Defensive Front Four.

BillyCarpenter1 · 07-09-2003, 09:16 AM

LummOx,

Again, it all boils down to who you think is the most responsible for the success of a team. The players or coaches?

While the coaches are responsible for aquiring players.

Ultimately, it\'s the players who play the game. Not the coaches.

You can have the best coaches in the world but if the players don\'t have the smarts and atheltic ability, you are doomed for failure.

Doomed I say.

BlackandBlue · 07-09-2003, 09:18 AM

Watch him in Houston this year. I\'ll put my money where my mouth is and say he has a banner season under Capers and Fangio. He may even be pro bowl material again.

He\'ll go to the pro bowl this year, unless he get\'s injured. He\'ll be playing in a 3-4 defense, which will play to his strengths, plus, he\'s got good company at LB, which should only make him better.
Losing him and LaRoi two years ago made me wince, LaRoi moreso. We want a faster defense, well, we got rid of a pretty damn fast DT, and as motivational as the guy is, he could have easily taken Sullivan under his wing.
Unless Sullivan makes an immeadiate impact, I\'m afraid we are in for a long year, defensively.

lumm0x · 07-09-2003, 09:30 AM

I totally agree with your comments about LaRoi. He was a devastating rusher for a DT. I don\'t think he was directly responsible at all for our problems at run defense. His pass rush would have probably made Howard and Grant more effective and taken some heat off our secondary at times. He was a big loss because I also don\'t believe he was named as one of the \"locker room poisons\" was he?

BlackandBlue · 07-09-2003, 09:34 AM

No he wasn\'t. As a matter of fact, he was considered the complete opposite of Joe Johnson. Always positive, and always uplifting to his team mates. I guess their attitudes canceled each other out.

lumm0x · 07-09-2003, 09:41 AM

And Billy, we\'ll never agree here. Coaching makes a winner. Motivation, game adjustments, preparing players for opponents. Talent doesn\'t do any of that.
The Bucs were not as talented as the Raiders. They were out coached.

BillyCarpenter1 · 07-09-2003, 02:36 PM

SEATTLE -- This sense of calm that pervades Mike Holmgren these days is getting a little difficult to figure out. Oh, he is a master charmer, that\'s for sure. He even got the Seattle Seahawks faithful to bite in the preseason contention he was rebuilding this year and next in preparation for the new stadium, but that this is still a \"championship-caliber team.\"

Sunday afternoon, following a typically mistake-laden 24-19 loss to the Kansas City Chiefs, Holmgren did come off the \"Mellow Mike\" postgame conversation for a moment to say 13 losses out of the past 16 games (including a playoff loss to Miami) has not been easy to take.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Your right LummoX. It\'s all about coaching. Holmgren was the main thing the Packers had going for them when they won the Superbow. Not Farve or Reggie White.

Now that he\'s in Seattle he isn\'t the genius that everyone thought he was. What happened to Holmgren, did he suddenly forget how to coach or take stupid pills?

The only thing that changed was the talent, not the coaching style.

He\'s a master motivator and all that great and wonderful stuff and he has a team full of those average players that your talking about but I see he\'s still trying to bring in some real talent so he can win.

You should call him and say : \" Look Mike, you don\'t need great players. Your a great coach and it\'s more about motivation and leadership than about talent. Now quit messing around here in Seattle and coach dam it\"

Also tell him WhoDat has some advise for him too which is listed below:

Quote by WhoDat:
Coaching, in my opinion, is the single most important thing in the NFL. You can always find talent... it\'s the damn NFL after all. Great coaching is much more difficult... especially in a smaller market.

But my favorite quote by you ,that I want you to tell Holmgren is this one:

Coaching makes a winner. Motivation, game adjustments, preparing players for opponents. Talent doesn\'t do any of that

If he hasn\'t kicked you out of his office by now.........
Then tell Holmgren the anology you told me which is listed below:

Quote by LummOx,
An orchestra has a variety of players playing different instruments. Given no conductor and they are asked to use their instincts to play, they will produce a beautiful song. On the flip side, a orchastra that has a conductor and maybe not as elite players that each no their role in a pre-planned song will struggle to make music.
****************************************************************
How about Barry Switzer, when he went to Dallas? Did coaching win that championship or did talent?

