Hooskins Presents the "Who Needs to Step Up" Poll

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

I guess I was confused about this question. Is it asking who does the team need to step up, or who needs to step up at this point in his career? If it's the former then I think Wade and Golston are the correct choices, however the latter points to Rogers.

It's the team.
But I agree that Rogers is in a situation that requires him to step up or his career is going south.

[GusFrerotte]

I picked Rocky for the sole reason that he was hand given the preseason starting LB position over Marshall, a proven commodity. He needs to earn that psoition on the field. All of the above candidates have to step it up or our season will stink!!!!!

[backrow]

I voted "Other" because there is no choice shown for "All of the above".

[FRPLG]

I really struggled with the choice between Landry, Rogers and McIntosh.

Ultimately I think great play from Rocky will have the greatest impact on the D. I think we have some depth in the secondary so that devalues slightly what Rogers does. I also think Landry is going to be an in the box kind of guy who will impact the rush and mid range passing mostly. But Rocky will impact both mid range passing, pass rush and most importantly run D. As bad as our secondary was last year I think our run defense was even worse. There was absolutely nothing coming from Carter or Holdman. Wherever they lined up we got pummeled. This year hopefully Rocky can strengthen our run D which will in turn make playing pass D easier. In theory.

[saden1]

If Rogers doesn't step-up this upcoming season he is a bust, for sure. He'll forever be a #2 CB, if that.

[dmek25]

hey warpath, cool pics. those guys both look like kids( makes me feel old)

[freddyg12]

I voted other, cause I think Brandon Loyd needs to step up big time.

I agree that Rogers really had a bad year & seemed to have a cavalier attitude about it, but Loyd just looked like a prima donna a few too many times. I remember brunell getting pissed at him a couple of times, then there was the drop of JC's first nfl pass against tampa (which was perfect) and him not going back for the ball against st. louis (I think).
If we got avg. production from him it could vastly improve our passing game. I don't want to hear that we didn't go to him enough, he shows little toughness or willingness to make the routine, tough plays.

[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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Hooskins, our poll is getting picked apart. Not surprising I suppose. This always happens with polls.

What do you mean by 'getting picked apart' exactly??

And what do you mean by 'surprising'?

And what's a poll anyway?

I vote for no more polls since it's always so damn confusing. No wonder so few people vote in elections, who can handle this pressure??!!

[MTK]

Gtripp, so what seperates the average coaches from the great ones to you? Seems that you're ruling out things like motivation, leadership, trust, and respect. So does it just boil down to pure x's and o's and playcalling??

Have you ever had a really bad manager at work? Have you ever had a really great manager? What seperates the two?

[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.

[hesscl34]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Not true. That assumes that every team that loses could have won if they tried harder. Players who don't go all out on every play don't last very long in this league. It was not an effort issue.

Disagree. The games when the put in effort, we usually won.. it was close, but we won.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Gtripp, so what seperates the average coaches from the great ones to you? Seems that you're ruling out things like motivation, leadership, trust, and respect. So does it just boil down to pure x's and o's and playcalling??

Have you ever had a really bad manager at work? Have you ever had a really great manager? What seperates the two?

The greatest coaches manage their personel better than any other coach. Not only will they nearly always have the best 11 players on the field for the situation, but they do it in a way that keeps all 46 active players involved and happy. This is nearly impossible to do, but it's so very crucial to sustained success.

While motivation, leadership, trust and respect are all vital things to the morale of any team, the head coach is hardly any more responsible for these things than the last guy on the team with no name and an irrelivant number. Just because the media douses the HC with all credit and blame does not mean hes deserving of any of it. If he's been saddled with a team full of crappy attitudes, his reputation is going to be one of little discipline. Nothing he can do about it.

I would say the difference between the great manager and the bad one from my perspective would be held in his personal relationship with me. But just like a head football coach, what defines him to me (as a player) would be irrelivant to somone else (such as a fan).

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hesscl34

Disagree. The games when the put in effort, we usually won.. it was close, but we won.

We were 5-11. Effort was put into all the games as a neccesity to not being blown out of the water.