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.

[SmootSmack]

There are many qualities necessary for a head coach that aren't necessary for a coordinator

-Delegation of responsibilites. The offensive coordinator may call the plays but it's the head coach (usually) who dictates who calls the plays and makes a change if necessary

-Who to play

-Handling internal turmoil/trouble players. You think anyone cares how Norm Chow will handle PacMan? Or how Danny Smith would have handled the leak last year?

-Setting/Overseeing the overall game plan (offense, defense, and special teams)

And on and on

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

There are many qualities necessary for a head coach that aren't necessary for a coordinator

-Delegation of responsibilites. The offensive coordinator may call the plays but it's the head coach (usually) who dictates who calls the plays and makes a change if necessary

-Who to play

-Handling internal turmoil/trouble players. You think anyone cares how Norm Chow will handle PacMan? Or how Danny Smith would have handled the leak last year?

-Setting/Overseeing the overall game plan (offense, defense, and special teams)

And on and on

In the case of Turner though,

As a Coordinator, Turner is responsible for who to play on his side of the ball. He is also responsible for handling internal issues on his side of the ball, and obviously the gameplan.

Now I see what you are saying, and as an OC, the only power that Norv can delegate is that which is delegated to him. But this, I think, only helps my point. If the perception of Norv of an OC is that hes very proficient, and the truth is that he isn't, then the Coaches around him and most directly, the players can create offensive success in spite of him. And in my opinion, that's what happened.

Although "in spite" is probably coming off too strong. Rather "he deserves much, much less credit for the offensive success of his units" is more accurate.

[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.

[GusFrerotte]

I can see Cowher here in '08. A losing season will be enough to send Gibbs packing. He came in here fully expecting to turn things around, and this is his banner year to do it. If the D is another joke this season, and the O is suspect, he will bolt, as it will mean rebuilding will probably take another 2-3 seasons. Time which Gibbs did not expect to be coaching. If he can't turn it around this season, he will be wishing he would have just stuck with NASCAR. If the D is lousy, then do you really think Williams is going to be the HC? Same goes for Saunders. The Danny will want a proven commodity at HC. That is his MO. He fired Turner, got Marty, then gambles with Spurrier, then went to another HOF coach in Gibbs.

[skinsfan_nn]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

I only see him here if Gibbs steps down after the 2007 season. (well that is obvious.)

Hey quake, a little concerned about you have you seen post #92............?

Whats this msearthquake2689 shit with that ugly ass giants lid......anything we need to know? No coming out of the closet party is there?

Gibbs is going nowhere unless this season is a belly flop, WHICH IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY! Bill Cowler is not coming to DC.....let this poor thread die a quick death.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by skinsfan_nn

Hey quake, a little concerned about you have you seen post #92............?

Whats this msearthquake2689 shit with that ugly ass giants lid......anything we need to know? No coming out of the closet party is there?

Gibbs is going nowhere unless this season is a belly flop, WHICH IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY! Bill Cowler is not coming to DC.....let this poor thread die a quick death.

No just my girlfriend, she is a giants fan that's all.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

No just my girlfriend, she is a giants fan that's all.

Can't wait for her to stumble upon some of your other "parking lot" threads

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Can't wait for her to stumble upon some of your other "parking lot" threads

maybe we should just leave that alone for now

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

maybe we should just leave that alone for now

She has a right to know

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

She has a right to know

Uh oh...

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

She has a right to know

While this is true. But not right now.