I threw this out for discussion on at Rock's. If anyone here wants to weigh in, I'd be curious how you'd describe each of the coaches on staff if you were forced to put them into either category (or perhaps this is just too simplistic, it fits my limited experiences). The clinic must've been great, I'm jealous.

question for those who've been able to observe this collection of coaches this spring. I've been away/busy for awhile and haven't been able to follow spring practice much. Does there seem to be a good mixture of technician-style coaches and teamwork-style coaches?

Let me try to explain what I mean by that distinction. It has been my experience, that there are some guys who are master technicians. They both know and know how to drill/teach the intricacies of their position/responsibilities. This coach can take an individual player's film and break down every single movement. Further, he immediately knows ways, sometimes unusual ones, for players to correct bad habits or learn proper technique. These guys are always spotting, talking about, and teaching fine details.

Contrast that coach with the teamwork coach who's primary focus is on getting players and units to function as one team. This style coach can immediately identify how, for example, the OL are not passing guys off to each other or communicating on the line properly. He tends to see how teams play rather than individual techniques.

Undeniably, most coaches spend time utilizing both of these approaches to coaching and most coaching positions require both as well as other characteristics. Still, it's been my experience that many coaches tend to excel at one of these or the other, particularly career-type position coaches. Those that truly excel at everything tend to move into coordinator or head-coaching roles. I think of Lou as the (recent) epitome of putting both of these styles together along with an acute knowledge of football-strategy and a demanding personality.

This is a broad generalization about people to be sure and it also does not imply that any coach who is more a "master technician" but less of a "teamwork" guy is somehow hurting the staff because he's less apt at seeing all the parts moving together. A really good staff, in my opinion, will have a blend of coaches that can provide players with fundamentals in all areas of the game.

It sometimes takes awhile to get the right mix of coaches without even mentioning coaching personalities. It's my hunch that some of the guys that have been castigated here and elsewhere are probably very good coaches in some regards but perhaps didn't add in ways that served to balance and maximize the overall coaching equation.

This ended up being longer than I planned, but I hope this distinction makes sense and wonder if anyone has observations (from those open-portions of practices, the clinic, or the BG game) as to whether we've struck a good balance here?