You're the Coach: How do you Win?

[Redskins4ever]

You do what Jimmy Johnson did with the Dallas Cowboys. You draft to get younger. You keep quality veterans and build through the draft. In three years with the right QB running your offense, and punishing defense, a decent offensive line, a play maker or two at WR and a durable RB, you'll become an instant winner.

[Diesel__44]

The blue print is available and thanks to our owner we have a patent and copyright on it's execution. All that needs to be done is the exact opposite of what Snyder has done the last 12 years.

[LD0506]

Kudos to KD for fostering conversation here yet again.

It's funny, as I read through the responses here and saw so many along the lines of attention to detail, play like you practice, be true to your scheme, etc., I couldn't help but think that we are getting a lot of that now and see articles deriding the staff for being micromanaging anal-retentive dictators. Go figure.

[MassSkinsFan]

Another thing that might have been mentioned, and I think is important, is to simplify your systems as much as you can. This might sound counterintuitive, but finding ways to make a complex system easy for players to digest, memorize and execute will pay off long-term. What's the point in a 10,000 page playbook if no one gets it? This applies to more than just game-planning/play-calling. The guts of a given system can be complicated, but the end users (players and coaches) should find it straightforward and easy to use. Your job includes figuring out how to do this.

[KDawg]

It seems like a consensus that system stuff seems to matter more than character stuff. Either that, or people aren't thinking along those lines (the football/system stuff is great, just wondering how many completly discount the advantage of having someone with positive character and morals).

I think the foundation of a team has to be someone that wants to be a teammate and knows how to be a positive teammate. That doesn't mean that you're a goody two shoes and never in trouble. But it does mean that you're a leader or someone that is willing to be led, and you have your guys backs 100% of the time. The X's and O's don't matter much if you have a team full of individuals who are out for themselves.

Conversely, winning is easy without those things if your talent level is far superior to your opponents. You see that at the interscholastic and intercollegiate levels more often than the pros, though.

[Oldfan]

It seems like a consensus that system stuff seems to matter more than character stuff. Either that, or people aren't thinking along those lines (the football/system stuff is great, just wondering how many completly discount the advantage of having someone with positive character and morals).

I think the foundation of a team has to be someone that wants to be a teammate and knows how to be a positive teammate. That doesn't mean that you're a goody two shoes and never in trouble. But it does mean that you're a leader or someone that is willing to be led, and you have your guys backs 100% of the time. The X's and O's don't matter much if you have a team full of individuals who are out for themselves.

A "team" is a cooperative endeavor. So, obviously, team members must be willing to cooperate. I think it's a mistake to avoid the word "cooperation" and start talking about "character" and "morals."

The Nazis who ran the death camps cooperated extremely well. They followed orders. They were a well-functioning team. That's what you need to win football games. You don't need "character" or "morals." Haynesworth won't cooperate. If he would, no Skins fan would care about his character or his morals.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

- Search until you have a great QB

- build everything around that QB

- win lots of games

[Pwyl]

A "team" is a cooperative endeavor. So, obviously, team members must be willing to cooperate. I think it's a mistake to avoid the word "cooperation" and start talking about "character" and "morals."

The Nazis who ran the death camps cooperated extremely well. They followed orders. They were a well-functioning team. That's what you need to win football games. You don't need "character" or "morals." Haynesworth won't cooperate. If he would, no Skins fan would care about his character or his morals.

You're injecting "morals" into what he said when he specifically excluded them.

[Oldfan]

You're injecting "morals" into what he said when he specifically excluded them.

Quoting KDawg:

...(the football/system stuff is great, just wondering how many completly discount the advantage of having someone with positive character and morals).

[Pwyl]

Quoting KDawg:

Ah I see. But it looks like he goes on to qualify what he means by character and morals:

. That doesn't mean that you're a goody two shoes and never in trouble. But it does mean that you're a leader or someone that is willing to be led, and you have your guys backs 100% of the time.

So.. Carry on.

