IMO, coaching is 65% of success in the NFL

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

leoram

LA/St Louis/LA fan
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
1,297
One needs to look no further than Belicheat to see the importance of coaching in this league. The Pats run all kinds of rookies and retreads through that team and they remain successful. With that said, 20% is QB play. We have seen guys like Big Ben throw up huge numbers in the past even with an inferior OLine. Very rarely do we see a dominant defense carry a team all the way (Ravens/Broncos) but even then, the defensive calls put the players in a position to win. Anyone who paid attention to Martz's offenses could see the spike in production when he was there.

This is why we can expect a marked improvement for the Rams going forward. We finally have proven competence on the sidelines in respect to gameplanning and in game adjustments. On offense, there will be a modern passing game that puts the receivers in open space by design. I'm not yet sold on McVay's ability to generate a rushing attack or consistent production in the red zone but it couldn't be worse than what we got from the Schotty, Cig, Boras debacle. On defense, I've called Williams the second coming of Haslett since Fisher tried to hire him at the inception. While there are games he looks like a genius, far too often his gambling style put players in a position to lose nearly as frequently as he put them in a position to make a big play. While every defensive coach can get gashed from time to time, Phillips has been far more consistent with his defenses. Sadly, he won't be coordinating the stacked deck he had in Denver but I expect a slightly more consistent defense next year. Finally, Bones is the best ST coach the Rams have EVER had.

Finally, it will take a year for this administration to churn the roster to fit the schemes and for players like Goff and Ogletree to develop their ability to master the mental concepts necessary for elite production. There will be growing pains and those like myself who regularly get sucked into pre-season hype will need to temper our expectations to avoid fan meltdown. Still, the arrow will be pointing upward for reasons beyond abject homerism.
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
49,232
Name
Burger man
I don't know about 65% coaching, but I follow you.

I might suggest it's 65% organizational.

Extending beyond the coaching and well into philosophy about drafting, player retention, salary cap management, culture, etc.

You can have great players, but it is hard to bring it all together without an aligned organization... and even harder to sustain it.

Great topic.
 

IowaRam

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
6,621
Name
Iowa
I have no idea if McVay will be successful or not , but I'll bet there isn't a coach in the NFL that will out work him
 

DaveFan'51

Old-Timer
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
18,666
Name
Dave
I agree with CGI! And I think we'll have a pretty good idea how the season will go by the end of Preseason!
 

den-the-coach

Fifty-four Forty or Fight
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
23,002
Name
Dennis
I have no idea if McVay will be successful or not , but I'll bet there isn't a coach in the NFL that will out work him

That's not always necessarily a good thing I know that Vermeil & Gruden struggled with that, what I actually like about McVay is he loves the game especially the coaching aspect and that is why he stated he wanted no part of the General Manager's aspect of the equation, he's a football coach and wants to be on the field teaching. One area where I feel he's beyond his years is in delegation and that is how he was able to recruit assistant coaches and why IMHO that Matt LaFleur is in Los Angeles and not with that team up north.
 
Last edited:

Scirca

Rookie
Joined
Dec 19, 2016
Messages
467
When I think of coaching I think of Aaron Rodgers. When he first came into the NFL, he wasn't really good, had a hard time reading coverage and had sloppy fundamentals, not to mention, ball position was a huge problem. Then came along Mike McCarthy and he worked his magic on him, thanks to his experience. I thinking coaching is a big deal. Players don't magically become great without the help of great coaches along the way.
 

Debacled

Starter
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
571
When I think of coaching I think of Aaron Rodgers. When he first came into the NFL, he wasn't really good, had a hard time reading coverage and had sloppy fundamentals, not to mention, ball position was a huge problem. Then came along Mike McCarthy and he worked his magic on him, thanks to his experience. I thinking coaching is a big deal. Players don't magically become great without the help of great coaches along the way.


Rodgers sat behind Favre his first 3 years...not sure how he was sloppy or had trouble reading coverages from the bench. You could claim that McCarthy developed Rodgers, but you could also claim that McCarthy doesn't have a career without Rodgers success.

Good QB play is more important that good coaching I believe. The Pats are nothing without Tom Brady. Bad players eat good coaches careers.

I would also argue that good players make bad coaches look better than they are. This is why we see so many coordinators come from good teams and fall absolutely flat when raised to HC. Scheme only carries teams so far, talent will always be the bottleneck.
 

ArkyRamsFan

Pro Bowler
Joined
Apr 6, 2016
Messages
1,956
Leoram,
Great topic. Thanks for bringing it up.

Assuming the accuracy of your premise my question is do you think that coaching is more important to a winning football team in the NFL than the college ranks.
And, if so, why is that the case?

~ArkyRamsFan~
 

LACHAMP46

A snazzy title
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Messages
11,735
It takes great coaching to recognize and develop talent....I don't know how much of a percentage to place on it...That Pats team wasn't as talented as several in these playoffs...Neither were those Injured GB & Seahawks teams.
 

Florida_Ram

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
2,622
65% as a universal number might be fairly accurate? I have to agree that coaching tends to be underrated in the NFL on various levels.

