Is coaching overrated?

[huskymedic]

Was going to add this to Whaler's comment that "play calling is over rated" in the New OC Frank Verducci thread but didn't want too spin that thread to far off track...

I remember reading this a few years ago ...http://smartfootball.com/grab-bag/is-coaching-overrated#sthash.bQC7fRlb.zZE2xWtV.dpbs

>>In the cult of football, surely few things are more overrated than play calling. Much football commentary, from high school stands to the NFL in prime time, boils down to: “If they ran they should have passed, and if they passed they should have run.” Other commentary boils down to: “If it worked, it was a good call, if it failed, it was a bad call,” though the call is only one of many factors in a football play. Good calls are better than bad calls — this column exerts considerable effort documenting the difference. But it’s nonsensical to think that replacing a guy who calls a lot of runs to the left with a guy who calls a lot of runs to the right will transform a team.<<

>>One factor here is the Illusion of Coaching. We want to believe that coaches are super-ultra-masterminds in control of events, and coaches do not mind encouraging that belief. But coaching is a secondary force in sports; the athletes themselves are always more important. TMQ’s immutable Law of 10 Percent holds that good coaching can improve a team by 10 percent, bad coaching can subtract from performance by 10 percent — but the rest will always be on the players themselves, their athletic ability and level of devotion, plus luck. If the players are no good or out of sync, it won’t matter what plays are called; if the players are talented and dedicated, they will succeed no matter what the sideline signals in. Unless they have bad luck, which no one can control<<

I also subscribe to the fact that as a program - we have surely had some bad luck of late.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Try telling a Seahawks fan that play calling is overrated right now.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

I think this question is a lot better in terms of the pros. In college, it's huge.

 

[Nostical]

Coaching is actually underrated. It is the most important contributor to victory and to program success. A great QB with a bad coach will not make it to the top. Nor can a great coach with subpar players win big. But Auriemma and Pitino, like Lombardi and Belichick, are examples that prove how important exceptional coaching is.

 

[ibleedhuskyblue]

I am of the opinion that coaching and play calling are underrated.

I think it's telling that the same half dozen or so coaches are always at or near the top. Of course, that could just be that they also get the best players, but I think it's statistically more likely that the coaches of the teams that win a lot are just better at coaching than the ones who aren't. This is because i also believe that the rating system in CFB is not nearly as accurate as in basketball because there are so many more players that need to be rated.

However, my opinions are usually clouded by the fact that i root for a team that never gets the "best" players, and without the belief that coaches make such a sizable difference, i would have no hope.

 

[whaler11]

Coaching is actually underrated. It is the most important contributor to victory and to program success. A great QB with a bad coach will not make it to the top. Nor can a great coach with subpar players win big. But Auriemma and Pitino, like Lombardi and Belichick, are examples that prove how important exceptional coaching is.

Yes if you disagree with TMQ you'll be right just about 100% of the time.

It's amazing that he has a national
platform to write nonsense. It's good in the sense it's fun to watch Drew Magary cut him to pieces.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Scripted play calling I think is totally overrated as to importance to success. Play calling is dictated by down and distance, and is much more art than science if you are good at it, because whoever is doing it, sees the entire field, and all 22 players and recognizes when there are mismatches and tendencies that project forward and can be exploited. Other than that, it's down and distance and thinking ahead like chess. Playing out different moves and possibilities in advance so that when it is time to actually make the move, you've already got your next 3 moves in mind. What do you have in the game plan and your playbook that you have confidence in your player to run to get to the sticks or the goal?

The value of coaching comes, not in play calling, but in the development of cohesive and effective plans fit to your opponent weaknesses and emphasizing your own strengths, teaching technique to players to a high level of proficiency in every minute detail of blocking and tackling individually, and as a full unit, fundamentals of ball security and exchange, and effective communication on field and with the sidelines involving personnel and formations and assignments.

I despise play calling scripts. Personally.

 

[HuskyPete]

At the college level coaching is huge, the players are right out of high school and you have to coach them up and get them ready to play at the college level. Obviously god given talent plays a part, some players take longer than others, it's coaching that will get them ready.

