Good coaching
- Thread starter Next-Up
- Start date
Accountability, call people out if they put forth mediocre effort. No one is beyond constructive criticism. For to long many coaches and institutions in this state have been allowed to get away with piss poor or half ass performance. Challenge DIAA and demand the rules change to favor the best interest of kids over institutions. Next up my blog on the worse referees in the state of delaware, officiating sucks. Too much whistles blowing, let the damn kids play.
Last edited:
Stan Waterman, by far the best in Delaware, if not one of the best ion the Country. Goes all out for his players on and off the court, both former and current. As a result, you can see how hard his players go all out for him.
I think the private schools have most of the time players that get instructed year round. So coaching doesn't seem to have to be done to much. The kids just learn each other . I need to know what coach has put down so good old fashion discipline with what they have. Not what's sent to them
Oh I thought the question was generalized. Didn't know you were looking for names. The bottom line is winning games is what makes a good coach at any level.
I will say i like Stan Waterman. He has given me sound advise as far as coaching and players. but my thing is he came into a program that was always getting above average kids.. or the top of the line kids and having a good supporting cast around them.. Some would say that is just great recruiting which is what you have to as well.. The old saying is "you need horses to run your plays and make them look good". and that goes for John Noonan of ursuline..But my question is could those guys go a fairly weak public school and turn them around like they do at the schools that there at? i'm not sure if they would still be the same coaches you praise.. I love the coach that builds from scratch and uses what he can get and makes the best of it.. Lee sibly of st. marks. Not a lot of talent but he gets most out of his players and makes them believe they have a chance in every game..The next coach that has impressed me is freeman williams.. I watch how they use there time outs, how they inspire there kids to play harder, the plays are not complicated but are enough for there style and the type of kids he has in his program..i will give shannon mccants a little bit of love as well. some games i questioned some of his in game choices.. but he is making the most of the players he have and they make a decent run in the tourney.. now the sallies coach is looking really good. but he has some of the best players in the stated this year. there really young but he has the talent.. the question is will he be a failure if never gets a state chip or have some national exposure for all the talent he has.. or if he cant get those kids and into a decent school? so what would be a failure for him..other coaches to me that are looking good are William penns on both the girla and boys side, the st. Georges coach on the boy side, and concords coach.. now i have seen guys that had plenty of talent but couldn't get them over the hump. one guys comes to mind is the coach at A.I. he had all of the pieces but just find a way to push them to perform. another coach is the coach at appo.. I dont want to come across as taking shots at anybody. but i do want to give a real perspective of what i see as a really good coach vs a person that has talent on there team and continues to win.. Also if there developing the talented kids from a freshman into a consistent player by the time they are seniors.. those coaches to me
trainer + Recruiting + x's/o's + practice + in game adjustments= great coach
trainer + Recruiting + x's/o's + practice + in game adjustments= great coach
Sir, I tend to agree with you all the way, I played both with and against Freeman Williams and agree he is a great coach and a great person, however my argument for Stan is he does so much more for his players off the court than he does off the court. It is like the movie Coach Carter, I think high school basketball is more than winning basketball games, that is only a small part of what a great coach is about, it is about giving players the light to do more in life and become successful in whatever you do, and that is what Stan does for his players.Llife is the big picture and he opens up so many doors for his players in that regard. I think he would be a great coach no matter where he is, and agree he should look into UD, but he has a great gig at Sanford, and I think he enjoys bringing kids up from an early age and providing them the knowledge before they go on to the next level. Also, from what I have seen he still takes an interest in both his current and former players and is always there for them at all times, and I think that exemplifies a great coach.
Please correct your statement regarding Stan does a better job off the court. You state it twice, can't be the same.
Well I'm glad we have new coaches in certain seats. It's good to notice there is a big difference when you can recruit players. Also there still chances in recruiting it can be good or bad. Our top private schools here just have been doing a good job. Far as public schools they need more people who care and teach the children. A bunch out there get jobs from knowing one another old friendship. I can't just blame schools for hiring someone you think is capable of developing on/off court skills with children. And actually as long as we keep debating against one another on who is the best at etc... It's possible nothing will never move because the adults aren't one. It's great to disagree and notice really when certain individuals aren't right for the job. But it has to start with everyone putting there heads together to make changes we need. And then each child should excel up or down state.
Privatate Schools like Sanford sell themselves, top notch education with less nuckleheads as distractions, it's just a bonus when u add in a good coach like Stan. Public school have to many social issues that distract kids from learning which is why when u look at espn top 100 players most go to private schools. Its an easy choice for parents, If some wealthy individual who loves sports wants to fund talented kids attending these schools a parent would be a fool not to take advantage of a great educational opportunity. As long as the financial aid keeps pumping these schools sell themselves. Even if u could recruit, u gotta have a good school to sell.
Last edited:
sports junkie, i couldnt agree more. as long as these private have a safer environment for these kids to go to. it will be hard to compete with that. You add a good or solid coach and you have a great chance for your child to have success.. As long as the public schools continue to go down hill private school will have one hand up in getting some of the cream of the crop..Then you will have one year where the best went to a public school made something of it.. and that will be more of the tech schools then anything.. mount pleasant, concord, appo, and few other schools will pop up.. but i would be curious if stan went to a public school could lure some of the kids to that school and be close to having what he is used to getting at sanford.. now there exceptions.. look at tatnall. they havent been irrelevant since Juwan carter was there.. could it be coaching, lack of financial aide for some kids, and /or are they not enough to attract kids to there program.. there football team is on the rise but not the basketball on both sides.. so what do they do to compete?
Justabasketballfan, with Tatnall it's the Coach, set in his ways and comfortable with mediocrity. Just plain laziness to be honest. Once I got a chance to thoroughly examine his program I discovered that guy is camping out in a good situation but doesn't develop kids. If it doesn't fall in his lap he ain't going to create anything. Great school, lazy unmotivated coach.
Last edited:
Similar threads
