gadfly23 wrote:

I will be offering examples throughout the day under this heading. Just trying to understand losing football.
 

So, I’m watching that 3^rd and two before halftime. The eagles have 10 in the box. Yes, Watson runs straight ahead and will be open turning either left or right for a sizable gain. The QB can see this potential as easily as Tebow saw the Steelers leaving Thomas one on one for that slant in last year’s playoff game. Not that the pass to Marecic was a terrible call. It’s an easy throw and catch for an easy fall forward first down. Doesn’t happen. Seven Eagle points ensue in a game lost by 1 point.

Whose fault is that? Weeden? Marecic? Coaches for not giving Weeden ability to check off?

 

Related theme to that series..... The play after the play where TR blows up the safety, leaving third and one. Again, the Eagles have 10 in the box – psychologically – the one thing they want to do is stuff TR and make up for the big hit on Coleman (we give them that opportunity). Why is everything in my being yelling for a play-fake and some sort of a longer throw? We’ve got two 6’2” WR, a former all pro bowl TE, and a 4.3 WR……if one of them cannot shake and bake enough to get clearance with 1 defender back – all is lost IMO. The mindset that said no, just run it up in there, is not a dynamic, dagger throwing mindset.

That gonna work against Ravens or Steelers we saw last two days?

It's coaching dude. Always has been, always will be.

In 1959 Vince Lombari goes to Siberi, a.k.a. Green Bay, and takes a perennial dog who finish the 1958 season 1-10-1, and NEVER had a losing season. In two years has them playing for a championship, and wins it after his 3rd year. And he does it mostly with the guys that were there who couldn't win jack in 58'.

In 1970 don Shula goes to Miami to coach a Dolphins team that was a complete joke, having finished the 69' season 3-10-1. In two years has them in the SB, and then goes undefeated in 72.

That 72' team won by running the ball with Czonka and Kick even though they had a future HOFer at QB in Bob Griese. Griese threw 12 passes in that 72' SB win. Not 12 completions, 12 passes. Then Shula in 1983 turns the team over to a young rookie QB named Dan Marino and becomes a passing team. Point being that Shula coached his talent, not his scheme.

I could go on about Bill Walsh and the crappy 49re team he took over, but you get my point. They won the SB in his 3rd year.

That 3rd year seems to be the magic year for great coaches.

Yes, it's all about coaching. Always has been.

Now I'll tell you who the next great coach will be. His name is Gruden, but not the one you're thinking of. It's Jay, not Jon.

The one thing all great coaches have is a burning desire to prove themselves. To come out of the shadow of someone else who has overshadowed them in the past.

Lombari - Jim Lee Howell
Shula - Weeb Ewbank
Walsh - Paul Brown
Belicheck - Parcells

And next it'll be Jay Gruden - out of he brother's shadow.

Jay became the OC for the Bengals when no one else would give him a chance, afterall he was just Jon's little brother. Even though he won a championship as HC in the AFL.
.
He goes to a cellar deweller in Cincy, a team whos Pro Bowl QB refused to play for them ever again. Takes a rookie QB and rookie WR and gets them to the playoffs in the toughest division in football his first year.

The guy has got a chip on his shoulder the size of Mount Rushmore. And it just so happens he runs the same WCO we do. Talk about a perfect fit.

Jay Gruden, mark my words, the next great headcoach.

poppa9601 wrote:

gadfly23 wrote:

I will be offering examples throughout the day under this heading. Just trying to understand losing football.
 

So, I’m watching that 3^rd and two before halftime. The eagles have 10 in the box. Yes, Watson runs straight ahead and will be open turning either left or right for a sizable gain. The QB can see this potential as easily as Tebow saw the Steelers leaving Thomas one on one for that slant in last year’s playoff game. Not that the pass to Marecic was a terrible call. It’s an easy throw and catch for an easy fall forward first down. Doesn’t happen. Seven Eagle points ensue in a game lost by 1 point.

Whose fault is that? Weeden? Marecic? Coaches for not giving Weeden ability to check off?

