|
Overrated and it's been proven
Once upon a time I had folks telling me how coaching and leadership was the "key".
Hmmm... Well........ How's ol' Parcells doing? All that great coaching ain't doing a thing is it? Seems ol' Bill might have to go back to the drawing board. And I believe leadership has gotting the Panthers only 7-wins out of 15 games. And how 'bout Gruden? Players turning on the man? What's up with that? From Super Bowl champs to chumps. I said along that players are most responsible for the whole thing. What about Venturi? Is he responsible for the improvement for our defense? According to some, he must be. I think it's some of the new guys on defense. Hey, but maybe you guys are right. Maybe it is Venturi. ;) Remember.. Coaches call plays and the players MAKE the plays. Have some of you guys learned yet? Or do you blame Parcells for the lack of discipline on the Cowboy's team? This should be interesting :P |
Overrated and it's been proven
gumbo thats an interesting point. im not going to disagree with u. i think it is some our new guys on and maybe they have changed the sytem some. that im not sure of. i think bockwodlt helps and the fact that mckenzie has grasped the system. i also think thomas has been terrible all year and having brown on the other side of mckenzie helps. but i think u have a very goods argument when bringing up bill parcells. but coaching has to play a part some way. because how do u explaine kotite taking over the eagles and making the playoffs his first year then with basically the same guys the 2nd season and seasons afterwards tanking itr. talent can onlpy take you so far. but i still think that your right in your argument to a good extent. and the point is very valid
|
Overrated and it's been proven
spkb25
Sure, coaching plays a part. Just not a bigger part than the players who actually make the plays. To me... coaching is way overrated. Some folks (you know who you are) think coaching is the cure for every thing. I think Favre and Reggie White played more of a role in getting the Pack to the SuperBowl. He sure as heck wasn\'t Holmgren. How\'s Holmgren doing now?> And how\'s Shannahan doing without Elway? How did Jimmy Johnson do in Miami without all his players from Dallas? And Gruden? Hell, even blind man can see it has more to do with the players. It also takes some good coaching. You can\'t have a mooron calling the plays, obviously. PEACE ;) |
Overrated and it's been proven
Quote:
GumboBC, it takes both coaching and playing. The coach needs to be the person in overall control of HOW the game plan will be drawn up and executed. The players need to be in control of the EXECUTION of the game plan, each player with his own speciality. At the professional level a lot less teaching and a lot more motivation and strategy is required than that of a PeeWee coach, obviously. But a coach at any level PeeWee to NFL needs to be able to communicate, motivate, direct, assist, and teach players what they want in order to execute the game plan. This has been my take on the Saints. Hazlett and company may have drawn up a game plan on both offense and defense that is Super Bowl caliber, but the players do not put the plan into execution because they have very little football \"sense,\" and this set of coaches hasn\'t done the things necessary to develop that football \"sense.\" This is my biggest complaint about Brooks. No football \"sense.\" This could go on and on. But the major role of a coach at this level is to plan and ensure that the plan is carried out. That ain\'t happening that I see. |
Overrated and it's been proven
It is true. coaching and the players go hand in hand. As a coach, you are supposed to put in a game plan to help you win with the people you have on your team. Look at Billick in Baltimore. He is supposed to be an offensive guru, but with no dynamic players on offense, he won a championship with defense. Look at their defense now since Marvin Lewis left. They still have ray lewis and chris mcallister, but they are not even in the top 5 defenses in the league. The new defensive coach has switched to a 3-4. there you have it. the same dynamic players on defense, with a different coach <who may or may not know what his players do best> and a totally different result.