Check Mate!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\'Mooch\' not enough to solve Lions\' woes

February 11, 2003 Print it
Steve Mariucci is a wonderful head coach with a proven record, and hiring him was a smart move by Matt Millen. But in some ways, putting Mariucci on the Lions is like applying mousse to a bald scalp. Ultimately, it won\'t matter how well Mariucci coaches unless the organization learns how to grow hair.

[Edited on 10/7/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

BillyCarpenter1 · 07-09-2003, 04:04 PM

Talent wins in baseball, not manager

Tuesday, October 03, 2000

The Pirates officially fired Gene Lamont yesterday and began the process of hiring a new manager. This is certain to cause a buzz around town because a lot of people believe all that was wrong with the Pirates was the manager. A lot of people believe a new manager can come in and resurrect the Pirates.

But if the truth be known, there\'s no more overrated job in sports than manager of a baseball team.

People expecting a new manager to take over the Pirates and wave some kind of magic wand or institute some new program and turn this perennial loser into an immediate winner are either dreamers or uninformed.

It\'s pitching, hitting, fielding and running with a little bit of strategy mixed in, and almost nothing in those areas has changed in a long, long time. You win in baseball with talent, not with schemes or strategy.

Two managers regarded as the best in their profession, Tony La Russa and Joe Torre, are proof of this theory.

In the five-year period from 1988-92, La Russa won four division titles and averaged 98 wins per season with the Oakland Athletics. With the same franchise for the next three years, he was under .500 every season.

It wasn\'t a case of La Russa taking an overdose of stupid pills after the 1992 season, but rather the talent departing Oakland, which didn\'t have the payroll to keep such a roster.

In his first four seasons with the St. Louis Cardinals, from 1996-99, La Russa averaged 80 wins a season -- less than .500. This season, St. Louis won 95 games and advanced to the postseason. Did La Russa take smart pills? No, but the Cardinals added center fielder Jim Edmonds, second baseman Fernando Vina, starting pitchers Darryl Kile, Andy Benes and Pat Hentgen and closer Dave Veres. Edmonds hit 42 homers, drove in 108 runs and is an MVP candidate. Vina batted .300 with a .380 on-base percentage. Veres saved 29 games. Kile, Benes and Hentgen combined for 47 wins.

The talent changed, not La Russa.

Torre is a raging genius with the Yankees, going for a third consecutive World Series title and the fourth in five years when the postseason begins today. In five seasons with the Yankees, his teams are a staggering 165 games over .500. But in 14 previous seasons as a manager, Torre was 112 games under .500.

In a farewell news conference yesterday, Lamont pointed to Jim Leyland as the best manager he knew. That point will get no argument here, but look what happened to Leyland when all the talent left after 1992. Three consecutive division championships on teams that were 92 games over .500 were followed by four consecutive losing seasons in which the team was 64 games under .500. Same manager, different talent.

General Manager Cam Bonifay listed the ability to communicate, teach, instruct, run a club and handle a pitching staff as assets he was looking for in a manager. There are dozens of men who can do that, although some better than others.

By winning a division title with the Chicago White Sox in 1993 and having his team in first place when a strike closed down baseball in August of the next year, Lamont showed he could do that. But he had his chance. Managers who go four years without a winning season, regardless of the circumstances, are seldom invited back.

Many will be interviewed to succeed Lamont, probably some from the existing staff. Two names heard a lot by baseball insiders are Joel Skinner, the manager of Class AAA Buffalo, and Ken Macha, the bench coach of the Athletics, who was born, raised and still lives in the Pittsburgh area.