 

Related theme to that series..... The play after the play where TR blows up the safety, leaving third and one. Again, the Eagles have 10 in the box – psychologically – the one thing they want to do is stuff TR and make up for the big hit on Coleman (we give them that opportunity). Why is everything in my being yelling for a play-fake and some sort of a longer throw? We’ve got two 6’2” WR, a former all pro bowl TE, and a 4.3 WR……if one of them cannot shake and bake enough to get clearance with 1 defender back – all is lost IMO. The mindset that said no, just run it up in there, is not a dynamic, dagger throwing mindset.

That gonna work against Ravens or Steelers we saw last two days?

It's coaching dude. Always has been, always will be.

In 1959 Vince Lombari goes to Siberi, a.k.a. Green Bay, and takes a perennial dog who finish the 1958 season 1-10-1, and NEVER had a losing season. In two years has them playing for a championship, and wins it after his 3rd year. And he does it mostly with the guys that were there who couldn't win jack in 58'.

In 1970 don Shula goes to Miami to coach a Dolphins team that was a complete joke, having finished the 69' season 3-10-1. In two years has them in the SB, and then goes undefeated in 72.

That 72' team won by running the ball with Czonka and Kick even though they had a future HOFer at QB in Bob Griese. Griese threw 12 passes in that 72' SB win. Not 12 completions, 12 passes. Then Shula in 1983 turns the team over to a young rookie QB named Dan Marino and becomes a passing team. Point being that Shula coached his talent, not his scheme.

I could go on about Bill Walsh and the crappy 49re team he took over, but you get my point. They won the SB in his 3rd year.

That 3rd year seems to be the magic year for great coaches.

Yes, it's all about coaching. Always has been.

Now I'll tell you who the next great coach will be. His name is Gruden, but not the one you're thinking of. It's Jay, not Jon.

The one thing all great coaches have is a burning desire to prove themselves. To come out of the shadow of someone else who has overshadowed them in the past.

Lombari - Jim Lee Howell
Shula - Weeb Ewbank
Walsh - Paul Brown
Belicheck - Parcells

And next it'll be Jay Gruden - out of he brother's shadow.

Jay became the OC for the Bengals when no one else would give him a chance, afterall he was just Jon's little brother. Even though he won a championship as HC in the AFL.
.
He goes to a cellar deweller in Cincy, a team whos Pro Bowl QB refused to play for them ever again. Takes a rookie QB and rookie WR and gets them to the playoffs in the toughest division in football his first year.

The guy has got a chip on his shoulder the size of Mount Rushmore. And it just so happens he runs the same WCO we do. Talk about a perfect fit.

Jay Gruden, mark my words, the next great headcoach.

great take.
gruden's bengals went 10-6 in '09. Some of that was motivated by the death of Mike Zimmer's wife..the team went 6-0 in the division. Very amazing.

"It's coaching dude. Always has been, always will be."

I think it's coaching to a large extent - I never had the sense with Crennel, Mangini or Shumer that we have a coaching edge on our sideline.

But how does that explain personnel/players? I've argued before, you want to know difference tween Browns and others like Steelers, we drafted Braylon Edwards and they drafted Hines Ward - what else do you need to know?

Look at their 2 running backs Redman (undrafted) and Dwyer (6th round pick) - pure and simple, they are big, fast, hard to bring down and reek of NFL qualities (body type, toughness)....These are their backups to Mendenhall.............I just don't see Cleveland bringing in these types of athletes. Hardesty's got the pedigree and he was round #2, but damn I'd take either one over him and they cost nothing.

poppa9601 wrote:

It's coaching dude. Always has been, always will be.

Did BB get that much smarter between 95 & 2002?

Did Jimmuh get that much dumber between 94 & 96?

I tend to agree coaching is the top varaiable, but dont think there is any "one thing".

Nasdaq wrote:

poppa9601 wrote:

It's coaching dude. Always has been, always will be.

Did BB get that much smarter between 95 & 2002?

Did Jimmuh get that much dumber between 94 & 96?

I tend to agree coaching is the top varaiable, but dont think there is any "one thing".

