Tom Landry's Success - System or Players?

[phildominator]

I'm watching A Football Life: Tom Landry and a recurring theme was Landry's belief that players were just cogs in the system. For Landry's 20 consecutive winning seasons, was it a result of the system or the players?

5 = Majority System
4 = More System
3 = Equal System & Players
2 = More Players
1 = Majority Players

 

[Proximo]

It's like a marriage; in order for it to be healthy and successful both sides need to complement the other.

Granted, there are definitely times when freakish talent bails out a maybe less than competent coach, or vice versa. But generally speaking there are so many moving parts that it's more important they fit together nicely like a puzzle. As opposed to having a certain "system" or a few "stars" at certain positions.

Just my opinion.

 

[Wolfpack]

I'd vote 3.

He knew football inside and out and could out coach another team on equal terms. However, you need talent to be the best, and those teams that had the better talent are the ones that went to the big game.

 

[mrmojo]

3 also. Morton was a perfect QB for his system but it did not translate to a championship. Staubach was not a system QB but his unorthadox style complimented the system and resulted in 2 championships.

 

[burmafrd]

Having a system will triumph over just having the players. We have seen that here in spades the last 10 years.

 

[thunderpimp91]

I would say 3. You look throughout the history of football systems can make bad teams respectable, and average teams good. What we also see though is that is only temporary. The 46 defense, the wildcat, whatever system/formation you take tends to have a certain level of success, then teams adjust. The teams with good players will continue to find a way to win, the teams with a system but average to bad players will see that success come to an end.

You talk about 20 years of success and there is no doubt that takes both a high level of scouting, motivation, and the ability to put players in the proper position.

 

[TwoDeep3]

All systems are based on having players who can execute the system.

This is why coaches are sometimes judged too harshly and players not harsh enough.

But in all cases it comes down to talent recognition in regard to the system. Joe Montana would not have thrived in the Oakland throw long system. Walsh brought out his brilliance. Emmitt would not have thrived in the Lions blocking schemes. He needed a lane and not make it up as he went along kind of thing.

Landry was truly a genius. But if you watched the entire program, you will note until he dumbed down the flex, and the offense, he wasn't having great success. That may be the one thing Landry had going for him moire than most. He had the courage to stick with his system, but tweak it for the personnel.

 

[Ren]

The system is what got us the players. The he Cowboys where winning for a long time and players came and went

 

[jobberone]

You need both coaching and player talent. He moved players around to suit their skills. He tweaked his system some to suit them as well.

Keep in mind the Flex was his answer to teams spreading the line and defenses out and early zone blocking techniques developed by Paul Brown. And he and the Giants were the first team to show the blueprint for shutting the Browns down. Landry didn't develop the 4-3 he just modified it into what it is today and in the process made a HOFer out of one of the first Mikes. So he certainly new how to use the strengths of his players and fit them into a scheme. Ask Sam Huff. Or Randy White.

 

[Cowboys22]

Having a consistent system allows you to get the players that will excel in that system. If you are looking for the same thing for 25+ years, you will eventually hit on a few guys at the same time and build something that can be sustained for a while. If you have no real philosophy and are constantly changing to the flavor of the month, you end up with a mish mash of guys and none of then fit anywhere. That's what Dallas has been doing since Jerry fired Jimmy. Switching coaches every 3-4 years, switching schemes, looking for different style players in the draft from year to year. That will never work and as we have seen, it hasn't. An owner and GM has to decide the identity they want the team to be for the foreseeable future and go get a coach that can make it happen and develop the future coaches that will keep it going. Then you go find the right players for that identity and scheme and never change it. You might tweak it due to rule changes and current trends but you stay close to what you built and keep going. That's my opinion and how I think I would approach it if I owned a team.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I love the comments by Dorsett who said Landry would get onto him about the hole being set by the offensive line and he needed to trust that. Dorsett said he ran to daylight and had to do his thing or it wouldn't work.

He ran against grain on a play for 73 yards and a TD in a game. Landry announced in the next practice for the line to just hold their blocks and let Tony find his way.

That is coaching.

 

[Wolfpack]

I love the comments by Dorsett who said Landry would get onto him about the hole being set by the offensive line and he needed to trust that. Dorsett said he ran to daylight and had to do his thing or it wouldn't work.

He ran against grain on a play for 73 yards and a TD in a game. Landry announced in the next practice for the line to just hold their blocks and let Tony find his way.

That is coaching.

Love that story. Its much better than telling Tony he wasn't "executing" properly.

 

[Bullflop]

I think an equal quality of both the system and the players is the most accurate choice. Both had winning qualities for the most part. Certainly, both had considerably more good qualities than poor. The system was one that defenses had a difficult time adjusting to, especially earlier in the Cowboys' existence under Landry. The complexity of their offense sometimes proved to be something that caused players problems to adjust to until they had at least 2 and often three years under their belts to absorb it. The Cowboys' system of locating and picking their talent was definitely ahead of its time, with computerization of talent being systematically advanced beyond that of other teams in the league. Those were truly the "good old days" in terms of our front office management and our coaching expertise. Clint Murchison, Tex Schramm and Landry comprised a deadly combination that dominated great majority of the NFL teams for many years.

 

[Future]

Love that story. Its much better than telling Tony he wasn't "executing" properly.

Yep. Its almost the exact opposite of what JG would say...though its a lot easier when your back goes 70+ for a TD lol

 

[Longboysfan]

Landry didn't develop the 4-3 he just modified it into what it is today and in the process made a HOFer out of one of the first Mikes. So he certainly new how to use the strengths of his players and fit them into a scheme. Ask Sam Huff. Or Randy White.

I feel he did whil playing for the Giants. He was the coach on the field.

 

[jobberone]

I feel he did whil playing for the Giants. He was the coach on the field.

It's amazing that Steve Owen picked up his coaching ability so quickly.

 

[JackWagon]

20 years of success tells me it was both the front office (finding players) and the coaching staff (developing systems for those players to be successful) .

 

[burmafrd]

Landry was a coach on the field fairly early on. As a slow DB, he had to be able to anticipate the WRs to have any chance at all. SO he watched more film then anyone else (the running joke with the Giants at that time was this: "Where is the Lions Game film?" "Where else- Landry has it.")

And his natural coaching talents were strengthened from the beginning. Amazing that staff - you have Vince Lombardi and Tom Landry at the same time.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I'm watching A Football Life: Tom Landry and a recurring theme was Landry's belief that players were just cogs in the system. For Landry's 20 consecutive winning seasons, was it a result of the system or the players?

5 = Majority System
4 = More System
3 = Equal System & Players
2 = More Players
1 = Majority Players

I think it's a pendulum 2-3-4....
Sometimes the system benefits the player.
Sometimes a player makes a great play

 

[ShiningStar]

this is like looking at a complex problem and thinking "wow, only two factors here" heck no. You had a comepletely different era, a completely different mind set, so many factors played into Landrys success instead of just players and systems. Look how the game was played back than compared to now. Look at what you were able to get away with back than compared to now. What we didnt have back than, what was allowed. How much credit does his assitant coaches get? How many bad or good drafts did dallas have back than? What was Landrys control in the Dallas organization? We know his emphasis an was belief was in the defense, what offensive genuises did he go against? Did he ever face a "greatest show on turf" offense? What offenses worked best agianst his defense? There is so much more to look at when Landry coached. Why did the Steelers always have Dallas' number back than?