Why Mike McCarthy is the worst coach in the NFL and why that matters to the Redskins

[Ghost of]

But so much of this is just increasing your chances in the margins.

I don't buy into the Great Man theory

I also feel like you can't have this conversation without discussing Al Davis. He was the greatest visionary genius in NFL history for 25 years. And a total loon for 25 years despite the fact that he was pretty much always doing the exact same thing.

I might argue that, regarding Davis, you overlook how he may have changed. Did he always treat players like Allen, or coaches like he did at the end,or that the salary cap era meant his methods and approach were outdated, or that scouting by measurables made sense before ubiquitous scouting?

Are you a Tolstoyan when it comes to history? I think you're only saying that the Great Man is the QB not the GM or coach.

Also, doing what you did before that works is a good way to get killed out here on these streets. The larger environment helps shape available teleological approaches to change, just as the cultural within both provides and constrains possibilities.

It seems you could make this argument with every human organization or institution. I think it discounts how history is made by relatively small portions of any population but I guess that needn't preclude your take on football franchises.

[Ghost of]

2000-2015 has been so god awful that the origins of the collapse, now 23 years and still going, have been totally forgotten and those origins were the horrible Norv years, that tells you something.

Has it been that bad? Why leave off 99? I expect more, no doubt but you remember 2005, if Brunell doesn't get hurt vs the Giants, we probably make the SB. 2012, again a qb injury is probably the only reason the team doesn't get to the SB. Can all teams say they were that close or were relatively good?

[TheItalianStallion]

Has it been that bad? Why leave off 99? I expect more, no doubt but you remember 2005, if Brunell doesn't get hurt vs the Giants, we probably make the SB. 2012, again a qb injury is probably the only reason the team doesn't get to the SB. Can all teams say they were that close or were relatively good?

 

Heck, we might've gone to the SB in 2000 had Brad Johnson not gotten hurt. Also wasn't one of our receivers hurt for much of the year as well?

[skins island connection]

Heck, we might've gone to the SB in 2000 had Brad Johnson not gotten hurt. Also wasn't one of our receivers hurt for much of the year as well?

 

 That was the Ray Finkle 'Laces Out' game, wasn't it? Sorry, watched Pet Detective last night.

Botched Fg attempt at the end of the game, and wasn't the kicker and snapper brothers?

[Gregpeck99]

I agree with those who agree it is all about having a HOF QB.

 

All the noise about Coaches, FO, GM's, unis and stadia is distracting. 

[TheItalianStallion]

 That was the Ray Finkle 'Laces Out' game, wasn't it? Sorry, watched Pet Detective last night.

Botched Fg attempt at the end of the game, and wasn't the kicker and snapper brothers?

 

You seem to be thinking of the botched snap on the FG attempt vs TB in the 1999 (well, calendar year 2000) playoffs. I was referring to the following year, when we had a good D and played well during the first half of the year, but Johnson and one of our receivers got hurt and derailed our offense.

[big z]

Too many people riding Rogers jock. I expect the niners to cover.

[Conn]

Too many people riding Rogers jock. I expect the niners to cover.

The Steelers put up almost 45 points on the 9ers and the 9ers have been getting worse every week. Rodgers will probably be polishing the bench with his ass cheeks by midway through the 3rd quarter.

[TSO]

Look around the league and tell me what you think.

 

Parcells didn't want to play romoSUCKS. To be honest, I can't be bothered to see if Parcells was the one who even picked him.

Brady is the luckiest pick in the history of sports possibly.

Roethlisberger was taken after two admittedly pretty good QBs. And he was nearly passed over for a tackle because Tommy Maddox was in the middle of a long contract.

Rodgers was passed over by everyone.

No one wanted Brees in free agency expect Miami and he nearly went there.

Manning and Luck were obvious overall #1s....and people debated on Manning.

No one on earth saw Wilson being this.

 

And that's pretty much it, right?

 

There's like 8 guys you would want, which gives you a 1 in 4 shot and even then everyone screws it up.

 

Okay, finally got some time to dig into this here... I'm really enjoying this, btw.

 

When I first read this list of yours, it got me thinking how my criteria here would apply to it:

 

I'd say, yes. The FO being sound and, therefore, the process being sound; the amount of resources willingly spent on the position; the system of development; the patience to stick with them and the wisdom to know when to move on. All of this increases your "luck" in finding one.