Did BB get smarter? Well yeah, that's obvious. But more importantly, he got hungerier.

By comparison JJ wasn't as hungery when he went to Miami.

But no, coaching alone can't get it done. You still need talent. But the real question is, are we getting the most out of the talent we have? I say no, not even close.

Dick Jauron is proof of what good coaching can do. Now all we need is his equal for the offense.

Belichick was no better coach in NE than he was here. He knew his Xs & Os just as well in both instances. He taught his players the same techniques and he used the same teaching techniques to do it.

Some people point to how much better Belichick handled the media as proof he got better. That's laughable, as if how well Shurmer handles himself around Mary Kay Cabot or Sean McClelland has any effect on the field.

The difference was free agency which wasn't in play back when he was in Cleveland. Even then his first Patriot team sucked...then went to the SB once he got a bunch of older vets through FA.  He shortened the experience and continuity hurdle.

Jauron was here last season and the Browns defense ranked pretty low against the run. Are you suggesting Jauron doesn't know how to coach run defense?  If its all coaching how can a coach lose one season and not the next? Or win one season and then lose the next?

Gary,

Belichick was no better coach in NE than he was here. He knew his Xs & Os just as well in both instances. He taught his players the same techniques and he used the same teaching techniques to do it
and
The difference was free agency which wasn't in play back when he was in Cleveland. Even then his first Patriot team sucked...then went to the SB once he got a bunch of older vets through FA.  He shortened the experience and continuity hurdle

Rr,

Curiously it appears  you have set out a business model requiring the useage of free agency. Do you expect the Browns to be busy this upcoming offseason in free agency as well as the draft?

Gary Reents wrote: Belichick was no better coach in NE than he was here. He knew his Xs & Os just as well in both instances. He taught his players the same techniques and he used the same teaching techniques to do it.

Some people point to how much better Belichick handled the media as proof he got better. That's laughable, as if how well Shurmer handles himself around Mary Kay Cabot or Sean McClelland has any effect on the field.

The difference was free agency which wasn't in play back when he was in Cleveland. Even then his first Patriot team sucked...then went to the SB once he got a bunch of older vets through FA.  He shortened the experience and continuity hurdle.

Jauron was here last season and the Browns defense ranked pretty low against the run. Are you suggesting Jauron doesn't know how to coach run defense?  If its all coaching how can a coach lose one season and not the next? Or win one season and then lose the next?

Only an idiot or someone else' lacky would suggest that a professional in any field stops learning and improving their craft during their careers.( Which one are you?) So therefore it's ridiculous to say that BB was the same coach when he got to NE has he was when he left C-town.

As far as Jauron, go back and TRY to read what I wrote. I said it also takes talent, but it takes good coaching to get the most out of that talent.

One season doesn't make a good coach great or a great coach bad. But string together a few and the tide will turn on you. Chuck Noll didn't get dumber, the game just passed him by. It happens. Injuries play a big role in all sports, but BB lost Brady and still won 11 games. Do you think Shurmur could do that?

p:
Only an idiot or someone else' lacky would suggest that a professional in any field stops learning and improving their craft during their careers.( Which one are you?) So therefore it's ridiculous to say that BB was the same coach when he got to NE has he was when he left C-town.

g:
To quote: "It's coaching dude. Always has been, always will be."

That seems pretty unequivocal to me. Then you gave some examples where I guess you believe a coach came in to a team and willed them to win by sheer determination...or something.

And since its all coaching then Cleveland didn't win because Belichick was a bad coach. Then he won in NE because he was good coach.

And Sam was a hell of coach for the Browns in 1980 but the game passed him by in 1981. 

p;
As far as Jauron, go back and TRY to read what I wrote. I said it also takes talent, but it takes good coaching to get the most out of that talent.

g:
So its not always coaching, dude. 

p:
One season doesn't make a good coach great or a great coach bad. But string together a few and the tide will turn on you. Chuck Noll didn't get dumber, the game just passed him by. It happens. Injuries play a big role in all sports, but BB lost Brady and still won 11 games. Do you think Shurmur could do that?

g:
The game didn't pass Noll by. What horseshit. What passed by was an incredible amount of talent. His great teams retired and he was forced to rebuild using only the draft. He coached the hell out of those teams, they just didn't have the talent anymore. 

