You're the Coach: How do you Win?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Pep talks.

Lots and lots of pep talks.

In all seriouness, if I was the coach of an NFL team, my only real goal would be to win my division. I would draft and sign players based on the strengths and weaknesses of my division opponents. I would run whatever offense or defense work best against the teams I considered the most dangerous in my division.

The Steelers and Ravens have basically been in competition with each other for 11 years. It hasn't seemed to hurt them. The Jets are built to beat the Patriots. It's an approach that has gotten them to the AFCCG twice.

I figure that if I put together a team that wins its division every other year, I'm not in serious danger of getting fired - at least until I reach year 6 or 7 and people are saying, "When are you going to win a Super Bowl." And the NFL playoffs have basically turned into the NCAA tourney; once you make the playoffs, you have a decent enough chance of advancing.

On the player front, the only position I really stay up nights worrying about is QB. You can't win in the NFL without at least a Joe Flacco-level QB. I'd also really really really want a top-flight CB - even more than a left tackle. If you are good at those positions, you can cover up a hell of a lot of weaknesses.

---------- Post added June-16th-2011 at 12:13 PM ----------

Get the 53 players on the roster who despise losing the most. Ive just never seen anything good come from being a good loser.

What if the 53 people you meet who despise losing the lost are all Chinese men who are less than 5'5 in height?

What do you do then, smart guy?

[MartinC]

What if the 53 people you meet who despise losing the lost are all Chinese men who are less than 5'5 in height?

What do you do then' date=' smart guy?[/quote']

Table Tennis ?

[Oldfan]

...if I was the coach of an NFL team' date=' my only real goal would be to win my division. I would draft and sign players based on the strengths and weaknesses of my division opponents.[/quote']On taking over in Detroit, Jim Schwartz said that he would build his team to win the December cold weather games in his division. I can see some sense in that. But, how would you build for the NFCE?

You have the Eagles who play one style of football, the Giants who play another, and the Cowboys who, like us, haven't figured out what kind of football they want to play?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

On taking over in Detroit, Jim Schwartz said that he would build his team to win the December cold weather games in his division. I can see some sense in that. But, how would you build for the NFCE?

You have the Eagles who play one style of football, the Giants who play another, and the Cowboys who, like us, haven't figured out what kind of football they want to play?

The one thing that all three of the division opponets have over us is a) better quarterbacking and a striking difference in athleticism.

The Skins are a real ****ing mess so this would probably take some time. I think if I looked at the division, the first thing I would say is, "How do I stop DeSean Jackson from scoring two 60-yard TDs every goddamn time he plays us?" And build from there on defense.

I would probably accomplish this by shooting DeAngelo Hall, but I do not like DeAngelo Hall.

The thing is: You can build and build and build until you are the third best team in the conference. But if you are also the third best team in your division, you are ****ed.

This is the problem a team like the Texans have run into. Last year, they cratered, but they had been a pretty good team for about four years - except they seem to go 0-4 against the Colts and Titans. My guess is the Lions are going to be in this same boat soon. What good is improving if you can't consistently beat the Packers and Lions? If you are consistently 2-4 in your division, you are screwed.

[Oldfan]

The one thing that all three of the division opponets have over us is a) better quarterbacking and a striking difference in athleticism.

The Skins are a real ****ing mess so this would probably take some time. I think if I looked at the division' date=' the first thing I would say is, "How do I stop DeSean Jackson from scoring two 60-yard TDs every goddamn time he plays us?" And build from there on defense.

I would probably accomplish this by shooting DeAngelo Hall, but I do not like DeAngelo Hall.

The thing is: You can build and build and build until you are the third best team in the conference. But if you are also the third best team in your division, you are ****ed.

This is the problem a team like the Texans have run into. Last year, they cratered, but they had been a pretty good team for about four years - except they seem to go 0-4 against the Colts and Titans. My guess is the Lions are going to be in this same boat soon. What good is improving if you can't consistently beat the Packers and Lions? If you are consistently 2-4 in your division, you are screwed.[/quote']Teams that can't beat their division opponents won't win their division. That's obvious.