[The Tris]

Example: In my day, if you had a dominant O-line, a split-T offense was a great strategy, because it used your talent to good advantage. But, if you didn't have a dominant O-line, no amount of hard work on the little things could cover up the fact that you, the coach, gave your team a disadvantage over the competition if you installed the Split T.

What is the most important element to winning in today's NFL: talent acquisition or coaching?

Both are important. Which is most important in everyone's opinion?

[Oldfan]

Ah I see. But it looks like he goes on to qualify what he means by character and morals:

I think KDawg is partially describing the willingness to cooperate, which is neither moral nor immoral behavior. My point is that when you start talking about character or morals and not about cooperation, you're likely to confuse the issue with irrelevant, off-the-field matters.

---------- Post added June-14th-2011 at 11:17 AM ----------

What is the most important element to winning in today's NFL: talent acquisition or coaching?

Both are important. Which is most important in everyone's opinion?

Talent is a much more important factor, IMO. However, the follow-up question is:

In the NFL, with rules geared to equalize the talent among the 32 teams, who can make the most difference, the General Manager or the Coach? That's a much more difficult question for me to answer.

[KDawg]

A "team" is a cooperative endeavor. So, obviously, team members must be willing to cooperate. I think it's a mistake to avoid the word "cooperation" and start talking about "character" and "morals."

The Nazis who ran the death camps cooperated extremely well. They followed orders. They were a well-functioning team. That's what you need to win football games. You don't need "character" or "morals." Haynesworth won't cooperate. If he would, no Skins fan would care about his character or his morals.

You are the best nitpicker... EVER...

You know that not all teams cooperate. And for the record, I think the ability to lead or be lead comes from having sound character and morals. And when I say cooperation is rooted in morals, I mean cooperation for a positive outcome. Cooperation can come in a few different forms... Negative and positive.

It's also my position that the little things include off the field matters.

[The Tris]

Talent is a much more important factor, IMO.

Agreed. Yet I think that the majority of fans think otherwise.

In the NFL, with rules geared to equalize the talent among the 32 teams, who can make the most difference, the General Manager or the Coach? That's a much more difficult question for me to answer.

Where is there a greater difference in the NFL: between the best and worst coach, or the best and worst GM?

[Pwyl]

I think KDawg is partially describing the willingness to cooperate, which is neither moral nor immoral behavior. My point is that when you start talking about character or morals and not about cooperation, you're likely to confuse the issue with irrelevant, off-the-field matters.

I think he's describing a subset of the overall superset of morality that includes things like keeping your word and working hard.

[Oldfan]

You are the best nitpicker... EVER...

You obviously underestimate the importance. As a result, your thinking continues to be confused in the following:

You know that not all teams cooperate.

Teamwork is essentially cooperation. If the members don't cooperate, it's not a team. If they don't cooperate very well, it's not a very good team.

And for the record, I think the ability to lead or be lead comes from having sound character and morals.

I know you do. That's why you are confusing character and morals with cooperation.

The ability to lead and be led are amoral. They have no moral quality. Leaders can lead or mislead. Often, it is our moral duty not to be misled.

And when I say cooperation is rooted in morals, I mean cooperation for a positive outcome. Cooperation can come in a few different forms... Negative and positive.

Winning a football game is a positive outcome, but it is neither morally good or morally bad.

It's also my position that the little things include off the field matters.

I know. That's where you've gone wrong.

[Mahons21]

What is the most important element to winning in today's NFL: talent acquisition or coaching?

Both are important. Which is most important in everyone's opinion?

I think they kind of work hand in hand. Talent acquisition needs to be done properly, which means not always acquiring the most talented player available but rather acquiring the best fit for your team.

Don't get a cover corner if you run a lot of zone, don't get a 34 OLB and play him on the strong side of a 43 line.

In addition to the scheme players should also compliment one another. If you acquire one player you shouldn't have to change your scheme and force someone else to play to their weaknesses, nor should the acquired player be put in a position where they don't get to play to their strengths.

[The Tris]

I think they kind of work hand in hand. Talent acquisition needs to be done properly, which means not always acquiring the most talented player available but rather acquiring the best fit for your team.

