The Elite Discussion

[C l u t c H 385]

It all depends on the position. An elite QB masks a lot.

Give me an elite coach and the rest will fall into place.

Lol, no. How good was Belichek with the Browns. Players are the important part.

 

[fansinceGWilson]

Give me an elite coach and the rest will fall into place.

Agreed. I may be a minority of one, but NE's success is 80% BB and 20% Brady. BB can switch out "top" players and still win, move to a 2d team QB and still win, have multiple injuries and still win. Which means, tangentially, a top HC can run a system that makes average players LOOK elite.

 

[roy_miami]

I don't see how you can look at the Super Bowl competitors from the last 10 or 15 years and say elite is not that important in football. First and foremost what stands out is how many of those teams have elite QBs at the helm, the vast majority. On the AFC side Peyton, Roethlisberger or Brady have been in them all except two over 15 years. Then in second, by a fair margin, you've got elite coaches, but the vast majority of them are paired with elite QBs, all but Jim Harbaugh. Then you've got a smattering of elite units like the 2016 Falcons or 2015 Panthers but even they are paired with MVP QB performances on the season (and didn't win). Then you've got a single case of an elite non-QB: hall of famer Ray Lewis.

The one outlier would be the NY Giants who you could argue didn't have any elite contributors. But you could also argue they did.

So yes, elite wins, even in the NFL.

 

[multistage]

Give me an elite coach and the rest will fall into place.

Maybe.

Shula was an elite coach. But after 1973 he never had the success of the early 70s, despite being an elite coach with a few elite players. I don't know how much of a voice he had in acquisitions, but we didn't exactly knock it out of the park for many years.

 

[Adam Strange]

Maybe.

Shula was an elite coach. But after 1973 he never had the success of the early 70s, despite being an elite coach with a few elite players. I don't know how much of a voice he had in acquisitions, but we didn't exactly knock it out of the park for many years.

Yep, unless your elite coach is also an elite GM and/or a genius at talent acquisition, coaching only goes so far. Shula's tenure with the Dolphins was elite through 1985. After that, the team suffered through four years of no playoffs and averaged a shade under 8 wins a game until 1990 when the franchise began to experience a short-lived renaissance. And this was during Marino's prime years.

This is why Shula's reputation has nowhere to go but down. His first fifteen or so years on the job were stellar, but as the man in charge of both coaching and personnel, he really under-performed from 1986 through 1995.

 

[TannDaMan17]

Yep, unless your elite coach is also an elite GM and/or a genius at talent acquisition, coaching only goes so far. Shula's tenure with the Dolphins was elite through 1985. After that, the team suffered through four years of no playoffs and averaged a shade under 8 wins a game until 1990 when the franchise began to experience a short-lived renaissance. And this was during Marino's prime years.

This is why Shula's reputation has nowhere to go but down. His first fifteen or so years on the job were stellar, but as the man in charge of both coaching and personnel, he really under-performed from 1986 through 1995.

Bobby Beathard, that is all. Both Shula and Gibbs owe a lot to that man, but he never gets the credit he deserves for his incredible eye for talent. Too bad, he was elite and had a lot to do with both Washington and Miami's team success. Coaching is not everything, elite player evaluation on the other hand kind of is. The one year NE lost Brady they didn't even make the playoffs, players get you over the top, coaching just helps them get there.

 

[fansinceGWilson]

I don't see how you can look at the Super Bowl competitors from the last 10 or 15 years and say elite is not that important in football. First and foremost what stands out is how many of those teams have elite QBs at the helm, the vast majority. On the AFC side Peyton, Roethlisberger or Brady have been in them all except two over 15 years. Then in second, by a fair margin, you've got elite coaches, but the vast majority of them are paired with elite QBs, all but Jim Harbaugh. Then you've got a smattering of elite units like the 2016 Falcons or 2015 Panthers but even they are paired with MVP QB performances on the season (and didn't win). Then you've got a single case of an elite non-QB: hall of famer Ray Lewis.

The one outlier would be the NY Giants who you could argue didn't have any elite contributors. But you could also argue they did.

So yes, elite wins, even in the NFL.