 

Dividing that into clearer categories: 

 

• A) Sound FO (I believe this is the most significant factor to the rest of the criteria below being implemented properly)
• B ) Resources Willingly* Spent 
• C) Stable System of Development
• D) Patience (with the right guy once he starts)
• E) Wisdom to know when to move on (from the wrong guy)

* "Willingly" here is meant to imply that they brought in QBs without necessarily having an immediate need or due to injury, as well as the willingness to spend valuable resources on the position, not just an undrafted FA here and there or something, or even a cheap veteran Free Agent backup. 

 

So, I want to go through your list and apply this criteria to it for gits and shiggles. Honestly, this is for me more than it's a response for you, I feel like I'm learning something, lol.  

 

1) Parcells and romoSUCKS.

 

I'd say C (romoSUCKS was under Parcells his entire development before starting) and E (even if reluctant, he still benched Beldsoe and played romoSUCKS) apply here.

 

He was undrafted in 2003, and the only draft pick they spent on a QB within a wide range there was in 2001 (2nd rounder on Quincy Carter) so B definitely doesn't apply. Bringing in Drew Bledsoe might be an argument for B, but I'd like to think more than that is necessary. Even after Tony romoSUCKS established himself as the starter, the only QB they drafted was Stephen McGee in the 4th round of the 2009 draft. A definitely doesn't apply, as their FO under Jerry has been just as bad as ours (up until recently, I guess), except Jerry is way better at evaluating talent than Dan.   

 

D doesn't apply in my mind, because as much as he was known for choking, especially at the start, it's not like the Cowboys had a better option and he was playing well enough overall. Not much adversity there for them to be patient about, really.  

 

This one was pretty much luck. 

 

2) Tom Brady and the Pats.

 

A, B, C and E all apply here. A goes without saying, though it gets iffy considering Belichick has final say, which is a negative usually. Still, they've always got solid football people in the GM role and an extensive scouting department. Kraft has been one of the most respected owners in the league.

 

B is quite the intriguing evidence here... wow, just look at the consistency with which they were taking QBs in the draft before AND after Brady: 

 

Year   Rnd                

2014     2    Jimmy Garoppolo

2011     3    Ryan Mallett

2010     7    Zac Robinson

2008     3    Kevin OConnell

2005     7     Matt Cassel

2003     6    Kliff Kingsbury

2002     4     Rohan Davey

2000     6     Tom Brady

1999     7     Michael Bishop

 

And, remember, they drafted both Bishop and Brady while Bledsoe was running the show there.  

 

 C also goes without saying, Brady developed under Belichick the entire time before he started and is still under the same coach 13 years later.

 

 D doesn't apply, though it's arguable. Too easy for it to be considered "patience" with a guy like Brady who had that initial success, even if he started out more as a game manager.  

 

E applies and, just like with the Cowboys, they moved on from Bledsoe. It took some guts, too, because Bledsoe was an established vet playing well but got hurt. Brady was playing well, but the decision to stick with Brady over Bledsoe wasn't exactly easy. Definitely a plus on their end.

 

3) Roethlisberger and the Steelers.

 

A, B and C apply here. 

 

A, again, goes without saying. Sound FO, obviously... like you mentioned, Cowher was able to lose the process here and they took Ben with a first rounder instead of a tackle. The Rooney's... enough said.   

 

Let's take a look at why B applies here (though it's arguably the weakest out of the 5 that apply, imo):                                                    

Year   Rnd                   

2013     4       Landry Jones

2008     5       Dennis Dixon

2006     5       Omar Jacobs

2004     1      Ben Roethlisberger (11th overall)

2003     5      Brian St. Pierre

2000     5      Tee Martin

 

Seems like they woke up a bit after 99, taking QBs in 3 out of the 5 drafts between 2000 and 2004, culminating with the Roethlisberger pick in the 1st round at 11th overall.  

 

C is obvious, he developed under Cowher who emphasized a run-heavy offense and had an elite Defense. Ben didn't have to carry the team even though he started close to right away (I believe he replaced Maddox a few games into the 2004 season). He had huge games where his total yardage was very low and only scored a couple TDs... but that was more than enough. 

 

D was a hard one for me to judge. On one hand, it applies because he wasn't necessarily playing out of his mind to start with... they slowly brought him along as a game manager. On the other hand, he showed he could play that role extremely well. He did lose badly in the AFC championship game his rookie season, when he cost the team with three INTs. He was a first rounder, though, so by default they were going to give him time. I say no to D here taking all that into consideration.      