Whoever gets the job, and a decision probably won\'t come until after the World Series, faces an enormous challenge. The Pirates have gaping holes, as evidenced by their 69-93 record. They need at least one more power hitter, one, but preferably two, starting pitchers and several relievers. They also could trade Jason Kendall if he doesn\'t agree to a contract extension, leaving an unfillable hole at catcher.

Lamont had one piece of advice for his successor.

\"Be patient,\" he said. \"It might take awhile.\"

lumm0x · 07-09-2003, 10:57 PM

A coaches greatest ability is properly judging talent and getting those players that fit his system. No matter how good of a coach you are, if you don\'t have talented players, your not going to be successful

I sure hope talented players can learn to scout then and devise a system on their own, because according to Billy we can put a headset on a monkey.

Now that he\'s in Seattle he isn\'t the genius that everyone thought he was. What happened to Holmgren, did he suddenly forget how to coach or take stupid pills?

The only thing that changed was the talent, not the coaching style.

Bizarrely wrong. In all his years of coordinating and coaching never had he stepped into roles he no experience in. He made the mistake of trying to be God in Seattle and not do what his strength is. He didn\'t coach himself. We\'ll see this year if he improves the team because he is only a coach and not a multi role player.

How about Barry Switzer, when he went to Dallas? Did coaching win that championship or did talent?

Like everyone said about the Bulls in basketball. A monkey could coach that squad, but then look at what Phil Jackson did in L.A. Why couldn\'t the Lakers do that before he got there? They had Shaq and Kobe before Jackson. How did they 3-peat? Because he coached them to a winner and continually motivated then. Switzer actually came in a breathed fresh life into them. Would they have won again with Johnson, maybe? Switzer just couldn\'t do it again, he tried to change a system in the wrong direction, he had personal issues that interfered with work and he wasn\'t a great coach.

I will bet anything that if I get Bill Parcells (for example) and you coach the other team. You can have your pick of players in the NFL to fill a team. You can then even take away the next top 5 at every position and I\'ll take a team of what\'s left. You coach your team and Parcells coaches mine. If you think your team would win then your typing to much with your forehead.

Why do teams have turnaround seasons when a good coach arrives? The coach teaches players, replaces players with ones the fit his system (talent or not) and designs plays to exploit opposition weakness. What do players do? Follow direction. The end.

BillyCarpenter1 · 07-10-2003, 07:05 AM

Lummox,

Relying on other posts to help you out.

Well, let me put the rest or 3rdNlong\'s post up for you
_______________________________________________________________________________
Look at Tom Landry. When he had talent he made a lot of trips to the superbowl. When the talent dried up, he was forced into retirement or fired, I can\'t remember.

The list is endless of the coaches that succeded when they had talent and failed when the talent was gone.
_______________________________________________________________________________

If coaching were the most important thing in football , then there would be no need to draft or pick up other players. No, based off your theory, a great coach could coach any team to victory.

Now, based off my theory a reaonably good coach could draft and pick up great players and coach them to victory.

You see, while coaching plays an important part in the success of any football team, they will not win on a consistant basis unless they have talent. On the other hand Switzer proved exactly what I\'m saying.

By the way can you explain this to me?

_______________________________________________________________________________
I sure hope talented players can learn to scout then and devise a system on their own, because according to Billy we can put a headset on a monkey.

Like everyone said about the Bulls in basketball. A monkey could coach that squad, but then look at what Phil Jackson did in L.A
________________________________________________________________________________

[Edited on 10/7/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

lumm0x · 07-10-2003, 09:13 AM

What that statement meant was a team can \"on paper\" be the most talented in the league and never be a consistent winner because of coaching. A winning coach, like Phil Jackson, can step into a team, add the pieces he sees missing in his system (a only a good coach adds the correct pieces) and turns what wasn\'t a winner into a winner.

Were the Saints a more talented team than the Lions last year? Why didn\'t they win? Your whole arguement yells that the more talented team wins. My arguement is that a coach can take a less talented squad and make them win. He prepares his team for what they will face, coaches his players on what plays should exploit opposition deficiency, and motivates them to win. Does the best coach always do that? The best coach on that day does. When Detroit beat us last year we got out coached. They were better prepared for us than we were them. If a team doesn\'t show up on Sunday, it is the coaches fault. If a team doesn\'t have the necessary talent to compete, that is the coaches fault as well.