Example with Boston College fired Frank Spaziani after four years of progressively worse records. Steve Addazio steps in and the program does a complete 180. Nothing change but the coaching.

 

[RedStickHusky]

As I've always understood it, the practice of scripting was intended to be an upfront means of data collection so you'd know how the defense would react to certain looks. So you run a script early to inform play calling later in the game not to replace play calling. I'm generally an advocate of art over science in most fields (I suppose it rationalizes my lack of discipline) but play calling should be an ingredient, along with execution (a function of practice), scouting/game planning, and, of course, talent. You get all of that, you get a result; miss any of it and you're likely to have issues.

 

[J187Money]

Play calling is a subset of coaching.

Of course coaching is important. Play calling less so.

 

[Carl Spackler]

As I've always understood it, the practice of scripting was intended to be an upfront means of data collection so you'd know how the defense would react to certain looks. So you run a script early to inform play calling later in the game not to replace play calling. I'm generally an advocate of art over science in most fields (I suppose it rationalizes my lack of discipline) but play calling should be an ingredient, along with execution (a function of practice), scouting/game planning, and, of course, talent. You get all of that, you get a result; miss any of it and you're likely to have issues.

I'll try to summarize as briefly as possible, but instead of keeping on, keeping on, I'll relay a story to the young 'uns, that you older guys might remember personally. Jimmy Johnson is head coach, Norv Turner is offensive coordinator/play caller. Early 1990s Dallas Cowboys. NFC Championship game, in San Francisco. 4th quarter. San Francisco has momentum of the game, and has just pulled to within 4 points, down 24-20. Kickoff has pinned Cowboys inside their own 20 yard line 4 minutes to go. Norv Turner calls down to Jimmy Johnson prior to the first play call on turnover of possession and asks: "How do you want to play this? Do you want to run or pass?" Jimmy Johnson responds: "I want a touchdown." Turner sticks with his game plan, which involved a very pass heavy offense exploiting San Francisco loading up to stop Emmit Smith run and double teaming Michael Irvin with a safety. He calls the same play they've been running all day, that has had WR Alvin Harper open most of the day, and Troy Aikman throwing to him. First down, he sends the play call in.

In the huddle, Troy Aikman starts the play call. Before he finished the call, Michael Irvin knows what it is and has sprinted out of the huddle to Alvin Harper's Y position. Irvin, being the player he is, and wanting the ball in that situation, knew that Troy had been throwing to Harper all day because of the way that San Fran had been playing defense, and instead of going to his normal X in the formation, he sprinted out to Harper's Y position, leaving Harper to leave the huddle and do an about face - and get to Irvin's normal X. Aikman has no idea this has happened.

Ball is snapped. Aikman drops back. Irvin runs the Y route hard, plants turns and expects the ball in his chest, like Harper had gotten all day. No ball. Aikman sees the defensive coverage shell, (which had adjusted it's double coverage safety to Irvin on the Y route) and sees the streak across the middle of the field on X route post pattern open, and let's it fly. Harper, running Irvin's normal X route, catches the ball and runs for 60 something yards to inside the San Fran 20 yard line. Irvin, pissed off, that Harper caught his ball, chases him down and mugs him. Aikman doesn't find out until after the game, that Harper caught that pass, not Irvin. TD and the game is put away, From there, the game plan on down and distance is heavy Emmitt Smith running and they punch it in.

The amazing thing, is that had Irvin gone to his normal X position in the play call, and San Francisco doubled as they had all game long, the hook route to Harper most likely would have been where the ball would have gone, and San Francisco's D, possibly taken control of the game.

It's all true and you can watch the replays.

Take it all for whatever you think it's worth.

Coaches coach, and players play. The value of coaching is in preparation and planning and teaching of fundamentals of blocking, tackling and execution of football concepts. Players got to go play.

 

[RedStickHusky]

We could pass around Bart Starr and Johnny U stories too ---- that's not the modern game.

 

[Carl Spackler]

We could pass around Bart Starr and Johnny U stories too ---- that's not the modern game.

