MHSL82
Well-Known Member
1. Good players don't necessarily make good coaches.
If you limit them in what you are asking them to do, then being a good player or just a regular coaching candidate has nothing to do with it. ANY coach good at anything besides coaching (scouting, agent, high school coach) doesn't necessarily make for good coaches. If your comment was in regard to Malone, I think if they have him help in the ways that he would be good, it would necessarily make him a good coach in that role. I know that's a bit of a circular reference or self-defining, but I wouldn't apply your comment to a part-time guy. I suppose a good player could have no clue what he was doing and not be good - just not any more than an average guy coming into coach.
2. A lot of times, they don't have the patience. The game came easy for them, and they think the players they are teaching aren't working hard enough.
3. The players being taught rarely are able to play like the great players they are learning from, anyways. Hakeem has taught several players over the past 11 years, and those players he taught picked up maybe 2% of his ability.
I think it's better though just from a mental side, and off-the-court lessons. Players can learn about preparation, attitude, eating right, how to deal with girlfriends or wives, and how to deal with money.
I like the move, but don't expect more than a 1-2% improvement from Kanter and Favors. Perhaps a change in attitude, if they required one. And just life lessons and friends, is what this is good for.
Agree. Earlier, I was just