Posted by wildcat98 on 5/15/2014 5:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by guyo26 on 5/15/2014 5:23:00 PM (view original):
This guy came in as a 13 WE, after starting 3 years and 83 straight games he was a 29 WE.  I don't have records of growth each year, but it wasn't much WE growth

This is what I meant, though my "skyrocket" wording wasn't precise. I was thinking something like 50% growth per year started or something. IOW, Year 1 = 8WE-->12WE; Year 2 = 12WE-->18WE; Year 3 = 18WE-->27WE...

Sort of like compounding interest, by the end the WE would be significantly higher.

these figures are much too ambitious

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/12/2014 11:47:00 PM (view original):
alblack is not a_in_the_b, is he? i would be genuinely shocked if that was true. 

No, not. I would be quite shocked if it were true as well.

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/15/2014 9:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wildcat98 on 5/15/2014 5:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by guyo26 on 5/15/2014 5:23:00 PM (view original):
This guy came in as a 13 WE, after starting 3 years and 83 straight games he was a 29 WE.  I don't have records of growth each year, but it wasn't much WE growth

This is what I meant, though my "skyrocket" wording wasn't precise. I was thinking something like 50% growth per year started or something. IOW, Year 1 = 8WE-->12WE; Year 2 = 12WE-->18WE; Year 3 = 18WE-->27WE...

Sort of like compounding interest, by the end the WE would be significantly higher.

these figures are much too ambitious

Yeah it's like
8
12
17
23ish

Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/15/2014 9:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/15/2014 9:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wildcat98 on 5/15/2014 5:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by guyo26 on 5/15/2014 5:23:00 PM (view original):
This guy came in as a 13 WE, after starting 3 years and 83 straight games he was a 29 WE.  I don't have records of growth each year, but it wasn't much WE growth

This is what I meant, though my "skyrocket" wording wasn't precise. I was thinking something like 50% growth per year started or something. IOW, Year 1 = 8WE-->12WE; Year 2 = 12WE-->18WE; Year 3 = 18WE-->27WE...

Sort of like compounding interest, by the end the WE would be significantly higher.

these figures are much too ambitious

Yeah it's like
8
12
17
23ish

Yeah, this seems more realistic. I just new I'd heard that starting these low WE guys helped their WE quite a bit. Shouldn't have used "skyrocket", though.

Recruiting: C+
- The players I tend to recruit are always "missing" in one or two category's even though they excel elsewhere.

Player Development (through practice planning): A
- I usually max out my players and get a lot out of IQ's

Team Game Planning: A-
- I feel that I usually can give my team a game plan to have a chance at victory

Player Game Planning: C-
- I struggle with distro a lot and just sort of wing it

Team Development (Leaving teams better than you found them): N/A (only coached two teams and have maintained their excellence I guess?)

Overall: B-

Interesting thread... I'd love to have others evaluate ME that actually know what I've done. 
I was always a B+ until the last 20 seasons or so. Then I began to really understand Offenses and defenses, and the types of players needed to run them better which helped me get better. 
then I began to get scheduling. this helped even more where I moved to an A coach that makes the final four pretty regularly and rarely wins the big one. 

Posted by ettaexpress on 5/7/2014 7:15:00 PM (view original):
Is it possible to not be good at development? Pretty much all you have to be able to do is see colors and do basic math. 

I really think player development has to be tied to recruiting.  If you give yourself a low mark in recruiting, I can't  see how player development can be ranked high.  For instance, if I get crappy players with a lot of low potentials, how can I not get them to max out?  I think a better way to look at this is how much improvement players get by the end of their careers relative to where they started.

Posted by stewdog on 5/16/2014 12:02:00 PM (view original):
Interesting thread... I'd love to have others evaluate ME that actually know what I've done. 
I was always a B+ until the last 20 seasons or so. Then I began to really understand Offenses and defenses, and the types of players needed to run them better which helped me get better. 
then I began to get scheduling. this helped even more where I moved to an A coach that makes the final four pretty regularly and rarely wins the big one. 

This is actually a really interesting idea about having others evaluate a given coach. And I think it'd be lots easier to do it without rancor now that we no longer have to worry about a certain poster dropping a turd in the middle of it.

I'm pretty good at answering my emails in a timely fashion.
So that's an A- for technological competency.

I haven't murdered my assistant coach for being wrong way too many times in evals and gripes about practice time. So I think patience would be a B.

have no DUIs while driving on campus. Surely that's a C+ in Institutional Representation.

My players all graduate and go on to remarkable careers at Best Buy. So maybe a B- in player development?

Posted by tcplotts on 5/16/2014 7:13:00 PM (view original):
I'm pretty good at answering my emails in a timely fashion.
So that's an A- for technological competency.

I haven't murdered my assistant coach for being wrong way too many times in evals and gripes about practice time. So I think patience would be a B.

have no DUIs while driving on campus. Surely that's a C+ in Institutional Representation.

My players all graduate and go on to remarkable careers at Best Buy. So maybe a B- in player development?

You and Oldave are the current nominees for funniest self-evals.

My self evaluation.

http://youtu.be/Jm-upHSP9KU