LONG POST - Coaches who can adapt are more successful than those who cannot. | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

LONG POST - Coaches who can adapt are more successful than those who cannot.

Slim

Slim

VIPeezy
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
2,535
Reaction score
15
Age
42
Location
Montreal, Canada
Gents,

I've had these thoughts in the back of my mind for some time now and have tried getting them down on paper to no avail. It seems as though many of the threads on FH deal directly with our coaching staff's inability to adapt to their opponent's strengths/weaknesses as well as the overall direction of the NFL.

I'll use Bill Belichick as an example because in my mind he is without question the best coach in the NFL when it comes to adapting to his opponents as well as catering to his teams strengths.

NOTE - Long post... apologize in advance.

Personnel Churn
There's a thread on FH right now discussing personnel churn and how it seems as though there are constantly former Dolphin players out there making plays for other teams. While the list wasn't overly impressive, i do have to agree that there are a disproportionate amount of former Dolphins consistently out there making plays for other teams. See Larry Izzo.

This tells me a few things: 1. Our drafting hasn't actually been as bad as we have been led to believe. 2. Our player development hasn't been as good as it should be. 3. We give up on players far too quickly. 4. Coaching/Front Office Personnel Churn drives player churn.

I'm most interested in #4. The fact is, many NFL head coaches & GMs are far too narrow minded to keep players who are too small, too slow, too heavy, etc. And if a player wasn't drafted by their regime they want rid of him. See Greg Camarillo.

What separates mediocre/good coaches from great coaches is the ability to set your convictions and beliefs aside and keep a player who you see talent in. Forget bringing in guys that you worked with in your previous job (IE Miami Cowboys) if you have equally as talented players on your current roster.

Adjusting your style with the time
Again, no better coach in my mind than Bill Belichick when it comes to adjusting his team's style of play to suit today's NFL. Bill recognized that most times were moving to 3-4 style of defense so he goes out and gets pass catching TEs who run like WRs. He essentially abolishes the running game as he knows a good 3-4 defense will shut it down. Instead he spreads his WRs out wide and forces teams who love the 3-4 into nickel and dime packages.

In these types of situations, a team (like Miami) has to sit someone like Cam Wake, Koa Misi or Jason Taylor for someone like Benny Sapp which in turn creates a mismatch.

Building around your team's strengths not your strengths
This is where i think most NFL coaches and GMs get it wrong. They come into a situation and gut the team and bring in 'their guys'. In an ideal scenario, it will take 3 years to get your roster where you want it to be (or in some cases... it will never be right). The reality is, you were better off adapting your style to suit your team's strengths.

I look at a guy like Josh McDaniels who sold a half dozen players at a penny on the dollar because they didn't fit his system. Guys like Cutler, Hillis and Marshall were traded away because they weren't his style of player. Not only did he not get fair market value for them but he made his team substantially worse by trading away proven players for unknown commodities.

If McDaniels were that much of a mastermind, he would have adapted his style of play calling and redesigned his playbook to fit the scheme that best suited Denver's offense.

Setting trends
This to me is the biggest indicator of a great HC. The NFL is admittedly a copycat league. And for the past decade, teams have basically been copying 2-4 teams. When a coach is not only able to adapt to league trends but develop his own - the team will be successful long term.

The Pats offense has run spread offense for about a decade now - why? Because no one can keep up. Their 3-4 defense has been adopted by most teams in the league so Bill Belichick goes out and trades for Albert Haynesworth and switches to a 4-3. He recognizes the benefit of having a great pass catching TE so he goes out and gets 2. They haven't had a true fullback on roster in a very long time. Etc. Etc.

Conclusion
Coaches who get stuck in their way will never be able to adapt in today's NFL. Long gone are the days of having 1 bruiser RB who will carry the ball 25 times/game and win you a title. Long gone are the days of a system being in place for a decade and never having to tweak and modify it.

Coaches who cannot adapt (and especially on the fly) are doomed for failure. Because you could have the greatest player in the league but eventually the smartest coaches will catch up to what you are doing and shut it down. You constantly have to find ways to reinvent yourself as a coach every year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MD
Thank you; I totally agree. Every coach we've had since the Don has had to have his players, his scheme, his game plan. Shula used a power running game in the 70's because he had the personnel to do it. When he lost his players and had Marino, he didn't trade him to get a power running back because that was "his" scheme. He used Marino and opened up the passing game. Someone one said that he could take "his en" and beat "your en" and then take "your en" and beat "his en".
 
i agree with this 100 percent. this is why i am fearful of who comes in here next, and i encourage people to not get overhyped about some big name or resume etc. if we get a guy in here who wants to "buy the groceries" and he dismantles our team, we are going to be in for at least another 5 years of being a bottom tier franchise. bet on that.

we need a coach who is a motivator and has a vision for OUR team. This is why so many coaches come in and leave just as quickly its annoying at this point. Firing guys every 3 years sometimes even 2 years and the team ussually does not take much of a leap with the next guy. The coaches who have done the best are the guys who harnessed the already existing talent and grabbed a few of their own guys. Rex Ryan comes to mind.
 
