If you sign players because of athleticism and toughness rather than skill and shooting don't turn around a year or two later and complain about your players' lack of skill, shooting & IQ.
— Brian McCormick, PhD (@brianmccormick) April 1, 2020
The tweet above has been simplified or misunderstood; there are two interpretations, not just one. The obvious point is to recruit skill and shooting. The other is that when a coach recruits athleticism over skill, presumably because the coach believes he/she can develop skills, it is not the players' fault if those skills have not been developed after two years.
Those who recruit athleticism and toughness rather than skill and shooting, must have a plan to develop skills and shooting or to scheme around the deficiencies. Similarly, those who recruit skills and shooting ahead of athleticism and toughness must have a plan to develop athleticism or scheme around any athletic deficiencies. One recruiting philosophy is not necessarily right, although I have my preference, but the absence of a plan to develop or scheme around deficiencies leads to many recruiting mistakes and poor fits, and these poor fits often end up in the transfer portal by choice or by the coach pushing them out to sign a player who fits better.
The decision to transfer often is not the mistake or the bad decision; instead, it results from a poor original decision. Players decide poorly because they are not truthful with themselves about the things that really matter to them, probably because they are 18 years old and not entirely aware of those things. Coaches make bad decisions, often because they are not truthful with themselves about the things that are important to them.
The tweet was really about awareness.
Does the coach recruit for a specific style? Does the coach collect the most talented players possible and hope to figure out a system? Does the coach know which player types that he/she favors? Does the recruiting philosophy match the allocation of minutes?
I coached a player who attempted nearly 8 three-point field goals per game. A program that attempted 15.13 3FGA/G recruited her, and told her that they wanted to shoot more three-pointers in the next season. Despite signing one of the nation's best shooters and stating a commitment to shoot more three-pointers, they averaged 15.03 3FGA/G. They actually shot fewer three-pointers per game!
The player listened to the coach's sales pitch, not her actions. The coach believed that she would change her style of play.
Coaches evaluate their seasons and imagine ways to improve. Most tend to be proactive and aggressive: Play faster, shoot more, play more aggressive defense. When the season starts, they revert to their more conservative personality and core beliefs. Change is hard, and when you perceive your job to be on the line, change is harder.
Players who they signed during their enthusiasm for change may not fit with their style of play. The lack of fit is not anyone's fault other than a lack of awareness: The player ignored the signs that the coach did not value three-point shooting, and the coach lacked the awareness of her own philosophy. The coach may have believed with all of her heart that she would change, but it rarely happens.
Problems also occur when coaches overrate their ability to develop skills. I am confident in my ability to develop players' skills, and especially shooting, and have a significant track record to support this belief. Everything from our system of play to our communication style to our practice schedule to our drill design is set up around skill development. That being said, I recruit shooters and skills first, and we scheme around players who cannot shoot.
Whereas I imagine that every coach and every program believes that they develop skills and emphasize skill development, few environments that I have seen do as they say. For example, the coach below has been known for 20 years for skill development. But, how much of what is described actually occurs?
We film & chart all of our workouts. Always looking @ the details & how to tweek things. 3 things I believe in: integrate passing & reads whenever possible, create game like reps that integrate multiple skills, & develop a “next play” mentality. #GrowOurGame pic.twitter.com/oQSbxNBYyi
— Cori Close (@CoachCloseUCLA) March 24, 2020
There is nothing wrong with the drill, and every coach in the country uses similar drills. However, does the drill integrate passing and reads? The only player pass is the initial one which is a pass to a stationary, undefended coach. Does the drill involve reads? It is hard to tell because of the short clip, but based on what we can see, not really. It sure looks like the defense is scripted. When the defense is scripted, do the offensive players make reads? Off the DHO where the two players make different moves/shots, there is no defense; who do they read? Finally, is this game-like? There is no live defense, and only one player in the drill, so clearly a designated shooter. Is that game-like?
To reiterate, this is not a bad drill, and this is common at nearly every college program. However, I believe many coaches overrate their ability to develop incoming players' skills, which leads to transfers when players do not develop into the players that coaches imagined, because these are not game-like drills. Now, with practice restrictions and individual workouts, these may be the best drills possible. This may be a great, efficient practice. However, that does not make the drills game-like, and as long as we view these drills as game-like skill development drills, we overrate the effect that we have on our players' skill development.
