Hooskins Presents the "Who Needs to Step Up" Poll

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

GTripp, I hear what you're saying. But I look at a team like Philly. To me, there's nothing special about their defense or their team for that matter. But you know what, they are extremely well coached; Year after year after year.

In my opinion, when your talent only takes you so far, coaching takes you the rest of the way. Coaching is that decisive and competitive advantage that separates poor teams from good teams and good ones from great ones.

When you listen to player post game interviews after a big win, I tend to hear the same thing...."the coaches did a good job getting us ready"...or "we were really prepared for this game". Maybe it's just my selective hearing, but I rarely heard that coming from our locker room last season.

The Eagles also do a wonderful job with their personel year after year. And Reid is the league's top coach right now IMO. But if you kept their personel and made Marty Mornignweg the coach there, I don't think you'd see a noticible dropoff in their team play.

Coaching can provide a strategic (and unpredictable) advantage in the short term, but in the long run, I just feel that the talent on the field has to carry the team.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The Eagles also do a wonderful job with their personel year after year. And Reid is the league's top coach right now IMO. But if you kept their personel and made Marty Mornignweg the coach there, I don't think you'd see a noticible dropoff in their team play.

Coaching can provide a strategic (and unpredictable) advantage in the short term, but in the long run, I just feel that the talent on the field has to carry the team.

I feel just the opposite. I think the talent, in many cases, is close at this level. Closer than we think. The way rosters turn over in the NFL now a days, the only constant is the coaching staff and continuity of thought.

We agree that Reid is one of the top coaches in the NFL, but I disagree that any old Joe Schmo can't get the same results with the same team. This guy takes J. Trotter, who by some accounts, is a system linebacker. Yet he somehow manages to be in the discussion as one of the better linebackers in the NFC.

The fact of the matter is, one would really have a hard time quantifying good coaching. Other than wins and losses, it's hard to really 'see' it over the course of a game. Sure, if it's third and one, and your team has rushed for over two hundred yards during the game, and the coach decides to thow a bomb to the end zone, that probably was a questionable call there.

I think it shows up in areas like lack of penalties, exececution of time clock, tackles made/missed, passes caught/dropped and maybe a few other areas. It's more mental. I believe players excute to the extent of their preparedness and confidence in the overall strategy. That's why you can fight your guts out every game and still lose week after week. At this level true professionals have the mental edge over the opponent.

I happen to think Gregg Williams is a wonderful coach but this is his year to step up.

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I feel just the opposite. I think the talent, in many cases, is close at this level. Closer than we think. The way rosters turn over in the NFL now a days, the only constant is the coaching staff and continuity of thought.

We agree that Reid is one of the top coaches in the NFL, but I disagree that any old Joe Schmo can't get the same results with the same team. This guy takes J. Trotter, who by some accounts, is a system linebacker. Yet he somehow manages to be in the discussion as one of the better linebackers in the NFC.

The fact of the matter is, one would really have a hard time quantifying good coaching. Other than wins and losses, it's hard to really 'see' it over the course of a game. Sure, if it's third and one, and your team has rushed for over two hundred yards during the game, and the coach decides to thow a bomb to the end zone, that probably was a questionable call there.

I think it shows up in areas like lack of penalties, exececution of time clock, tackles made/missed, passes caught/dropped and maybe a few other areas. It's more mental. I believe players excute to the extent of their preparedness and confidence in the overall strategy. That's why you can fight your guts out every game and still lose week after week. At this level true professionals have the mental edge over the opponent.

I happen to think Gregg Williams is a wonderful coach but this is his year to step up.

I'm with you, 12th. Gregg Williams really made me pause and think about that big contract extension he got. Maybe he started to believe his press and that's what did him in last year. Whatever it was, the entire D was atrocious with absolutely diddley squat in the turnover department, no run support, shoddy tackling and poor coverage. To me, that reflects upon the scheme and coaching, especially when you have players like Marcus, ST, Cornelius etc.
So my vote is for the entire defensive staff and players.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I feel just the opposite. I think the talent, in many cases, is close at this level. Closer than we think. The way rosters turn over in the NFL now a days, the only constant is the coaching staff and continuity of thought.

We agree that Reid is one of the top coaches in the NFL, but I disagree that any old Joe Schmo can't get the same results with the same team. This guy takes J. Trotter, who by some accounts, is a system linebacker. Yet he somehow manages to be in the discussion as one of the better linebackers in the NFC.

The fact of the matter is, one would really have a hard time quantifying good coaching. Other than wins and losses, it's hard to really 'see' it over the course of a game. Sure, if it's third and one, and your team has rushed for over two hundred yards during the game, and the coach decides to thow a bomb to the end zone, that probably was a questionable call there.

I think it shows up in areas like lack of penalties, exececution of time clock, tackles made/missed, passes caught/dropped and maybe a few other areas. It's more mental. I believe players excute to the extent of their preparedness and confidence in the overall strategy. That's why you can fight your guts out every game and still lose week after week. At this level true professionals have the mental edge over the opponent.

I happen to think Gregg Williams is a wonderful coach but this is his year to step up.

I would completely agree that the talent at this level is closer than anyone things. But I don't think the difference in consistent winning team and consistent losing teams is about coaching. I would argue that its even simplier. Because the level of talent between the two teams is always close (unlike college football), the chances of an upset due to random fluctuations of dumb luck are far greater.

Even if the far superior Coach "A" devises a master gameplan to face Coach "B", its not improbable at all in this sport for the blind Coach "B" squirrel to provide his team a coaching advantage in a single game. Suppose Coach A does a masterful job mixing up his runs and passes and his blitzes, while Coach B selects plays at random. What's to say that Coach B's team wont have the strategic advantage? The fact that luck of the draw can completely mitigate a lot of strategy in football definately deemphizizes the effect of coaching on the outcome of a game.

Now if Coach A is playing his best 11 players for the situation at all times, and Coach B is not, Coach A's team now has a big advantage.

I think it shows up in areas like lack of penalties, exececution of time clock, tackles made/missed, passes caught/dropped and maybe a few other areas. It's more mental. I believe players excute to the extent of their preparedness and confidence in the overall strategy. That's why you can fight your guts out every game and still lose week after week. At this level true professionals have the mental edge over the opponent.

I agree that those things are mental, but I'm not sure how much a coach can do to improve those things. I mean, number one, they are going to happen in every game anyway regardless of how prepared you are. Number two, I believe that no coach will be able to better a player who doesn't want to better himself. I also believe the type of player who is good enough at football to make it to the NFL is probably near his optimal level of mental acuity and composure. After all, its the only way they'd make it. Maybe its just me but I just can't imagine how the hypothetical Coach A would get his players to perform measurably better than Coach B could, provided that they were the exact same players.

[Mc2guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Maybe its just me but I just can't imagine how the hypothetical Coach A would get his players to perform measurably better than Coach B could, provided that they were the exact same players.

I respectfully disagree. I am no pro athlete, but I played a lot of sports at the youth, high-school, and college level and I can tell you for a fact that certain coaches know how to get the best out of their guys and others don't. It comes down to preparation and trust. Some coaches have a natural ability to instill trust that their system and approach will work, which builds confidence in the players and translates in to increased performance.

Case in point: Norv Turner, by all accounts an offensive genius and overall a nice guy. He is not, however, a good HC. He doesn't have the inherent leadership skills to instill confidence as an HC and hence, his record when in charge is well below .500.

In all walks of life, sports, business, performing arts, military, etc., a true "leader" can make a tremendous difference in how a group performs.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mc2guy

I respectfully disagree. I am no pro athlete, but I played a lot of sports at the youth, high-school, and college level and I can tell you for a fact that certain coaches know how to get the best out of their guys and others don't. It comes down to preparation and trust. Some coaches have a natural ability to instill trust that their system and approach will work, which builds confidence in the players and translates in to increased performance.

Case in point: Norv Turner, by all accounts an offensive genius and overall a nice guy. He is not, however, a good HC. He doesn't have the inherent leadership skills to instill confidence as an HC and hence, his record when in charge is well below .500.

In all walks of life, sports, business, performing arts, military, etc., a true "leader" can make a tremendous difference in how a group performs.

I would say that in HS and maybe ever college sports, you would be absolutely correct. Remember, my point was that those who reach the pinnical of the game (the NFL) are near their optimal level of mental acuity and composure with respect to the game of football.

This is obviously not true with college and high school athletes. Thus there is so much more effect a coach can have on his talent. I mean, in High School, I think its common place that a team is just not prepared for a game. In the NFL, I would say that I've maybe seen it twice in the last five years (usually in Week 1).

High school and college players may not trust their system or always work their hardest and still be successful, but these players by and large will be weeded out before they reach the NFL level. And thats why in the NFL, a coach's legacy is pretty much tied to the guys he has, not the other way around.

Norv Turner has never really had a team with all that much talent before. His two best teams were most likely the 99 Redskins, and the 04 Raiders. Neither was really all that much better than average. This year in San Diego, he has by far the most talented team hes ever had. I don't think theres any reason to expect that he won't win 11 games. It's not like his team won't be ready just because hes Norv Turner.

[Mc2guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I would say that in HS and maybe ever college sports, you would be absolutely correct. Remember, my point was that those who reach the pinnical of the game (the NFL) are near their optimal level of mental acuity and composure with respect to the game of football.

This is obviously not true with college and high school athletes. Thus there is so much more effect a coach can have on his talent. I mean, in High School, I think its common place that a team is just not prepared for a game. In the NFL, I would say that I've maybe seen it twice in the last five years (usually in Week 1).

High school and college players may not trust their system or always work their hardest and still be successful, but these players by and large will be weeded out before they reach the NFL level. And thats why in the NFL, a coach's legacy is pretty much tied to the guys he has, not the other way around.

Norv Turner has never really had a team with all that much talent before. His two best teams were most likely the 99 Redskins, and the 04 Raiders. Neither was really all that much better than average. This year in San Diego, he has by far the most talented team hes ever had. I don't think theres any reason to expect that he won't win 11 games. It's not like his team won't be ready just because hes Norv Turner.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree regarding leadership then, because pros are no more "mentally" acute then most of the guys on any college team I can guarantee you that. Futhermore, I don't know what you do for a living, but a good leader will always get more out of his guys over the long run than a bad one, no matter how talented and self-motivated his/her people are.

I do agree in your other post that good coaching is reflected in ensuring the best people are on the field in any given situation. That is part of adapting your coaching to the skills of your personell, something great coaches have always done well.