Cowher Talking to Skins about Job in '08?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Agreed. It's kind of like Monte Kiffin in Tampa. The guy has been a top D coordinator for years, and he knows that's his niche. Norv has been a great offensive play caller and developer of QBs, but he's a poor disciplinarian and no good with the defensive side of the ball. I think Gregg Williams may be the same kind of coach as well. His track record as THE guy is poor, but (aside from '06) his defenses have always been very solid. Other guys who come to mind are Ray Rhodes, Dave Campo, Marty Mornenwheg, Dom Capers... all good coordinators but questionable head coaches.

Ok, I just want to know what qualities that these coaches had that allowed them to succeed as coodinators but also made them fail as head coaches. Poor disciplinarian seems to be a common flaw, but if we take this as granted, how do we explain success as an coodinator. It seems that these players would have to be quite disciplined to have success. But if we've already labeled these coaches as ones who lack the ability to enstill the discipline necessary for success, how to explain their relative success as a coodinator?

This is very circular in nature, and I'm a bit surprised that others don't see it as so.

And I'm not picking on GMScud or anyone else in particular. I'm just wondering why the perception of a man as head coach and a coodinator can be so vastly different when the roles are ever so similar. Saying that "Norv Turner isn't a great football coach, so I think he's a bit better suited to be a coordinator" is one thing, but the prevailing wisdom so far is that hes a super duper wonderful coordinator and a HC without a clue. This isn't consistent with logic, and to me at least doesn't make a lick of sense.

How can all the negitive qualities that cause one to dismiss Turner as a head coach be ignored when evaluating him as a coordinator?