First, I agree teams appearing in the SB must have elite talent. The debate seems to be HOW MUCH elite talent. There have been teams in the SB (notice I include the losing team) range from 3 to 8 (without checking) 'elite' players. What some overlook is the teams with 5-8 "elite' players who DON'T get to the SB. That, to me, says 'elite' talent isn't enough. So, yes, elite talent helps a team win, but more elite talent than the competition doesn't equate to a top 4 team. Other factors are involved in that.

And while I agree elite QBs can be difference-makers, we've all seen what happens when Big Ben's D has an off year or Brady's OL has significant injuries or Gronk is out for extended periods. I guess I'm saying, in professional sports, there are a number of ways to win (and lose) and viewing the number of elite players as a proxy measure is taking that stat too far. Miami has had elite players (Jones, Wake, Suh, some would include others) and has had a number of 'average' seasons. I attribute a lot of that to Philbin and players such as Dallas Thomas, Colombo, and others - bottom decile players.

 

[DuderinoN703]

The good 'ol debate about who is more important between coaches and players. It's an interesting topic IMO b/c I don't think there's a clear answer.

Phil Jackson: 11 rings. He had Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, O'Neal, and Bryant
Gregg Popovich: 5 rings. He had Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Leonard, and Robinson.
Steve Kerr: 2 rings. He has Curry, Thompson, Green, and now Durant.

Belichick: 5 rings. He has Tom Brady.

Torre: 4 rings. He had Jeter, Rivera, and a whole bunch of other players bought by Steinbrenner.

Whoever the Penguins coaches are (Bump would know), they're B2B Champions due to Crosby, Malkin, Kessel, and whoever else they have on the team.

Elite coaches need elite players and vice versa. The Lakers haven't done anything since Jackson has been gone. The Spurs had no success prior to Duncan. Golden State was **** until they drafted Curry, Thompson, and Green. Belichick was a failure in Cleveland b/c he had bad players. Torre might be an exception considering the Yankees were still very good after their last WS win.

Hockey is hockey.

 

[fansinceGWilson]

The good 'ol debate about who is more important between coaches and players. It's an interesting topic IMO b/c I don't think there's a clear answer.

Phil Jackson: 11 rings. He had Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, O'Neal, and Bryant
Gregg Popovich: 5 rings. He had Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Leonard, and Robinson.
Steve Kerr: 2 rings. He has Curry, Thompson, Green, and now Durant.

Belichick: 5 rings. He has Tom Brady.

Torre: 4 rings. He had Jeter, Rivera, and a whole bunch of other players bought by Steinbrenner.

Whoever the Penguins coaches are (Bump would know), they're B2B Champions due to Crosby, Malkin, Kessel, and whoever else they have on the team.

Elite coaches need elite players and vice versa. The Lakers haven't done anything since Jackson has been gone. The Spurs had no success prior to Duncan. Golden State was **** until they drafted Curry, Thompson, and Green. Belichick was a failure in Cleveland b/c he had bad players. Torre might be an exception considering the Yankees were still very good after their last WS win.

Hockey is hockey.

Almost nothing in life is black and white. It's all shades of gray. That said, this is the old debate . . . do top players make top HCs, the other way around, or does it take both? Did Farve make Holmgren great? Does BB make Brady great? Personally, I think a lot of success in professional sports is luck. Miami getting Tunsil. Yatil Green. NE getting Brady late in the draft. All we have to do is look at the success of top 10 draft choices over the years. That's why teams churn HCs and QBs - looking for the lucky choice. I'm not arguing there is no talent in coaching a team or no talent in drafting players, but luck is ever-present.

Top QBs win SBs? Like Morral, Williams and Dilfer? Yes, elite QBs help a lot, but not a requirement. It takes some luck. It takes overall talent. It takes, (my obsession) no BAD talent. It takes elite players, but coming up with a formula to win is fraught with uncounted variables. All I'm saying is more elite players doesn't equate to more wins.

