Jacked4JetsFB Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 What is more important? Obviously they both are important, but which is MORE important? I tend to think that coaches are much more important. My reasoning for this is that I think that the talent level in the NFL for the most part is relatively comparable. Every player in the NFL is immensely talented. Yes, some are more talented than others, but I think top coaches can get the most out of their players whether it is through teaching or motivation or both. When I look at 96 vs 97, there was not a big roster turnover, yet one team went 1-15 and the other was 9-7 and was a boneheaded playcall from being 10-6 and in the playoffs, the difference was the coaching staff. Im curious to get others take on this. I think that to have a true franchise QB, you have to develop him. That means either drafting one very high, or getting lucky, but either way they need to be developed properly. As much as I hate Belicheck, you have to give him credit for the way Brady was developed. Early on they relied very little on him, and put him in perfect situations to succeed, until he became what he is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFJF Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 It's more about Jimmy's and Joe's than X's and O's. Even the worst coach can only hold players back so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JiFtheOracle Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Players. Case in point, the New England Patriots. Bill Belichick before Brady, a career loser. Since Brady, GOAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Coaches coach and players play. It is all about the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacked4JetsFB Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 So why then do coaches get fired so frequently? Why was Sparano fired and not re-hired as an OC this year with so many openings for OC jobs this year? Why do we care so much about Rex being our coach if its all about the players? Do we only care about the coaches personality? Is that why we hated Mangini and love Rex? Im really just trying to make sense of this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 So why then do coaches get fired so frequently? Why was Sparano fired and not re-hired as an OC this year with so many openings for OC jobs this year? Why do we care so much about Rex being our coach if its all about the players? Do we only care about the coaches personality? Is that why we hated Mangini and love Rex? Im really just trying to make sense of this stuff. Coaches get fired frequently because a good coach makes 1 mil a bad QB like Sanchez makes 10 mil. Per year. It's way easier to fire the coach. You do have a point with Sparano however, he was grossly incompetent. If a coach is grossly incompetent, it is a problem. Paul Hackett was like this too. Brian Schotty actually is a decent OC. Nothing special and he has his flaws but he's competent. I don't believe Rex is incompentent, in fact he's the most creative defensive mind in the game today. Jets fans in general were spoiled by that one year where Parcells had Belly and other high quality coaches on the staff (Mangini, Romeo, Weiss, Groh, Haley, Dan henning etc). if you have a staff that good a coach can make chicken salad out of chicken s--t. But that doesn't happen often. Or ever again, probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Players. Case in point, Schotty and Sanchez both suck. We got rid of one, not both, and we never fixed the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacked4JetsFB Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 Coaches get fired frequently because a good coach makes 1 mil a bad QB like Sanchez makes 10 mil. Per year. It's way easier to fire the coach. You do have a point with Sparano however, he was grossly incompetent. If a coach is grossly incompetent, it is a problem. Paul Hackett was like this too. Brian Schotty actually is a decent OC. Nothing special and he has his flaws but he's competent. Well, coaches have to play some role in developing players, and putting them in position to succeed. We have seen many examples of players improve when a new coach comes in, Alex Smith is never going to be Dan Marino, but when Harbough came in he became a different player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacked4JetsFB Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 Players. Case in point, Schotty and Sanchez both suck. We got rid of one, not both, and we never fixed the problem. If Sparano was actually good, you might be able to use this argument. I actually think Sparano was much worse than Schotty. Sanchez is horrible, but that does not excuse how bad Sparano was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Well, coaches have to play some role in developing players, and putting them in position to succeed. We have seen many examples of players improve when a new coach comes in, Alex Smith is never going to be Dan Marino, but when Harbough came in he became a different player. Alex Smith was 21 years old when the 2005 draft happened. it might have been the coach it might also have been just a player growing up. And even harbaugh could only do so much, he upgraded on Smith as soon as he could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 If Sparano was actually good, you might be able to use this argument. I actually think Sparano was much worse than Schotty. Sanchez is horrible, but that does not excuse how bad Sparano was. No, this argument is sound. Schotty + Sanchez = sucks. Sporano + Sanchez = sucks. Morninwheg + Sanchez = sucks. Players are more important. A bad player will always sink a good coach, however a bad coach can be overcome by a good player (see: Schotty + Favre). When you have a bad coach AND a bad player, you have a nightmare. Which is where we've been the past 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Well yeah, players, but then you usually need a competent coach to put them over the top. So like, the greatest HC with the worst