Will a coach fail because he failed in the past? I totally understand this mindset, then I look at Belichick and McCarthy and the theory is as good as flushed down the toilet! Belichick's record as a head coach in Cleveland was horrible with only 1 winning season, and 1 playoff bomb in 5 years. In his second stint as HC, he has dominated the NFL for over a decade, and doesn't look like he will lose any of that dominance anytime soon. If we had picked him as our HC back in 2000, I would have been livid! And how about Mike McCarthy? His last record (as OC for SF) before GB he had the worst offence <---("c" for Boomer) in the entire NFL. He was then hired as the HC of GB the very next season! If we had picked him as our HC in 2006, I would have been livid X 2! The reason I bring this up is people keep touting past records of coaching candidates as a glimpse of future success or failure, and I tend to default to that way of thinking as well. But is that really the case? Not sure, but I do know this keeps popping in my brain every time I see "his record as a coach was..."
IMO the key factor is whether they adjust and learn from their mistakes. BB put together a really nice defense in Cleveland, but his offensive theories were outdated. He changed that in his second go around. He was also fortunate enough to have a good personnel guy in Pioli and land Brady, but he also had to adjust. That was why I wasn't as down on Sparano as most. Sparano clearly adjusted his offensive theories this year. His future success was going to depend on whether or not we got the right QB and whether the GM would bring in enough good players. Sparano had his flaws, but they weren't any worse then most other HCs. I loved that his players played hard for him and played smart. I get that the mob had to be satisfied, but I'm not sure we'll be any better off with our next HC. All I'm hoping for is that the next HC assembles a staff that is as promising as Nolan/Daboll and that the players play hard and smart for him.
I agree. I think fans (and the media) tend to overreact to a coach's record quite often. Coordinators are often hot candidates based on how their units are playing during a particular season, but even the best coordinators who have been in the position for any reasonable length of time have their off-years for various reasons that often are out of their control. The problem as fans and (to a certain extent) media have is that we're not close enough to truly judge whether a candidate has all the requisite skills to effectively manage a team and/or a game. And quite often, we can do little more than to take a cursory glance at what someone like a Bellichick did in Cleveland without truly knowing how much of it was due to lack of talent, execution or growing pains on the part of the head coach.
I've been of the philosophy - for years now - that the Head Coach in almost any sport is seriously overrated. Probably moreso in football, and that is because the QB position is by far the most important position in sports. Jim Caldwell with Peyton Manning = Awesome Coach. Jim Caldwell without Manning = 0-16 and possibly fired. There are countless examples of this; too many to list.
Look at the quality of the QB they had to work with, along with the quality of the coaching staff they had, and you can get a pretty good indicator of the expected success level for a coach.
That does not explain the success they had when Brady went down, and the complete lack of success the coaching staff has had when they left NE to coach other teams.
Sure it does. The Patsies have been able to devote their drafts to building the rest of the team, along with favorable trades for players (Randy Moss/Wes Welker were big keys to the team success even with no Brady in 08). Why? Because they have the QB spot locked up. Even with that advantage, New England has done poorly with drafting and the defense is nowhere near the caliber it was when they were actually winning Super Bowls. Still, Brady gives them a chance every year for a championship, and Belicheat can still coach pretty well. There are a lot of things that have to go right for a team to be Super Bowl caliber (elite QB, coaching, good talent on offense/defense, no critical injuries, etc.) but much of it starts with having a really good QB and a decent staff putting players in position to succeed. Look at how Norv Turner has failed to use the talent he has in San Diego for example. There can be exceptions to this general rule, but having a good QB and coaching will almost always get you pretty far.
This is an extreme example. Not saying the QB position isn't important b/c it is but not the weight being given here. Of course, replacing one of the all-time greats at QB (Manning) and replacing him with a QB that doesn't deserve to be on the field (Painter) will skew the difference. It is like replacing replacing Michael Jordan with Brent Barry and the argument can be made that shooting guard is the most important position in all of sports. Case in point, the SF 49ers this year. QB not replaced but HC is...6-10 to 10-3. Or can look at the NE Patriots who went 11-5 with Cassel (a QB that never started a college or NFL game) in 08 after Brady got hurt. NE was 10-6 in 09 with Brady back at QB. Closer to home we can also look at Miami the year before Marino was drafted...played in the Super Bowl with Strock and Woodley splitting time at QB. And the year after Marino retired Miami went 11-5 with Fiedler starting whereas Miami was 10-6 and 9-7 Marino's final two years. Again, not saying that QB is not important b/c without a doubt it is. But the weight being given? Don't think so. I would like to see some "factual" evidence to support your claim given there are countless examples.
Sure it does. The prior year that same team went 18-1 and came within one miraculous catch of going 19-0. They went down to 11-5 playing a weak NFC West and AFC West. With Brady they probably win 14 games or more in the regular season. That team had mountains of talent. As for the coaches not having success, sometimes these guys just aren't cut out for HC jobs but are fabulous OCs/DCs.
I think the Miami Dolphins are the biggest factual piece of evidence I can give you regarding the QB position and how it relates to the HC. The Broncos would be another example, as would the 49ers. Coaches come and go, the consistent factor there? QB play. When it was good, those teams were successful. When it wasn't, they weren't. But since you mentioned the 2008 Patriots, let's examine that team/season, shall we? Matt Cassell replaced Tom Brady that season, and his numbers were as follows: 327 of 516 (63.4%) for nearly 3700 yards, with 21 TD's and 11 INT's. Again, Good QB play = Wins. Let's also remember that the Pats, just like the Dolphins in 2008, had a VERY east schedule. They swept the very bad NFC West that year, and won 3 out of 4 against a very bad AFC West. So Good QB play + Amazingly easy schedule and there you have your reason for the anomaly of a season everyone THINKS the Pats had without Tom Brady. This wasn't Matt Moore or Tyler Thigpen filling in for Brady, it was a guy who would later be traded to KC for multiple draft picks, and lead them to the playoffs. Also, I don't think it's fair to put Marino's last two years, where he was a mere shadow of his former self, against Fiedler's first year. But I see your point.
I think it takes several pieces falling together at the right time. The right coach + the right QB = Superbowl contender. You need the right QB to control the ball and score points, and you need the right coach to put the rest of the team together to make his job easier.
to be 'known' as a very good HC, you must have either a dominant D (a la BAL), NYG under Parcells, etc .... OR you must have a dominant O (a la IND with Manning), GB currently, and NE with Brady .... some will argue that you can't still win a SB with a dominant D -- and i disagree, albeit, it is tougher with just a handful of today's prolific Os. PIT has always, always, always had a dominant D ... and still repreatedly makes the playoffs with a legitimate shot of the SB every year. Yes, Roth ... helps - but they win with D. We have not had a dominant D since the 70s ..... we've had a period of 'statistical' success -- but no flat out in your face feared D. None-the-less ... you must pick your poison and find a 'special' person to lead either side of the ball. We have had a special person exactly ONCE since the 70s. They are hard to come by, but you can not - will not make it without one.
I wouldn't just say "Roth helps". I think he's the most important ingredient. A great defense will make you a perennial playoff contender as Pitt was from about 1979 until Roth got there in 2004. When they added that franchise QB is when they became a SB contender again. Obviously, you need both sides. You have to be able to pass and stop the pass. That has been proved over and over. But the rules now favor the offense so much that no matter how good your D is, there will probably be scores against you. You need that franchise QB to become that perennial SB contender.