The keys to losing should be the same as keys to winning:
Coaching: teach, plan, strategize, motivate, adjust, and adapt
Talent: physical, and mental capacity to learn, endure, and execute the game plan

The Browns have not had suffcient of these two elements since the rebuilding.  Ownership, and FO failure, and instability are due to not getting the 2 elemnts that all successful teams have...same as in business world.

gadfly23 wrote: "It's coaching dude. Always has been, always will be."

I think it's coaching to a large extent - I never had the sense with Crennel, Mangini or Shumer that we have a coaching edge on our sideline.

But how does that explain personnel/players? I've argued before, you want to know difference tween Browns and others like Steelers, we drafted Braylon Edwards and they drafted Hines Ward - what else do you need to know?

Look at their 2 running backs Redman (undrafted) and Dwyer (6th round pick) - pure and simple, they are big, fast, hard to bring down and reek of NFL qualities (body type, toughness)....These are their backups to Mendenhall.............I just don't see Cleveland bringing in these types of athletes. Hardesty's got the pedigree and he was round #2, but damn I'd take either one over him and they cost nothing.

I hate to say it, but I'm more envious of the Steelers than hateful. I just want to be as competitive as them.

Gary Reents wrote: Belichick was no better coach in NE than he was here. He knew his Xs & Os just as well in both instances. He taught his players the same techniques and he used the same teaching techniques to do it.

Some people point to how much better Belichick handled the media as proof he got better. That's laughable, as if how well Shurmer handles himself around Mary Kay Cabot or Sean McClelland has any effect on the field.

The difference was free agency which wasn't in play back when he was in Cleveland. Even then his first Patriot team sucked...then went to the SB once he got a bunch of older vets through FA.  He shortened the experience and continuity hurdle.

Jauron was here last season and the Browns defense ranked pretty low against the run. Are you suggesting Jauron doesn't know how to coach run defense?  If its all coaching how can a coach lose one season and not the next? Or win one season and then lose the next?

IF the dumbass fans can see that we can't stop the run, why can't the coaches? That is what scares me--the fans in the stands know how to call basic plays and the coaches are doing the same thing.

I see 2-14 this year.

---------------------------------------------
--- kosartoslaughter wrote:

Gary Reents wrote: Belichick was no better coach in NE than he was here. He knew his Xs & Os just as well in both instances. He taught his players the same techniques and he used the same teaching techniques to do it.

Some people point to how much better Belichick handled the media as proof he got better. That's laughable, as if how well Shurmer handles himself around Mary Kay Cabot or Sean McClelland has any effect on the field.

The difference was free agency which wasn't in play back when he was in Cleveland. Even then his first Patriot team sucked...then went to the SB once he got a bunch of older vets through FA.  He shortened the experience and continuity hurdle.

Jauron was here last season and the Browns defense ranked pretty low against the run. Are you suggesting Jauron doesn't know how to coach run defense?  If its all coaching how can a coach lose one season and not the next? Or win one season and then lose the next?

IF the dumbass fans can see that we can't stop the run, why can't the coaches? That is what scares me--the fans in the stands know how to call basic plays and the coaches are doing the same thing.

I see 2-14 this year.

---------------------------------------------

Pretty sure the FO reached on 2 DT nose tackle types at 1 & 3 the last 2 draft & used the paltry sums Exit Strategy Randy would allow on DE FAs, including a run stopping DE. Pretty sure Jaraun plays 'em when they can play.

But continue, please.

---------------------------------------------
--- Gary Reents wrote:

p:
Only an idiot or someone else' lacky would suggest that a professional in any field stops learning and improving their craft during their careers.( Which one are you?) So therefore it's ridiculous to say that BB was the same coach when he got to NE has he was when he left C-town.

g:
To quote: "It's coaching dude. Always has been, always will be."