players is still 1-15 but the greatest group of players with the worst HC is 10-6 and probably gets knocked out in the Wild Card or Divisional round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacked4JetsFB Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 No, this argument is sound. Schotty + Sanchez = sucks. Sporano + Sanchez = sucks. Morninwheg + Sanchez = sucks. Players are more important. A bad player will always sink a good coach, however a bad coach can be overcome by a good player (see: Schotty + Favre). When you have a bad coach AND a bad player, you have a nightmare. Which is where we've been the past 4 years. Not sure how Favre was good at all with Shcotty, 22 int's, 5 fumbles = more turnovers than TD's, by far his lowest QBR rating in years. I thought Favre actually sucked with the Jets/Schotty Do you think Sporano is a good OC, and would be successful without Sanchez? I think they are both atrocious, and the fact that he will probably never be hired as an OC or HC ever again is an inditement of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Not sure how Favre was good at all with Shcotty, 22 int's, 5 fumbles = more turnovers than TD's, by far his lowest QBR rating in years. I thought Favre actually sucked with the Jets/Schotty Do you think Sporano is a good OC, and would be successful without Sanchez? I think they are both atrocious, and the fact that he will probably never be hired as an OC or HC ever again is an inditement of that. Favre before his arm got hurt was very good, not excellent, in SPITE of Schotty. Like I said above, a great player can compensate for a bad coach. I don't know how else to explain my point. I leave it to you to either get it or not. I already stated that all Sporano, Schotty and Sanchez suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacked4JetsFB Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 Favre before his arm got hurt was very good, not excellent, in SPITE of Schotty. Like I said above, a great player can compensate for a bad coach. I don't know how else to explain my point. I leave it to you to either get it or not. I already stated that all Sporano, Schotty and Sanchez suck. I still think your argument is flawed in that Favre was a HOF QB before he came to Schotty, he was not learning anything from Schotty, only executing plays. I don't think Jet fans put enough emphasis on the development of players, and how important that is. I don't think you can expect to just get lucky with players, you have to draft smart, and properly develop them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JiFtheOracle Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 I still think your argument is flawed in that Favre was a HOF QB before he came to Schotty, he was not learning anything from Schotty, only executing plays. I don't think Jet fans put enough emphasis on the development of players, and how important that is. I don't think you can expect to just get lucky with players, you have to draft smart, and properly develop them. I dont think you can expect to get lucky either but you cant tell me the Colts arent lucky. 2 times they happen to have the #1 overall pick, the best QB prospect in decades is coming out? Thats luck. Get it, Luck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacked4JetsFB Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 I dont think you can expect to get lucky either but you cant tell me the Colts arent lucky. 2 times they happen to have the #1 overall pick, the best QB prospect in decades is coming out? Thats luck. Get it, Luck? The Colts definitely got lucky, there is no doubt about it. But that is the exception not the norm with top QB's in the NFL. You cannot rely on luck. The Giants traded a ton to get Eli, than developed him to where he is now, he was almost Sanchez bad for his first 4 years. Most of the top QB's in the league were developed, not lucked into. For the most part, luck = being prepared when the right opportunity presents itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacked4JetsFB Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 The reason I love Rex is because I think he is a great defensive coach. To me, that means he develops players and puts them in the right position to succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roscoeword Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Schotty had a great year with Pennington (Mangini's first year where we made the playoffs), because Chad was cerebral and could handle that motion offense and all those innovative formations. But Schotty was bad for Farve, since things needed to be dumbed down for him. So certain coaches need certain types of players who can grasp their system, while the really good coaches can adapt their schemes according to the skill set of their players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kay_gee Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Sanchez is probably as bad as he is because nobody coached him the first three years he was here. Not saying that he would be Manning, but he could have been Flacco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 I still think your argument is flawed in that Favre was a HOF QB before he came to Schotty, he was not learning anything from Schotty, only executing plays. I don't think Jet fans put enough emphasis on the development of players, and how important that is. I don't think you can expect to just get lucky with players, you have to draft smart, and properly develop them. You are calling it flawed, when it's obvious you don't get what I said entirely. Comprehend the responses you are getting BEFORE criticizing them. I SAID that a great player can over-compensate for a bad coach. I clearly stated that Favre succeeded in spite of Schotty. I answered your initial question by saying players make the difference, not coaches, because a good coach can be sunk by bad players, but a bad coach can be carried by good players. Your initial question had nothing to do with player development, that is a different subject altogether. Player are