison, a former player for Belichick and someone who understands the genius that is Bill Belichick, said, “This is the worst decision I’ve seen Bill Belichick make.”

Now, let’s step back, take a deep breath and give some rational, rather than emotional, thought to the decision.  Any choice anyone makes in life has a risk vs. reward factor to it.  Without prolonging this blog, the risk far outweighed the reward.

Sure, if they made it, the game would have ended.  However, the season is just a shade over midway complete.  While he is saying, “I trust you, offense, so much that I’ll risk going for it on our own 28, knowing full well, if we don’t make it, Peyton Manning will have to go (at most) a whisker under 30 yards in 2 minutes,” there’s a message he’s also sending is to his defense.  “You guys did intercept Manning twice on the day and, in general, or at least up until that last oh-so-brief-drive, did as good a job on him as we could have hoped.  But, if we punt, we’ll be giving him 70 yards and two minutes to beat us.”  With that (not so) subliminal message, is there any wonder they couldn’t stop him from engineering the winnning drive of 29 yards?

This game was the first in 88 contests that a Bill Belichick-coached team lost after being ahead by 13 or more in the fourth quarter.  Actually, the Pats were up 17 and were up 13 with less than four minutes to go! 

Although his initial reaction seemed not to be second guessing his decision, but rather, questioning whether they really didn’t make it, i.e. feeling they got a bad spot, look for Belichick, one of the greatest NFL coaches ever, to act like the leader Antoine de Saint-Exupery described:

“A chief is a man who accepts responsibility.  He says, ‘I was beaten.’  He does not say, ‘My men were beaten.’  Thus speaks a real man.”

Jeff Fisher was asked to introduce Tony Dungy, one of the classiest people on the planet (and former coach of the Indianapolis Colts), at a charity dinner in Nashville, TN.  In order to inject some levity into the event, which is entirely proper and in very good taste (people are known to donate more when they’re smiling), he wore a #18 Colts jersey - which happens to be the jersey Colts’ quarterback Peyton Manning wears.  So far, it sounds like a perfect story line.  Yet, controversy immediately followed.

The rub?  The NFL’s Tennessee Titans, who call Nashville home - and whose coach is Jeff Fisher - are off to their worst start ever at 0-6.  Worse, they are coming off of a 59-0 shellacking at New England.  Add to that the statement Fisher made after revealing that he was wearing Manning’s jersey: “I just wanted to feel like a winner.” 

When Fisher pulled this stunt, he did so out of respect for his good friend.  Fisher is the longest tenured coach in the NFL.  Dungy won the Super Bowl in 2007.  Two close friends, two highly respected coaches and gentlemen, yet some people, including some of the Titans’ players, got upset because, in an attempt to make an evening a fun, light-hearted affair, one honored the other by jokingly wearing the jersey of the quarterback who led the guest speaker’s team to a championship.  The quarterback who, by the way, went to the University of Tennessee and is revered there.

Did people get bent out of shape because the team is 0-6?  Of course!  If the Titans had the record they did last year at this time (when they won the division), do you think anybody would be upset?  Of course!  Some people today spend their time trying to find things to criticize.  You know, the kind of person who wins the megajackpot lottery - and then complains because of how much is taken out in taxes.  As for the players becoming indignant over their coach’s attire and witticism - if you don’t like it, why didn’t your sorry asses play worth a flip in New England?  No team - NO TEAM - in the NFL loses to another 59-0 without the loser quitting!  What you’re saying - now - you should have thought about when you were whining about the snowstorm (that, by the way, BOTH teams had to play in) and giving whatever percent you want to call it.  Teams always talk about giving 110% - which any college educated person (accounting for maybe 75% of the members of the Titans) knows is impossible.  Just as it’s impossible to give a negative percentage of an effort - although the effort expended by Tennessee approached a number to the left of zero.  

These people (the ones on the street who complain, not the players - they just ought to be embarrassed and thankful they weren’t arrested for stealing the money the organization paid them for last Sunday) are ruining day-to-day life for the rest of us - only because people (like me, come to think of it) write about them and their petty comments.  Each one of those stories ought to come with a warning label:  “The surgeon general has found the following story to be unhealthy for any normal person seeking to enjoy life.  Read at your own risk - but he strongly urges all to refrain.” 

As Hubert H. Humphrey once said:

“The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.”

. . . as if there haven’t aready been enough people express their views on this topic.  I, for one, don’t plan on making a case either way.  My strategy is to listen to as many opinions as I can and throw them out there in one post.  Then you, the tiny minority who have yet to make up your minds, can piece it together and come up with a belief - not that it will affect the outcome (unless you’re the commish and, although I’ve had friends tell me of some relatively “famous” people whom they know have read this space, no one’s even hinted that this blog has seen the inside of NFL headquarters).  Their loss.

