Lessons Norv Taught Me

[Oldfan]

Personally, tho, that isn't what is important to be a successful head coach. I mean, no one doubts that Wade Phillips is a pretty darn good DC, but he failed in Buffalo and he's failing in Dallas. He certainly isn't failing because of lack of talent on his team. So, why is he failing?

Why coaches fail is a problem that has to be anlayzed case by case. IMO, it is either a failure in his coaching plan, a lack of talent on the roster --but more than likely a combination of the two.

[33]

You mention having a pass oriented HC as a key to success. You seem to be living in the glory days of the WCO. Been awhile since a WCO team has dominated the league. Gruden did it with a great defense, Vermeil won with Martz Coryell passing attack, Shanahan won with Elway, and Holmgren won with Favre. Non SB-winners include Reid and Holmgren in Seattle. Otherwise, I think it's safe to say that recent success by NE, Indy, Pitt, NYG, TENN, points to a HC who turns over Coordinating duties to coordinators and has a strong defense. Not to mention having lots of talent at their disposal.

[MassSkinsFan]

OF,

I think this is an interesting post. Thanks for that.

The Pats may have begun this precedent, as we see now with Brady being shown to not be indispensible to the team. Whether or not an organization actively pursues a QB shuffle, having the option is certainly an advantage in my mind as it provides more flexibility around deal-making and draft.

As for your assertion that it is all about scheme, well, like any argument that is all or nothing I can't buy it 100% because very few things are all or nothing. The disadvantage of playing for a coach with zero leadership skills is not readily apparent to most, but it is a factor. I've played under both leaders and sheep for HCs, and good leadership certainly accentuates the existing talent and schemes by providing a spark that contributes to more diligent execution in most cases. Poor leadership tends to have the opposite effect, demotivating players and leading to ho-hum execution and mistakes. Of course, these too are generalizations, but there is truth there. Though this is not the most objective evidence, have a look here for a list of Super Bowl winning HCs and you'll see that even the ones who were "laid-back" publicly had a burning intensity and commanded the respect of their players. Since this is not quantifiable and therefore not objective evidence, I don't expect it to sway you, but I do think there is a correlation between good leadership and success.

I have to say that when you mentioned mechanics two words popped into my head: Billy. Kilmer. I think it's important in many cases, but not the be-all and end-all.

I agree that consistency in management (and I believe you asserted that the management is a triumvirate of Owner, GM and HC) is critical. Learning from mistakes and continually improving the system is a vital activity that must happen in order to produce a winner. Players who believe in their management will more willingly embrace those changes and actively work to make them productive.

Thanks again for starting this thought-provoking thread.

[Dark Acre]

Didn't Norv keep Miami out of the playoffs some years back when with a few minutes left against the Jets, and a 3 point lead, they're in if they run out the clock? I recall listening to the game on the radio -- Ricky Williams had run for nearly 200 yards already -- 3 straight incompletes, a punt, Jets get FG and win in OT. That's Norv for ya.

[TheLongshot]

Why coaches fail is a problem that has to be anlayzed case by case. IMO, it is either a failure in his coaching plan, a lack of talent on the roster --but more than likely a combination of the two.

Well, my point is the "coaching plan" usually doesn't have much to do with the X's and O's, which is what you put in Norv's favor. Norv is a good X's and O's guy, but I don't think he's a good manager.

[paintrain]

Norv took a team with a top 5 defense, a top 10 QB, a top 5 RB, a top 3 TE, a top 5 OL and transformed them from a 13-3 team to a 11-5 team to an 8-8 team. The lesson that Norv taught me? He's still a crappy head coach.

He's a helluva offensive coordinator, but I don't want him running anything other than that.