and always will be more important. I'm done here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacked4JetsFB Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 Schotty had a great year with Pennington (Mangini's first year where we made the playoffs), because Chad was cerebral and could handle that motion offense and all those innovative formations. But Schotty was bad for Farve, since things needed to be dumbed down for him. So certain coaches need certain types of players who can grasp their system, while the really good coaches can adapt their schemes according to the skill set of their players. I thought that Schotty's first year with Pennington he was very good, but in his second year the entire league caught up with his motion and he fooled nobody. The problem was he never adapted. Successful coaches and players at the pro level have to adapt. Lots of coaches/players have a certain amount of success before adjustments are made, the truly good players and coaches can adjust to those adjustments and still be good. Schotty was never able to do that, and his BS motion started causing more problems for the Jets than their opponents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacked4JetsFB Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 You are calling it flawed, when it's obvious you don't get what I said entirely. Comprehend the responses you are getting BEFORE criticizing them. I SAID that a great player can over-compensate for a bad coach. I clearly stated that Favre succeeded in spite of Schotty. I answered your initial question by saying players make the difference, not coaches, because a good coach can be sunk by bad players, but a bad coach can be carried by good players. Your initial question had nothing to do with player development, that is a different subject altogether. Player are and always will be more important. I'm done here. LOL, I love being criticized for reading comprehension when you say my initial question had nothing to do with player development: Directly from my original post: "Im curious to get others take on this. I think that to have a true franchise QB, you have to develop him. That means either drafting one very high, or getting lucky, but either way they need to be developed properly. As much as I hate Belicheck, you have to give him credit for the way Brady was developed. Early on they relied very little on him, and put him in perfect situations to succeed, until he became what he is now." Yeah, your done already, thanks for stopping by spanky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Sanchez is probably as bad as he is because nobody coached him the first three years he was here. Not saying that he would be Manning, but he could have been Flacco. No. Sanchez doesn't have the the pocket awareness, arm talent or leadership skills of Flacco. Guys don't suddenly get those things when they arrive in the league from coaches, 90% of the influence coaches have is teaching the system to the players, understanding who does what well and designing ways to use those players. Fundamental skills like arm talent should already be established by the time a QB hits the NFL. Sanchez never had MVP QB potential. His ceiling what higher than what we've gotten from him, but not as high as any top 15 QB. Flacco played damn-near perfect football in the post-season last year. Sanchez had the luxury of having one system, one coordinator for his first 3 years and got worse each year. That's in part on the coach, for not getting anything out of the player, but it's mostly on the player... for sucking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kay_gee Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Better move on from Geno now then. That guy sucked way worse in preseason than Sanchez ever did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacked4JetsFB Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 Better move on from Geno now then. That guy sucked way worse in preseason than Sanchez ever did. No no no, that only works when it meets his argument, watch out before he pulls out his mad reading comprehension skilz on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 The name of the thread: Coaches or players? The first 2 lines of the thread: What is more important? Obviously they both are important, but which is MORE important? I tend to think that coaches are much more important. My reasoning for this is that I think that the talent level in the NFL for the most part is relatively comparable. Every player in the NFL is immensely talented. Yes, some are more talented than others, but I think top coaches can get the most out of their players whether it is through teaching or motivation or both. When I look at 96 vs 97, there was not a big roster turnover, yet one team went 1-15 and the other was 9-7 and was a boneheaded playcall from being 10-6 and in the playoffs, the difference was the coaching staff. Im curious to get others take on this. I think that to have a true franchise QB, you have to develop him. That means either drafting one very high, or getting lucky, but either way they need to be developed properly. As much as I hate Belicheck, you have to give him credit for the way Brady was developed. Early on they relied very little on him, and put him in perfect situations to succeed, until he became what he is now. My answer: Players. My explanation: no matter how good a coach is, ultimately the players execute - thus a great player can succeed in spite of a bad coach, and a bad coach can look good due to having great players, but a great coach is often going to look bad with bad players. Bad players can sink a good coach, it's rare that a good player doesn't succeed in spite of a bad coach though. See: Adrian Peterson with Brad Childress, he was an awful coach - but AD succeeded in spite of him. Your follow-up to my responses convoluted what I said, and you in fact said my arguement was flawed - but then repeated back to me that Favre succeed in spite of Schotty, which was exactly what I said and what my point was. So, yeah... reading