Did this year settle the “if coaches or players matter more” debate

[Scotman]

There has never been a debate amongst those who understand the game. The Jimmies and Joes have always and will always be more important than the Xs and Os.

While great coaching can take a good team over the top, great players can win titles with bad coaching. You have never seen a great coach win a super bowl or college football championship with bad players.

Our last Superbowl win is a perfect example. All Switzer needed was a hotdog. Aikman led that team to a Superbowl.

 

[Oz-of-Cowboy-Country]

To me seeing New England in regular season, Tampa, KC in super bowl and to some extent Dallas’ offensively, it should settle the coaches over players debate since 90% of fans and the media think changing out the coaches is what’s the key to winning.

Andy Reid has been dominant the last 3 years and very good his whole career minus the last few years in Philly. But he goes up against a very good D with 3 new starters on the OL and look what happens. He is much better than 9 points and so is Mahomes but when you don’t get protection it doesn’t matter.

New England most of the world including me thought Brady was made by Belichick and it doesn’t matter who Belichick had, he’d win with anyone. Well that was proven terribly wrong and even more so after Brady and Gronk go to TB and win.

Dallas offensively was going up and down the field the first 3 weeks. Take out both tackles and the starting QB and it’s not so easy anymore.

I think there’s some coaches on the high end (Reid, Belichick) and low end (Gase) of the spectrum, but probably for the most part the separation in knowledge from the best HC to the worst is pretty small. Maybe 1-2 games at most. And while motivation matters, this isn’t college. Pros should be able to motivate themselves.

There’s outliers like Adam Gase whose players get drastically better after they leave his system like Tannehill. But most HCs got their jobs because of great success as an assistant or a HC previously so they all know football. Matt Nagys plays look really good in preseason and on paper when pro bowlers aren’t going against him trying to break them up.

But going from even just an above average starter to a backup level player is a much greater leap than any coach. I’m not saying Gase or Garrett would have won 3 Super Bowls in NE during their hay day but Jimmy Johnson didn’t win any in Miami. Bruce Arians is a pretty good coach but he’s not good enough by himself to take Tampa from where they are to a Super Bowl.

It's still coaches over players, because the coach gives the team its identity. And that identity comes with a drafting standard. For instance if a coach wants a big and physical defensive front seven he'll draft according to his wants. If he wants a small quick to the ball defensive front seven then guess what kind of players his team will draft.

 

[InTheZone]

No

 

[Dre11]

It's still coaches over players, because the coach gives the team its identity. And that identity comes with a drafting standard. For instance if a coach wants a big and physical defensive front seven he'll draft according to his wants. If he wants a small quick to the ball defensive front seven then guess what kind of players his team will draft.

Identity isn't what matter, what matters is the play on the field, players dictate wins and losses.

 

[Western]

Drafting good players, or acquiring quality players in free agency is one thing.

Developing and molding those exceptional players, motivating them to achieve their highest potential, & establishing an overall winning football program, however, requires an innovative authoritative head coach that all players (including assistant coaches) respect and fear, and that the general manager/front office allows to flourish without foolish/senseless interference.

 

[Oz-of-Cowboy-Country]

Identity isn't what matter, what matters is the play on the field, players dictate wins and losses.

It's a tit-4-tat situation.

Do soldiers win battles or do generals win battles? An case can be made for either/ or. But a piss poor general is...a finger across the throat.

Metaphor for death.

 

[OmerV]

I never understand why this is a debate at all because clearly both are important. It's not an either/or issue because a team needs both good talent and good coaching to have its best success. Clearly a coach has to have talent to have success, but clearly a bad coach can undermine a talented team.

 

[Dre11]

It's a tit-4-tat situation.

Do soldiers win battles or do generals win battles? An case can be made for either/ or. But a piss poor general is...a finger across the throat.

Metaphor for death.

it depends, I could say a Generals plan would never work if the Soldiers don't execute it. but on the other hand, a plan can be faulty but work because the soldiers were dogs and excellent at what they do.

 

[Doomsday101]

It's still coaches over players, because the coach gives the team its identity. And that identity comes with a drafting standard. For instance if a coach wants a big and physical defensive front seven he'll draft according to his wants. If he wants a small quick to the ball defensive front seven then guess what kind of players his team will draft.

I think it takes both if it was only about coaching Belicheck would not have been fired in Cleveland and Arians would not have been fired in Arz or Reid in Philly. all great coaches but also has failed in large part they did not have the players.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

There has never been a debate amongst those who understand the game. The Jimmies and Joes have always and will always be more important than the Xs and Os.

While great coaching can take a good team over the top, great players can win titles with bad coaching. You have never seen a great coach win a super bowl or college football championship with bad players.

they literally won championships with tim tebow in college...so that statement isnt true.

 

[Dre11]

I never understand why this is a debate at all because clearly both are important. It's not an either/or issue because a team needs both good talent and good coaching to have its best success. Clearly a coach has to have talent to have success, but clearly a bad coach can undermine a talented team.

I believe it also depends on the level of play, I would say at the lower levels up through college its definitely both because of the teaching aspect, By the time you get to the professional level it's not as much, as players you should have learned pretty much what it takes. Example, when this secondary was looking confused at running cover 4(quaters coverage) you had folks and former players mystified because you learn those coverages at the HS level, some at the youth level. no way should it had been that confusing

 

[Oz-of-Cowboy-Country]

I think it takes both if it was only about coaching Belicheck would not have been fired in Cleveland and Arians would not have been fired in Arz or Reid in Philly. all great coaches but also has failed in large part they did not have the players.

it depends, I could say a Generals plan would never work if the Soldiers don't execute it. but on the other hand, a plan can be faulty but work because the soldiers were dogs and excellent at what they do.