 

E doesn't apply in my mind. The reason Ben went in was due to injuries to both Batch and Maddox. Ben started the year as the 3rd stringer. Batch got hurt so, by default, he became Maddox's backup. When Maddox got hurt after an ineffective game against the Ravens, Ben went in and the Steelers never looked back. So that was more circumstance than anything on their end in terms of knowing it was time to move on from Maddox.    

 

4) Rodgers and the Packers.

 

A, B, C and E all apply. 

 

 Once again, A goes without saying. Solid organizational structure from the top to bottom. They have a huge Football Operations/Scouting department you can see here. 

 

B clearly applies, lol: 

            

Year   Rnd                

2015     5     Brett Hundley

2012     7     B.J. Coleman

2008     2     Brian Brohm

2008     7     Matt Flynn

2006     5     Ingle Martin

2005     1     Aaron Rodgers

2002     5     Craig Nall

1999     4     Aaron Brooks

1998     6     Matt Hasselbeck

1997     7     Ron McAda

1996     7     Kyle Wachholtz

1995     5     Jay Barker

1993     5     Mark Brunell

1992     9     Ty Detmer

 

They are definitely QB crazy and spend a ton on the position... let's not forget they traded for Favre in 92 as well. It's amazing to look at this list knowing they've got Favre and Rodgers starting for them the entire time throughout.

 

C definitely applies here, no question. Though Rodgers was under Sherman his rookie year, Mike McCarthy was hired largely because he ran the same style of West Coast offense. Rodgers then developed under that same system the rest of his entire career, after getting to sit for another two years before starting.   

 

Development you just don't see anymore, really. McCarthy was said to have been extensively working with and developing Rodgers, we've heard of his "QB school" and what it entailed (working on his hand-eye coordination, finger dexterity, release point - moving it from right beside the ear hole of his helmet to further below it, to give him a smoother release - and even instructing Rodgers to lower his body fat ratio from 15 percent to 12 percent). 

 

So, yeah, perhaps the greatest application of C here in the last decade or so. 

 

 

 D doesn't apply. Rodgers played really well from the start, so they didn't really need to show patience with him as a starter. 

 

Finally, I think E applies, though it's debatable since the whole Brett Favre retiring/not retiring thing dragged on forever and it was a bit of a mess at the end there. But the fact remains that they chose to part ways with him, in the end, which was gutsy. He clearly still had solid play in him as we saw with the Vikings and Jets afterwards. But they went with Rodgers and did so before his rookie contract was up (had they stuck with Favre a year or two more, who knows what would've happened once Rodgers was a FA), so have to give them E in my mind. 

 

5) Brees and the Saints.

 

Only B and C apply here, imho. This one's probably the luckiest of them all.

 

A... I don't think I need to explain why we wouldn't consider the Saints a "sound FO", at least at that point. 

 

B just barely applies. They hardly spent any major draft resources on QB. Speaks to the issue with A, doesn't it? But I give them B because Sean Payton made it his personal mission to bring in Drew, even with the shoulder injury and the questions about his ability. It was a big enough risk for me to say they spent valuable resources, willingly there. Yes, it was only one case, but it was a big one and it was correct.   

 

C applies, I think. Sean Payton went all out building an offense for Drew. And Drew went all out improving his QBing skill set to justify it. Though one caveat is that it happened so quickly, you wonder what "system of development" really was involved.   

 

D and E were simply not factors here. New coach came in and got his new QB. Brees played excellent from the start. No patience was necessary and no wisdom to move on from anyone was needed.

 

6) Manning/Luck and the Colts.

 

A, B, C and E apply here. 

 

A is a bit of a toss up... you can argue their FO isn't exactly sound with that weirdo owner and a GM for most of that time (Polian) who did little outside of having a HOF QB. But at least they're structurally sound. And they seem to put everything on the QB, it's simply their strategy and they stick to it. They do prioritize providing their QB with weapons at WR and TE as well. 

 

B is a tough one to judge, but I think it applies. They hardly spent any resources on the QB position except, wait a second, they spent the first overall pick of the draft on one twice (the most valuable asset any franchise can have). And that's all they needed. It's an amazing stroke of luck that they had the number one pick the year Andrew came out. Or it was a stroke of evil genius if you believe they purposely tanked (which is hard for me considering everyone got fired, but hey, I don't blame anyone for seeing it that way).     