There is always those NFL teams that start the season having Top 5 NFL talent (with core players at key positions) on their opening day roster that can hide coaching deficiencies. As you know @leoram, those teams with an obvious advantage in player talent at key positions can often times manage 9 or 10 wins with merely average coaching.

I guess what I'm getting at is teams that play each other with equal talent level at key positions, is usually where the coaching pedigree tends to separate itself.

More often than not, a team with a big edge in talent at key positions, will usually beat the bottom tier teams the majority of the time even if by just a few points late in the game. After last season ended, I thought the Rams fielded a team of talent in the 8 win area but finished the season with 4 wins because of coaching.

Now the million dollar question is......... what is the percentage of blame on the coaching staff if a team has 8 win talent but only manages 4 wins?


cYkYQQOXfm5fhKo3pTaud05flD0S12O36xA17Kf3_I_L8SmAcHI4oa1OHvAVuGknjAOAZWQ=s170
%_?
george_w_bush_quote.jpg
 

1maGoh

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
3,957
Good QB play is more important that good coaching I believe. The Pats are nothing without Tom Brady. Bad players eat good coaches careers.

But... Don't the cheats win most of their games when The Right Hand of Satan is suspended, like this year, or injured like a few years ago? It's great to say he's the best ever and makes that team what it is, but then they just keep winning when he isn't there. Clearly, based on this having happened several times, that guy isn't the cog that makes that team win. Who was it, Matt Cassel? Looked great back in the day on the Patriots. The first four games of this year, them team won and the quarterback looked good (I believe; I didn't watch, only heard second hand). I'm not trying to downplay that guy's accomplishments. He's done some statistically amazing and improbable things over the years. But you can't pretend like they actually need him to win or be successful.
 

Mojo Ram

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
23,284
Name
mojo
I agree with coaching being a big factor, which is a big reason why the offense had been awful and the defense & ST's had been very good the last five years here.

I'd go:
35% coaching
30% QB
25% talent
10% elite defense
 

kurtfaulk

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
16,608

It's hard to tell because the coaching may only be 4 win talent. The team got progressively worse as the playing group got progressively better. That's got to be on the coaching staff. Although the qb position got progressively worse. But then again the oc got progressively worse as well and hit rock bottom last season.

We'll find out this season i guess.

.
 

Merlin

Damn the torpedoes
Rams On Demand Sponsor
ROD Credit | 2023 TOP Member
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
39,715

Beat me to it. It's definitely higher than 65%, probably more around that 85% yeah, when you're talking about the best of them.

Biggest decision a GM makes is that head coaching position. Bring in a great HC and every pick has more of a chance to maximize the talent you as a GM see in them. Get it wrong and you won't be a GM long. Trent Baalke says Hey.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,941
I don't think you can really put a percentage on it. It depends on where you are in the process of team-building.

Obviously, if you have a contender with all the pieces, coaching is less important.(ex. Barry Switzer with the Cowboys) If you have a team in need of a rebuilding, coaching and scouting are pretty much everything.
 

Debacled

Starter
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
571
But... Don't the cheats win most of their games when The Right Hand of Satan is suspended, like this year, or injured like a few years ago? It's great to say he's the best ever and makes that team what it is, but then they just keep winning when he isn't there. Clearly, based on this having happened several times, that guy isn't the cog that makes that team win. Who was it, Matt Cassel? Looked great back in the day on the Patriots. The first four games of this year, them team won and the quarterback looked good (I believe; I didn't watch, only heard second hand). I'm not trying to downplay that guy's accomplishments. He's done some statistically amazing and improbable things over the years. But you can't pretend like they actually need him to win or be successful.
Its the Patriots, the media is going to blow hot air up anyone's ass that plays for them. In 2008 with Cassel they missed the playoffs (with a 11-5 record mind you, but they weren't winning because of Cassel). This year they started 3-1, but again its not like it was next man up Brady scmady. They got shut out by a bad Buffalo team. squeeked by the Cardinals and Dolphins, and kicked the tar out of a Belichick disciple led Texans team (for the record, his proteges usually don't fair too well when playing him).

Coaching plays a role, sure it does. But again without good players teams and coaches do nothing. Especially at QB. I'm more than comfortable saying I think the Pats have no rings without Brady, and especially without the taping signals bs they were getting away with.
 

1maGoh

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
3,957
Its the Patriots, the media is going to blow hot air up anyone's ass that plays for them. In 2008 with Cassel they missed the playoffs (with a 11-5 record mind you, but they weren't winning because of Cassel). This year they started 3-1, but again its not like it was next man up Brady scmady. They got shut out by a bad Buffalo team. squeeked by the Cardinals and Dolphins, and kicked the tar out of a Belichick disciple led Texans team (for the record, his proteges usually don't fair too well when playing him).

Coaching plays a role, sure it does. But again without good players teams and coaches do nothing. Especially at QB. I'm more than comfortable saying I think the Pats have no rings without Brady, and especially without the taping signals bs they were getting away with.

If you miss the playoffs at 11-5, that's not your fault.

Also, winning is winning. Crappy teams, squeaked by, barely whatever... Winning is winning. No rings without that guy... I can buy that.

Cheating is 15℅ of winning, at least.