[BleedinBurgNGold]

The only thing about this team that has been stable is Management. 10 years, Two Double digit win Seasons, 3 Playoff Appearances. (1 Double Digit win season if you dont count Dannys first 6 months as an Owner back in 99 and 2 Playoff appearances under the same) Nuff Said

[Dark Acre]

Norv Turner is neither a good head coach nor a great, nor even hellevan, offensive coordinator. He's lived off the myth he created while with Dallas and a whole bunch of cohesive talent. He's a fraud.

[MassSkinsFan]

This is an aspect that Zorn might still be learning. I know there are those who are concerned with how much responsibility he takes up, but he also says he delagates a lot of that responsibility. Does he delagate enough? Does he have his eyes on what is important for a Head Coach to have his eyes on? I don't know. I do hope that Zorn takes a hard look at that as well in the offseason.

Delegation is tricky. If you have a delegate who kicks ass, you can really lean on them, but still need to keep an eye on their work so it doesn't "drift" from the strategic goal. This requires occasional "adjustments" where you air differences and re-focus on the end goal. Done well, this reinvigorates you and your delegate so the goal is in even sharper focus.

Those who aren't so good require a lot more oversight. Depending upon how poorly someone performs in a delegate role, you might waste more time managing them than it is worth; it would be more efficient to perform the work yourself. However, if you have good assurance that a person like this can learn new tricks, it is worth your time since this is actually mentoring and will pay off later.

The higher up in the organization you go the more critical it is that your delegation is effective, and the harder it is to truly know if it is. It gets better over time as you learn the job and pick up on ways to spot-check the effectiveness. I'm sure you're right that Zorn is experiencing some growing pains in this area.

If JZ is adaptable and intelligent, he should improve in terms of his delegation and management. So, the question is: is he a smart mutant or an idiot?

[Oldfan]

I've always said QB is the most important position in football.

No one doubts that. But, it's clear that you give the position far more weight than you should. I think every QB who ever played has said that they get more credit and blame than they deserve, but you don't believe them.

A 5 loss difference on a team b/c of one position. I'd say I was proven right.

I didn't see a smiley. I can't believe that you typed that line with a straight face.

Lack of any passing game whatsoever. Portis running against 10 man boxes every game. Or had you forgotten the 2004 season?

You know, your arguments would be taken more seriously if you could curb your tendency to exaggerate. Ten-man boxes?

And how do YOU explain the absolute failure of the Broncos to replace Portis?

As explained in the OP, no strategy will work if you can't evaluate talent. The Broncos not only couldn't find someone as good as Portis (which isn't that hard) but they also couldn't replace the parts on their O line which went downhill.

Still, they traded off a couple other RBs to Detroit and Cleveland for spare parts.

Of course I do. Right now, without question. Cassell has shown to be a better qb in every aspect of the game.

Footballoutsiders.com has Campbell at #16 and Cassell at #17. They were pretty close in my estimation.

If it were "scheme"... do you think the Pats would have given Brady that big contract? Or do you think they were dumb for doing so? And how about Manning out in Indy, or McNabb, or Palmer, or any of those guys

.

The QB is the most important position, no doubt. So, they're worth more than players at other positions; but I don't know or care what those guys make.

Are you smarter than the football minds in the entire NFL? Those minds that realize YOU DO NOT TRADE A FRANCHISE QB OR OTHERWISE LET THEM DEPART?

I'm not a humble man, zoony -- but even I don't presume to know what's in the mind of every exec in the NFL. So, tell us how know what they realize?

The Jets cut their franchise QB before last season, so anything's possible.

Coughlin DID lose the locker room. So did Fassel. Which is why the players stopped caring and played like ****.

Baloney.

As much as you would like to do it, you'll never take the human element out of the game. You'll never take emotion out of it. You'll never take ability out of it.

I take the bull out of it, not the ability of the players.

Why teams win consistently or lose consistently can be explained 99% of the time as a failure of the plan, a lack of talent, or a combination of the two.

[Oldfan]

Norv took a team with a top 5 defense, a top 10 QB, a top 5 RB, a top 3 TE, a top 5 OL and transformed them from a 13-3 team to a 11-5 team to an 8-8 team. The lesson that Norv taught me? He's still a crappy head coach.