I think it its the right mix of players <making plays> and coaching < guys who put their players in systems or positions to make those plays> Nuff Said. |
Overrated and it's been proven
Quote:
Explain to me why the Panthers went from Champs to Chumps? They still have the same coaches? And how bout Parcells. Just talk about those two coaches and don\'t get sidetracked. |
Overrated and it's been proven
..why am I getting into this one... Bill Parcells is allowed a bad season... one bad season doesn\'t mean the man can\'t coach.. besides, the man is what 60-some years old closer to 70? Maybe he doesn\'t have it in him anymore to go at the same pace he did before, who knows... ..the Panthers have 14 players in IR... lost early in the season were their #1 WR, #1, #2, and #3 RB, their #1 (and arguably the best in the league) DT... their starting RB was the 3rd FB when the season started... only the center is the same player in the o-line... their QB is playing with a fractured thumb in his throwing hand... they have rookies playing at #2 WR and #2 CB... their starting MLB was out for 6 games with a concussion, being replaced by a man who was fighting cancer last season... their punter was kicking field goals for some games... ...that\'s why they started 1-7... and yes you have to credit the coaching for keeping the players focused and making tremendous adjustments to bring them back from the grave,.. ...Jimmy Johnson was not as successful in Miami as he was in Dallas because he could not get rid of Dan Marino. Marino was but a shell of his old self when Johnson took over Miami... ..of course there are flash in the pan Holmgrens out there... not because someone reaches the pinnacle once in this place it means they are going to reach it again someplace else... there are too many factors that play a part in success in the NFL, like injuries, free agency, etc... but all things equal, it is the coaches who put the players together; it is the coaches who put the playbook together... to win football games you need good coaching and good players in all 3 aspects of the team. It\'s a team sport... ...yeah Shanahan hasn\'t won any Superbowls without Elway, then again, Elway never won a Superbowl without Shanahan... Gumbo, I see you just want to antagonize people... ...this time I\'m really following my own advice... |
Overrated and it's been proven
Tobias-Reiper--
I\'m not trying to antagonize anyone. I just have a belief that some folks put too much stock in coaching. I sure some of you new guys don\'t understand and this is meant moreso for some of the older members here. But, hey, anyone is wecome to join in. But, let\'s not start accusing folks of trying to start trouble. Is that really necessary? Sure Parcells is allowed one bad season. We\'ll right that off as a fluke. But what about Gruden? Shannahan? Holmgren? Billick? Seems to me that coaching can\'t sustain success once key players are gone. Which is my point. The coaches who are able to sustain success are usually the ones who are able to bring in more talent to replace the talent they are using. This coahing stuff is important. Very important. My point is onlyh that talent is more important than coaching. |
Overrated and it's been proven
Ah, to weigh in on this thread again. Like the lingering aftertaste of phosgene on the breeze of certain death...
There are, at any one time, approximately 200,000 players in various football leagues around the country/globe. Of those players, the very best, approximately 1900 play in the NFL. This 1% are the most talented, and any one team has no more or less of that talent (Salary cap and various contractual issues governing this \"law\".) Since each team has no more or less athleticism than any other, it simply comes down to coaching/strategy and to some extent, front office culture. Well coached teams survive injury, personnel turnover and the vagaries of scheduling and weather. Poorly coached teams are VERY consistent. The players perform under their potential and the playcalling doesn\'t optimize the talent on the field. 59 players have to be on the same page, every second of every day, for 8 months to win a Super Bowl. Who writes that page? |
Overrated and it's been proven
xan --
Let\'s apply your logic to the Bucs. Is it Grudens fault the Bucs have underachieved the past 2 years? They were super bowl champs too. Is it Shannahans fault the Broncos haven\'t won a playoff game since Elway played? Is it Holmgrens fault the Seahawks haven\'t won a playoff game? Was it Dan Reeves fault the falcons couldn\'t get it done? The man went to 4 super bowls and he got fired. Look, I could go on and on but going my what you said the talent is the same, so the only conclusion I can make is that you would fire all of the coaches I just mentioned. Along with a bunch more I didn\'t mention. |
Overrated and it's been proven
I live in Redskin country where Gibbs is more sacred than The Pope. No one\'s bailing on him yet, despite a lousy season and a terrible mistake with Brunnell. The problem in DC lies with the owner, he just can\'t help himself. In my opinion, injuries play a huge roll in the sucess of most teams. Key players out can kill playoff hopes real quick, despite who\'s coaching. Philly will have a tough time without T.O.
|
Overrated and it's been proven
Agreed, players are the ones who must execute plays. But who calls the plays to be executed??? That\'d be the coaching staff. I think it\'s half and half.
