Just HOW important is coaching?

[EastRam]

We all talk about how important the QB, LT, DL and Wr's are.

But! Just how much importance do you as a fan place on the HC and overall talent of a coaching staff?

For me personally I place as much importance on the coaching staff as I do on the players. But thats just me. I believe a great coaching staff can take average players and mold them into very good players. With that in mind I also believe a great coaching staff can take very talented players and mold them into HOF players.

One other opinion is you never see alot of great players become great coaches in any sport. But you do see a fair amount of average players go on to become great or above average coaches.

IMHO the reason for the coaching, is great players talent comes natural. Average players usually have to become students of the game to make the team. As students of the game they become more ingrained in the teaching aspects of the NFL.

 

[CGI_Ram]

Along the lines; coaching is huge! Technique and many keys to winning battles can be taught.

I'd also suggest a good QB coach is worth his weight in gold.

The coordinators? This is your scheme and play calling.

Then there is the HC. He must keep all of the above in sync through his leadership. Additionally, the HC sets the emotional tone for the squad... "we are going to be this type of team". He's also got to be a great read of situations relative to team dynamics.

In a league with rules to bring about parity; coaching and personnel directors are what separates the winners from the losers.

 

[-X-]

I think we've all learned, the hard way, that coaching makes a pretty big difference. I mean, the stable of head coaches that have come and gone through here is staggering. I also think that the KIND of coach you are makes a big difference as well. Some coaches that are great X's and O's guys, sometimes can't get players to buy into the program. And it's incredibly important to have that camaraderie. Conversely, some coaches that are friendly "player's coaches", may not have a handle on the technical side of the game and will either be very conservative, or will make bone-headed decisions.

You have to have a healthy mix of the two in order to succeed, I think, but I've also learned that head coaches *NEED* a modicum of luck throughout the season as well. There isn't a head coach alive that can sustain success during a season when they suffer team-wide injuries to a number of key positions. For further proof of that, I invite people to really look into the reasons why Fisher went 9-23 in 2004-2005. It's like reading an account of the 2009-2011 seasons here.

Anway. Good post, East. And interesting perspective about why some players actually become coaches.

 

[PrometheusFaulk]

I wouldn't dispute that coaching is important, and the best teams have a combination of skilled players and good coaching, but it's hard for me to put it on equal footing with the guys in between the lines. I think if a team is good enough, they can overcome a bad, or let's say vanilla scheme. But it doesn't matter how good your X's and O's are, if your guys don't have it they don't have it.

 

[-X-]

I wouldn't dispute that coaching is important, and the best teams have a combination of skilled players and good coaching, but it's hard for me to put it on equal footing with the guys in between the lines. I think if a team is good enough, they can overcome a bad, or let's say vanilla scheme. But it doesn't matter how good your X's and O's are, if your guys don't have it they don't have it.

True.

So where do you rank a good GM in the winning formula?

 

[EastRam]

I wouldn't dispute that coaching is important, and the best teams have a combination of skilled players and good coaching, but it's hard for me to put it on equal footing with the guys in between the lines. I think if a team is good enough, they can overcome a bad, or let's say vanilla scheme. But it doesn't matter how good your X's and O's are, if your guys don't have it they don't have it.

The best example of what you say is the Cowboys with whats his name after JJ. But the great coaching of JJ made the dynasty. JJ put them over the top and whats his name rode JJ's coat tails for a year after that the "walls came tumbling down".

 

[DR RAM]

I will just make one point, but could make so many.

Our offensive line coach(Loney), before Boudreau, didn't develop or make one player better on our line. Even draft choices that played well as rookies, declined their second year's. Very good free agents, played way worse under Loney. One year with Boudreau, and we have seen major improvements all the way across the line.

 

[PrometheusFaulk]

I wouldn't dispute that coaching is important, and the best teams have a combination of skilled players and good coaching, but it's hard for me to put it on equal footing with the guys in between the lines. I think if a team is good enough, they can overcome a bad, or let's say vanilla scheme. But it doesn't matter how good your X's and O's are, if your guys don't have it they don't have it.

True.

So where do you rank a good GM in the winning formula?

That's a good question. I guess it would depend on the GM, because it seems like from team to team their relationship with the coach in terms of player evaluation and talent is different. Total hedge, sorry. Probably something I'd have to kick around a bit more for a better answer.