For all the hard work of your employees, if the top end of your business isn\'t operated properly and you don\'t put your staff in the position they need to be successful and provide them with the right knowledge to perform, as good and \"talented\" as your staff is....you lost the business...not them. The manger is always the most important part of any business.

If you can\'t rationalize this, then fine. If you believe the people that do the work are more important than the people that organize the work I can\'t change your mind. I will never accept that the players are more responsible for winning than the coach. And I will defend my statement by saying any losing team falls on the coach not the players, in accountability and in cause.

And the statements about Landry......how long did he coach? Would you call him a successful coach? Do you think that team came across all of those players over time by pure chance. He ran a good ship, evaluated talent well, and had an effective system. He just couldn\'t keep adapting to the changing game and left coaching when he couldn\'t continue that. His skills deteriorated like a players. The long list of coaches that dry up.....they dry up because they fail to be good coaches in adapting to the game and in evaluating talent. The talent level dries up because of the coach...that\'s my point. The coach is most responsible for team success.

You see, while coaching plays an important part in the success of any football team, they will not win on a consistant basis unless they have talent. On the other hand Switzer proved exactly what I\'m saying.

So we agree Barry Switzer was a bad coach who arrived at the right time in a already built successful team, managed to hold their cohesiveness together for a winning year, and then blew them apart. You are saying that the next year Switzer coached they had less talent? Please check the rosters and rethink this whole thing. The talent was all still there....the coaching ability was not.

Let\'s put Mouse Davis in as coach of the Bucs next year. He will install the run & shoot and we can watch them be 1-15. Then we can both laugh at this super bowl talented squad that should win....just because they have talent.

07-09-2003, 09:16 AM	#61
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Defensive Front Four. LummOx, Again, it all boils down to who you think is the most responsible for the success of a team. The players or coaches? While the coaches are responsible for aquiring players. Ultimately, it\'s the players who play the game. Not the coaches. You can have the best coaches in the world but if the players don\'t have the smarts and atheltic ability, you are doomed for failure. Doomed I say.
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209

07-09-2003, 09:18 AM	#62
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Defensive Front Four. Watch him in Houston this year. I\'ll put my money where my mouth is and say he has a banner season under Capers and Fangio. He may even be pro bowl material again. He\'ll go to the pro bowl this year, unless he get\'s injured. He\'ll be playing in a 3-4 defense, which will play to his strengths, plus, he\'s got good company at LB, which should only make him better. Losing him and LaRoi two years ago made me wince, LaRoi moreso. We want a faster defense, well, we got rid of a pretty damn fast DT, and as motivational as the guy is, he could have easily taken Sullivan under his wing. Unless Sullivan makes an immeadiate impact, I\'m afraid we are in for a long year, defensively.
	The waiting drove me mad.... I don't want to hear from those that know... Everything has changed, absolutely nothing's changed Eddie is a....draftnik?

07-09-2003, 09:30 AM	#63
lumm0x Resident antediluvian Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,026	Defensive Front Four. I totally agree with your comments about LaRoi. He was a devastating rusher for a DT. I don\'t think he was directly responsible at all for our problems at run defense. His pass rush would have probably made Howard and Grant more effective and taken some heat off our secondary at times. He was a big loss because I also don\'t believe he was named as one of the \"locker room poisons\" was he?

07-09-2003, 09:34 AM	#64
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Defensive Front Four. No he wasn\'t. As a matter of fact, he was considered the complete opposite of Joe Johnson. Always positive, and always uplifting to his team mates. I guess their attitudes canceled each other out.

07-09-2003, 09:41 AM	#65
lumm0x Resident antediluvian Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,026	Defensive Front Four. And Billy, we\'ll never agree here. Coaching makes a winner. Motivation, game adjustments, preparing players for opponents. Talent doesn\'t do any of that. The Bucs were not as talented as the Raiders. They were out coached.