Don't get a cover corner if you run a lot of zone, don't get a 34 OLB and play him on the strong side of a 43 line.

In addition to the scheme players should also compliment one another. If you acquire one player you shouldn't have to change your scheme and force someone else to play to their weaknesses, nor should the acquired player be put in a position where they don't get to play to their strengths.

Some might say the first step to winning is establishing a plan of effective talent acquisition.

[MassSkinsFan]

Regarding morals/character and off-field issues, I believe that Oldfan is correct in that a team of bad characters can play excellent football, but I also think it's wrong to say the off-field stuff has no impact. Part of team membership is reliability, and when your ass has been thrown in jail because you were fighting dogs, sexually assualting a waitress, shooting yourself, etc., you're letting down your teammates if it results in you being unavailable.

Do I think good character and morality is the essence of a good team? No. But having those things can cut down on the headaches and make the teaching and discipline easier.

:2cents:

[Oldfan]

Some might say the first step to winning is establishing a plan of effective talent acquisition.

The first step sequentially isn't necessarily the most important. Besides, part of your plan would include identifying the schemes so that you'd know what kind of players would fit it.

[Mahons21]

Some might say the first step to winning is establishing a plan of effective talent acquisition.

I would agree, so long as the plan is constantly changing. Player acquisition for a team in the dumps is very different then player acquisition for a team that is on the cusp of being competitive or a team that is already competitive.

I almost started a thread about this the other day, but thankfully KDawg has already sparked some real football talk that has brought the overly active members out of hiding this week(myself included).

My question is, what do you value more complimentary players or talented players?

Some say in the end talent trumps all and 9 times out of 10 the more talented team will win, I however disagree.

A perfect example is the NBA finals, and basketball is not even half the team sport football will ever be.

[KDawg]

I know. That's where you've gone wrong.

Really? Interesting.

I think you're horrendously off base and wrong here. But to each their own

[Mahons21]

Really? Interesting.

I think you're horrendously off base and wrong here. But to each their own

Why in your opinion are off the field issues so important if people aren't losing time with their teammates?

-Michael Irvin, stabbed someone in the neck, smocked crack, and still won how many rings?

-Ray Lewis took part in murdering a man, still one of the greatest LB's of all time

-LT snorted coke on the regular, the greatest LB of all time

-Jamal Lewis sold Kilo's of coke

-and so on...

Point is plenty of bad apples outside of the game of football are able to work cohesively with their team to win games. While it maybe shouldn't be all together ignored, it honestly isn't all that important.

[Oldfan]

Regarding morals/character and off-field issues, I believe that Oldfan is correct in that a team of bad characters can play excellent football, but I also think it's wrong to say the off-field stuff has no impact. Part of team membership is reliability, and when your ass has been thrown in jail because you were fighting dogs, sexually assualting a waitress, shooting yourself, etc., you're letting down your teammates if it results in you being unavailable.

Do I think good character and morality is the essence of a good team? No. But having those things can cut down on the headaches and make the teaching and discipline easier.

:2cents:

Let me put it this way. As Atlanta's coach, I would consider Vick's unwillingness to put in the time to grasp the offense much more of a problem than the concern that he might someday be thrown in jail for dog fighting.

And, I would consider Plaxico's unwillingness to cooperate in my program more of a problem than worrying that he might someday shoot himself and get tossed in jail. In fact, I would probably feel relieved that he was no longer my headache.

As for Haynesworth, in Shanahan's shoes, I'd be rooting for jail time to break the contract.

[KDawg]

Why in your opinion are off the field issues so important if people aren't losing time with their teammates?

Never said anything about "issues".

-Michael Irvin, stabbed someone in the neck, smocked crack, and still won how many rings?

-Ray Lewis took part in murdering a man, still one of the greatest LB's of all time

-LT snorted coke on the regular, the greatest LB of all time

-Jamal Lewis sold Kilo's of coke

-and so on...

Those guys established the ability to have a good moral code in relationship with teammates, for the most part. And for the record, this discussion isn't just in regards to the NFL, but to any level you want it to be