You post tells me that you don't know much about the Chargers situation, but it wouldn't matter if you had the facts straight.

[paintrain]

You post tells me that you don't know much about the Chargers situation, but it wouldn't matter if you had the facts straight.

Please correct me wise sage.

[Oldfan]

Well, my point is the "coaching plan" usually doesn't have much to do with the X's and O's, which is what you put in Norv's favor. Norv is a good X's and O's guy, but I don't think he's a good manager.

What I'm calling the "coaching plan" includes the teaching of techniques, the strategies of the game, the playbooks and the playcalling.

[zoony]

I meant to say 8 & 9 man boxes, no exaggeration, simply a typing mistake on my part. Apologies.

[TheLongshot]

What I'm calling the "coaching plan" includes the teaching of techniques, the strategies of the game, the playbooks and the playcalling.

Which are often done by the HC's subordinates. The HC manages the people who do all of these things. While the HC usually sets the direction, they don't usually do these things themselves. The fact that they are good at those things doesn't mean that they would be good at manageing other people doing those things.

Norv is a great OC and a mediocre head coach.

[Oldfan]

Please correct me wise sage.

I'll give it a try.

Marty had zero playoff wins in five seasons. Norv is at four playoff wins in two seasons and counting.

Marty was 9-7 in 2005 then 14-2 in 2006 with the same talent. The difference was in strength of schedule. Norv didn't inherit 14-2 talent

Philip Rivers played inconsistently in the first half of 2007 while adjusting to Norv's downfield approach. He steadily improved since then and is now playing the best football of his career.

With the GM's blessing, Norv fired Ted Cottrell and replaced him in midseason with Ron Rivera who has the defense playing far more aggressively. the Chargers are giving up six points fewer per game since Rivera took over.

Their only legit pass rusher Merriman was lost for the season.

They've had injuries on the O line, LT and Gates have been playing hurt since last season, and still the Chargers are averaging 27.4 points per game. Four of their losses were by three points or less including the Ed Hochuli fiasco in Denver.

[Oldfan]

Norv is a great OC and a mediocre head coach.

By all accounts, Norv is intelligent and well-organized. I criticize him as weak on personnel evaluations, most criticise him on the motivation factor, which I discount.

I think his Coryell scheme is losing ground in today's NFL. It's just too hard to protect for seven step drops.

[paintrain]

I'll give it a try.

Marty had zero playoff wins in five seasons. Norv is at four playoff wins in two seasons and counting.

Marty was 9-7 in 2005 then 14-2 in 2006 with the same talent. The difference was in strength of schedule. Norv didn't inherit 14-2 talent

Philip Rivers played inconsistently in the first half of 2007 while adjusting to Norv's downfield approach. He steadily improved since then and is now playing the best football of his career.

With the GM's blessing, Norv fired Ted Cottrell and replaced him in midseason with Ron Rivera who has the defense playing far more aggressively. the Chargers are giving up six points fewer per game since Rivera took over.

Their only legit pass rusher Merriman was lost for the season.

They've had injuries on the O line, LT and Gates have been playing hurt since last season, and still the Chargers are averaging 27.4 points per game. Four of their losses were by three points or less including the Ed Hochuli fiasco in Denver.

So other than me being off on the record from '06 (which by the way makes Norv look worse) where did you factually correct me? The playoff record is one that you are right at, although Marty never won anywhere in the playoffs.

Lesson Bill Parcells Taught Me-You are what your record says you are. So to use the excuse 'the schedule' is why they were 14-2 one year and 11-5 the next and 8-8 this year doesn't hold water.

Sure, the loss of Merriman was huge and the defense struggled mightily early this year, but the facts remain that the talent was largely the same as last 2 years when they were in the top 5.

Rivers struggled in early '07, ok, I'll give you that. What's that got to do with why they were 4-8 entering December in '08?