Teams that don't have talent at the QB position and other positions probably won't win their division. That's equally obvious.

But, my question was... how do you build for the NFCE when you have the Eagles who play one style of football, the Giants who play another, and the Cowboys who, like us, haven't figured out what kind of football they want to play?

The Eagles with Jackson and Macklin are a big play offense. The Giants want to play ball control. You can't build with a focus on stopping either on defense without sacrificing the other. Defenses have to be flexible enough to take away what the offense does best; whatever that might be.

I don't think our division rivals are similar enough on offense or defense to build with them in mind.

[DCSaints_fan]

Have better players than the other team.

[Darth Tater]

OF,

Not a field issue but an environmental one. The history of the NFL shows that the ability to take advantage of the changing NFL environment (rules, power vacuums etc) is the MOST important factor in creating a winner. I'd suspect that its generally true to some degree in most of life.

[Oldfan]

OF,

Not a field issue but an environmental one. The history of the NFL shows that the ability to take advantage of the changing NFL environment (rules, power vacuums etc) is the MOST important factor in creating a winner. I'd suspect that its generally true to some degree in most of life.

The ability to adapt to the changing environment. It sounds like you're channeling Darwin. :)But, I certainly agree that it's key and it's universal..

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

But, my question was... how do you build for the NFCE when you have the Eagles who play one style of football, the Giants who play another, and the Cowboys who, like us, haven't figured out what kind of football they want to play?

I had forgotten how much fun it is discussing football with you.

When someone answers your question, you pretend like they didn't and ask it again. Good times.

The Giants ability to run the ball against the Skins seems unrelated to anything other than the fact that they have been able to run the ball at will against us forever. They don't seem to be able to do that to anyone else with the ease they do it against us. I mean, if you can't stop a team from running the ball for 200 yards, football becomes exceptionally difficult. The fact is, though, no one else consistently does that to the Skins - except last year when we kind of stunk against everything.

The Skins are really bad all over the place on defense right now. But they were 31st against the pass and play in a division with Jackson, Maklin, Bryant, Austin, Steve Smith, and Manningham (who had a 92-yard TD reception last year). And there are three QBs who are all capable of making an All Pro team in any given year. So...I would start there. I think you can scheme and trick your way into slowing down a running game unless you are utterly devoid of talent. If you can't stop the pass, you simply can't stop the pass.

But this is getting way too specific. The question is "How do you win?" My answer is "In the division first."

In case anyone has noticed the NFL has become rock/paper/scissors. Last year was a great example. The Steelers simply could not stop the Colts, Pats, Saints, or Packers because those teams could spread out their weak secondary and exploit it without worrying about sacks. They avoided the Colts and Pats but got beat in the Super Bowl. They were rock. The Ravens and Jets were equipped to beat the Pats, Saints, Colts, and Packers but not the Steelers. They were scissors. The Pats, Colts, Saints, and Packers were paper. I think the Jets would have beaten the Packers in the Super Bowl. Alas, they could not get there.

The question for the Jets becomes: Do they try to build their team to beat the Steelers or the Pats? I think they have to stay with the strategy of building against the Pats.

[Oldfan]

LKB: I had forgotten how much fun it is discussing football with you. When someone answers your question, you pretend like they didn't and ask it again. Good times.

Baloney. You didn't answer the question.

This was the question: How do you build for the NFCE when you have the Eagles who play one style of football, the Giants who play another, and the Cowboys who, like us, haven't figured out what kind of football they want to play?

You say you want to stop DeSean Jackson. So, how is stopping him any different than stopping any team in the league with a speed receiver? And, how is this going to help beat Dallas or the Giants?

You say you want to stop the Giants running game. Is stopping this division rival's running game any different than stopping any team's running game? And, if we build a defense with the emphasis on stopping the running game, at the expense of the passing game, how does this help us against Dallas or the Eagles?