|
Overrated and it's been proven
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So might we agree that Haslett has a hard time picking the key players he needs to win? Could it be that Haslett\'s selection of free agents and draft picks is faulty? These players are the guys that Haslett wanted and the guys he went out and got. But I would agree that we have made several ruinous personnel moves. It seems to me that the players don\'t draft themselves or sign themselves in free agency, so I\'m not ready to absolve Haslett and the front office from any responsibility for underachieving. But it also seems like there has only been one Haslett year of success. After that year, Haslett then started running off his key personnel. There hasn\'t been anything to sustain since. |
Overrated and it's been proven
...yet... ... the Bucs could not win a SB until Gruden got there and won it with virtually the same players Dungy had for 3-4 years... ... Elway could not win a SB until Shanahan arrived in Denver... ...Dan Reeves went to 4 SB\'s with the Broncos, not the Falcons, so that probably didn\'t matter much for Mr. Blank... Reeves got canned because Michael Vick wasn\'t comfy, and Mr. wheel-chair pushing Sleazoid knows who sells the tickets... ..and ... ... Shanahan has to share the blame for his team has not been as successful since those SB wins... while the Broncos running game has been excellent since he got there, the defense has lacked since the late 90\'s... .it is just this past offseason that the Broncos attempted to address the defense with Bailey and Lynch...and the choices at QB have been shaky... Jake Plummer? Brian Griese? ...Holmgren has to share the blame for his team can\'t get it done... this is the 2nd or 3rd year in a row that his team leads the league in dropped passes... his defense has good players (Trufant, Lucas, Hemlin, Winstrom, Brown, etc...), yet the defensive schemes are lacking and have fielded mediocre results... of course God forbid he gave Rhodes his walking papers, because you know the drill; but that\'s another story... ..I can go on and on... ..but the thing is: all things equal, winning in the NFL takes both having good players and having good coaches: you need good players who not only make plays, but play well together, in offense, defense, and ST\'s... and it is the coaches who put these players together, and give these players the opportunity to be in a position to make these plays (i.e., playcalling). It is also the coaches responsibility to correct mistakes and make adjustments whenever it is called for... ..one quick thing on Gibbs: he\'s got a defense.. give Ramsey the reigns next year from the get-go, and they\'ll contend... ..well, 2 quick things about Gibbs: he has apologized not only to the fans, but actually to his players for the offense\'s bad showing... he keeps telling his players to have faith and give the coaches time to figure it out. I don\'t know if this is a good thing or not, but you know who\'s taking responsibility and who\'s in charge... |
Overrated and it's been proven
Quote:
Maybe the players just aren\'t really as talented as we thought. Maybe they can\'t put it together. By the way, who selected them to the team? The coach? Is this \"Jim Haslett\'s team\" or \"Mickey Loomis\' team\"? LOL. And if coaching doesn\'t matter, do players naturally mature on their own? Do they learn the game from other players? You\'ve made some weak a$$ arguments, but this one is close to the top. I go out of town and you get bold. The Saints win a couple and now you\'re the guy who has been right for years. I might throttle it back some if I were you, lest you and I get into it, and we all know who gets embarrassed in that case. |
Overrated and it's been proven
There is an interesting article in today\'s New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/30/sp...gin&oref=login The Jets are 10 and 6. They are in an enviable \"win and in\" scenario for the playoffs, plus, they are in the toughest division of the toughest conference in the NFL. Talk about deja vu all over again (you Cajuns should know that term). ___ Coaches have to adapt. The best ones, like Belicheck, Andy Reid, and Tony Dungy, assess and reassess constantly. They work with what works for any given package of players. GumboBC - The coaches you mention still have reached the promised land. AND HEY!! They each beat the Saints this year (Mora coaching Reeves team, with Vick doing what Reeves wanted Vick to do in the first place). Not to kick a man when he\'s down, but thanks for inadvertantly making my point. Each of these coaches have far less \"talent\" than the universally acclaimed Saints. What, oh what, could these guys be doing right? However, I want o douse any flame on absolving the players for their part in the current situation. I adhere to the theory that to acheive greatness, one must surrender to the process, such that when one seeks out one\'s reflection, one only sees the relentless pursuit of perfection as if this was the only part of one\'s ego worth preserving and protecting. Joe Horn, Payton Manning, Jerry Rice, Julius Peppers are easy examples. These are \"no stone unturned\" seekers of perfection. And they have surrendered to the process of becoming the best. |
Overrated and it's been proven
Quote:
I took a break for a while. Hopefully you\'ve recouperated from all the times I\'ve taken you to the woodshed. But I see I\'m going to have to take you back out to the woodshed and whip some sense in you... :P First.. Coaching is important, no one ever said it wasn\'t. But, you have always put coaching above the players in terms of importance. Or in terms of wins/loses. If that was true then coaches like Parcells and Grunden would be in the playoffs every year, woludn\'t they? Why aren\'t they in there, WhoDat? Did they forget how to coach? Or did the players let them down? So, while coaching is VERY important, ultimately it\'s the players who win and lose games. Don\'t make me take you out behind the woodshed again..LMAO.. :P [Edited on 31/12/2004 by GumboBC] |
Overrated and it's been proven
That\'s your argument? LMAO. You may need to go back into retirement, b/c that was weak!