That seems pretty unequivocal to me. Then you gave some examples where I guess you believe a coach came in to a team and willed them to win by sheer determination...or something.

And since its all coaching then Cleveland didn't win because Belichick was a bad coach. Then he won in NE because he was good coach.

And Sam was a hell of coach for the Browns in 1980 but the game passed him by in 1981. 

p;
As far as Jauron, go back and TRY to read what I wrote. I said it also takes talent, but it takes good coaching to get the most out of that talent.

g:
So its not always coaching, dude. 

p:
One season doesn't make a good coach great or a great coach bad. But string together a few and the tide will turn on you. Chuck Noll didn't get dumber, the game just passed him by. It happens. Injuries play a big role in all sports, but BB lost Brady and still won 11 games. Do you think Shurmur could do that?

g:
The game didn't pass Noll by. What horseshit. What passed by was an incredible amount of talent. His great teams retired and he was forced to rebuild using only the draft. He coached the hell out of those teams, they just didn't have the talent anymore. 

---------------------------------------------

Dunno about the last point there, Ace.

You might want to fact check the Noll / Cower transition details before you stake that claim.

N:
Dunno about the last point there, Ace.

You might want to fact check the Noll / Cower transition details before you stake that claim.

G:
Fan opinions, even owner opinions aren't facts.

Why a team wins or loses any given season is a culmination of many factors, some of which I wrote of. 

When a team dominates for several seasons (in the NFL), it is experienced and exceptionally talented. The idea that some coach can consistently pull magical game plans of such wondrous beauty that it overcomes luck, more talented teams and injuries, is pretty comical in its stupidity.

And the idea that after years of experience and learning a winning head coach suddenly knows a lot less than all the other coaches is about as stupid. 

The NFL evolves and if a winning team fails to evolve with it, that teams starts to lose more games. For instance, at one time the cutting edge trend was to use man to man bump and run corners. It was all the rage. That led to very tall receivers that just played above the typically shorter corners. 

Once a team that used B&R corners understands they must change it usually can't happen overnight, especially back before FA. But even in the FA era, the teams cap position, and the availability of talented corners with the correct characteristics might not occur for a season or two.

Now imagine that kind of evolution occuring at multiple positions across an NFL team with each team in the division at a different point in their transition. So, talent and how it matches up to your opponents talent is also a factor. But it shows the importance of talent acquisition, not in the purely athletic sense, but in the physical stature, weight, etc. sense.

But, we have brilliance in here that distills all these variables down to "The game passed the coach by".

G, long story short.

I'm not debating the theory. All I'm saying is in that case study Cower inherited a group of players that had been mediocre in a stale system. Between benching disappointing high picks for young legs & whipping them into a frenzy, improving the execution by more hands on coaching, & he & Capers putting in a then revolutionary zone blitz 3-4 abandoning the cocked tackle 4-3, and recommitting to basic power run game execution, IIRC they went from 6 or 7 wins to 11 in one season & stayed there for about 7 seasons with that core.

A case study not a blanket analysis which may prove instructive yet.

Nasdaq wrote: G, long story short.

I'm not debating the theory. All I'm saying is in that case study Cower inherited a group of players that had been mediocre in a stale system. Between benching disappointing high picks for young legs & whipping them into a frenzy, improving the execution by more hands on coaching, & he & Capers putting in a then revolutionary zone blitz 3-4 abandoning the cocked tackle 4-3, and recommitting to basic power run game execution, IIRC they went from 6 or 7 wins to 11 in one season & stayed there for about 7 seasons with that core.

A case study not a blanket analysis which may prove instructive yet.

There's no doubt coaching is important, just not the most important all of the time. The success or failure of a team in any given year is caused by a blend of factors at the game level. But the overall liklihood of success or failure is determined equally by FO practices and quality.

An example of coaching having a direct impact was seen in Cleveland with Kirk Ferentz. Personally, I attribute the increase in the number of 94 season wins almost soley to him because it marked a improvement in run and pass blocking. Obviously the move to Hoard was also a factor, but coaching had a big impact at the unit level.