 

[PrometheusFaulk]

I wouldn't dispute that coaching is important, and the best teams have a combination of skilled players and good coaching, but it's hard for me to put it on equal footing with the guys in between the lines. I think if a team is good enough, they can overcome a bad, or let's say vanilla scheme. But it doesn't matter how good your X's and O's are, if your guys don't have it they don't have it.

The best example of what you say is the Cowboys with whats his name after JJ. But the great coaching of JJ made the dynasty. JJ put them over the top and whats his name rode JJ's coat tails for a year after that the "walls came tumbling down".

Barry Switzer. That's a fair point. Like I said, I think the best teams have them both. And when they're a younger team that development is absolutely essential. But with a more veteran group I kinda think coaching boils down more to putting your guys in a position where they can exploit mismatches, etc.

 

[-X-]

I wouldn't dispute that coaching is important, and the best teams have a combination of skilled players and good coaching, but it's hard for me to put it on equal footing with the guys in between the lines. I think if a team is good enough, they can overcome a bad, or let's say vanilla scheme. But it doesn't matter how good your X's and O's are, if your guys don't have it they don't have it.

True.

So where do you rank a good GM in the winning formula?

That's a good question. I guess it would depend on the GM, because it seems like from team to team their relationship with the coach in terms of player evaluation and talent is different. Total hedge, sorry. Probably something I'd have to kick around a bit more for a better answer.

Nah, I get it. It's on display for us, actually.

Snead & Fisher are on the same page. Their philosophy is to get really good athletes, and turn them into really good football players via their coaching staff and assistants. Character seems to be secondary to that philosophy. Whereas Devaney & Spagnuolo had different philosophies. The only thing they had in common was staying very far away from character risks. Would Devaney and Fisher work? Nope. Would Snead & Spagnuolo work? Nope. That synergy (that's right, I said 'synergy') has to be there.

 

[jap]

The Rams have an all star coaching staff; that is one of the major reasons for their quick turnaround. Because of that coaching and the quality of the young players they have selected in last year's draft (2012) plus last season's FA pickups, a number of players are poised to have breakout seasons. Pay close attention to Michael "the Incredible Brock" Brockers, Robert "the Mighty Quinn", Kendall Langford, Janoris Jenkins, and Trumaine Johnson on defense. On offense, observe Chris Givens, Brian Quick (although he may grow substantially in his third season too), Lance Kendricks, Isaiah Pead, Daryl Richardson, and, of course, Sam the Ram himself. On special teams I look for Johnny Hekker and Greg the Turbo Leg to become much more consistent in their duties. Greg may even break a few records along the way.

 

[-X-]

The Rams have an all star coaching staff; that is one of the major reasons for their quick turnaround. Because of that coaching and the quality of the young players they have selected in last year's draft (2012) plus last season's FA pickups, a number of players are poised to have breakout seasons. Pay close attention to Michael "the Incredible Brock" Brockers, Robert "the Mighty Quinn", Kendall Langford, Janoris Jenkins, and Trumaine Johnson on defense. On offense, observe Chris Givens, Brian Quick (although he may grow substantially in his third season too), Lance Kendricks, Isaiah Pead, Daryl Richardson, and, of course, Sam the Ram himself. On special teams I look for Johnny Hekker and Greg the Turbo Leg to become much more consistent in their duties. Greg may even broke a few records along the way.

Yeah, I think this is the year that Zuerlein breaks the FG record. By a lot too.

That's one thing that can't be taught though. Performance under pressure.

 

[Rockman]

What a great off season topic. I believe the success comes from the top. The pats are successful because they have great ownership. Kraft is a top shelf owner and leader, and the patriots would not be who they are without him..Kronke had the idea that he had to go out and get a great head coach and gm. Someone who knew how to win. Someone who knew how to bring in winners. An average owner could not pull off what Kronke did. You have to have great talent, but before that, you have to bring in talent, then coach them up and make them better and then you have to manage all those personalities to be on the same page. Excellence is not just an accident. It filters down from the very top.

 

[FRO]

I prefer the head coach to be Jim's and Joes's guy over an X's and O's guy. Meaning I prefer head coach to manage the team, structure practice, instil identity, and manage the in game strategy. The game against Detroit showed me how badly we have lacked a head coach that can manage a game. Fisher is an excellent in game coach. He is good at making adjustments. A great head coach and we are lucky to have him.

