Cowher Talking to Skins about Job in '08?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Agreed. It's kind of like Monte Kiffin in Tampa. The guy has been a top D coordinator for years, and he knows that's his niche. Norv has been a great offensive play caller and developer of QBs, but he's a poor disciplinarian and no good with the defensive side of the ball. I think Gregg Williams may be the same kind of coach as well. His track record as THE guy is poor, but (aside from '06) his defenses have always been very solid. Other guys who come to mind are Ray Rhodes, Dave Campo, Marty Mornenwheg, Dom Capers... all good coordinators but questionable head coaches.

Ok, I just want to know what qualities that these coaches had that allowed them to succeed as coodinators but also made them fail as head coaches. Poor disciplinarian seems to be a common flaw, but if we take this as granted, how do we explain success as an coodinator. It seems that these players would have to be quite disciplined to have success. But if we've already labeled these coaches as ones who lack the ability to enstill the discipline necessary for success, how to explain their relative success as a coodinator?

This is very circular in nature, and I'm a bit surprised that others don't see it as so.

And I'm not picking on GMScud or anyone else in particular. I'm just wondering why the perception of a man as head coach and a coodinator can be so vastly different when the roles are ever so similar. Saying that "Norv Turner isn't a great football coach, so I think he's a bit better suited to be a coordinator" is one thing, but the prevailing wisdom so far is that hes a super duper wonderful coordinator and a HC without a clue. This isn't consistent with logic, and to me at least doesn't make a lick of sense.

How can all the negitive qualities that cause one to dismiss Turner as a head coach be ignored when evaluating him as a coordinator?

[Ms.Earthquake2689]

If Bill Cowher comes back in 2008, I hope he replaces Tom Coughlin not Joe Gibbs.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Ok, I just want to know what qualities that these coaches had that allowed them to succeed as coodinators but also made them fail as head coaches. Poor disciplinarian seems to be a common flaw, but if we take this as granted, how do we explain success as an coodinator. It seems that these players would have to be quite disciplined to have success. But if we've already labeled these coaches as ones who lack the ability to enstill the discipline necessary for success, how to explain their relative success as a coodinator?

This is very circular in nature, and I'm a bit surprised that others don't see it as so.

And I'm not picking on GMScud or anyone else in particular. I'm just wondering why the perception of a man as head coach and a coodinator can be so vastly different when the roles are ever so similar. Saying that "Norv Turner isn't a great football coach, so I think he's a bit better suited to be a coordinator" is one thing, but the prevailing wisdom so far is that hes a super duper wonderful coordinator and a HC without a clue. This isn't consistent with logic, and to me at least doesn't make a lick of sense.

How can all the negitive qualities that cause one to dismiss Turner as a head coach be ignored when evaluating him as a coordinator?

I guess it's tough to explain. As the head coach, YOU'RE the guy. The buck stops with you and you alone as far as the success of the team. You have to motivate an entire coaching staff, as well as offense, defense, and special teams. Maybe these great coordinators/poor HC's aren't as effective under that kind of pressure. Maybe they have spent so much of their career focused on one side of the ball that they can't effectively manage a team as a whole.

Look at Brad Childress last year in Minnesota. He's been a defense coach his entire career. And their D was very stout in his first year as a head coach. (#1 against the run). But their offense stunk out loud. I don't think discipline/motivation was his problem, but certainly his lack of offensive coaching experience was. The same with Gregg Williams as Buffalo's head coach. The team was disciplined and good defensively, and had an offense that was near the bottom of the league. On the flip side, Norv has put together great offenses, but his teams lacked discipline and strong defense.

I don't know an exact answer. That's what I can come up with off the top of my head.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I guess it's tough to explain. As the head coach, YOU'RE the guy. The buck stops with you and you alone as far as the success of the team. You have to motivate an entire coaching staff, as well as offense, defense, and special teams. Maybe these great coordinators/poor HC's aren't as effective under that kind of pressure. Maybe they have spent so much of their career focused on one side of the ball that they can't effectively manage a team as a whole.

Look at Brad Childress last year in Minnesota. He's been a defense coach his entire career. And their D was very stout in his first year as a head coach. (#1 against the run). But their offense stunk out loud. I don't think discipline/motivation was his problem, but certainly his lack of offensive coaching experience was. The same with Gregg Williams as Buffalo's head coach. The team was disciplined and good defensively, and had an offense that was near the bottom of the league. On the flip side, Norv has put together great offenses, but his teams lacked discipline and strong defense.

I don't know an exact answer. That's what I can come up with off the top of my head.

Childress was the O coodinator in Philly though.

I think a lot of great head coaches are very hands off on one side of the ball or the other. That's just part of delagating responsibility.

Ultimately this entire debate fizzles down to the fact that good players with good chemistry will produce good results, and a coach can't do much to improve that or stand in their way. Likewise bad players with bad chemistry will produce bad results. Nothing a coach can do.

Norv had some pretty solid offensive talent as a coordinator, and not so much as a head coach, thus is his legacy.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Childress was the O coodinator in Philly though.

I think a lot of great head coaches are very hands off on one side of the ball or the other. That's just part of delagating responsibility.

Ultimately this entire debate fizzles down to the fact that good players with good chemistry will produce good results, and a coach can't do much to improve that or stand in their way. Likewise bad players with bad chemistry will produce bad results. Nothing a coach can do.

Norv had some pretty solid offensive talent as a coordinator, and not so much as a head coach, thus is his legacy.

For some reason I was thinking Jim Johnson. Duh. My bad. Been up since 5am. A little out of it I guess. But the other examples I used are right on.

But I think a great head coach can galvanize a team and help foster strong chemistry. Granted some situations are beyond repair, and great talent level does have a lot to do with winning. But we're using Norv as an example, and he has never been known as a locker room kind of guy.