He's a great offensive mind and a great offensive coordinator. A great head coach? Not so much.

[GoCommiesGo]

By all accounts, Norv is intelligent and well-organized. I criticize him as weak on personnel evaluations, most criticise him on the motivation factor, which I discount.

I think his Coryell scheme is losing ground in today's NFL. It's just too hard to protect for seven step drops.

Take it for what you want. My great uncle used to be real good friends with the Redskins of the 80's and 90's. Had Gibbs over for dinner and all that fun stuff.

He's met Norv several times and according to players of the past he was just to nice. He wasn't a good leader.

Take it for whats it's worth.

[33]

Marty had zero playoff wins in five seasons. Norv is at four playoff wins in two seasons and counting.

I was unaware that Norv won three playoff games last season. How come I didn't see him at the Super Bowl?

[The Sisko]

You know Oldfan, I have no choice but to give you a 10 for originality and a 10 for presentation. Sadly you only get a 1 for execution.

Sure Cassel was pretty good in NE this year. However, I think some team is going to get gyped out of a 1st round pick (assuming the Patsies franchise him) because they failed to realize that at this point, Cassel is an average QB (note that he and Campbell are statistically very similar) and may never develop into a dominant one. Sure he improved a lot over the course of the season. However, he did so against opponents that collectively had a .480 winning pct.

QBs are notoriously difficult to project in the NFL. OTOH, RB is a case where college skills translate pretty well to the NFL so it's easier to evaluate them. Therefore, I seriously doubt Denver's RB system can be replicated with QBs. And even if it could, what GM is going to risk his job by trading away an established QB for a guy that may or may not be able to cut the mustard?

In short, your theory is based on one isolated case (Cassel) that has yet to be tested over the long haul against tough competetion. Furthermore, this player plays an altogether different position than the system you cite as an example.

Nice thought but it's just not gonna happen.

[Oldfan]

Sure Cassel was pretty good in NE this year. However, I think some team is going to get gyped out of a 1st round pick (assuming the Patsies franchise him) because they failed to realize that at this point, Cassel is

I agree with you on Cassell. I think you have my position confused somehow.

QBs are notoriously difficult to project in the NFL.

My premise is that Jim Zorn will be better at it than other "experts."

And even if it could, what GM is going to risk his job by trading away an established QB for a guy that may or may not be able to cut the mustard?

One that understands the strategy and has the owner's support.

In short, your theory is based on one isolated case (Cassel)..

No it isn't. Cassel was an afterthought inspired by a post by zoony.

[whatmeworry]

I think Zorn has the talent to create a quarterback-friendly scheme that will maximize their potential. I think we should re-sign Campbell to a hard-bargained contract and then trade him for draft picks after he has a good year in 2009. Then, we repeat the process with Colt and Colt's replacement. If we draft well, we can be sitting pretty after a few trades. I think Z should add a QB out of the draft every year to keep the shuffle moving.

That's assuming you can draft an NFL calibre qb in the late rounds year after year. There have been a few notable exceptions but the best ones have been had in the early rounds. Besides this isn't what Norv is doing anyway. Do you think he would actually trade Rivers?

[Oldfan]

That's assuming you can draft an NFL calibre qb in the late rounds year after year. There have been a few notable exceptions but the best ones have been had in the early rounds. Besides this isn't what Norv is doing anyway. Do you think he would actually trade Rivers?

We don't necessarily have to hit on a late rounder every year. Every other year would do it.

No, I brought Norv into the discussion on this point only to draw the comparision with Zorn of two coaches with a reputation for improving QBs. The inspiration for the "QB shuffle" came from Denver, not from Norv.

[ddub52]

The premise is that Zorn will create consistent QBs. You have to argue that and tell me why you don't think so. Just labeling the idea "ridiculous" isn't an argument.

LOL He doesnt have to do anything.He can call it ridiculous all he wants to. If you dont find it credible, o well