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

07-09-2003, 02:36 PM	#66
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Defensive Front Four. SEATTLE -- This sense of calm that pervades Mike Holmgren these days is getting a little difficult to figure out. Oh, he is a master charmer, that\'s for sure. He even got the Seattle Seahawks faithful to bite in the preseason contention he was rebuilding this year and next in preparation for the new stadium, but that this is still a \"championship-caliber team.\" Sunday afternoon, following a typically mistake-laden 24-19 loss to the Kansas City Chiefs, Holmgren did come off the \"Mellow Mike\" postgame conversation for a moment to say 13 losses out of the past 16 games (including a playoff loss to Miami) has not been easy to take. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your right LummoX. It\'s all about coaching. Holmgren was the main thing the Packers had going for them when they won the Superbow. Not Farve or Reggie White. Now that he\'s in Seattle he isn\'t the genius that everyone thought he was. What happened to Holmgren, did he suddenly forget how to coach or take stupid pills? The only thing that changed was the talent, not the coaching style. He\'s a master motivator and all that great and wonderful stuff and he has a team full of those average players that your talking about but I see he\'s still trying to bring in some real talent so he can win. You should call him and say : \" Look Mike, you don\'t need great players. Your a great coach and it\'s more about motivation and leadership than about talent. Now quit messing around here in Seattle and coach dam it\" Also tell him WhoDat has some advise for him too which is listed below: Quote by WhoDat: Coaching, in my opinion, is the single most important thing in the NFL. You can always find talent... it\'s the damn NFL after all. Great coaching is much more difficult... especially in a smaller market. But my favorite quote by you ,that I want you to tell Holmgren is this one: Coaching makes a winner. Motivation, game adjustments, preparing players for opponents. Talent doesn\'t do any of that If he hasn\'t kicked you out of his office by now......... Then tell Holmgren the anology you told me which is listed below: Quote by LummOx, An orchestra has a variety of players playing different instruments. Given no conductor and they are asked to use their instincts to play, they will produce a beautiful song. On the flip side, a orchastra that has a conductor and maybe not as elite players that each no their role in a pre-planned song will struggle to make music. ************************************************************** How about Barry Switzer, when he went to Dallas? Did coaching win that championship or did talent? Check Mate!!! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \'Mooch\' not enough to solve Lions\' woes February 11, 2003 Print it Steve Mariucci is a wonderful head coach with a proven record, and hiring him was a smart move by Matt Millen. But in some ways, putting Mariucci on the Lions is like applying mousse to a bald scalp. Ultimately, it won\'t matter how well Mariucci coaches unless the organization learns how to grow hair**. [Edited on 10/7/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209