 

[DuderinoN703]

Almost nothing in life is black and white. It's all shades of gray. That said, this is the old debate . . . do top players make top HCs, the other way around, or does it take both? Did Farve make Holmgren great? Does BB make Brady great? Personally, I think a lot of success in professional sports is luck. Miami getting Tunsil. Yatil Green. NE getting Brady late in the draft. All we have to do is look at the success of top 10 draft choices over the years. That's why teams churn HCs and QBs - looking for the lucky choice. I'm not arguing there is no talent in coaching a team or no talent in drafting players, but luck is ever-present.

Top QBs win SBs? Like Morral, Williams and Dilfer? Yes, elite QBs help a lot, but not a requirement. It takes some luck. It takes overall talent. It takes, (my obsession) no BAD talent. It takes elite players, but coming up with a formula to win is fraught with uncounted variables. All I'm saying is more elite players doesn't equate to more wins.

There's always a reason a team wins a championship. Dilfer-led Ravens back in 2000? HOF defense. Brady makes Belichick look great while Belichick knows how to execute an entire gameplan to kill the other team. The entire Tom Brady being drafted in the 6th round and only playing b/c Bledsoe got hurt has been a thorn in our sides for almost 20 years. Talk about bad luck for Dolfans and everyone else in the division.

 

[tay0365]

Marino was elite and so was Shula(no SB rings)......you might want to add a elite defense as well.

Miami never had a consistently good defense, though I agree not having a running game hurt, Miami with Marino usually was able to score at will, but with a shaky to awful defense, Mia was always in a shootout.

Put Marino with a consistent defense, and Miami is in the SB at least a few more times.

 

[DolfinJohnNY]

:wall

NE does win with elite talent, but they constantly and consistently win regardless of the constants or consistency of that elite talent.

IOW, they have no problem moving on from Richard Seymor, Mike Vrabel, Curtis Martin, Randy Moss, Vince Wilfork, Darrelle Revis, Adam Vinatieri, etc. etc. and more recently Chandler Jones & Jamie Collins. They also win games without injured players like Tom Brady, and Rob Gronkowski.

The one never changing variable in the Patriots success has always been Bill Belichick.

SoS,

I have to agree with your last sentence but with the one additional adjective of "& CHEATING". Don't forget the cheating, it cannot be dismissed. I'm sorry, but as a former athlete, I LOVED the competition. My best against your best. May the best man/team win. We will never know the "true greatness" of the Patriots. Sorry again Sos, I'm off on a rant. :wall

 

[tay0365]

There's always a reason a team wins a championship. Dilfer-led Ravens back in 2000? HOF defense. Brady makes Belichick look great while Belichick knows how to execute an entire gameplan to kill the other team. The entire Tom Brady being drafted in the 6th round and only playing b/c Bledsoe got hurt has been a thorn in our sides for almost 20 years. Talk about bad luck for Dolfans and everyone else in the division.

Brady is good...great, but I think Belichick is a little more instrumental to the success with NE, then Brady. Put another head coach on the Patriots, and Brady does not have that type of success, but it seems every time Brady goes down or is suspended, Patriots still continue win.

Though each and every SB that has been won by the Patriots does have either some type of controversy or some lucky mistake to help them win, Bill proved to be a big reason to get that far.

 

[TannDaMan17]

Brady is good...great, but I think Belichick is a little more instrumental to the success with NE, then Brady. Put another head coach on the Patriots, and Brady does not have that type of success, but it seems every time Brady goes down or is suspended, Patriots still continue win.

Though each and every SB that has been won by the Patriots does have either some type of controversy or some lucky mistake to help them win, Bill proved to be a big reason to get that far.

Brady is still being underrated lol, NE has won a lot of games without Brady, but the one year they lost him they didn't even make the playoffs (which is what great teams are all about).

NE is going to regress significantly the day Brady hangs them up, the man is a genius and the GOAT.

NE always has a good defense and BB does a masterful job at maximizing players talent like he did with Eric Rowe last year. But people don't fear NE's defense, they fear TB12 and that offense.

Brady is the true juggernaut of that team.

 

[tay0365]

Brady is still being underrated lol, NE has won a lot of games without Brady, but the one year they lost him they didn't even make the playoffs (which is what great teams are all about).

NE is going to regress significantly the day Brady hangs them up, the man is a genius and the GOAT.

I agree, he is a great talent, but Bill is far more important top that teams success.