Where Most NFL Staffs Get it Wrong (except Shula and Bellicheat)

[WesternNYDolfan]

All across the league, including here in Miami, there's an issue w/ "scheme" fits.

Shula coached for 30 years at a high level because he adjusted his scheme to the personal.

And as much as I hate Belicheck, he does the same thing, changes his defenses year after year based on personal.
The offense has also morphed over the years.

Another thing it does is allows your team to play with balance on offense, basically take what they give ya and then some. And allows your defense to be flexible enough to take away whatever the other team does best.

For the love of God, no more "scheme" dependent coaches, give me a LEADER OF MEN, with the passion to win, the humility to stay flexible, and the ability to outwit the person across the field.

That is all.

 

[walt]

I agree, except it's not personal. It is personnel.

Belichick is killing it now with a new offense created because he has quick receivers and Brady can't throw it deep accurately anymore, so they created a short, quick passing game that has been unstoppable.

 

[WesternNYDolfan]

Thank you for the personnel lol, I kept trying to spell it personale for some reason...I'm usually a quality speller too ha

 

[Highzenga]

All across the league, including here in Miami, there's an issue w/ "scheme" fits.

Shula coached for 30 years at a high level because he adjusted his scheme to the personal.

And as much as I hate Belicheck, he does the same thing, changes his defenses year after year based on personal.
The offense has also morphed over the years.

Another thing it does is allows your team to play with balance on offense, basically take what they give ya and then some. And allows your defense to be flexible enough to take away whatever the other team does best.

For the love of God, no more "scheme" dependent coaches, give me a LEADER OF MEN, with the passion to win, the humility to stay flexible, and the ability to outwit the person across the field.

That is all.

You are absolutely correct and I agree 100%. That is what makes a coach great

 

[ActionComedy]

Do you think having two of the greatest qbs that ever played helps just a little?

 

[BahamaFinFan78]

Totally agree. We had great pieces, but didn't know how to use them.

---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 PM ----------

Do you think having two of the greatest qbs that ever played helps just a little?

Not so much Marino but with Greise and Brady, do you think maybe their coaches turned them into Hall of Fame QB's? Who was Brady before BB?

 

[ph0enyx]

You can include Rex Ryan with Belichick. Ryan has been pretty good with paying his defensive players in schemes that get the best out of them. Rex doesn't know anything about running an offense, and I question his ability to scout talent (granted how much was him and how much was Tannenbaum). But Rex consistently had top 10 defenses using schemes that he didn't prefer.

Totally agree. We had great pieces, but didn't know how to use them.

---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 PM ----------



Not so much Marino but with Greise and Brady, do you think maybe their coaches turned them into Hall of Fame QB's? Who was Brady before BB?

Without Brady, Belichick was just Rex Ryan.

 

[royalshank]

Do you think having two of the greatest qbs that ever played helps just a little?

explain then how Shula got to the SB w Woodley? Yes those great QBs helped. The OPs point is that regardless of the personnel, these coaches found ways to dominate by adjusting to the strengths of their personnel. This has become a lost art. I too am sick of "chip Kelleys offense" or "joe Schmos defense". And all the excuses that come after it - like "he Reggie bush didn't fit here" or "Brandon Marshall didn't fit the system". But Brian Hartline did. Nonsense - make the system fit the players.

 

[dlockz]

You can include Rex Ryan with Belichick. Ryan has been pretty good with paying his defensive players in schemes that get the best out of them. Rex doesn't know anything about running an offense, and I question his ability to scout talent (granted how much was him and how much was Tannenbaum). But Rex consistently had top 10 defenses using schemes that he didn't prefer.




Without Brady, Belichick was just Rex Ryan.

No way to prove that either way but without Brady in 2007 that team still won quite a few more games than they lost. In fact they were playing at a very high level by the end of the season.

---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 PM ----------

explain then how Shula got to the SB w Woodley? Yes those great QBs helped. The OPs point is that regardless of the personnel, these coaches found ways to dominate by adjusting to the strengths of their personnel. This has become a lost art. I too am sick of "chip Kelleys offense" or "joe Schmos defense". And all the excuses that come after it - like "he Reggie bush didn't fit here" or "Brandon Marshall didn't fit the system". But Brian Hartline did. Nonsense - make the system fit the players.

He did a great job the year with Woodly but that season was somewhat flukey because of the strike

 

[WesternNYDolfan]

explain then how Shula got to the SB w Woodley? Yes those great QBs helped. The OPs point is that regardless of the personnel, these coaches found ways to dominate by adjusting to the strengths of their personnel. This has become a lost art. I too am sick of "chip Kelleys offense" or "joe Schmos defense". And all the excuses that come after it - like "he Reggie bush didn't fit here" or "Brandon Marshall didn't fit the system". But Brian Hartline did. Nonsense - make the system fit the players.

Exactly, not to mention, when he got Marino he didn't try sticking to the old Czonka, Morris, ground and pound; he spread it out and let Dan be Dan.

 

[NorthernFin]

explain then how Shula got to the SB w Woodley? Yes those great QBs helped. The OPs point is that regardless of the personnel, these coaches found ways to dominate by adjusting to the strengths of their personnel. This has become a lost art. I too am sick of "chip Kelleys offense" or "joe Schmos defense". And all the excuses that come after it - like "he Reggie bush didn't fit here" or "Brandon Marshall didn't fit the system". But Brian Hartline did. Nonsense - make the system fit the players.

You could say Shula got them to the Superbowl in spite of Woodley.

 

[gofins60]

..make the system fit the players.

Exactly! Philbin had his "system" and it was non-negotiable. He didn't seem to care that the system didn't fit the players; he'd just stick them where he wanted them to play, and apparently he didn't have the ability to evaluate their talent to put them in the correct positions. To me, it would make more sense as a new Coach to look at the strengths of the team, and gameplan to take advantage of those strengths and minimize weaknesses. As time goes by you improve the roster and adjust schemes and playcalling accordingly. I think that this approach would be a quicker route to the playoffs than having a new Coach come in with a set system and trying to rebuild the roster piece by piece trying to find players who are a good fit for the new system.

 

[BigNastyFish]

Uhhhhhh... Hello!

Don't think Shula was a certified Cheater!

 

[royalshank]

You could say Shula got them to the Superbowl in spite of Woodley.

it may have been his most brilliant coaching campaign ever.

 

[utahphinsfan]

All across the league, including here in Miami, there's an issue w/ "scheme" fits.

Shula coached for 30 years at a high level because he adjusted his scheme to the personal.

And as much as I hate Belicheck, he does the same thing, changes his defenses year after year based on personal.
The offense has also morphed over the years.

Another thing it does is allows your team to play with balance on offense, basically take what they give ya and then some. And allows your defense to be flexible enough to take away whatever the other team does best.

For the love of God, no more "scheme" dependent coaches, give me a LEADER OF MEN, with the passion to win, the humility to stay flexible, and the ability to outwit the person across the field.

That is all.

Concur. Adaptability is good. Stubborn, timid, & inflexible.... not so much.