I disagree completely. It's particularly relevant. The game plan the Cowboys had in that championship game against that very good San Fran team, wasn't good enough to win. THey had the lead still late in the 4th, but Steve Young's offense and the San Fran defense had turned the game. That San Fran team, was better than the Cowboys were that year, and most likely would have won that game and gone to the super bowl, had that single play call not gone the way it had. THe only reason that play call was successful, was because the cowboys personnel alignment changed (within the same play call all day long) and the San Fran defense shifted it's own game plan to adjust to the player, and not the formation - basing their assignments on the player, rather than the scouted formation. Had both teams stuck with their game plans, and formations, the play call most likely doesn't succeed as it did.

Coaches coach and players play. It's always been that way, and the value of coaching is not in play calling - it's the preparation and planning that happens well before any play is called. Once it's game time, it's up to the players to execute the plan, and the coaches to stick with a plan that works, and be able to make changes to a plan that isn't working, and/or adapt to tendencies happening with personnel in the game.

I am very much against scripted play calling.

 

[RedStickHusky]

Sounds to me like the game planning worked despite Irvin's show boating - Aikman went away from the double on Irvin and got a single-covered Harper for a big play. To me, scripting is starting off a game with 10 (or so) pre-called plays to evaluate how the defense responds. That being said maybe we're just having a semantics difference.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Sounds to me like the game planning worked despite Irvin's show boating - Aikman went away from the double on Irvin and got a single-covered Harper for a big play. To me, scripting is starting off a game with 10 (or so) pre-called plays to evaluate how the defense responds. That being said maybe we're just having a semantics difference.

I think you're probably right. Part of good game planning and preparation I think, is laying out your plan of attack of offense to start the game, like a fight. Are you coming out all guns blazing like an early career Mike Tyson going for the knockout or are you going to step and jab for a while and see what opens up and soften up the opponent a bit?

Having a set plan of attack prepared to open a game, I am not against by any means. I don't like the idea of having a set of plays prepared that you will not or cannot deviate from. I think our difference lies in that I'm mostly thinking and writing about practice time, not game time when it comes to scripts. Wasn't really clear about that.

I think the idea of practicing plays from a script is bad practice. Despise it. Toss the scripts and just call plays that are the backbone of your offense and focus on every player techniques, body positioning, leverage, hands and feet. Coach the players, not the piece of the paper. I'm thinking right now particularly of a play where a young TE on our roster got destroyed by defensive lineman for a bad busted play on a power running formation. The guy lined up at the LOS with his ass up, his knees not bent enough, and his shoulders so high that the DL practically lifted him off the ground tossing him back. Not an isolated incident on offense last year, we had so many basic fundamentals breakdowns it hurts my brain to start thinking about it again, that one was just really pathetic.

How does that happen? To a player that's gone through at least a fall camp and several games? It's because you're not practicing and drilling basic fundamentals IMNSHO, or minimum, you might be practicing it, but you're not focusing on it and practicing it well enough.

I hope the offensive hire works out and we come out in the fall with a disciplined offense that can execute the basics of procedure and run plays effectively within a concept that makes sense for our personnel and is actually game planned specific to our opponents weaknesses, whatever they are determined to be through scouting and film work.

Play calling, IMO, is overrated to what goes into building a successful offense. You need players that can compete with the level of competition on your schedule first and foremost, and then you need to coach them into a functional unit that can communicate, knows their jobs and then goes and does it.

I look at our offensive staff, and I don't know if we've got a chain of command there, that makes any sense. I would have really liked a hire of a somebody that has a proven track record of actually installing offenses into a program that work. This Verducci hire - just got a bad feeling of deja vu.

Hope I'm wrong, and we come out in September with an offense that works.

FWIW: It's the NFL but going back to my example on play calling/coaching and players - not college, different dynamic with dealing with players and development and responsibilities (pro ball, don't need to be concerned with off field behavior, education, development of the person.....etc.......but in strict football sense, Norv Turner never panned out well as a head coach, but was and is a great offensive coordinator (play calling was never creative for him) - it was preparation and execution of the offense, but Jimmy Johnson? Great head coach - national championship in college and super bowls in the NFL.