In an earlier blog (8/21/07), I mentioned no team would ever give Vick a chance, mainly due to the negative pub and potential boycotts that would be inevitable.  But, two years is a long time.  Ask Vick.  I’ve never had - and hope I never do - the experience of two years in prison (except for the tradition my high school had of sending our basketball playing juniors to play a game against the inmates at Rahway State Penitentiary, I’ve never set foot in one).  The feeling I got hearing the door close behind us was enough to make up my mind as to which side of those bars I decided to be on - which was, obviously, why our school had the tradition in the first place.  I couldn’t fathom, nor would I want to spend any time doing so - what a couple years on the wrong side must feel like.

That’s the side many of the Vick supporters are taking.  The legal system is designed to punish people for whatever crime was committed.  There can’t be only one form of punishment, e.g. a motorist running a red light can’t be given the same amount of prison time as a mass murderer.  For that matter, a motorist running a red light can’t be given the same amount of prison time as another motorist running a red light - who hit school children crossing the street - and then, subsequently, is found to be intoxicated.  Vick’s penalty was served and now he’s out.

That doesn’t mean anyone has to like him, or even forgive him, but to say he shouldn’t be allowed to play in the NFL sounds a bit like jealousy (as if anybody would have volunteered to trade places with him two years ago).  I saw a lady on television who was holding a poster that read something to the effect, “Vick should be allowed to get a job, but not in the NFL,” clearly intending that although he may have paid his dues, he shouldn’t be have the opportunity to do something he likes to do or, more to the point, get a job that pays so much!  As if the justice system wasn’t flawed enough, we need this lady to fix it.

Another take I heard was Chris Rock’s, who is as witty and quick on his feet as anybody.  On this one though, Chris might be guilty of generalizing a little bit too much - whether it was for the purpose of getting a laugh, helping out a friend or trying to minimize what Vick did.  Rock’s logic was that the same people who are saying the punishment for Michael’s dog-fighting (and killing) wasn’t enough are the very same who hunt.  One major difference might be that, yes, the hunters certainly do intend to kill what they’re shooting at.  However, it’s done during the proper “hunting season” which, I’m led to believe, has the purpose of thinning out the species -and don’t give me the “how would I like it if people were thinned out” BS since I’m pretty sure there was never any deer that had the possibility of making an impact on society that any human did.  Another reason is that hunters don’t torture the animal until it dies. 

Believe me, I am the very last person who would ever consider being a member of the NRA, but Chris Rock’s defense, while amusing on the surface, has little similarity to that of hunting - and, yes, I eat red meat, chicken and fish.  Even though I have a biger than normal appetite, I can safely say that I would not eat any of those if it meant the animal had to be hanged, electrocuted, body slammed or whatever else Bad Newz Kennels did with its “losers” in order for me to enjoy a meal.  If you say killing is killing, think about (as absurd as it might be) if you were ever with some psycho and knew you were about to die, would it matter to you if it was with one quick shot, or if you were to going to be treated in the manner those dogs were.  If you say there’s no difference, I truly hope you’re never actually faced with such a decision - because at that time, I’d bet the (Bad Newz Kennel) ranch you’d change your mind.  

And about that comparison to Leonard Little killing a person (and is still in the league), while Michael killed animals, if someone can’t see the difference in a traffic accident that resulted in manslaughter and intentionally training dogs to kill other dogs (while being mauled themselves), all for the purpose of entertaining your customers, your sense of humor - and reasoning - might need some work.   

Some in Vick’s corner say he’s sincere about changing and he has attended some kind of education program - be it about the viciousness of cruelty to animals (which he said was simply part of his life growing up where he did - and who are we to judge, unless we lived the childhood he did) or just a plain old human decency class.  He is also now a spokesman against the types of dastardly deeds he committed.  I don’t think he can “phony it up” for as long as he’s going to have to perform his community service so, on that count, we’ll have to wait and see.  

An extremely wise move on his part - or whoever decided to enlist someone to guide him - was bringing in Tony Dungy.  Nowhere has a man in that high profile a life “walked the walk” like Dungy did.  From allowing his assistant coaches to bring their wives and kids to the Bucs’ and Colts’ training facilities, to knocking off early, to the way he got through the suicide of his son - with such dignity - puts him in a class that might not have another pupil.  There is absolutely nothing in this mentoring program for Tony (other than what he claims, i.e. helping another human he happens to know).  He’s already won the biggest game of all, retired from a job on his terms, few in his line of work can claim and is as “agenda-less” a soul as there could possibly be.

Now a word about those few, but loud, people out there who are saying this is about race.  Can’t you for just once leave race out of it?  Do you loudmouth, publicity-seeking blowhards think for one nanosecond that if a white player (or a Latino or an Asian or a Martian) was caught bankrolling the heinous acts that Bad Newz Kennels was, for as long as they were doing it) that they would have gotten off?  Can you actually say -with a straight face - that if it wasn’t for the fact that Michael Vick is black, that PETA wouldn’t be up in arms about his return to the NFL?  Do you not realize how much you are hurting the black cause?  You’re the people who really need Tony Dungy.

