Re: Jim Haslett
 

football, more than any other organized sport, requires superior coaching for a team to be successful imo.

basketball is a distant 2nd.

football, basketball, hockey, baseball.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

Coaching is definitely important. I'd still give the edge to talent though.

Barry freaking Switzer got a free ride to a Super Bowl win, and put together a 40-24 coaching record in the pros. Barry freaking Switzer.

Does anyone really think he was a quality NFL head coach?

Re: Jim Haslett
 

What I got out of Daseal's comment("Good teams don't need head coaches-any coach that takes over a team needs to come in and fix the issues") was that teams that are already good don't need a [I]new[/I] HC. In reply to this, '"For his coaching career, Haslett is 45-61...but those Rams and Saints teams he coached were bad teams when he was hired as HC in both New Orleans and St. Louis"', it makes sense.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think his comments were misunderstood.

If not, I agree with others. You can't win without good coaching.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=skinsguy;1072570]Yeah, I have to agree with that. I think the head coach can make or break a team no matter the talent level. You can't just plug any ol' coach in as a head coach even if he's got a team full of Hall of Famers. There's so much that goes into head coaching. People think he just stands on the side lines and calls time outs while letting his coordinators do all the work - can't be any further from the truth.

At the same time, I DO think there are some coordinators in this league that can manage a good team well enough to keep them winning - maybe because they're head coaching material to begin with?[/quote]

Thank you for understanding and answering my question.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=SmootSmack;1072538]Are you saying that all a team needs is talented players?[/quote]

I see the confusion now. When I said "Good teams don't need head coaches" I was trying to say winning teams don't fire their coach, because another poster mentioned Haslett took over bad teams. If you're going to a team, as a head coach, they're probably a team that did poorly the previous year. In my opinion, football coaches are the most important coaches in sports.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=Daseal;1072594]I see the confusion now. When I said "Good teams don't need head coaches" I was trying to say winning teams don't fire their coach, because another poster mentioned Haslett took over bad teams. If you're going to a team, as a head coach, they're probably a team that did poorly the previous year. In my opinion, football coaches are the most important coaches in sports.[/quote]

Oh, so then "good teams don't need [I][B]new [/B][/I]head coaches"

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdKa9bXVinE]Monty Python - Dumb Guards - YouTube[/url]

[YT][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdKa9bXVinE]Monty Python - Dumb Guards - YouTube[/url][/YT]

Re: Jim Haslett
 

Great coaches, great players, and great teams. They all go hand in hand. It's an argument of what came first? The chicken or the egg?

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=warriorzpath;1072606]Great coaches, great players, and great teams. They all go hand in hand. It's an argument of what came first? The chicken or the egg?[/quote]

Well stated.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

Nah Danny wouldn't give it to Gregg either and he woulda gladly took the spot when Gibbs stepped down.