Whatever Coach Booby decides to do with the offense, it needs to be consistent and develop. Last season's offense was a terrible approach to the game. No consistency, no development. It's no wonder that players were still having procedure penalties, illegal technique penalties, confusion and time wasting in communication from start of the season all the way to the end.

 

[Palatine]

No, coaching is NOT overrated.

 

[gioff23]

The greatest coaches in the world can not win w/o talent and the best players in the world can not win without a good coaching staff.

 

[Palatine]

The head coach has a huge effect on recruiting.
He designs the offense and the defense.
He sets the practice schedule.
He decides what things will be emphasized in practice.
He picks the starters.
He decides the substitution pattern.
He creates and implements the game plan.
He makes all the critical calls on game day.

So, yes, the question this thread poses is dopey.

 

[Bonehead]

The head coach has a huge effect on recruiting.
He designs the offense and the defense.
He sets the practice schedule.
He decides what things will be emphasized in practice.
He picks the starters.
He decides the substitution pattern.
He creates and implements the game plan.
He makes all the critical calls on game day.

So, yes, the question this thread poses is dopey.

He represents UConn and UConn FB when he speaks.
He schedules the trips to Six Flags.
He decides whether or not to throw in the rain of South Florida.
He determines whether a player LOVES football.
He picks the assistant coaches and determines their coaching assignments.
He is our Hope.

 

[Dogged]

Coaching is actually underrated. It is the most important contributor to victory and to program success. A great QB with a bad coach will not make it to the top. Nor can a great coach with subpar players win big. But Auriemma and Pitino, like Lombardi and Belichick, are examples that prove how important exceptional coaching is.

This is a great question. There are just a handful of great coaches in any sport.
I think Lombardi and Belichick may fit the bill. I'm not so sure about Gino and Pitino. They have been so talent laden that it's hard for them to lose. Not saying they 're not good, but I think the two football guys did more with less.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

This is a great question. There are just a handful of great coaches in any sport.
I think Lombardi and Belichick may fit the bill. I'm not so sure about Gino and Pitino. They have been so talent laden that it's hard for them to lose. Not saying they 're not good, but I think the two football guys did more with less.

Belichick owes everything he has acheived to Brady. Who by the way was only inserted after Mo Lewis nearly killed Drew Bledsoe.

 

[Excalibur]

The difference between the 40th best team in the country and the 80th is not talent. After the top 30 or so, everyone has the same players. Coaching matters more in football than any other sport.

 

[Dooley]

Belichick owes everything he has acheived to Brady. Who by the way was only inserted after Mo Lewis nearly killed Drew Bledsoe.

You're right about how Brady became starter. But if you remember, Belichick's decision to keep Brady the starter when Bledsoe came back from that injury was very controversial. I was happy to see Bledsoe get some AFC Championship action in Pittsburgh (after Brady got hurt that game) but Belichick deserves a ton of credit for sticking with Brady, even after Drew was healthy, and then giving Drew an opportunity to play by trading him to a division rival.

Both owe each other an awful lot and I don't think either would be the HOFs that they are without each other. But you can say the same thing for just about all HOF players/coaches.

 

[Dooley]

I put a lot more stock in game planning, practice, training (S&C), and recruiting more than play-to-play playcalling. But there are a handful of critical play decisions that need to be made in every game and it seems like we've been on the short end of those important decisions quite a bit in the past few years. To me, this also includes decisions to punt on 4th and 1 from the 50 yard line against one of the nation's worst defenses.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

You're right about how Brady became starter. But if you remember, Belichick's decision to keep Brady the starter when Bledsoe came back from that injury was very controversial. I was happy to see Bledsoe get some AFC Championship action in Pittsburgh (after Brady got hurt that game) but Belichick deserves a ton of credit for sticking with Brady, even after Drew was healthy, and then giving Drew an opportunity to play by trading him to a division rival.

Both owe each other an awful lot and I don't think either would be the HOFs that they are without each other. But you can say the same thing for just about all HOF players/coaches.

I'm a Redskin fan and obviously biased but I always thought that Joe Gibbs was the greatest coach of my lifetime. Won 3 Super Bowls with 3 different QB's (none of whom are HOF'ers).

Joe Theismann
Doug Williams
Mark Rypien

That is unheard of.