What single factor is key for the Skins this year?

[Ade Jimoh Fan Club]

#1 factor is the QB. JC has shown flashes of being good, but so did Patrick Ramsey. If JC makes believers out of us, the Redskins will have a great season. But in order to do that, we need to think that he's going to have that last second scoring drive no problem (a la Manning) vs. "JC, please don't screw up, please, please!" I have no confidence in him as a "STAR" player yet - nor has he given anyone a reason to feel confident in him.

#2 OL. This has a direct impact on how #1 above turns out.

Coaching at the high school level and maybe college is important, because the players need to be coached what to do. At the pro level, they all know what to do and when to do it, so coaching has little to no impact on the game. Don't fool yourselves. I think Easterbrook from TMQB stated that coaching may have an impact on game if you have one of the top 3-4 or bottom 3-4 coaches. All the coaches in between are not going to really impact the outcome of the game. I was initially pissed about the Zorn hire until I read this article - but it makes sense. Now I just hope that Zorn helps JC come along -cause that is truly where he could make a difference.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Ade Jimoh Fan Club

#1 factor is the QB. JC has shown flashes of being good, but so did Patrick Ramsey. If JC makes believers out of us, the Redskins will have a great season. But in order to do that, we need to think that he's going to have that last second scoring drive no problem (a la Manning) vs. "JC, please don't screw up, please, please!" I have no confidence in him as a "STAR" player yet - nor has he given anyone a reason to feel confident in him.

#2 OL. This has a direct impact on how #1 above turns out.

Coaching at the high school level and maybe college is important, because the players need to be coached what to do. At the pro level, they all know what to do and when to do it, so coaching has little to no impact on the game. Don't fool yourselves. I think Easterbrook from TMQB stated that coaching may have an impact on game if you have one of the top 3-4 or bottom 3-4 coaches. All the coaches in between are not going to really impact the outcome of the game. I was initially pissed about the Zorn hire until I read this article - but it makes sense. Now I just hope that Zorn helps JC come along -cause that is truly where he could make a difference.

I'd have to disagree, and Easterbrook is a moron.

Coaching has a huge affect on the game. Coaches can overcomplicate schemes, they can put players out of position (Archuleta), they can clash with each other on philosophy (Saunders vs Gibbs & Bugel), they can inspire a team (Gibbs' December record), etcetera. Most of all, coaching comes into play when a new system is being put into place. When you're running a new system, how you perform in year one is all about the ability of the coach to teach and translate the playbook message onto the field.

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'd have to disagree, and Easterbrook is a moron.

Coaching has a huge affect on the game. Coaches can overcomplicate schemes, they can put players out of position (Archuleta), they can clash with each other on philosophy (Saunders vs Gibbs & Bugel), they can inspire a team (Gibbs' December record), etcetera. Most of all, coaching comes into play when a new system is being put into place. When you're running a new system, how you perform in year one is all about the ability of the coach to teach and translate the playbook message onto the field.

I would disagree that Easterbrook is a moron, while agreeing that coaches do make a difference. Here is the link referred to for anyone who cares to parse the language. ESPN Page 2 - TMQ: SuperCoach?

[irish]

It JC. He will determine the success or failure of the offense.

[Ade Jimoh Fan Club]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'd have to disagree, and Easterbrook is a moron.

Coaching has a huge affect on the game. Coaches can overcomplicate schemes, they can put players out of position (Archuleta), they can clash with each other on philosophy (Saunders vs Gibbs & Bugel), they can inspire a team (Gibbs' December record), etcetera. Most of all, coaching comes into play when a new system is being put into place. When you're running a new system, how you perform in year one is all about the ability of the coach to teach and translate the playbook message onto the field.

Of course coaches have an impact, I'm just saying it's not usually a game-changing impact. Coaches are given way too much credit when they come in and teams start winning more (and too much blame as well). They're just a figurehead -and it comes with the job description. Let's face it, most head coaches are smart, smart men who are there for a reason. Mistakes are made, but sometimes mistakes that turn out to be good plays make the coach a genius. It's very arbitrary. Here's what Easterbrook actually said:

"The first flaw is obvious -- coaches don't play! A coach's hard work, good judgment and good play calling help, but these are only a few of many factors in sports success -- and all trail the athletic ability of the players by a large margin. I'd hazard an unscientific guess that in football, the coach can be responsible for up to a 10 percent swing in results: 10 percent more points scored under good coaching, 10 percent fewer under bad coaching. In a close game or a Super Bowl run, that 10 percent swing really matters. In the majority of games, the coaching differential between opponents is small, especially in college at the football-factory level, where many outcomes are not close."