 

C applies in both cases. Manning had Jim Mora, Dungy and Caldwell as his Head Coaches with the Colts, but he always had Tom Moore as a fixture at offensive coordinator the entire time. That's what you call a system of development. Luck got his college coach, Pep Hamilton, to be the offensive coordinator. Consistency.  

 

D doesn't apply here, imo. There was nothing to be patient with, lol. Manning's early INTs and inability to win big games? Meh. He was awesome, otherwise. Luck's had INT issues as well and he's going through it right now, so we'll see... but, like Manning, he has a ton of amazing plays as well as clutch wins. Hard to be impatient there, so they don't get D from me.

 

E applies since they decided to move on from Manning, arguably the greatest QB of all time, and go after Luck. Gutsy and wise.

 

7) Wilson and the Seahawks.

 

A, B, C, D and E all apply. 

 

A is a bit murky... I believe Carrol has final say in personnel (though, when he was hired, Seahawks CEO Tod Leiweke had suggested that Carroll and the GM will have a "collaborative relationship" over control of the team) which is usually not a good thing, structurally. That being said, they have a GM and scouting department that is top notch and it seems like he doesn't go against them much, if at all. Ownership is excellent, and they built the best home field advantage for their team in the NFL. So they get A, and pretty easily, in my mind. 

 

B is a clear yes, just from those first three years they hired Carrol alone (mainly the third year, though). Not much in terms of draft resources in general through the last decade or so... but we know they had a declining Matt Hasselbeck to start with. They traded for Charlie Whitehurst (sending a third rounder and swapping their 2nd rounder with the Chargers) that first year to compete with him. The next year they signed Tarvaris Jackson to a 2 year contract and he ended up starting. We all know what they did in 2012, signing Matt Flynn to a lucrative deal and the drafting Russel Wilson in the third round. Valuable resources were definitely spent.                   

 

C definitely applies... though quite a bit of luck was involved here. They first started Russel Wilson off in a standard West Coast offense, but when our very own Kyle Shanahan and RG3 took the league by storm with the pistol/RO, they incorporated it heavily into their offense and Russel took off. That's development, I guess. Have to give them credit for applying it, though, even if they likely would've never had done so if it wasn't for the Skins offense in 2012.

 

D certainly applies, as Russel has had some ups and downs. He's even had two different points in his career where questions of him being benched were legitimately pondered. They stuck with him, though, and he rewarded them for it.

 

E applies as well, because they had the guts and wisdom to move on from Matt Hasselbeck, Tarvaris Jackson and then Matt Flynn. You could also say they never fooled themselves into thinking Whitehurst was anything more than a third-stringer, even though they had given up valuable picks for him.     

 

....................................................................................................................

 

 

So there you have it. In summary:

 

1) romoSUCKS and the Cowboys = C, E

2) Brady and the Pats = A, B, C, E

3) Ben and the Steelers = A, B, C

4) Rodgers and the Pack = A, B, C, E

5) Brees and the Saints = B, C

6) Manning/Luck and the Colts = A, B, C, E

7)  Wilson and the Seahawks = A, B, C, D, E

 

Tallying them up, we get: 

 

7 C's (Stable system of development)

6 B's (Resources spent)

5 A's (Sound FO) 

5 E's (Wisdom to move on)

1 D   (Patience with the starter) 

 

 

So it seems to me that there's a consistency with all of these guys with regards to the criteria I laid out. Outside of the franchise really being patient with the starter (these QBs pretty much all played well once they started), it looks like all are significant.

 

Of course, I don't believe any are more significant than the talent level of the QB himself. Look at all those names there. They all have impeccable pocket presence and are incredibly accurate with the ball. Some of them are more elusive than others, some have stronger arms, some are harder to tackle, some read defense's better... but I think every one of them are excellent in the pocket and accurate with the ball. It starts there, for me.

 

But I do think this speaks to a process that exists to increase your chance of finding that guy. I suspect that the more you go down to the franchises with the worst QB situations, the more you'll find that these criteria aren't applicable. 

 

 

Now let's look at how our QBs compare (excluding this past offseason):

 

A absolutely doesn't apply. Snyder has been a terrible owner, unfortunately. Poor structure, with him being involved too much too often. No legit GM his entire tenure. Vinny Cerrato, a yes man at the top for a long time who had bad history with personnel in the first place. Head Coaches who also doubled as head of personnel. A scouting department with little to no accountability, often ignored. The best among them consistently would depart to find great success elsewhere. Constant undermining of titles/roles and an atmosphere of individualism instead of teamwork/collaboration.             

