I've been back and forth with myself on this one and I can never seem to find a way to fully rationalize either side of the argument.
One side of me is saying its the players who make the plays. I mean, without good players no coach can be successful and does the coach deserve credit when his players make great plays and create for themselves? The coach doesnt suit up and play the game, he's on the sidelines with his clipboard trying to find out what to do to give his players the best chance to do thier thing. Look at Tony Dungy, the Colts have always had the same core of players, and he's always let Peyton do his thing like any coach would. He's definitely not the reason the Colts won the Super Bowl, the players are. You think Kelvin Haydens TD return was a product of Dungy's coaching? You think guys like Freeney and Sanders are stars because of Dungy? No. The Colts would've won with any coach at the helm, theyve had a Super Bowl caliber group of players for years now. The Coach is just a spectator with the ability to translate his reactions into changing the way his team will approach the game. How often are coaches wrong and the people screaming at thier TV sets right? Or the other way around?
But then you gotta think, who's the one who teaches these guys how to play the game? If a team is nothing more than a family, wouldnt you consider the Head Coach as the father? The guy who sets the example for his players, who demands thier respect in return for all the hard work he puts forward. Franchises have been turned from pitiful to great with the hire of new coaches. Lovie Smith, Bill Bellichick, these guys are the two best in the game. Lovie Smith has had the same core players from his 1st year, the only difference is the coach. He turned them from bottomfeeders to a Super Bowl team, the same players really.. just a new coach.
I want this to be an intelligent discussion, there are some who can already excuse themselves from the discussion (you know who you are). I've gone both ways on this board, and I change my mind on the whim about this topic. I know there are people here who are concrete one way or the other, and I just want to get a sense about the importance of coaches.
Coaching is pretty important, but you can't win with jack **** for players. Gotta have both.
Take the Ravens for instance. Despite having the best defense in the league, a variety of decent/above average skill players, and an above-average QB, we fail to win the championship against a team that is, overall, less talented than we are.
Why? Because Billick, the head coach, makes the call that he's gonna stick with his bumbling retard RB instead of making a switch at any point in the game.
But, Billick also employs two offensive line coaches, I think he's the only one to do that in the league. As a result, when over the course of the year we end up having to start several backups, we don't miss a step on the offensive line (some might even say the young kids were better than the veterans), despite these kids being rookies, and 3rd round picks or lower.
Most of the same defensive players, 3 years ago, younger, with some of the more key ones still in their primes, with Mike Nolan as d-coordinator, sucked. Chris McAlister was taken out of his game, AD was relegated to the bench, Gregg was forced to play NT, and it was less effective than how Rex Ryan calls the defense.
And if you go back to when Donnie Henderson had charge of our secondary...jeez...what a difference (not that they're bad now, but Henderson could make anybody look good back there. Cmac was arguably the best corner in the league when he was coaching him up.)
You need players that can implement the strategies devised by the coaches. But you also need coaches insightful enough to know what's going to get the best result according to their players at hand.
Yea, of coures you gotta have both. I mean whens the last time a bad coach won the Super Bowl, and whens the last time a bad group of players won the Super Bowl?
But what impact does the coach have? Can he make all the difference in the way a team plays? Before this season I would've said no, but Lovie Smith has single handedly made me question everything. I honestly dont know anymore, I dont know what will happen to the Steelers under Tomlin now.. will they just stay the same? Will they regress under a franchise that hasnt had a coaching change in a decade? Will they improve under the new Football that will be played there?
This isnt about X's and O's, this isnt about position coaches and how many you have. This is about the leader(s) of the team and the 3 units (O, D and ST). Did Wade Phillips make Shawn Merriman great, or is it just in him to be the best pass rusher since LT? Is Devin Hester just another good KR without Dave Toub?
Hard questions, gets at the core of what Football is about.. I'm really hopeful I can have a good discussion on this one.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PeanutTillman @ Feb 14th ) [snapback]1891877[/snapback]</div>
Quote:
Of course he's a good coach, but he isnt the reason the Colts are good. Dont get it confused.
[/b]
True, and it's never really the case. The coach brings the overall philosophy and influences the personnel on the team. They figure out how to use those players to their strengths. For example, Brian Urlacher. He is allowed to roam freely in the middle and play on his instincts, and use his athleticism to his advantage which complements the defensive scheme (oversimplifying it a lot, but you see what I'm getting at). Another coach might force him to do things he's not as good at, thinking he can be an impact player regardless.
You have to get the players, then build your team around those players. However I think once the game starts, coaching doesn't matter except for playcalling and the occasional game decision. But they don't play and they don't affect the ability of the players.
By the way, about Hester, remember when he was ****ing up bad returning punts (happened more than once)? I read somewhere that Toub had him after practice and fielded 200 punts. After that Hester broke out for real, started setting records (of course he ****ed up again a few times but nobody will remember that).
Urlacher is the perfect Cover 2 MLB. Every coach who coaches the Cover 2 dreams of having him in the middle, thats just a niche thing. I dont give Lovie much credit for revolving the defense around the NFL's primier defender.
And Toub having Hester field a bunch of punts, thats not really coaching. He just had Hester program himself into not ****ing up.. great coaches are the one's who preemt that type of thing.
To me, coaching isn't overrated. A great coach puts his players in the best situation to make positive plays, and avoids situations that expose a guy's weakness. And, in the NFL right now, every team is talented enough to win. That's the beauty of the league... nobody's more than a few players away from competing for a Super Bowl- with the right guy at the helm. ESPN Preseason 2006 rankings
Check out this link. Out of the top 6 teams ranked in the preseason, 3 made the playoffs. Out of the BOTTOM 6 teams, 2 made it. Is it because Sean Payton and Eric Mangini had top NFL talent, or is it because they knew how to get the most out of their guys by putting them in situations they could succeed at, and knowing how to get the most out of each player? San Diego, who you'd think was the 2nd coming of the 90's Cowboys talentwise if you have Sirius NFL radio, didn't even make the playoffs the year before going 14-2. If it were purely talent, Cleveland, Arizona, and Detroit should be dynasties because they get the top picks every year, and teams like Indy and New England should be horrible by now.
I will say this much: having a strong front office is incredibly underrated. The best teams consistently are the ones where everybody is on the same page. There's an exception every now and again (like the Bolts), but teams like the Steelers, Patriots,Eagles, Colts, and Seahawks have front office continuity and are on the same page. It's no surprise that even in bad years, those teams still usually field at least decent teams. The Bears look like they're getting there, too. The league should take a memo here: Everybody, from the GM on down to the waterboy, performs better when there's not a ton of internal politics and people aren't having to look over their shoulder 24/7.
And, Tony Dungy has made a huge difference in Indy. We wouldn't have won the Super Bowl without him. We were OK with Mora, but Tony's helped our team become not only a contender year in and year out, he's had a positive influence on our team, fans, and city. The day Tampa fired him is a day all Colt fans should be thankful for.Not to mention he basically revived Tampa's team from the dead. He's won consistently at 2 places that were consistently bad before he showed up, and that's no coincedence.
So, to sum up all this late night rambling...no, coaching's not overrated
Coaches are essential to the game. They build a team how they feel works best, if it fails, they try it over and over until it's perfected. Coaches keep players in line, they build morale, they discipline the team, they do everything you possibly need to keep a team together. To me, they are the most important thing, especially because they can keep a team chemistry locked down.
Is Coaching Overrated?
Linear Mode