comprehension, you suck at it... but don't let that interrupt your buffoonish boasting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 LOL, I love being criticized for reading comprehension when you say my initial question had nothing to do with player development: Directly from my original post: "Im curious to get others take on this. I think that to have a true franchise QB, you have to develop him. That means either drafting one very high, or getting lucky, but either way they need to be developed properly. As much as I hate Belicheck, you have to give him credit for the way Brady was developed. Early on they relied very little on him, and put him in perfect situations to succeed, until he became what he is now." Yeah, your done already, thanks for stopping by spanky. All time fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacked4JetsFB Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 LOL, thought you were done spanky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacked4JetsFB Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 The name of the thread: Coaches or players? The first 2 lines of the thread: My answer: Players. My explanation: no matter how good a coach is, ultimately the players execute - thus a great player can succeed in spite of a bad coach, and a bad coach can look good due to having great players, but a great coach is often going to look bad with bad players. Bad players can sink a good coach, it's rare that a good player doesn't succeed in spite of a bad coach though. See: Adrian Peterson with Brad Childress, he was an awful coach - but AD succeeded in spite of him. Your follow-up to my responses convoluted what I said, and you in fact said my arguement was flawed - but then repeated back to me that Favre succeed in spite of Schotty, which was exactly what I said and what my point was. So, yeah... reading comprehension, you suck at it... but don't let that interrupt your buffoonish boasting. LOL, nice work. Let's pick and chose which parts we feel like responding too, ignoring the rest, than accuse the other person of reading comprehension problems. Are you a lawyer, or just a brain surgeon who stayed at a Holiday Inn express last night? Done yet spanky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Player is good - he's propping up a bad coach Player is bad - he's being held back by a bad coach You need players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 LOL, nice work. Let's pick and chose which parts we feel like responding too, ignoring the rest, than accuse the other person of reading comprehension problems. Are you a lawyer, or just a brain surgeon who stayed at a Holiday Inn express last night? Done yet spanky? Dude, I responded to the opening 3-part question you asked. I have no issues with reading comprehension, I chose to address the most pertinent part of your opening post, and ignored the rest with purpose. You decided you didn't agree with my response, then regurgitated my points back to me. A sign that you VERY clearly weren't reading and/or comprehending. I'm not sure why you are all amped up. Seems like you were just begging for an argument here... and since you couldn't prove your initial point that coaches are more important, you are settling for proving that you DON'T have reading comprehension problems as a moral victory. What a clown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Player is good - he's propping up a bad coach Player is bad - he's being held back by a bad coach You need players. Uh oh, you must have teh reading compruhunshun problums too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacked4JetsFB Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 Dude, I responded to the opening 3-part question you asked. I have no issues with reading comprehension, I chose to address the most pertinent part of your opening post, and ignored the rest with purpose. You decided you didn't agree with my response, then regurgitated my points back to me. A sign that you VERY clearly weren't reading and/or comprehending. I'm not sure why you are all amped up. Seems like you were just begging for an argument here... and since you couldn't prove your initial point that coaches are more important, you are settling for proving that you DON'T have reading comprehension problems as a moral victory. What a clown. LOL, glad you proved your point, and I failed to, glad we settled that in-between your brain surgery. Lets get this clear dude, you were the one who started the reading comprehension nonsense. I fully understood what you were saying, I just disagree with it. This was meant to be a discussion, and I don't think you or anyone else can Prove anything other than offer opinions. You offer your opinions as fact, like a real clown. I want no arguments, only discussion, but when you pass your opinions as facts like a clown, picking and choosing which parts of my entire post to answer, than accuse me of not reading, you have what we have here spanky. For the record, considering a HC is often paid far more than a GM, the NFL seems to think that coaches are are pretty important, since the GM's pick the players not the coaches. If coaches were not important, and all that mattered was players, the guys responsible for bringing the players in would make much more money than the GM's since all the GM has to do is bring in good players and anyone could coach them. Done yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacked4JetsFB Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 Favre before his arm got hurt was very good, not excellent, in SPITE of Schotty. Like I said above, a great player can compensate for a bad coach. I don't know how else to explain my point. I leave it to you to either get it or not. I already stated that all Sporano, Schotty and Sanchez suck. For the record, you did not say Sporano sucks, you said Sporano plus Sanchez sucks. Sanchez plus anyone would suck, so that does not equal Sporano sucking. I only picked this up because I have such good reading skilz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.