My point: You can't build a team specifically geared to beating your division rivals when they don't have common characteristics.

The question for the Jets becomes: Do they try to build their team to beat the Steelers or the Pats? I think they have to stay with the strategy of building against the Pats.

I wasn't aware of this. How have the Jets built specifically to beat the Patriots?

The Patriot's offense is now very different than it was a couple of years ago in the way they attack. Will the Jets have to rebuild their defense now?

[Buck812]

Until the age of 43, I would have agreed with you. Until that time, I played sports with a dogged determination to win.

At 43, playing league volleyball, I decided just to go out, give it everything I had, have fun, and just say to hell with winning or losing.... My game improved considerably. I took the same attitude out on the tennis court with the same result.

My theory is that when you try harder to win, it creates a tension which tightens muscles. Trying harder is a mistake for athletes.

I guess at 47 I still haven’t had my 43 moment yet.

One of my favorite stories to tell about that was when I was 25 and my girl friend at the time and I were playing some friends in a card game. Well I got a little perturbed at her for not putting her best effort into it and sure enough we got into a big argument later.

It began when she ask me “why at 25 I hadn't ever learned to be good loser”

I returned with the question “what was she ever good at” to which she quickly reminded me that she was a pretty good gymnast in school

Next I asked her “how did she get so good at it”

She began to tell me how hard she worked before and after school etc

Then I just had to ask "How did you learn to become such a good loser"

That was pretty much the end of our relationship. lol

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The Patriot's offense is now very different than it was a couple of years ago in the way they attack. Will the Jets have to rebuild their defense now?

I dunno. Ask Rex Ryan.

That's one reason he added CB Kyle Wilson in the first round April to a secondary that already included Antonio Cromartie and Darrelle Revis.

"We tried to build our team to win a Super Bowl and we thought to win a Super Bowl you have to beat New England," Ryan said, via ESPN. "We'll see if that blueprint works or not. We beat them once already."

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2010/11/rex-ryan-jets-are-built-to-beat-the-patriots/1

The Jets put a ton of resources into their secondary because you have to have a ton of good D-backs to handle New England when they spread you out.

Pittsburgh has, like, one and a half good corners. This is why Jordy Nelson is able to go off on them in the Super Bowl.

The Jets basically spent the 2010 off-season with one goal - Stop Wes Welker and Randy Moss at all costs. Hence, their big free agent splurge was Antonio Cromartie and their #1 pick was Kyle Wilson.

Think about that. A team with the best corner in the league - and one that they knew was about to demand big money - spent big money on a #2 corner and drafted a corner.

Right now, I think that with Jackson, Maklin, Smith, Manningham, Austin and Bryant roaming this division, the Skins need to put the majority of their dollars on defense into the CB position.

[The Tris]

I would argue good CBs without a pass rush are next to useless.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I would argue good CBs without a pass rush are next to useless.

The Jets were 8th in sacks and 6th in passing defense.

The Steelers were 1st in sacks and 12th in passing defense. The Titans had as many sacks as the Jets and were 28th in passing defense.

The NFL has become a big play league. You can sack Tony Romo sits to pee four times, but if he gets off a deep pass to Dez Bryant, it doesn't mean much.

[MartinC]

I guess at 47 I still haven’t had my 43 moment yet.

One of my favorite stories to tell about that was when I was 25 and my girl friend at the time and I were playing some friends in a card game. Well I got a little perturbed at her for not putting her best effort into it and sure enough we got into a big argument later.

It began when she ask me “why at 25 I hadn't ever learned to be good loser”

I returned with the question “what was she ever good at” to which she quickly reminded me that she was a pretty good gymnast in school

Next I asked her “how did she get so good at it”

She began to tell me how hard she worked before and after school etc

Then I just had to ask "How did you learn to become such a good loser"

That was pretty much the end of our relationship. lol

So just to be clear you had a girlfriend who was good at 'gymnastics' (flexible I bet) and you screwed it up over a game of cards?

