RebKell's Junkie Boards

[ClayK]

So we often hear about how a young guard should play with Seattle to learn from Sue Bird, or a young post can be "mentored" by a veteran -- ignoring the presence of well-paid professional coaches who have at least some background in teaching as well as playing.

Sometimes, of course, the elite player is a good teacher, and is an excellent coach, but it is far from automatic, as Katie Smith shows.

Smith was a great, versatile player who could defend, score, rebound and most of all, understood how to win. She is, unfortunately, not a very good WNBA coach, and may never be.

Smith was also very popular as a player, and fans want to keep their favorites around, so again the tendency is to think that a popular player with the fans will be a good coach.

Neither talent as a player nor popularity with fans and media has much to do with being a successful coach at any level. Coaching in high school is teaching (and some recruiting); coaching in college is recruiting; and coaching in the pros is ego management and strategic savvy. (Oversimplified, of course ...)

At any level, job one is to get your players to play hard, no matter what your method.

Why is there an assumption that Katie Smith or Sue Bird or Kara Lawson or any other "favorite" player will be able to do any of these things? Playing the game is much different from coaching the game, and Katie Smith is far from the only example of that distinction.

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā

[myrtle]

I think star players turned coaches in general have a hard time relating to players with less talent/less oomph/less bball smarts than they themselves had. Swoopes as a HC at Loyola was a good example of disaster. On the other hand, they do have the experience so can relate to some of the issues players face....which perhaps makes them well suited for being assistants at least to start out. And it depends a lot on personality. I don't know that you can clump them all into one basket. PGs have a unique viewpoint which perhaps gives them a better chance at becoming good HCs. There are certainly some very good college coaches who were themselves very good players.

In general, the 'mentoring' stuff is mostly BS. Yeah, there are some players into it, but mostly why do they want to 'mentor' someone who is there to take their job? Cappie in Indy is a great example. Do we suppose the Mitchells are enjoying their 'mentoring'? They were already inclined to heave up bricks and now they have somebody ahead of them heaving up even more bricks. Great mentoring.

_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman

[Shades]

[WNBA 09]

Cynthia cooper hasnt been that bad as a HC.

_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol

[Michelle89]

If you are already a coach on the floor (with a high basketball IQ) as a player or as some say an extension from the coach (often good PG's) then its easier to become a coach.

_________________
"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant

[Randy]

Things might come too easily for a great player and they have a hard time realizing not everyone is that good. This year might be a great learning experience for Whalen. Being that player who is not very good might give her insight into what the kids she will soon be coaching are going through.

Star players might do better as college coaches where, as Clay said - recruiting is the most important part of the job. Kids are likely to be more impressed with say Whalen than some former assistant coach that rose through the ranks to head coach.

[calbearman76]

Great players that became very successful coaches:

Anne Donovan
Kim Mulkey
Dawn Staley

I'm sure there are others but these are the first three that come to mind that truly excelled in both areas. Staley and Mulkey were both point guards while Donovan was a center. Stars have a few built in advantages because they have instant credibility that they know the sport. In college they also have a built in recruiting advantage because of their celebrity. But whether they are able to teach and motivate is not necessarily the same skill set that made them great players.

[Richyyy]

In fairness to Smith she wasn't one of those star players who was immediately parachuted in as a head coach with no experience whatsoever, like Jason Kidd was a few years ago in Brooklyn. She was an assistant coach in the WNBA for four seasons before getting the Liberty head coaching job. This wasn't just an arbitrary star appointment - she had built a reputation as an assistant as well (and NY weren't the first team that wanted to give her their top job).

And coaches do improve and learn. Sandy Brondello only lasted one year in her first WNBA head coaching job, and is now considered pretty good by a lot of people, has won a title, and stayed in the same job for 5 years. Curt Miller went 14-20 in his first season in Connecticut, and would now probably be considered one of the better coaches in the league. Smith might get there given some time, however much of a disaster this year has been.

_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/

[GEF34]

[Luuuc]

[WNBA 09]

Hell Sandy Brondello took pretty much the same path .

_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol