Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan
I feel just the opposite. I think the talent, in many cases, is close at this level. Closer than we think. The way rosters turn over in the NFL now a days, the only constant is the coaching staff and continuity of thought.
We agree that Reid is one of the top coaches in the NFL, but I disagree that any old Joe Schmo can't get the same results with the same team. This guy takes J. Trotter, who by some accounts, is a system linebacker. Yet he somehow manages to be in the discussion as one of the better linebackers in the NFC.
The fact of the matter is, one would really have a hard time quantifying good coaching. Other than wins and losses, it's hard to really 'see' it over the course of a game. Sure, if it's third and one, and your team has rushed for over two hundred yards during the game, and the coach decides to thow a bomb to the end zone, that probably was a questionable call there.
I think it shows up in areas like lack of penalties, exececution of time clock, tackles made/missed, passes caught/dropped and maybe a few other areas. It's more mental. I believe players excute to the extent of their preparedness and confidence in the overall strategy. That's why you can fight your guts out every game and still lose week after week. At this level true professionals have the mental edge over the opponent.
I happen to think Gregg Williams is a wonderful coach but this is his year to step up.
|
I would completely agree that the talent at this level is closer than anyone things. But I don't think the difference in consistent winning team and consistent losing teams is about coaching. I would argue that its even simplier. Because the level of talent between the two teams is always close (unlike college football), the chances of an upset due to random fluctuations of dumb luck are far greater.
Even if the far superior Coach "A" devises a master gameplan to face Coach "B", its not improbable at all in this sport for the blind Coach "B" squirrel to provide his team a coaching advantage in a single game. Suppose Coach A does a masterful job mixing up his runs and passes and his blitzes, while Coach B selects plays at random. What's to say that Coach B's team wont have the strategic advantage? The fact that luck of the draw can completely mitigate a lot of strategy in football definately deemphizizes the effect of coaching on the outcome of a game.
Now if Coach A is playing his best 11 players for the situation at all times, and Coach B is not, Coach A's team now has a big advantage.
Quote:
|
I think it shows up in areas like lack of penalties, exececution of time clock, tackles made/missed, passes caught/dropped and maybe a few other areas. It's more mental. I believe players excute to the extent of their preparedness and confidence in the overall strategy. That's why you can fight your guts out every game and still lose week after week. At this level true professionals have the mental edge over the opponent.
|
I agree that those things are mental, but I'm not sure how much a coach can do to improve those things. I mean, number one, they are going to happen in every game anyway regardless of how prepared you are. Number two, I believe that no coach will be able to better a player who doesn't want to better himself. I also believe the type of player who is good enough at football to make it to the NFL is probably near his optimal level of mental acuity and composure. After all, its the only way they'd make it. Maybe its just me but I just can't imagine how the hypothetical Coach A would get his players to perform measurably better than Coach B could, provided that they were the exact same players.