Fisher is also smart enough to go after the best coaches possible. He has a great group of positional coaches who are capable of getting the most out of players. I think Schottenhiemer is a solid OC who has never really had a talented offense to work with.

As far as what is more important the HC or GM, I think you can have a great GM and a great HC, but if they aren't on the same page nothing will get done properly. X is right on the Rams philosophy. Get athletes with high upside and use your all-star coaching staff to make those athletes great football players. Barrett Jones didn't fit that bill, but he profiles to be what Scott Wells was throughout his career.

Bottom line, we appear to be doing well in the GM/HC department and with the multiple picks we got from the RG3 deal we should have a dynamic roster by 2015.

 

[FRO]

What a great off season topic. I believe the success comes from the top. The pats are successful because they have great ownership. Kraft is a top shelf owner and leader, and the patriots would not be who they are without him..Kronke had the idea that he had to go out and get a great head coach and gm. Someone who knew how to win. Someone who knew how to bring in winners. An average owner could not pull off what Kronke did. You have to have great talent, but before that, you have to bring in talent, then coach them up and make them better and then you have to manage all those personalities to be on the same page. Excellence is not just an accident. It filters down from the very top.

Excellent point. The Cowboys will have a hard time being a consistent winner with Jerrah Jones just like the Raiders did with Davis. I like how Stan offers resources, but doesn't get in the way. He hires talented guys to get the job done right. He doesn't micromanage.

 

[albefree69]

X queried:

So where do you rank a good GM in the winning formula?

If Parcells is your HC then none at all.

If Jerry Jones is your owner then none at all.

If Kroenke is your owner then it would depend on whether you're talking long term or short term. Sort term maybe 10% but long term probably more like 25-30%. Talented players are a huge part of the equation but the good teams always have a stock of talented players. That's usually on the GM.

GO RAMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[-X-]

X queried:

So where do you rank a good GM in the winning formula?

If Parcells is your HC then none at all.

If Jerry Jones is your owner then none at all.

If Kroenke is your owner then it would depend on whether you're talking long term or short term. Sort term maybe 10% but long term probably more like 25-30%. Talented players are a huge part of the equation but the good teams always have a stock of talented players. That's usually on the GM.

GO RAMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Interesting. Jerry Jones can't get out of his own way half the time, and neither could Al Davis or Daniel Snyder. Sometimes, obviously, meddling owners or HC's with *total control* (ala Martz) can do more to destroy a team than to build one. You have to be either really good at what you do (Parcells), or you need to defer to people who have a better formula.

 

[Rockman]

X queried:

So where do you rank a good GM in the winning formula?

If Parcells is your HC then none at all.

If Jerry Jones is your owner then none at all.

If Kroenke is your owner then it would depend on whether you're talking long term or short term. Sort term maybe 10% but long term probably more like 25-30%. Talented players are a huge part of the equation but the good teams always have a stock of talented players. That's usually on the GM.

GO RAMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good point. I agree with you. But who is responsible for having a good GM in the organization?

 

[albefree69]

X observed:
Interesting. Jerry Jones can't get out of his own way half the time, and neither could Al Davis or Daniel Snyder. Sometimes, obviously, meddling owners or HC's with *total control* (ala Martz) can do more to destroy a team than to build one. You have to be either really good at what you do (Parcells), or you need to defer to people who have a better formula.

Yeah that's how I see it. That synergy your were talking about is the thread that holds the whole organization together.

You can't just have good players, you have to have good players that complement your HC's vision. That thread goes all the way to the top as the examples others have already given demonstrate.

BTW, if you were the guy who gave me back my pillars that's AWESOME!!!!! Thanks hugely! :zomg: :wewt:

GO RAMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[-X-]

X observed:
Interesting. Jerry Jones can't get out of his own way half the time, and neither could Al Davis or Daniel Snyder. Sometimes, obviously, meddling owners or HC's with *total control* (ala Martz) can do more to destroy a team than to build one. You have to be either really good at what you do (Parcells), or you need to defer to people who have a better formula.

Yeah that's how I see it. That synergy your were talking about is the thread that holds the whole organization together.

You can't just have good players, you have to have good players that complement your HC's vision. That thread goes all the way to the top as the examples others have already given demonstrate.

BTW, if you were the guy who gave me back my pillars that's AWESOME!!!!! Thanks hugely! :zomg: :wewt:

GO RAMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know I gotcho back, Albe.

I've also sent you a PM to make you feel even more at home.