The Cowboys went 10-6 with Quincy Carter at QB. That's coaching. So it goes both ways. With a better QB Belichick will be back.

 

[Doomsday101]

The Cowboys went 10-6 with Quincy Carter at QB. That's coaching. So it goes both ways. With a better QB Belichick will be back.

and I said it takes both. Coaching is important and every coach out there needs talent to work with. As for Belichick I see more holes than just the QB so did Brady which is why he looked elsewhere

 

[Starforever]

Belichick/Cam vs Arians/Brady, c'mon! Patriots defense vs Tampa Bays defense c'mon! Patriots offense vs Tampa Bays offense c'mon!

 

[Typhus]

To me seeing New England in regular season, Tampa, KC in super bowl and to some extent Dallas’ offensively, it should settle the coaches over players debate since 90% of fans and the media think changing out the coaches is what’s the key to winning.

Andy Reid has been dominant the last 3 years and very good his whole career minus the last few years in Philly. But he goes up against a very good D with 3 new starters on the OL and look what happens. He is much better than 9 points and so is Mahomes but when you don’t get protection it doesn’t matter.

New England most of the world including me thought Brady was made by Belichick and it doesn’t matter who Belichick had, he’d win with anyone. Well that was proven terribly wrong and even more so after Brady and Gronk go to TB and win.

Dallas offensively was going up and down the field the first 3 weeks. Take out both tackles and the starting QB and it’s not so easy anymore.

I think there’s some coaches on the high end (Reid, Belichick) and low end (Gase) of the spectrum, but probably for the most part the separation in knowledge from the best HC to the worst is pretty small. Maybe 1-2 games at most. And while motivation matters, this isn’t college. Pros should be able to motivate themselves.

There’s outliers like Adam Gase whose players get drastically better after they leave his system like Tannehill. But most HCs got their jobs because of great success as an assistant or a HC previously so they all know football. Matt Nagys plays look really good in preseason and on paper when pro bowlers aren’t going against him trying to break them up.

But going from even just an above average starter to a backup level player is a much greater leap than any coach. I’m not saying Gase or Garrett would have won 3 Super Bowls in NE during their hay day but Jimmy Johnson didn’t win any in Miami. Bruce Arians is a pretty good coach but he’s not good enough by himself to take Tampa from where they are to a Super Bowl.

Belichick had a very strong influence in the development of Brady and Gronk.
Tampa made a splash move when signing both.

 

[Dre11]

The Cowboys went 10-6 with Quincy Carter at QB. That's coaching. So it goes both ways. With a better QB Belichick will be back.

lol...it doesn't just take a qb to win...lol

 

[Dre11]

Belichick had a very strong influence in the development of Brady and Gronk.
Tampa made a splash move when signing both.

or did those players work on their craft to be the best they could be? did they put the work in to be who they are.

 

[Parcells4Life]

Should a coach the players like and want to play for ever be fired if the team just isn’t good?

If his players liked Gase would he have deserved to get fired?

Parcells is the ultimate at making a steak from mincemeat as seen in 04 but those types of coaches are very rare.

 

[Ranched]

In the divisional round against the Saints, a not-very-good Brady got through thanks to New Orleans dropping picks, the Bucs D playing well & Drew Brees stinking.

In the divisional round against the Browns, Henne scrambled a ridiculous 3rd & 14 to seal the game. If not, the Browns would have advanced.

 

[LatinMind]

To me seeing New England in regular season, Tampa, KC in super bowl and to some extent Dallas’ offensively, it should settle the coaches over players debate since 90% of fans and the media think changing out the coaches is what’s the key to winning.

Andy Reid has been dominant the last 3 years and very good his whole career minus the last few years in Philly. But he goes up against a very good D with 3 new starters on the OL and look what happens. He is much better than 9 points and so is Mahomes but when you don’t get protection it doesn’t matter.

New England most of the world including me thought Brady was made by Belichick and it doesn’t matter who Belichick had, he’d win with anyone. Well that was proven terribly wrong and even more so after Brady and Gronk go to TB and win.

Dallas offensively was going up and down the field the first 3 weeks. Take out both tackles and the starting QB and it’s not so easy anymore.

I think there’s some coaches on the high end (Reid, Belichick) and low end (Gase) of the spectrum, but probably for the most part the separation in knowledge from the best HC to the worst is pretty small. Maybe 1-2 games at most. And while motivation matters, this isn’t college. Pros should be able to motivate themselves.

There’s outliers like Adam Gase whose players get drastically better after they leave his system like Tannehill. But most HCs got their jobs because of great success as an assistant or a HC previously so they all know football. Matt Nagys plays look really good in preseason and on paper when pro bowlers aren’t going against him trying to break them up.

But going from even just an above average starter to a backup level player is a much greater leap than any coach. I’m not saying Gase or Garrett would have won 3 Super Bowls in NE during their hay day but Jimmy Johnson didn’t win any in Miami. Bruce Arians is a pretty good coach but he’s not good enough by himself to take Tampa from where they are to a Super Bowl.

So people are bringing this up after Brady went ot a stacked team?

In 2019 Brady went 12-4 on a NE who had nobody. They were literally bringing in guys weekly because of injuries. Im sorry but Belichick made Brady what he is. Without Brady there wouldve been no Brady, Period.