[Buck812]

So just to be clear you had a girlfriend who was good at 'gymnastics' (flexible I bet) and you screwed it up over a game of cards?

Hah When I was 25 it seemed to be easy come easy go. Now at 47 I think I could find a way to live with it. Maybe thats the 43 moment for me Oldfan was talking about? lol

[Oldfan]

I dunno. Ask Rex Ryan.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2010/11/rex-ryan-jets-are-built-to-beat-the-patriots/1

The Jets put a ton of resources into their secondary because you have to have a ton of good D-backs to handle New England when they spread you out.

Pittsburgh has' date=' like, one and a half good corners. This is why Jordy Nelson is able to go off on them in the Super Bowl.

The Jets basically spent the 2010 off-season with one goal - Stop Wes Welker and Randy Moss at all costs. Hence, their big free agent splurge was Antonio Cromartie and their #1 pick was Kyle Wilson.

Think about that. A team with the best corner in the league - and one that they knew was about to demand big money - spent big money on a #2 corner and drafted a corner.

Right now, I think that with Jackson, Maklin, Smith, Manningham, Austin and Bryant roaming this division, the Skins need to put the majority of their dollars on defense into the CB position.[/quote']When you said that the Jets were built to beat the Patriots, I thought you were talking about an extensive, organizational plan along the lines of that which you suggested in this thread. The article you linked talked about adding one cornerback.

"Specifically I felt we needed to get another corner to match up with New England," Ryan said. "So we drafted Kyle Wilson also and that was to try to beat New England and Indianapolis and whoever else got in our way.

[Skinsinparadise]

Until the age of 43, I would have agreed with you. Until that time, I played sports with a dogged determination to win.

At 43, playing league volleyball, I decided just to go out, give it everything I had, have fun, and just say to hell with winning or losing.... My game improved considerably. I took the same attitude out on the tennis court with the same result.

My theory is that when you try harder to win, it creates a tension which tightens muscles. Trying harder is a mistake for athletes.

This makes me think some of an article I read about Derek Jeter versus A. Rodriguez and why Jeter is better in the clutch at least until recently.

A-Rod talked about what goes through his head in big moments in the game, and he talked about wanting to get a hit bad, the team needs it based on the score, he needs to come through for the team to win, etc. the pressure of the moment and what it means to the team is pervasive in his thoughts.

Jeter talked about it in the opposite way. He realizes its a big moment but he blocks it out of his head. He tries to concentrate on the task at hand, relaxes the best he can and zones in on his stroke and what to expect from the pitcher. The moment and what the team needs to win isn't so much pervasive in his thoughts, but getting a good swing and making good contact.

Edit: A-Rod has become a better clutch hitter and I read part of it is he's learned to take pressure off of himself in those situations.

[Oldfan]

So just to be clear you had a girlfriend who was good at 'gymnastics' (flexible I bet) and you screwed it up over a game of cards?

Hah When I was 25 it seemed to be easy come easy go. Now at 47 I think I could find a way to live with it. Maybe thats the 43 moment for me Oldfan was talking about? lol

Funny stuff.

[Darth Tater]

Do you love to win or hate to lose? They are two different mind-sets. Hating to lose creates tension; loving to win creates desire.

[Oldfan]

This makes me think some of an article I read about Derek Jeter versus A. Rodriguez and why Jeter is better in the clutch at least until recently.

A-Rod talked about what goes through his head in big moments in the game, and he talked about wanting to get a hit bad, the team needs it based on the score, he needs to come through for the team to win, etc. the pressure of the moment and what it means to the team is pervasive in his thoughts.

Jeter talked about it in the opposite way. He realizes its a big moment but he blocks it out of his head. He tries to concentrate on the task at hand, relaxes the best he can and zones in on his stroke and what to expect from the pitcher. The moment and what the team needs to win isn't so much pervasive in his thoughts, but getting a good swing and making good contact.