I forgot who I was talking to for a minute. Let me try to break this down in simple terms: NFC South - who is the most talented team? The Falcons? I really doubt it. There is no question that you need the players to get you there, but coaches make the difference. Let\'s try another one: Last year, was Carolina the most talented team in the NFC? Not even close. Was NE the most talented team in the AFC? No. They were both very well coached. Or another example, do players turn over year in and year out more than ever before in the history of the game? If players make all the difference, why can the Patties and the Eagles do it over and over year in and year out despite wholesale changes in player personnel? I certainly hope that you can do better than the above. |
Overrated and it's been proven
First, I agree with Tobias-Reiper that to be really successful in the NFL, you have to have a combination of good players, good training, good morale, and good game planning, along with a fair amount of dumb luck. However, I\'d like to address another aspect of this argument.
I think some of us are confusing TALENT with ATHLETICISM. The two are different IMHO. I\'d say talent includes both athleticism and game sense. Take a look at the most successful NFL team of the last few years, the Patriots. They aren\'t known for being all that athletic, but they seem to be loaded with game sense. The players consistently execute well, even when they don\'t necessarily have the best speed, quickness, strength, size, etc. Why? I can think of two reasons. First, it could be that the Patriots\' staff is committed to, and good at, selecting players with good game sense. Second, it could be that the Patriots\' coaches (and veteran players) are really good at developing game sense in their players. Actually I suspect it\'s a combination of the two. Getting back to the Saints, I think most of us agree that our players have no game sense. Why not? It\'s the converse of the Pats example. Either we are drafting idiots, or the coaches aren\'t developing the game sense in our players. Or as in the case of the Patriots, I think it\'s a combination of the two. I think the Saints have deemphasized game sense from the beginning of the Haslett regime, in favor of speed, athleticism and simple schemes that supposedly wouldn\'t require much on-field decision-making ability. They thought good game planning and athleticism was enough to win in the NFL, and they were wrong. What we\'ve found instead is that there are a few self-reliant players on the team who have continued to excel despite the management failure (I\'m thinking mainly of Horn), but that most players don\'t get the most out of their athletic ability. My optimistic side says that the honchos started to realize their mistake last off-season. A look at the players we picked up shows that they are not as \"talented\" as some of the guys we got the last two years, but may have better heads for the game: Watson, Bockwoldt, Karney, Young, etc. If in fact Haslett has changed his overall philosophy, I think we might be headed for a little more success in the future, as he will not only choose smarter players but also put more emphasis on developing the mental aspect of the players he has. My concern is that we have some key players who may be uncoachable, either because of inherent tendencies (Brooks comes to mind) or because of the leadership failure they have experienced since arriving in New Orleans (I want to say Sullivan here, but who knows). You can agree with me or disagree, but the bottom line with the Saints is that even if you think it\'s the players\' fault they stink, you still have to blame Haslett for choosing the players (as BMG said earlier). |
Overrated and it's been proven
Quote:
[Edited on 2/1/2005 by mutineer10] |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:30 AM. |
Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com