Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
I'd have to disagree, and Easterbrook is a moron.
Coaching has a huge affect on the game. Coaches can overcomplicate schemes, they can put players out of position (Archuleta), they can clash with each other on philosophy (Saunders vs Gibbs & Bugel), they can inspire a team (Gibbs' December record), etcetera. Most of all, coaching comes into play when a new system is being put into place. When you're running a new system, how you perform in year one is all about the ability of the coach to teach and translate the playbook message onto the field.
|
Of course coaches have an impact, I'm just saying it's not usually a game-changing impact. Coaches are given way too much credit when they come in and teams start winning more (and too much blame as well). They're just a figurehead -and it comes with the job description. Let's face it, most head coaches are smart, smart men who are there for a reason. Mistakes are made, but sometimes mistakes that turn out to be good plays make the coach a genius. It's very arbitrary. Here's what Easterbrook actually said:
"The first flaw is obvious -- coaches don't play! A coach's hard work, good judgment and good play calling help, but these are only a few of many factors in sports success -- and all trail the athletic ability of the players by a large margin. I'd hazard an unscientific guess that in football, the coach can be responsible for up to a 10 percent swing in results: 10 percent more points scored under good coaching, 10 percent fewer under bad coaching. In a close game or a Super Bowl run, that 10 percent swing really matters. In the majority of games, the coaching differential between opponents is small, especially in college at the football-factory level, where many outcomes are not close."
I think he makes sense.