The OP is dead on...

I also commented on how difficult it was going to be for Sparano to get away from what it is that he's comfortable and familiar with a while back. It requires you to change what you BELIEVE IN... it requires you to change what you fundamentally believe works and doesn't work.

Sparano also gets his stubborness from Bill Parcells about the prospects of change, which is why Parcells gave him a job.

I remember listening to the interview with Parcells several years back where he was questioned about his old school philosophy of running the football and playing conservative. Parcells replied that he didn't have to prove that his philosophy works, but rather someone is going to have to prove to him that it doesn't work.

Parcells philosophy and stubborness is perfectly fine, and he's right. His approach didn't have to prove that it worked, it had already proven that it worked for 100 years.

However, when the RULES of the game change, you have to change with it. It doesn't matter what you fundamentally believe in anymore. The rules in the NFL now are structured around supplementing the passing game. You can't just run the ball 50 times now and chew up 40 minutes of clock and think you're going to win... (see the Colts Monday night game vs. Miami a few years ago).


This is a league of have and have nots now... you either have a quarterback, or you don't.
 
And Brady is just like Belichik. So many think that after Brady retires the Pats will come back to earth. Brady did not make Belichick. Belichik created Brady. Both are masters at what they do and you can't help but respect their body of work. Brady talked about the most satisfying part of the game is the week of preparation prior.

Meanwhile, the Dolphins are combing the Dallas Morning News for Cowboys transactions the week prior.
 
I always laugh at the clowns here who say Bill B is nothing without Brady. How many different ways has he been successful? He has won a SB in the 4-3 and the 3-4. He has fielded good-great offenses that relied on the running game, ones that relied on screen/short passes, ones that were explosive downfield with excellent WRs, and now one that runs out two TEs on a regular basis.

Hell, give us Aaron Hernandez and Rob Gronkowski right now. Raise your hand if you REALLY think Sparano and our coaching staff would have found a way to utilize both and dominate the way the Patriots have?
 
tylerdolphin said:
I always laugh at the clowns here who say Bill B is nothing without Brady. How many different ways has he been successful? He has won a SB in the 4-3 and the 3-4. He has fielded good-great offenses that relied on the running game, ones that relied on screen/short passes, ones that were explosive downfield with excellent WRs, and now one that runs out two TEs on a regular basis.

Hell, give us Aaron Hernandez and Rob Gronkowski right now. Raise your hand if you REALLY think Sparano and our coaching staff would have found a way to utilize both and dominate the way the Patriots have?
Click to expand...

Shameless bump - but also want to touch on this.

I firmly believe that BB is the greatest coach of all time for those exact reasons. The man has changed the game more than people either realize or choose to admit. I keep going back to the Albert Haynesworth trade as a blueprint for his success.

Seven to ten years ago, Defensive Tackles were a hot commodity. Most teams ran the 4-3 and thus needed 2-3 solid tackles in their rotation. Suddenly everyone adopts the 3-4 and guys like Haynesworth who doesn't want to play in a 3-4 can't find work. So Belichick recognizes this and trades for him (again pennies on the dollar). He is uncanny at finding new ways to win and doing the exact opposite of what everyone else is doing.

Just wait and see how coveted the TE position is in the next couple of drafts. Heck if i was a college athlete, i'd be converting myself into TE. Once everyone else in the league fills their rosters with TEs he'll find a new way to move the ball - perhaps going back to a ground game.
 
yeah BB is great, cuts good players. sound familiar? BB is great on the field with systems and gameplans. Not too many like him and Brady quite frankly.
 
tylerdolphin said:
I always laugh at the clowns here who say Bill B is nothing without Brady. How many different ways has he been successful? He has won a SB in the 4-3 and the 3-4. He has fielded good-great offenses that relied on the running game, ones that relied on screen/short passes, ones that were explosive downfield with excellent WRs, and now one that runs out two TEs on a regular basis.

Hell, give us Aaron Hernandez and Rob Gronkowski right now. Raise your hand if you REALLY think Sparano and our coaching staff would have found a way to utilize both and dominate the way the Patriots have?
Click to expand...

hmmm, so you saying if Brady were traded, that BB would be successful anyways? He might still have a winner, but not the same. no way no how. brady has it all upstairs and tells BB what he thinks is going to work and BB says, yeah, that will work.
 
finfan54 said:
hmmm, so you saying if Brady were traded, that BB would be successful anyways? He might still have a winner, but not the same. no way no how. brady has it all upstairs and tells BB what he thinks is going to work and BB says, yeah, that will work.
Click to expand...

We obviously the team isnt as good without Brady. That goes without even saying. Thats like saying Walsh wouldnt have won as many games without Montana and Young...no ****. But I feel pretty confident that if brady retired after this year, he would still find a way to be successful. he would have a new QB and alter his system to that QB's talents. The dude won 11 games with a QB that didnt even start a game in college for Gods sake.
 
Slim said:
Shameless bump - but also want to touch on this.

I firmly believe that BB is the greatest coach of all time for those exact reasons. The man has changed the game more than people either realize or choose to admit. I keep going back to the Albert Haynesworth trade as a blueprint for his success.

Seven to ten years ago, Defensive Tackles were a hot commodity. Most teams ran the 4-3 and thus needed 2-3 solid tackles in their rotation. Suddenly everyone adopts the 3-4 and guys like Haynesworth who doesn't want to play in a 3-4 can't find work. So Belichick recognizes this and trades for him (again pennies on the dollar). He is uncanny at finding new ways to win and doing the exact opposite of what everyone else is doing.

Just wait and see how coveted the TE position is in the next couple of drafts. Heck if i was a college athlete, i'd be converting myself into TE. Once everyone else in the league fills their rosters with TEs he'll find a new way to move the ball - perhaps going back to a ground game.
Click to expand...

Yep...this is the second time he has gone from the 4-3 to the 3-4 and is now back to the 4-3. He just gets talent at bargain prices and figures out the best way to utilize it. And he has no issue cutting anyone who doesnt fit into that plan regardless of draft status or star power.
 
you summed it up really well. it's something I think a lot of us believe but have a hard time getting on paper. there is no player in my opinion in the nfl that would come on our team and perform better than they did previously.

look at bush, the saints gave us a handbook on how to put him in space and make him successful, and what do we do, run him between the tackles for 2 yard gains. our coaching staff can't coach, and can't adapt.
 
TedSlimmJr said:
The OP is dead on...

I also commented on how difficult it was going to be for Sparano to get away from what it is that he's comfortable and familiar with a while back. It requires you to change what you BELIEVE IN... it requires you to change what you fundamentally believe works and doesn't work.

Sparano also gets his stubborness from Bill Parcells about the prospects of change, which is why Parcells gave him a job.

I remember listening to the interview with Parcells several years back where he was questioned about his old school philosophy of running the football and playing conservative. Parcells replied that he didn't have to prove that his philosophy works, but rather someone is going to have to prove to him that it doesn't work.

Parcells philosophy and stubborness is perfectly fine, and he's right. His approach didn't have to prove that it worked, it had already proven that it worked for 100 years.

However, when the RULES of the game change, you have to change with it. It doesn't matter what you fundamentally believe in anymore. The rules in the NFL now are structured around supplementing the passing game. You can't just run the ball 50 times now and chew up 40 minutes of clock and think you're going to win... (see the Colts Monday night game vs. Miami a few years ago).


This is a league of have and have nots now... you either have a quarterback, or you don't.
Click to expand...

i disagree with the part about parcells. see just because he had shown it COULD work. DOES NOT MEAN IT ACTUALLY WORKED. this has ALWAYS been a passing league. LONG BEFORE we even think it was. the most efficient quarterbacks are the ones that has CONSISTENTLY won championships. in otherwords, its been an efficient PASSING game and NOT who runs the ball the best that has consistently won OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. so parcells WAS INCORRECT. and he HAD already been proven incorrect. YES he made it work his way. YES it CAN be done HIS way. but if we are playing the numbers here, if we are going off the odds. parcells was ALWAYS playing a losing hand. he just happened to get dealt some cards on the river, when he happened to stubbornly stay in the hand.

just cause he hit on the river does not mean he was playing soundly. history shows us this as far back as the chicago teams in the 40s!!!!

so YES the rule changes have helped no doubt. but they simply tipped the scales even moreso in the direction of the passing game. it not BECAUSE of the rule changes. and teams should have recognized this a long time ago. theyve just been stubborn to adapt like parcells. the ones who did - well some of them built dynastys. bill walsh for example. St louis rams came out of nowhere.

its always been efficient passing games. thats why elite quarterbacks litter the landscape with championships, while rushing champions that do are few to be found.

its not the rules, its always been this way. thinking was just very slow to catch up because of guys that think like bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom