Taking a survey. Who has more influence on wins and losses?

[AKATheRake]

Depends on the talent level of the players.


If your players are average.......coaching is way more important


If your players are studs...........coaching is not that big of a deal.




Example.....Really doesnt matter who the coach of the Colts is, as long as they have Manning they are going to win 12 or 13 games every year.

This makes great sense but I think it is a combination of players and more importantly than coaching, the system. The coaching in Indy, with or without Dungy, has been utilizing that system for a very long time. Keeping Caldwell and especially Moore around continues that systematic approach.

Manning is gonna go down as 1 of the greatest but change that system that has been polished over the years and you will see a drop in results at least the first year in doing so. Especially if the coaching staff has an overhaul.

60% Players - 40% Coaching

 

[tomson75]

I'd say players, but there is no clear answer.

Players on teams like the '93 Cowboys, a team the likes of which will likely not ever be seen again, could rely on out willing, out powering, and overcoming better coached teams.

That RARELY happens in today's NFL.

You absolutely need effective coaching to put any group of players in a position to win.

As far as our team, I think we became far more effective on defense and offense as the season went on.....it seemed that the coaches started trusting the players more, and put them in better positions to make plays. I think this held true up to our playoff loss in Minny.

As far as Minny....I think we panicked. First the Coaches, then the players. We were dictating the game, but when our mistakes allowed them to regain momentum, our coaching staff reacted in a way that allowed the Vikings to dictate play on the field. They took the game to us, something that we hadn't allowed in several games....and we reacted very poorly.

55% Players
45% Coaching

 

[tomson75]

Because winning and losing is based on a large number of factors, not just 2, I would give this percentage breakdown:

35% players executing
32% coaching - preparation, practice, playcalling
15% health (suspensions would also be included here)
8% luck - balls bouncing off a guy's foot, etc.
7% game stuff - officiating, weather/field conditions, crowd noise, etc.
3% front office - putting the right players & coaches together

And these percentages change if one or more is a bigger factor in a particular game. Crowd noise was a much bigger factor in the Minnesota game than it is any other time.

I would also factor in matchups because sometimes certain teams just matchup better than others. We matched up well with the Eagles this year but not with the Giants even though we were the better team. Some teams can exploit weaknesses that others can't based on players with a unique skillset (a WR like Randy Moss for instance). That works both ways though and at times we can exploit another team's weaknesses, but I guess that would be part of coaching and playcalling.

Please feel free to adjust these percentages as you see fit. They were mostly to show an example and not intended to be exact.

Excellent post.

 

[CowboyDan]

On this team it's the players. They're the ones missing the blocks, tackles, open men, balls thrown, field goals, etc.
I don't think I've ever *****ed about the way Wade has handled clock management or challenges. I definately think the players we have in the game are the best players for the job if they play to their potential. I think Red Jesus dials up some pretty interesting calls most of the time.
I'm so tired of hearing people blame 2 guys for the failing of 53 guys that are actually on the field. Give Me A Break.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

90% execution
10% mental

there is my answer

 

[Cover 2]

Players

 

[LandryFan]

Taking a survey.

Who has more influence on wins and losses: players or coaches?

Can I get a percentage.

The Boys won a SB with Switzer filling in as a HC, so it's gotta be the players!

 

[ajk23az]

players.

 

[Cover 2]

Also look at the Colts and Steelers after losing Dungy and Cowher.

 

[MartinRamone]

You can have the best players and terrible coaches and win or terrible players and great coaches and still win. But i do think that having a good coaching staff is the first thing an organization needs.

 

[AMERICAS_FAN]

Last time I checked, coaches are the players' bosses. Always been that way. Most, if not all, players come into the league needing to learn, and it's the coaches who teach them. That should tell you all you need to know about their relative importance.

 

[dcfanatic]

Also look at the Colts and Steelers after losing Dungy and Cowher.

Dungy.

Bucs won right after he left.

Gruden got all of that credit.

 

[Cover 2]

Dungy.

Bucs won right after he left.

Gruden got all of that credit.

And then when Dungy left the Colts they didn't miss a beat.

And Dungy gets a lot of credit for Gruden's Super Bowl, but people forget that the team Gruden beat to win the Super Bowl was his team the previous year.