07-09-2003, 04:04 PM	#67
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Defensive Front Four. Talent wins in baseball, not manager Tuesday, October 03, 2000 The Pirates officially fired Gene Lamont yesterday and began the process of hiring a new manager. This is certain to cause a buzz around town because a lot of people believe all that was wrong with the Pirates was the manager. A lot of people believe a new manager can come in and resurrect the Pirates. But if the truth be known, there\'s no more overrated job in sports than manager of a baseball team. People expecting a new manager to take over the Pirates and wave some kind of magic wand or institute some new program and turn this perennial loser into an immediate winner are either dreamers or uninformed. It\'s pitching, hitting, fielding and running with a little bit of strategy mixed in, and almost nothing in those areas has changed in a long, long time. You win in baseball with talent, not with schemes or strategy. Two managers regarded as the best in their profession, Tony La Russa and Joe Torre, are proof of this theory. In the five-year period from 1988-92, La Russa won four division titles and averaged 98 wins per season with the Oakland Athletics. With the same franchise for the next three years, he was under .500 every season. It wasn\'t a case of La Russa taking an overdose of stupid pills after the 1992 season, but rather the talent departing Oakland, which didn\'t have the payroll to keep such a roster. In his first four seasons with the St. Louis Cardinals, from 1996-99, La Russa averaged 80 wins a season -- less than .500. This season, St. Louis won 95 games and advanced to the postseason. Did La Russa take smart pills? No, but the Cardinals added center fielder Jim Edmonds, second baseman Fernando Vina, starting pitchers Darryl Kile, Andy Benes and Pat Hentgen and closer Dave Veres. Edmonds hit 42 homers, drove in 108 runs and is an MVP candidate. Vina batted .300 with a .380 on-base percentage. Veres saved 29 games. Kile, Benes and Hentgen combined for 47 wins. The talent changed, not La Russa. Torre is a raging genius with the Yankees, going for a third consecutive World Series title and the fourth in five years when the postseason begins today. In five seasons with the Yankees, his teams are a staggering 165 games over .500. But in 14 previous seasons as a manager, Torre was 112 games under .500. In a farewell news conference yesterday, Lamont pointed to Jim Leyland as the best manager he knew. That point will get no argument here, but look what happened to Leyland when all the talent left after 1992. Three consecutive division championships on teams that were 92 games over .500 were followed by four consecutive losing seasons in which the team was 64 games under .500. Same manager, different talent. General Manager Cam Bonifay listed the ability to communicate, teach, instruct, run a club and handle a pitching staff as assets he was looking for in a manager. There are dozens of men who can do that, although some better than others. By winning a division title with the Chicago White Sox in 1993 and having his team in first place when a strike closed down baseball in August of the next year, Lamont showed he could do that. But he had his chance. Managers who go four years without a winning season, regardless of the circumstances, are seldom invited back. Many will be interviewed to succeed Lamont, probably some from the existing staff. Two names heard a lot by baseball insiders are Joel Skinner, the manager of Class AAA Buffalo, and Ken Macha, the bench coach of the Athletics, who was born, raised and still lives in the Pittsburgh area. Whoever gets the job, and a decision probably won\'t come until after the World Series, faces an enormous challenge. The Pirates have gaping holes, as evidenced by their 69-93 record. They need at least one more power hitter, one, but preferably two, starting pitchers and several relievers. They also could trade Jason Kendall if he doesn\'t agree to a contract extension, leaving an unfillable hole at catcher. Lamont had one piece of advice for his successor. \"Be patient,\" he said. \"It might take awhile.\"
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209

07-09-2003, 10:57 PM	#68
lumm0x Resident antediluvian Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,026	Defensive Front Four. A coaches greatest ability is properly judging talent and getting those players that fit his system. No matter how good of a coach you are, if you don\'t have talented players, your not going to be successful I sure hope talented players can learn to scout then and devise a system on their own, because according to Billy we can put a headset on a monkey. Now that he\'s in Seattle he isn\'t the genius that everyone thought he was. What happened to Holmgren, did he suddenly forget how to coach or take stupid pills? The only thing that changed was the talent, not the coaching style. Bizarrely wrong. In all his years of coordinating and coaching never had he stepped into roles he no experience in. He made the mistake of trying to be God in Seattle and not do what his strength is. He didn\'t coach himself. We\'ll see this year if he improves the team because he is only a coach and not a multi role player. How about Barry Switzer, when he went to Dallas? Did coaching win that championship or did talent? Like everyone said about the Bulls in basketball. A monkey could coach that squad, but then look at what Phil Jackson did in L.A. Why couldn\'t the Lakers do that before he got there? They had Shaq and Kobe before Jackson. How did they 3-peat? Because he coached them to a winner and continually motivated then. Switzer actually came in a breathed fresh life into them. Would they have won again with Johnson, maybe? Switzer just couldn\'t do it again, he tried to change a system in the wrong direction, he had personal issues that interfered with work and he wasn\'t a great coach. I will bet anything that if I get Bill Parcells (for example) and you coach the other team. You can have your pick of players in the NFL to fill a team. You can then even take away the next top 5 at every position and I\'ll take a team of what\'s left. You coach your team and Parcells coaches mine. If you think your team would win then your typing to much with your forehead. Why do teams have turnaround seasons when a good coach arrives? The coach teaches players, replaces players with ones the fit his system (talent or not) and designs plays to exploit opposition weakness. What do players do? Follow direction. The end.

