Cowher Talking to Skins about Job in '08?

No, the point that is made is that he was deficient in the areas of team management and motivation. The Westbrooke/Davis fight, a lack of discipline, too nice to the guys. I think you can have a great game plan and not have your team ready to play at the same time.

I will say that I think Gibbs was/(is?) too cautious as a play caller at times, but he makes up for it with meticulous preparation. His practices are like games.

At any rate, it will be interesting to see how many points San Diego scores this season. I think a lot.I think lacking in the areas of team management and motivation, assuming that good coaching requires those things (which isnt a given IMO), would also hurt his value as an offensive coordinator. I mean we are quick to throw blame on him for the lacking disipline of those teams, but what about the blame of the other coaches, or more accurately, the blame of the undisciplined players themselves? Leadership can come from anywhere, and while the HC is generally synonmous with it, hes no more responsible for it than the Running back or the Offensive Coordinator.

I personally don't think he was a great coordinator either because he was deficent in those aforementioned areas. I think he's given a lot of credit for coaching untapped talent when in reality he was just coaching "about to be tapped" talent (Gore, Dallas three headed monster, etc.). Funny thing is, as a head coach, I think the reverse perception has hurt him. People perceive that teams like the 2000 Redskins and 2005 were talented, but in reality those were some pretty awful football teams.

Coaching doesn't have a huge effect on the outcome of the game, IMO, but Turner was every bit as bad as a Coodinator as he was as a HC. The question is was that all that bad? And I really don't have the answer. But I can assure you that it doesnt make all that much of a difference.

Coaching doesn't have a huge effect on the outcome of the game, IMO, but Turner was every bit as bad as a Coodinator as he was as a HC. The question is was that all that bad? And I really don't have the answer. But I can assure you that it doesnt make all that much of a difference.

Tripp, I know your shtick is that you generally disagree with conventional wisdom, but I bet 90+% of the league agrees that Norv Turner is an above average to very good offensive coordinator. He's managed some very prolific offenses over the course of his career, and he never seems short of career opportunities.

The reason he wasn't very successful as a head coach is because a head coach does at least twice the work of an offensive coordinator in conventional coaching scenarios. He wasn't able to handle the other aspects of managing a football team, and his leadership skills were sub par at best.

Tripp, I know your shtick is that you generally disagree with conventional wisdom, but I bet 90+% of the league agrees that Norv Turner is an above average to very good offensive coordinator. He's managed some very prolific offenses over the course of his career, and he never seems short of career opportunities.

The reason he wasn't very successful as a head coach is because a head coach does at least twice the work of an offensive coordinator in conventional coaching scenarios. He wasn't able to handle the other aspects of managing a football team, and his leadership skills were sub par at best.So then you would agree that the more work Turner was asked to do, the more it became apparent that he probably was not the best man for the job. Wouldn't it make sense then that he probably wasn't the best man for the OC job either, but found success behind some very talented players?

So Matty, who do you hate more -- Spurrier or Norv?

That's easy, Spurrier.

Norv at least got the team to the playoffs once and even won a playoff game.

Spurrier had no business coaching in the NFL. None.

This position has perplexed me for years. I don't understand why the "Norv is garbage crowd" thinks he was/is a good coodinator. The qualities that make a successful head coach (especially a HC who calls plays) are pretty much identical to the qualities of a playcalling coodinator, correct?

So does Norv have these qualities or not? I doubt he could have them only conditionally. He's either an underrated coach, or an overrated coodinator.

(I tend to feel hes the latter)

I'm not sure what's so confusing. As a coordinator he has a pretty good track record, but as a head coach his record speaks for itself. There are plenty of coaches in the league that just aren't head coach material, but are brilliant coordinators. I think Norv fits that mold perfectly.

No, the point that is made is that he was deficient in the areas of team management and motivation. The Westbrooke/Davis fight, a lack of discipline, too nice to the guys. I think you can have a great game plan and not have your team ready to play at the same time.



I agree with you but that's why I continue to think San Diego will be a good situation for him. There are enough giants in that locker room who are solid team guys that they will police themselves. Turner will just have to focus on exploiting the considerable weapons that they have and staying out of the GM's way.

As I've said before, Norv has been given a final shot that most people would kill for. He has all the tools. His team is somehow slipping under the radar after a 14-2 season because of some big free agent signings around the league.

Now if the team internally disolves or underachieves we will be able to say definitively that he is an awful coach.

But I agree with Gtripp on one thing - too much is often made of coaching, and this cult of genius surrounding succesful coaches can be absurd. The bottom line is do you have players, and the Chargers do in spades.

The NFL is a coaches league probably more than any other sports league. Do they get too much credit at times and too much blame at others? Sure. But solid coaching sure will take you a lot further the majority of the time than shoddy coaching will.

The NFL is a coaches league probably more than any other sports league. Do they get too much credit at times and too much blame at others? Sure. But solid coaching sure will take you a lot further the majority of the time than shoddy coaching will.

That's true, coaches in the NFL are more important than any other sport. But coaches are the difference between one great team beating another great team. You still need guys who can go out and make plays if you want to be in that position to win, and Turner has got that now. If you examine the coaches who have come up the last couple years I would argue pretty much to the man that their success has had as much to do with front office decisions as in game strategy, meaning they have been given the personnel to be succesful.

Anyway, I didn't wake up this morning and get my coffee expecting to find myself defending Norv Turner. I'm just saying let's give him one more chance before we write the book on him.

I'm not sure what's so confusing. As a coordinator he has a pretty good track record, but as a head coach his record speaks for itself. There are plenty of coaches in the league that just aren't head coach material, but are brilliant coordinators. I think Norv fits that mold perfectly.

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.

The NFL is a coaches league probably more than any other sports league. Do they get too much credit at times and too much blame at others? Sure. But solid coaching sure will take you a lot further the majority of the time than shoddy coaching will.I would agree with this. There are 24 starting positions and free substitution, and you absolutely have to be on top of that to win games. Thing is, it doesn't seem to be a very difficult job at all. Since Wade Philips in Buffalo, there has not really been a coach who cost his team multiple games in a season (or even one). Flutie v Johnson was unique situation in that the coach was wrong, and everyone in the world knew it. But every coaching "blunder" since then has been either:

a) relatively insignificant, OR
b) due to conventional wisdom

Either way, the average to below average coach doesn't make his (significant) decisions any differently in the long run than the good coach, so the difference in the output is insignificant to put it lightly.

That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means it doesn't affect wins and losses often if ever.