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.
|
Tagging GW as a genius would be to ignore his flaws, and the results those flaws caused.
In a single game situation, tactical coaching is pretty important. I mean, a few plays here and there can change who wins and loses a game.
But here's the thing: can you name even one instance where going into the game you were able to say, "Team A is more talented than team B on paper, but Team B's coach is 100 times smarter than coach A and will never loose this game" and be right?
Of course not. It's just as easy for the perceived "dumb coach" to get lucky and totally outscheme the opposing "genius". It happens all the time. Spurrier outschemed Belichiek. It happens, and it happens every week in the NFL.
Therefore, over the long haul, Easterbrook is correct. Williams may have outschemed his opponent one week, and then got beaten the next. No coach is hired to coach a single game, so it's safe to say that these guys know each other well enough that they give no significant edge over the course of the season.
If you disagree with this, I implore you to name some geniuses in the NFL, and I'll be happy to point out instances where they totally got their lunch handed to them by the opposing coach.