Edit: A-Rod has become a better clutch hitter and I read part of it is he's learned to take pressure off of himself in those situations.

Since we share an interest in psychology, I'll give you a little more of my theory.

It's fine to have the conscious, thinking part of our brain engaged when we are practicing our tennis stroke, but when we go out to play, we want to shut it down completely. What we want is total subconscious reaction. I think this is what athletes describe as the "zone." That part we call "I" becomes a spectator, watching, but not interfering. The action seems to be in slow motion.

It happened to me only once. I spent two hours in the zone during a volleyball tournament. My teammates thought I was on drugs. They said my eyes looked strange.

Everyone laughed when Yogi said, "You can't think and hit at the same time." Yogi was right.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Do you love to win or hate to lose? They are two different mind-sets. Hating to lose creates tension; loving to win creates desire.

Cliches create bad writing.

---------- Post added June-16th-2011 at 08:22 PM ----------

When you said that the Jets were built to beat the Patriots, I thought you were talking about an extensive, organizational plan along the lines of that which you suggested in this thread. The article you linked talked about adding one cornerback.

I never suggested an extensive organizational plan, because I think that kind of thing is foolish in a game where if your quarterback steps on the guard's ankle and blows his achilles during a Thursday walk-through, you are ****ed.

My thoughts are this. Win the division. Do this by getting someone to cover DeSean Jackson and block DeMarcus Ware.

I don't think you can control these things as much as you seem to believe you can. The Pats are still the model everyone wants to copy. But they are 7 years removed from their last title and are probably only top 5 in their conference right now.

All you can really do as an NFL team is put yourself in a position to get hot in January. You do that by winnng your division. You do that by beating the teams in your division.

It's entirely possible that the Ravens are the third or fourth best run team in football over the last 12 years. And they can never make a run to a title, because they are seemingly always a Wild Card team. Playing three games where two of them are certainly on the road is just too tough most of the time. The Titans and Jags have faced a similar issue. The AFC East has generally sucked since the Patriots took off so it's not been a major issue there. But it's really hard to do anything unless you are #1 win in your little four team league.

By the way, I don't think it's as simple as "Passing teams means you need corners." I don't think loading up on corners would help in the AFC South. Brady seems to have trouble when his receivers are not getting separation. Manning has trouble when he is hit. If I was in the AFC South, I would build the most terrifying pass rush I could. Manning hates to get hit. Schaub is made of glass. Tennessee's QBs all generally suck and the best thing you can do to a ****ty QB is hit him a lot.

I don't think building that kind of pass rush is a surefire way to win the NFC East. VIck is too mobile. Romo sits to pee is reasonably elusive. Eli is, well, Eli is weird. I've yet to really figure that dude out.

[NewCliche21]

Cliches create bad writing.

Yeesh, man. I didn't even post in this thread!

[Skinsinparadise]

Since we share an interest in psychology, I'll give you a little more of my theory.

It's fine to have the conscious, thinking part of our brain engaged when we are practicing our tennis stroke, but when we go out to play, we want to shut it down completely. What we want is total subconscious reaction. I think this is what athletes describe as the "zone." That part we call "I" becomes a spectator, watching, but not interfering. The action seems to be in slow motion.

It happened to me only once. I spent two hours in the zone during a volleyball tournament. My teammates thought I was on drugs. They said my eyes looked strange.

Everyone laughed when Yogi said, "You can't think and hit at the same time." Yogi was right.

Agree. And yeah I can relate whether its playing sports, work, etc, if you zone in on the task at hand; get lost in it and find a rhythm, the results tend to come much better. Don't know if you ever read the book, Flow by Csikszenmihalyi but he gets into the idea in depth. He takes it a step further by theorizing that in studies people are happiest when they find that zone, finding that zone and elevating your level of competence in the process gives people a bigger rush then winning/reaching the destination.

Old Cowboys coach, Jimmy Johnson who was a student of social psychology actually refers to that book sometimes as an influence.

[WHALEN]

Score more then the other team.