07-10-2003, 07:05 AM	#69
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Defensive Front Four. Lummox, Relying on other posts to help you out. Well, let me put the rest or 3rdNlong\'s post up for you _______________________________________________________________________________ Look at Tom Landry. When he had talent he made a lot of trips to the superbowl. When the talent dried up, he was forced into retirement or fired, I can\'t remember. The list is endless of the coaches that succeded when they had talent and failed when the talent was gone. _______________________________________________________________________________ If coaching were the most important thing in football , then there would be no need to draft or pick up other players. No, based off your theory, a great coach could coach any team to victory. Now, based off my theory a reaonably good coach could draft and pick up great players and coach them to victory. You see, while coaching plays an important part in the success of any football team, they will not win on a consistant basis unless they have talent. On the other hand Switzer proved exactly what I\'m saying. By the way can you explain this to me? _______________________________________________________________________________ I sure hope talented players can learn to scout then and devise a system on their own, because according to Billy we can put a headset on a monkey. Like everyone said about the Bulls in basketball. A monkey could coach that squad, but then look at what Phil Jackson did in L.A ________________________________________________________________________________ [Edited on 10/7/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209

07-10-2003, 09:13 AM	#70
lumm0x Resident antediluvian Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,026	Defensive Front Four. What that statement meant was a team can \"on paper\" be the most talented in the league and never be a consistent winner because of coaching. A winning coach, like Phil Jackson, can step into a team, add the pieces he sees missing in his system (a only a good coach adds the correct pieces) and turns what wasn\'t a winner into a winner. Were the Saints a more talented team than the Lions last year? Why didn\'t they win? Your whole arguement yells that the more talented team wins. My arguement is that a coach can take a less talented squad and make them win. He prepares his team for what they will face, coaches his players on what plays should exploit opposition deficiency, and motivates them to win. Does the best coach always do that? The best coach on that day does. When Detroit beat us last year we got out coached. They were better prepared for us than we were them. If a team doesn\'t show up on Sunday, it is the coaches fault. If a team doesn\'t have the necessary talent to compete, that is the coaches fault as well. For all the hard work of your employees, if the top end of your business isn\'t operated properly and you don\'t put your staff in the position they need to be successful and provide them with the right knowledge to perform, as good and \"talented\" as your staff is....you lost the business...not them. The manger is always the most important part of any business. If you can\'t rationalize this, then fine. If you believe the people that do the work are more important than the people that organize the work I can\'t change your mind. I will never accept that the players are more responsible for winning than the coach. And I will defend my statement by saying any losing team falls on the coach not the players, in accountability and in cause. And the statements about Landry......how long did he coach? Would you call him a successful coach? Do you think that team came across all of those players over time by pure chance. He ran a good ship, evaluated talent well, and had an effective system. He just couldn\'t keep adapting to the changing game and left coaching when he couldn\'t continue that. His skills deteriorated like a players. The long list of coaches that dry up.....they dry up because they fail to be good coaches in adapting to the game and in evaluating talent. The talent level dries up because of the coach...that\'s my point. The coach is most responsible for team success. You see, while coaching plays an important part in the success of any football team, they will not win on a consistant basis unless they have talent. On the other hand Switzer proved exactly what I\'m saying. So we agree Barry Switzer was a bad coach who arrived at the right time in a already built successful team, managed to hold their cohesiveness together for a winning year, and then blew them apart. You are saying that the next year Switzer coached they had less talent? Please check the rosters and rethink this whole thing. The talent was all still there....the coaching ability was not. Let\'s put Mouse Davis in as coach of the Bucs next year. He will install the run & shoot and we can watch them be 1-15. Then we can both laugh at this super bowl talented squad that should win....just because they have talent.