JLC: The Cerrato Era Has Begun

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

GTripp, sometimes you say some things that are really smart. And other times you make about as much sense as kidwell.

Coaches are largely responsible. I kind of get what you're saying, you can only gameplan to the talent you have. But if you don't gameplan and let your talent try to win on autopilot, you get your ass handed to you. There's a compounding effect that takes place when superior talent, superior teaching, and superior gameplanning collide.

You make it sound as if the coach is irrelevant.

Well the assumption is that you have to gameplan, have to adjust, have to have common football sense.

So why is coaching overrated? Because every coach does these things. Fassel does them, Gibbs did them, Mooch does them, Norv does them.

When people say coaching matters, they are in effect talking about the long-term effects of having a coach that always knows more than the opponents coach. Unfortunately, with the easy access of coaching information today, any guy can learn how to coach on gameday. Seriously, it's not hard.

Now, the great coaches will be responsible for leadership techniques, and earning and keeping the respect of his players. If he can not do this, he will lose his job. This is what seperates Jeff Fisher from Cam Cameron. But that is not why the Titans made the playoffs this year and the Dolphins won one game. That was because Tennesssee had the most talented defense in the NFL, and the Dolphins had the least.

The short version: coaching matters. Unless you care nothing about the team than it's gameday performance. Because Coach A does not give a significant advantage to his team over Coach B.

You can't take Mooch out of SF, put him in Detroit and expect to see the team improve without any other major changes. That's pretty much been proven by trial and error over the past decade.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well the assumption is that you have to gameplan, have to adjust, have to have common football sense.

So why is coaching overrated? Because every coach does these things. Fassel does them, Gibbs did them, Mooch does them, Norv does them.

When people say coaching matters, they are in effect talking about the long-term effects of having a coach that always knows more than the opponents coach. Unfortunately, with the easy access of coaching information today, any guy can learn how to coach on gameday. Seriously, it's not hard.

Now, the great coaches will be responsible for leadership techniques, and earning and keeping the respect of his players. If he can not do this, he will lose his job. This is what seperates Jeff Fisher from Cam Cameron. But that is not why the Titans made the playoffs this year and the Dolphins won one game. That was because Tennesssee had the most talented defense in the NFL, and the Dolphins had the least.

The short version: coaching matters. Unless you care nothing about the team than it's gameday performance. Because Coach A does not give a significant advantage to his team over Coach B.

You can't take Mooch out of SF, put him in Detroit and expect to see the team improve without any other major changes. That's pretty much been proven by trial and error over the past decade.

I get what you're driving at and to an extent I agree, but I still think you're minimizing the differences in teaching abilities and adaptability between coaches. Some coaches make better strategic adjustments than others do. But whatever. This thread's about Vinny, and certainly we can agree that now Vinny is in position to get judged on everything that happens from this point forward, including the decision to pair Zorn with the existing coaching staff and the existing player personnel.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I still think you're minimizing the differences in teaching abilities and adaptability between coaches. Some coaches make better strategic adjustments than others do.

This is actually an interesting debate I've evaluated both sides over, and am very confident in my position, is whether or not one coach can make strategic adjustments better than another, and if he can, does it really change the outcome of the game.

We could debate back and forth, but I'm sure it will come up in a thread that isn't about Vinny Cerrato, and I'll bring up some interesting points then.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well the assumption is that you have to gameplan, have to adjust, have to have common football sense.

So why is coaching overrated? Because every coach does these things. Fassel does them, Gibbs did them, Mooch does them, Norv does them.

When people say coaching matters, they are in effect talking about the long-term effects of having a coach that always knows more than the opponents coach. Unfortunately, with the easy access of coaching information today, any guy can learn how to coach on gameday. Seriously, it's not hard.

Now, the great coaches will be responsible for leadership techniques, and earning and keeping the respect of his players. If he can not do this, he will lose his job. This is what seperates Jeff Fisher from Cam Cameron. But that is not why the Titans made the playoffs this year and the Dolphins won one game. That was because Tennesssee had the most talented defense in the NFL, and the Dolphins had the least.

The short version: coaching matters. Unless you care nothing about the team than it's gameday performance. Because Coach A does not give a significant advantage to his team over Coach B.

You can't take Mooch out of SF, put him in Detroit and expect to see the team improve without any other major changes. That's pretty much been proven by trial and error over the past decade.

Seems way oversimplified to me. Of course, talent on the field makes a huge difference, but we only need to look back at the last half of the ole ball coach's season here to see how a stubborn coach's game plan works in the nfl if he refuses to adjust.

Are you in essence saying that game planning is overated, but motivation of players isn't? You stated early in this post that all coaches game plan. If You follow your logic, you are essentially saying that actually all coaches MUST have good game plans just to keep up w/the competition.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Seems way oversimplified to me. Of course, talent on the field makes a huge difference, but we only need to look back at the last half of the ole ball coach's season here to see how a stubborn coach's game plan works in the nfl if he refuses to adjust.

Are you in essence saying that game planning is overated, but motivation of players isn't? You stated early in this post that all coaches game plan. If You follow your logic, you are essentially saying that actually all coaches MUST have good game plans just to keep up w/the competition.

I'm saying:

1) the effects of gameplan are overvalued to fit with the assumption that the winning coach had the more intelligent gameplan. That is to say that people always label winning coaches as great gameplanners when in many instances, this is not the case.

I'm saying it's really, really, really difficult to make a bad gameplan week after week. People with that aptitude tend not to pursue the field of coaching.

2) I'm saying that because NFL players range from the ages of 22-40, it's safe to say that motivation is predominantly internal in nature. Players that can self-motivate will be successful whereever they go, and there's not a lot a coach can do for a 26 year old man who can't motivate himself.