Whether Michael Vick should play or not is out of all (but one) of our hands, and after hearing all the evidence I have to date, I’m thankful I’m not that one - because I still can’t decide.  As one of the great philosophers of our time, Jimmy Buffett, said:

“Indecision may or may not be my problem.”

 �

After watching the argument between the Arizona Cardinals’ wideout Anquan Boldin and their “O” coordinator, Todd Haley - while the game was going on - I was amazed.  Neither man made much out of it later, Boldin saying he just wanted to play a greater role in the offense (because he sincerely felt that strategy would be in the team’s best interest if they wanted to win), while Haley saying he has no problem with guys speaking their mind, but he’s going to express his opinion right back. 

Haley mentioned that “I coach hard,” a statement I’ve heard other coaches use, e.g. coaches on the hot seat after suffering a defeat, who proclaim, “Sure we lost, but as a coaching staff we’re just going to get out there at practice and coach ‘em hard this week and see if we can’t get this thing turned around.”  What in the world is coaching hard?  Does it mean you’re going to yell more, dole out more punishments (running, push ups, other activities players don’t enjoy), get in people’s faces, not smile? 

Some of the most successful coaches in history would never be thought of as guys who “coached hard,” yet they were big-time winners.  Guys like John Wooden, Dean Smith, Tom Landry and Tony Dungy come to mind.  Wasn’t there ever a game that got under their skin, a game they lost they knew they should have won, where after the game, the thought of coaching hard entered their mind as a means of restoring winning ways? 

To be honest, I’ve studied coaches for a long time; at first it was to see if there were any hints I could pick up to make me better so when I got my opportunity, I’d be ready for whatever situation came along.  Although that experience never came, I continue to observe coaches to this day, probably out of sheer force of habit, and have not, to this day, seen what coaching hard means.  On a local level, if I were forced to describe someone who coaches hard, I would have to say Fresno City College’s Ed Madec, the men’s basketball coach there, would be a prime example, especially if it means “imposing your will on your team,” because he does that as well as anybody I’ve ever seen.  Quite possibly it’s because he doesn’t have high caliber talent, but still manages to squeeze every drop out of the guys he has.  However, I tend to think if he coached the Celtics, he’d coach the same way - although maybe not for long.  Does that mean coaching hard only works on some levels?  Or do different guys just happen to have different styles?

As far as the players yelling at the coach, some coaches handled it quite differently than others.  Al McGuire, the legendary head coach (and color commentator), actually encouraged players to yell at him.  This was undoubtedly due to his upbringing as a tough Irish New Yorker who felt if you had a problem with him, let’s settle it - by rolling up the ol’ sleeves and getting it on.  The story, people who knew Al swear it’s not apocryphal, about the time Al challenged one of his players to a fight under the bleachers and the two of them duked it out.  After it ended, Al had no hard feelings, respected the kid and was ready to get on with whatever was next up on the practice plan (except Al never had a practice plan, just coached by gut feel).  That day, his gut told him the best way to get his message across was to fight his own player.  How can anyone argue with that logic?

Bob Knight was asked by his cohorts at ESPN about the Boldin-Haley incident and he more or less blew it off.  He said the media was making entirely too much out of it and it ought to be a non-issue.  The winningest men’s Divsion I coach of all-time continued, “I didn’t mind if a kid yelled at me - as long as he was right.”  My guess would be that, throughout Knight’s coaching career there were a number of players who, at the time, he felt were right.  And that number would be zero. 

To others in the business, “coaching hard” might mean working hard, e.g. staying a little later to break down one more game video to see if there’s anything you missed - on the first six games you charted.  Or maybe it meant “paying closer attention to details.”  I’ve heard coaches say, “We’ve gotten away from it,” meaning they slacked off on what had made them successful in the past.

One method of coaching (whether it’s hard or soft I don’t know) which is used by some very successful coaches (and I imagine by some not so successful ones), is something players absolutely hate, and that’s speaking to the individual players on the team through the media.  Two championship winning coaches have been accused of that on numerous occasions, but make up for it in other areas, because I simply don’t believe it’s a proper way to communicate.  Those two coaches are Pat Riley and Phil Jackson. 

Players have long complained about Riles saying, “We’re a team and what goes on here stays here.”  Then, players read the papers or are confronted by journalists who say, “Pat said this, do you think he was referring to you?” (which he obviously was to anyone who had seen the previous game).  Players disliked it when Jackson would use similar psychological tactics, mainly because Phil was the master motivator and he had so many other inspirational tools he could have used.  Then, again, many of the players who complained used the exact same tactic.

Hard or soft?  Which works?  In coaching, one thing every coach learns in due time (some not before it’s too late and they’re no longer employed), is be yourself.  As far as the arguing, consider the fact (and it takes a hell of a man - and coach to admit this) you might be wrong.  In that case, take a page out of Dr. David Burns’ book:

“Never give up your right to be wrong, because then you will lose the ability to learn new things and move forward with your life.” �