I think he makes sense.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Ade Jimoh Fan Club

Of course coaches have an impact, I'm just saying it's not usually a game-changing impact. Coaches are given way too much credit when they come in and teams start winning more (and too much blame as well). They're just a figurehead -and it comes with the job description. Let's face it, most head coaches are smart, smart men who are there for a reason. Mistakes are made, but sometimes mistakes that turn out to be good plays make the coach a genius. It's very arbitrary. Here's what Easterbrook actually said:

"The first flaw is obvious -- coaches don't play! A coach's hard work, good judgment and good play calling help, but these are only a few of many factors in sports success -- and all trail the athletic ability of the players by a large margin. I'd hazard an unscientific guess that in football, the coach can be responsible for up to a 10 percent swing in results: 10 percent more points scored under good coaching, 10 percent fewer under bad coaching. In a close game or a Super Bowl run, that 10 percent swing really matters. In the majority of games, the coaching differential between opponents is small, especially in college at the football-factory level, where many outcomes are not close."

I think he makes sense.

I think he's making up stats. Did you know that you can make up stats off the top of your head to prove anything? 83% of all people know that.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'd have to disagree, and Easterbrook is a moron.

Coaching has a huge affect on the game. Coaches can overcomplicate schemes, they can put players out of position (Archuleta), they can clash with each other on philosophy (Saunders vs Gibbs & Bugel), they can inspire a team (Gibbs' December record), etcetera. Most of all, coaching comes into play when a new system is being put into place. When you're running a new system, how you perform in year one is all about the ability of the coach to teach and translate the playbook message onto the field.

Tagging GW as a genius would be to ignore his flaws, and the results those flaws caused.

In a single game situation, tactical coaching is pretty important. I mean, a few plays here and there can change who wins and loses a game.

But here's the thing: can you name even one instance where going into the game you were able to say, "Team A is more talented than team B on paper, but Team B's coach is 100 times smarter than coach A and will never loose this game" and be right?

Of course not. It's just as easy for the perceived "dumb coach" to get lucky and totally outscheme the opposing "genius". It happens all the time. Spurrier outschemed Belichiek. It happens, and it happens every week in the NFL.

Therefore, over the long haul, Easterbrook is correct. Williams may have outschemed his opponent one week, and then got beaten the next. No coach is hired to coach a single game, so it's safe to say that these guys know each other well enough that they give no significant edge over the course of the season.

If you disagree with this, I implore you to name some geniuses in the NFL, and I'll be happy to point out instances where they totally got their lunch handed to them by the opposing coach.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Tagging GW as a genius would be to ignore his flaws, and the results those flaws caused.

In a single game situation, tactical coaching is pretty important. I mean, a few plays here and there can change who wins and loses a game.

But here's the thing: can you name even one instance where going into the game you were able to say, "Team A is more talented than team B on paper, but Team B's coach is 100 times smarter than coach A and will never loose this game" and be right?

Of course not. It's just as easy for the perceived "dumb coach" to get lucky and totally outscheme the opposing "genius". It happens all the time. Spurrier outschemed Belichiek. It happens, and it happens every week in the NFL.

Therefore, over the long haul, Easterbrook is correct. Williams may have outschemed his opponent one week, and then got beaten the next. No coach is hired to coach a single game, so it's safe to say that these guys know each other well enough that they give no significant edge over the course of the season.

If you disagree with this, I implore you to name some geniuses in the NFL, and I'll be happy to point out instances where they totally got their lunch handed to them by the opposing coach.

Your point is well taken but that still doesn't in any way negate the opinion that coaching is extremely important & a major factor in a teams performance over the long haul. Yes, in any game you might see the nobody beat the "genius" but the measure of coaches is over seasons & in playoff games. Spurrier beat Belicheck & the Skins were 3-1 in 03, but later that year he lost control of the team & they all looked foolish v. the cowpokes when Hassellback had a 0.0 rating & crack dealer T. Hambrick had like 173 yards. By the end of the year there was no question that Spurrier was literally out of his league & he knew it too.

One of the best examples in pro sports of the impact of coaching IMO is Phil Jackson's first year w/the Lakers. He's often criticized as always having talented players, but go back & look at that team when Kurt Rambis was coaching them. They had Kobe, Glen Rice & Shaq yet they couldn't get out of the first round of the playoffs. Phil takes over & they go on to win 3 straight titles.

I think if anything what is often overstated about coaches is the "genius" line while what is overlooked is simple; motivation. Good coaches are good leaders & know how to motivate players. GW got his guys to play hard & he prepared them like few in the nfl can IMO. We will definitely miss Gregg Williams.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'd have to disagree, and Easterbrook is a moron.

Coaching has a huge affect on the game. Coaches can overcomplicate schemes, they can put players out of position (Archuleta), they can clash with each other on philosophy (Saunders vs Gibbs & Bugel), they can inspire a team (Gibbs' December record), etcetera. Most of all, coaching comes into play when a new system is being put into place. When you're running a new system, how you perform in year one is all about the ability of the coach to teach and translate the playbook message onto the field.

havent seen anyone spell etc. out in ages.