On the Steeler situation, the "benching disappointing high picks" indicates a change at the GM level as well. That may go to Noll if he was also doing the drafting, but then that's not a "coaching" issue. GMs often insist that their high picks play and be given time to develop that is denied lower drafted players. When a team brings in a much heralded HC prospect they usually can't dictate that he play specific players they drafted high. That may not have been the case for Noll. He may have had no choice.

Noll was a very good coach. He had dominant talent and they kept it together for years. Once that talent went away his teams performed to their mid range level of play and lower level of experience. Think of how the draft order is set.  Pittsburgh was a perennial loser for decades which allowed them to accrue the talent they used in the 70s to dominate (not to mention they got a 3 million dollar bonus for switching to the AFC). Each of those years they drafted at the bottom of the draft and they eventually lost their talent edge...as the system is designed to ensure.  Now a team can overcome the draft weighting system, but not really then.

The game didn't pass Noll by, the talent did. Noll was a constant the talent was the variable.

Cowher is a great coach. Better than Noll ever was, imo. What seems to get lost in the Steeler changeout was that Tom Donohue was installed in 91 as GM.  So there was more change there that drove the move to Cowher and the move away from high draft picks on the roster.

Nasdaq wrote: G, long story short.

I'm not debating the theory. All I'm saying is in that case study Cower inherited a group of players that had been mediocre in a stale system. Between benching disappointing high picks for young legs & whipping them into a frenzy, improving the execution by more hands on coaching, & he & Capers putting in a then revolutionary zone blitz 3-4 abandoning the cocked tackle 4-3, and recommitting to basic power run game execution, IIRC they went from 6 or 7 wins to 11 in one season & stayed there for about 7 seasons with that core.

A case study not a blanket analysis which may prove instructive yet.

Pittsburgh did not run the 4-3 in '91. I am interested to see if you can dig up more research about this--Stools or not, I find defensive evolution FASCINATING.

They ran a 3-4 from '82 to '91, but a cover-1, like marty's. I remember asking on the Steelers board last year. Last time they ran a 4-3 was '81 when they still had the LC Greenwood and the last great '70s studs. Drafted Woodson in '87 (we took Junkin) and they were a cover-1 team, so the SS was in the box.

I might be wrong, and if I am wrong, correct me...but I never knew the '91 Steelers to be a cocked-tackle 4-3 (that is the Desert Swarm defense run by ASU in the mid-late '90s. A DT was angled to one side, while the other one was straight up).

If I am wrong and they did run a 4-3 in the late '80s that would be news to me...as a Browns fan in eastern Ohio I remember the Steelers of that era too.

Their only studs on D were:
Woodson
Hardy Nickerson (from Tampa in '87 or '88?) OR maybe he went to Tampa after Pitt. I can't remember w/o looking it up.

Mike Merriwether (ILB)

Deon Figures (CB)
Searcy (NT or DE, big fat dude) Or it may have been Seals.
The '81-91 Steelers are often forgotten, even by their own fans. Esp. after Terry retired

thanks Gary.
you guys know as much about the Steelers as about our Browns. Several points.

1) Good point on Donahue. Like Colbert, GMing is even more important than the QB, IMO.

2) Browns benefited from the USFL, but like the Steelers, poor drafting caught up to them by '89.
'84 Byner
'85 Langhorne
'86 Slaughter
'88 MDP
'89 Metcalf
'90 Hoard, Pleasant, Burnett (actually, 90 is one of the few drafts other than '78 and '50s drafts where we did good w/value. Pleasant was a 3rd and Burnett was a 5th).

3) Ferentz in '94. Interesting.

However, the Browns were 1st in D in points allowed, 8th in rushing yards allowed. Yet the damn Steelers put 240 yards on the ground (even higher than most BTNG teams) in the 29-9 win. The coaching probably would have been fine, had the WRs not dropped the ball on the first plays of scrimmage. (I think there were two consecutive passes from Vinny to Alexander and he dropped them). That year was fun but we beat up on weak QBs and were swept by Pitt, so it wasn't *great*.