How Much Does Coaching Matter? | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

How Much Does Coaching Matter?

JTech194

JTech194

Starter
Joined
Jun 14, 2004
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
174
Location
Miami Florida
There seems to be two sides to this debate where one side thinks coaching plays a huge part in winning and losing in the NFL and the other side thinks the difference between one NFL coach and coaching staff and another is minimal and the difference between winning and losing is solely on the talent level of the players.

In General I personally think that coaching plays a huge part but as a current football coach of a optimist football team my opinion is biased. However, as a Dolphins fan, don't have a clear answer to how coaching (or the lack there of) has affected my team.

Shula - Great Coach. Not Debatable

Jimmy - Great Coach. Had us constantly in the playoffs - But couldn't get this team over the hump.

Dave Wandstadt - Most would consider Dave a bad coach but he did have a couple of 10 win seasons and won the division one year.

Nick Saban - Great collegiate coach, didn't spend enough time in the NFL for me to decide if he was good or not at this level.

Cam Cam
Tony Sporano
Philbin

All would be considered bad head coaches.

It seems that the Organization and many fans are putting a LOT of faith in Adam Gase and his coaching staff. Is there REALLY that big of a difference between Gase and the other coaches we've had over the years that haven't been able to get us to where we all want to be? Is He he THAT much better than Dave, Nick, Cam, Tony and Philbin? Or a better question is... is his staff OC, DC specifically, better than the coordinators under those Head Coaches? Will his Ideas about how to run a football team be that much different and\or better than the previous head coaches? Will his offensive philosophies be THAT much better than all of the previous regimes?

OR... does it boil down to talent? Is it that over those years we've never had the superior talent to get us where we want to be... which for me is perennial playoff contenders with a shot at the superbowl consistently.

I don't know how much different Gase is as a coach then what we've had in the past. But I wouldn't bet on him being soooo much better. In My opinion it will come down to this.... Can Tannebaum\Grier get us better talent than what's in our division. It starts there. If he can do that, then I think Gase will be fine. If not..... I think Gase will do exactly what the previous coaches did.
 
all of those guys (but Shula) never had the stones to take control of the locker room and lead by example thats what makes them bad head coaches
 
very much, look at Arizona. I lost faith in Joe Phillbin since the 2013 season. He should've fired a long with Ireland after that debacle, unfortunately our owner is clueless as well.
 
Let me answer this by illustration. Last year, Philbin was 0-4 barely beating washington. Campbell comes in as a virgin HC with a virgin DC and wins the 1st two games handily (against poor opponents. BUT, fans saw an inspired team. A crisp team. Post-Philbin, Tannehill went from ~25th ranked QB to ~12th. The D went from ~25th to above 15th, and that's WITH playing 3-4 backups a game. Miami beat NE with a virgin OC and only one starting OLman. Two rookie CB (McCain/Lippert) gained playing time and out-played toast Taylor. And that's omitting clock (mis)management, clueless TOs, and no discernible 2H adjustments. Does coaching matter? Unquestionably. will Gase be an upgrade? The jury is out but I see no way he can be anything but better.
 
I'd say a lot! look at San Fran. Years of being bad with top draft picks yet they never got better. Insert Jim H. and suddenly they are super bowl contenders.
 
Coaching is hugely important in pro football. There are so many ways of deploying your pieces. Someone who doesn't know what they are doing can be a real negative. Scheme, finding mismatches, game plan, identifying who to play, developing (coaching up) talent, avoiding mistakes while still playing with an edge, creativity etc., are all very variable.

It's no coincidence that Shula only had two losing seasons in, what, 30 years. Regardless of quarterback or what hand he was dealt, he was phenomenal in setting up his team up.

Just talking pro sports here, I'd say football coaching is multiple orders of magnitude more important than it is in MLB or the NBA.
 
as a dolphin fan you should know this answer already...
 
Coaching is HUUUUUUGE.

I have to laugh when fans go ballistic at the mere suggestion a team might give up a pick to get a coveted coach, yet a great coach is worth several great players.

It isn't even close. There isn't a player on our roster I wouldn't give up tomorrow for Belichick (even though I hate the man).
 
On gamedays,

#1. QB (final decision maker on O)
#2. MLB (final decision maker on D)
#3. Talent ( to execute)
#4. Coaching (they call play at every snap)
 
I believe coaching plays a significant role. One thing I do question is whether a multitude of veteran players combined with an average coach might be enough to overcome the lack of a great coach.

I don't think great players will make a bad coach look good however. Great players will see the bad coach for what he is, and (maybe subconsciously) play with less passion, which will lead to less wins.

I guess what I'm getting at is that there must be a balance in order to achieve success. Great coaches don't always win and same goes for great players.

Necessary items for success checklist:
- at least average coach (John fox or better)
- veteran players that will either supplement for less than high quality coaching
OR
- young players with potential that will buy in to the above average coach's philosophies that will become the vet's soon enough
- ownership/gm that is willing to supply the players a coach asks for

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk
 
I think talent acquisition on offense ultimately failed JJ. I don't remember his games, so I'm not sure how good he was on game day, but I know his offenses in Marino's twilight years were bad, especially in the running game.
 
Sparano was a pretty good coach when Pennington was his QB. Not so much afterwards.
Wannstedt did pretty well with JJ's talented hand - me- downs. For two seasons.
In those two cases, talented players hid their coach's shortcomings. And in Wannstedt's case, he even outperformed JJ in his first year.
But ultimately the truth will come out, but I do wonder how Sparano would have done had he had an decent QB for his tenure.
Wannstedt was philosophically too conservative. Same defense with few wrinkles, no creativity on offense. Would have misused his QB no matter what and his vanilla schemes were easily prepared for. I hate Wannstedt most of all. 5 years wasted out of the primes of Madison, Ricky, JT, Zach and Surtain and such poor drafting that when he left the cupboard was bare.
 
fansinceGWilson said:
Let me answer this by illustration. Last year, Philbin was 0-4 barely beating washington. Campbell comes in as a virgin HC with a virgin DC and wins the 1st two games handily (against poor opponents. BUT, fans saw an inspired team. A crisp team. Post-Philbin, Tannehill went from ~25th ranked QB to ~12th. The D went from ~25th to above 15th, and that's WITH playing 3-4 backups a game. Miami beat NE with a virgin OC and only one starting OLman. Two rookie CB (McCain/Lippert) gained playing time and out-played toast Taylor. And that's omitting clock (mis)management, clueless TOs, and no discernible 2H adjustments. Does coaching matter? Unquestionably. will Gase be an upgrade? The jury is out but I see no way he can be anything but better.
Click to expand...

I get your point but I don't think it's that simple. Remember that when Lazor first got here our offense looked pretty good. Tannehill had his best year and things were looking up. Once teams got more film and a feel for what our players could and couldn't do well in our offense, the offense declined. If you have players that don't do a lot of things well... it makes it easier for teams to take away the things they do do well. If the players are limited... there's only so much a coach can do.

When Campbell took over, we just happened to play two bad teams, that coupled with the fact that he placed an emphases on running the ball so the play calling was a different and teams didnd't now how to respond. Over time, we all saw that it was the same old sad team.
 
Heisman34 said:
I'd say a lot! look at San Fran. Years of being bad with top draft picks yet they never got better. Insert Jim H. and suddenly they are super bowl contenders.
Click to expand...

And what happened his last couple of years? Did he all of a sudden forget how to coach? Or did his players get worst? He had key players retire and get injured. They didn't give Singletary enough time with the good players they had accumulated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom