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

[mialuv13]

Glad I sat and read this post. Good read

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

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.

The league has always been about running the football... you had to. That's how Don Shula won all his superbowls... it's how he went undefeated.

John Elway couldn't win a superbowl to save his life until Terrell Davis ran him to the Lombardi Trophy. Marino couldn't win one because he never had a running game.

You had to have that running game in the playoffs, it didn't matter as much during the regular season.

Running the football was the proven philosophy of winning at EVERY level going back 100 years... all the way to Knute Rockne at Notre Dame with the "4-horsemen". The NFL wasn't even a passing league until Sammy Baugh came along.

Very few coaches in the NFL are innovators. They're more copycats.

Innovation has always began at the high school and college levels.... that's where the 3-4 defense was created by Bud Wilkinson in the 1940's.... the option, veer, run-n-shoot, spread, single-wing, Wing-T, air-raid, spread option, etc., etc.. all of this was started at the high school and college levels long ago.

The spread concepts that have been prevalent in college football for 2 decades have finally began seeping into the NFL in the last 10 years because of the RULE changes.

Defenses have become so multiple now, and it's all about substitutions. Offenses have figured out that the way you beat that is with tempo. It's not about controlling the clock now and slowing the game down... The goal now is to run as many offensive plays as possible and speed the game UP, so defenses that like to be multiple can't substitute.

This is how you take advantage of the RULES that are slanted towards the passing game. Quarterbacks have always been important, but they've never been more important than they are now.

 

[endorPHINS72]

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".

That was Bum Phillips, the Houston Oilers head coach. He was exactly right and you are as well with Coach Shula being the king of adaptation.

 

[cuban_refugee]

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?

I hate Bill Belichik, but I love him...does that make sense?! You have such a good point. I remember when his DBs were decimated and he played Troy Brown as a CB. This guys just gets IT! And....that's why I hope Brian Daboll gets IT, too.........

 

[hightempo]

The league has always been about running the football... you had to. That's how Don Shula won all his superbowls... it's how he went undefeated.

John Elway couldn't win a superbowl to save his life until Terrell Davis ran him to the Lombardi Trophy. Marino couldn't win one because he never had a running game.

You had to have that running game in the playoffs, it didn't matter as much during the regular season.

Running the football was the proven philosophy of winning at EVERY level going back 100 years... all the way to Knute Rockne at Notre Dame with the "4-horsemen". The NFL wasn't even a passing league until Sammy Baugh came along.

Very few coaches in the NFL are innovators. They're more copycats.

Innovation has always began at the high school and college levels.... that's where the 3-4 defense was created by Bud Wilkinson in the 1940's.... the option, veer, run-n-shoot, spread, single-wing, Wing-T, air-raid, spread option, etc., etc.. all of this was started at the high school and college levels long ago.

The spread concepts that have been prevalent in college football for 2 decades have finally began seeping into the NFL in the last 10 years because of the RULE changes.

Defenses have become so multiple now, and it's all about substitutions. Offenses have figured out that the way you beat that is with tempo. It's not about controlling the clock now and slowing the game down... The goal now is to run as many offensive plays as possible and speed the game UP, so defenses that like to be multiple can't substitute.

This is how you take advantage of the RULES that are slanted towards the passing game. Quarterbacks have always been important, but they've never been more important than they are now.

i agree 100% but my point was historically u DO win with an EFFICIENT passing game. I UNDERSTAND thats not the prevailing thought. and running the ball was NEVER as important in the way coaches, GMs, media, etc made it out to be. just because it was being done that way DOES NOT MEAN it was being done correctly. and when EVERYBODY is doing it THE SAME WAY. clearly SOMEBODY has to win. my point is the teams that WERE innovative and broke tradition AHEAD OF THE CURVE are the teams in their generation that benefited. just because YOU CAN be successful doing something and just because IT HAS BEEN DONE this way does not make it the best of efficient way to do it. despite what coaches think.

it DOES NOT MAKE IT NECESSARILY THE BEST WAY. and yes running teams have won. but when nobody else is doing it any differently what do you expect???

the current trend ONLY REINFORCES EXACTLY what im saying. they finally get it. (well half do). im not saying u gotta throw for 4500 yards a season to win. so your denver broncos example is absolutely meaningless. in additon, look at every single one of those teams - they didnt have great defenses either, and they were probably only favored in one super bowl. but they did make it to several didnt they?

winning is a team effort. the best QB doesnt always win, obviously more goes into it. BUT efficiency in the passing game has ALWAYS trumped the importance of the running game. even those steelers teams have 2 wide receivers and a quarterback in the hall of fame. the dolphins had paul warfield and bob griese. teams that have superior talent throughout their roster far superior to the rest of the league are going to win the majority of their games obviously almost in spite of their approach.

listen i am most definitely NOT saying u have to pass the ball 30, 40 times a game. im saying your offense has to be built and rely on the success and efficiency of the PASSING game. and its just ALWAYS been this way. it doesnt matter if u pass the ball 20 times a game. and slim it actually BACKS UP your argument about the 3rd down conversions in another thread.

im just saying NOTHING has changed BUT the thinking. in reality its status quo in the league. YES the rule changes have even made this MORE important. but its always been the same. they are just now figuring it out. it also backs up your statements of change coming through the high school and college ranks - which is CORRECT. it also BACKS UP WHAT IM SAYING. shouldnt the PROFESSIONALS understand their game a little better than the minor leagues?????

yet they DONT. so just because prevailing thought has remained at the pro level that u run to win. does not make it accurate. and those that have bucked the trend and understood this benefited from their insight ala bill walsh.

i believe in running the football - ok. so dont twist what im saying. but there is a time and a place for running and always has been. but the thinking that u just continue to pound the ball into the line even when the other team is stacked to stop the run and dominate the clock - win the time of possession battle. its just flawed thinking.

and the age old argument about teams that run to win - for instance if team A runs 35 times a game they are 20-5 etc when they dont they are 10-10. well NO ****ING ****. they THINK they run to win. so when they HAVE THE LEAD they run run run. run the clock etc. and then they JUST SO HAPPEN to end up with 35 carries as a result!

in the games they are LOSING they get away from the run. and AS A RESULT the end up with less than 35 carries. and they were ALREADY LOSING. so the math says OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO LOSE those games quite often!! DUH!!! WTF???

yet those stats have been repeated OVER AND OVER AND OVER AD NAUSEAM for decades!!! why??? its the DUMBEST MOST MEANINGLESS stat in football and always has been. and only idiots (media, coaches who cant get that) would think otherwise. YET its repeated. like its a fact. and coaches go into games with this in mind and create there gameplans with this in mind (ala dave wandstedt) not understanding that they were setting their teams up for failure.

u win by being efficient in the passing game and u always have. just because its worked the other way does not make it the simplest way.

these offenses have always been available to an innovator in the past. the way of doing business today on balance was always available. the fact its happening now and its become MORE CLEAR how important the passing game is. does not make it a change in the game. it simply illustrates that prevailing thinking has been flawed all along. and finally some people are beginning to wake up.

even the premise of adam smiths "weath of nations" and the example of a toothpick and how its made relates here. just because u can a toothpick by hand and just because its always been done that way. does not make it the most efficient and best way to make a toothpick. in fact, it held things back. it wasnt until machines were introduced (ie new systems of offenses) that offenses became more efficient.

welcome to the new age, same as the old age