 

I won't continue for all of our sanity. 

 

B definitely applies. Even ignoring just how much we gave up to get Robert, we've consistently drafted guys as well: 

 

Year   Rnd               

2012     4   Kirk Cousins

2012     1 Robert Griffin

2008     6   Colt Brennan

2007     6  Jordan Palmer

2005     1 Jason Campbell

2003     7  Gibran Hamdan

2002     1 Patrick Ramsey

2001     4 Sage Rosenfels

2000     6     Todd Husak  

 

Not to mention signing guys like Jeff George, Rex Grossman and Tony Banks; and trading for guys like Mark Brunell and Donovan McNabb. 

 

Huge amount of resources, really. 

 

C definitely does NOT apply. What a complete disaster. Turnover at Head Coach early on was a killer, going from Norv to Shotty to Spurrier to Gibbs within a span of 5 years.

 

Even when we've had the same Head Coach for more than a couple years, we changed offensive schemes or coordinators. Joe Gibbs went from his scheme to Al Saunders', though they were related it was still a big change. Then it was Zorn's West Coast offense, in which he was completely sabotaged the second year and forced to have someone else who wasn't even in the building suddenly call plays. And, finally, the infamous Shanahan's traditional ZBS WCO, to the 2012 Pistol/RO with Robert, back to their more traditional offense again.   

 

Just... anarchy. 

 

 

D certainly doesn't apply. I'm excluding Trent Green here, think it's unfair to include him (though, technically, that's also an example of the importance of the ownership level/sound FO). Brad Johnson was a complete fail with regards to this. Should've definitely stuck with him and been more patient.

 

Tony Banks and Jeff George, lol, they didn't deserve patience and weren't given any. Ramsey wasn't given much time, either, though it's arguable if he deserved it or not.

 

Maybe Mark Brunell is the only example where sticking with a struggling starter worked out for a small period of time, at least... though it's hard to give them credit for that, since Ramsey was named starter going into the 2005 season. Campbell was given a ton of patience.

 

McNabb, Grossman and Beck were given little patience (didn't deserve it, as well). Robert was given patience his second year (first doesn't count, there was no adversity to be patient about, he was awesome) and going into his third. Injuries are a factor here so it's arguable whether he deserved it or not, but little patience was shown after his return from his ankle injury. Would rather not get into that, lol. Kirk has gotten little patience whenever he's started as well. (Remember, not including this offseason/season)

 

E doesn't really apply, either. Shocker, right?

 

Hard to give them credit for "moving on" from guys like Banks, George, Shane Matthews, Grossman and Beck... not like they came with amazing pedigrees or anything. Ramsey is between D and E. Maybe not enough patience shown, maybe they moved on from him wisely. I'd lean towards E here. Brunell they took too long to move on from. Campbell, the same. McNabb is a plus, they moved on quickly and correctly.

 

 

So, we literally get one, B. That's it. 

 

Just B. 

 

That tells me if we can improve at A, C, D and E... or even just two more of those (A being the most significant) we might actually "get lucky" and find ourselves a QB.         

 

I feel like I'm onto something, lol... my God this took forever. I am disgusted with myself right now. One of you punks better enjoy it.        

[Warhead36]

A little bit of luck goes a long way but its not like the Steelers have just been luckier than everyone else for the last 40 years. When you have a system, an identity, and draft/develop talent for that system, you can sustain success. Nobody hits on every draft pick, hell if you get 3 good starters out of one draft that's considered really good and that's still only 3/7.

 

I always laugh when people say the draft is all luck. Sure there are elements of luck but there's a reason the same teams are good every year.

[TheItalianStallion]

Okay, finally got some time to dig into this here... I'm really enjoying this, btw.

 

[one fricking large edit]       

 

I feel like I'm onto something, lol... my God this took forever. I am disgusted with myself right now. One of you punks better enjoy it.        

 

I just copied and pasted that post into Word. Without double-spacing it, it came out to 11 pages. My goodness.......

 

(and yes, I did enjoy it)

[TSO]

I just copied and pasted that post into Word. Without double-spacing it, it came out the 11 pages. My goodness.......

 

(and yes, I did enjoy it)

 

 

I decided to give it its own standalone thread, lol:

 

http://es.redskins.com/topic/393825-a-case-study-in-how-to-get-lucky-with-finding-qbs-you-naughty-little-boy/

[NickyJ]

 That was the Ray Finkle 'Laces Out' game, wasn't it? Sorry, watched Pet Detective last night.

Botched Fg attempt at the end of the game, and wasn't the kicker and snapper brothers?

Punter and snapper, Matt and Dan Turk. Matt was traded in 2000 and Dan died of cancer later that year, sadly.

 

Edit: Interesting stuff, looking back. Dan Snyder looking bad back then, compared to Al Davis. An article written by Alex Marvez in 2001 for those interested: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-09-23/sports/0109220433_1_dan-turk-matt-turk-al-davis

[PokerPacker]

You are going to anecdotal evidence to argue why math doesn't matter, and logic doesn't matter. The packers had fourth and goal within inches of a TD, within a yard of a TD, at the 22 yard line and in the 4th quarter as well. In each chance he eschewed math and logic, and instead went with conservative play calling that actually isn't logically conservative since it was more risky than actually going for it on any of those instances (save the fourth quarter opportunity). It was the wrong decision, across the board. It's old tired thinking from coaches that are habitually fearful of anything except the old standard playbook of cliché's for football. We have math, science and logic now, we should know better, but these coaches don't.

 

He's not the only one and it's embarrassing. You may support it, but you're wrong based on the math.

You keep talking about this supposed math and logic, but you do not show the proof. Show me the proof that the 2014 Packers were better off going for it on 4th and goal against the 2014 Seahawks. I expect to see calculations on not only expected return in terms of points, but also on the probability to win, which does not necessarily follow the highest expected return. Oh, and in your calculations, please take into account Rodgers' bum calf that kept him from sliding around much inside the pocket or escaping pressure. Since you've already done the math, this should be easy.

[TheCoach22]

To add to the primary point of this thread...Mike Tomlin. The guy is a Super Bowl champion and is held in very high regard, but he's an actual idiot. He had an AWFUL game last night and essentially gave CPR to his team's biggest rival on national TV. On numerous short-yardage situations he put the ball in Vick's hands (to pass and run) vs. his incredible RB. He also pushed all the wrong buttons when it came to the kicking game too.

I've never been all that high on Tomlin, but the past couple years have proven to me that coaching success is very circumstantial. He's essentially made his career wearing sunglasses and looking intimidating on the sideline.

I would take him in a heartbeat... Just me. Dropped his name in an interview once justifying a young hire (knee the panel had some Steeler fans on it)... I said something to the effect of, "using a sports analogy, sometimes you bet on a young guy and find a Mike Tomlin, other times you are my team and get the soon to be fired Jim Zorn..." The Steeler fans cracked-up and gave a thumbs-up, the "Dallas fan" looked confused because he didn't really watch football. Still moved on to the final interviews. Tomlin's been my coach crush ever since.

[50yrSKINSfan]

I would take him in a heartbeat... Just me. Dropped his name in an interview once justifying a young hire (knee the panel had some Steeler fans on it)... I said something to the effect of, "using a sports analogy, sometimes you bet on a young guy and find a Mike Tomlin, other times you are my team and get the soon to be fired Jim Zorn..." The Steeler fans cracked-up and gave a thumbs-up, the "Dallas fan" looked confused because he didn't really watch football. Still moved on to the final interviews. Tomlin's been my coach crush ever since.

Tomlin, so over ratted. Falls into a job where a good, not great coach leaves right after a SB win. Team has great players and coaches and a real good young QB and wins a SB his first year. Sounds like George Seifort or Barry Switzer. The Steelers have a good organization with the Roonies but where was that organization from the 30s to the 70s with the Roonies? They get a great coach, in 70, who has a few great drafts and all of a sudden they have the greatest organization in history before free agency. Rumers of steroid use by the Oline at that time overlooked. Then Cower who everyone thinks is wonderful losses 3 AFC Championships at home when he was a double didget fav. Now I think Cower is a good coach but not HOF and I would trade our record with the Steelers in a heartbeat but they did get lucky with Ben.

[The Consigliere]

They're better at a lot of things. I'm not really arguing that.

 

Some GMs are better at selecting players than others. Some coaches are marginally better.

 

But so much of this is just increasing your chances in the margins.

 

I don't buy into the Great Man theory of the NFL whether that person is Belichik, Ted Thompson, or Scotty Mac (whose name I really need to learn how to spell).

 

I also don't really believe in "systems" or offensive or defensive geniuses.

 

Based on numbers I am making up right now, 80 percent of the NFL is a wash because everyone is the same, 15 percent is the marginal differences between my players and your players, and maybe 5 percent is coaching genius - except last night which was insane.

 

But I feel like the Steelers prove this.

 

They were extremely mediocre in the 80s. They were pretty good in the 90s. They seemed to be on the decline a bit. And then - oops - here's a Hall of Fame QB that they nearly passed over. And now they have two more Super Bowl titles.

 

I also feel like you can't have this conversation without discussing Al Davis. He was the greatest visionary genius in NFL history for 25 years. And a total loon for 25 years despite the fact that he was pretty much always doing the exact same thing.

 

 

I have to disagree about great man theory. My inclination is to follow your own thinking, one could call it a Tolstoy reading of what makes for greatness. The problem I run into though, is that when I dig around, I find guys like Parcells, Walsh, Gibbs, Lombardi, Landry, Jimmy Johnson, and the like, guys that bring greatness where they have gone. Parcells would plant himself in NY, New England, NY again, and Dallas, and no matter where he went, a team that was incompetent became competent, or great, Walsh was huge as an assistant in Cincy, huge in Stanford, completely rebuilt the Niners twice, Gibbs II is really the only period in Redskins history the past twenty years in which there was genuine hope and borderline competence, and that was with the worst GM combo in the NFL running player acquisition, Lombardi was a genius as an assistant in NY, much like his co-worker Tom Landry, and both left to build dynasties at their next stop too (Lombardi was also fantastic as a college coach as well), and even Jimmy was a maestro at Miami, at Dallas, and the last coach to actually produce anything of consequence with the Dolphins.

 

The Steelers are an interesting group too, 3 coaches the past 40+ years, great ownership, great and solid coaching respectively.

 

Seems to me that great man theory does apply. You can also see the reverse, certain coaches just seem to exhibit just how bad a situation can be with the wrong man at the top, no matter what the organization is below and above him. Of course you could also point to the reverse, completely incompetent organizations where coaching was totally irrelevant.

 

New Orleans from 1960's till Jim Mora

 

Tampa Bay from 1984-1995

 

Atlanta-Most of their history

 

Niners-under the York's, only Harbaugh was able to alleviate it.

 

Cardinals under the Bidwill's (although recently Bill's son has shown an ability to build something in spit of his father's cheapness)

 

Bears-Horrendous mismanagement by the McCaskey's

 

Lions-Institutional Failure from the Ford Family, or have they just NEVER hired a legit coach?

 

Redskins under Snyder and Jack Kent Cooke's son

 

Cowboys under Jerry since he fired Jimmy

 

Buffalo since Marv Levy Left Ralph Wilson has driven it into the ground (and before Marv it was also a complete disaster)

 

Jets-Seems pretty bad up top although Bowles is a coach we should have hired in 2014.

 

Bengals-Ghastly ownership

 

Browns-Cursed

 

Raiders-Cursed

 

Jags-Irrelevant

 

What makes me believe even more strongly in great man theory is that typically, when these moribund, horrendous, rotten to the core coaches, somehow accidentally get a great coach, Niners with harbaugh, Snyder with Gibbs and Shanny, Cardinals with Arians, Bucs with Dungy, Browns with Schotty, Jags with Coughlin in the nineties, Jets with Bowles and Ryan, Bills with Ryan, Saints with Sean Payton etc.

 

Going with Great man theory kind of messes with my belief in the crucial importance of organizational strength, but regardless, I'm a firm believer that teams don't accomplish squat unless they have the right guy at HC, and then a solid or better F.O. I've seen too many great coaches turn the very same weak roster into a competent one, and poor coaches turn great rosters into garbage (note Shanny turning the worst roster in the NFL, into a 10th worst performance his first year, and seventh worst his second, note what happened to the Chargers after Schotty had turned them into an absolute powerhouse, only for Norv to take the same roster and flush it down the toilet via his "Norv'ness" when it comes to head coaching) for me to believe in anything other than the primacy of great coaching, great front offices, and legit talent being required (especially at QB).

[The Consigliere]

Look around the league and tell me what you think.

 

Parcells didn't want to play romoSUCKS. To be honest, I can't be bothered to see if Parcells was the one who even picked him.

Brady is the luckiest pick in the history of sports possibly.

Roethlisberger was taken after two admittedly pretty good QBs. And he was nearly passed over for a tackle because Tommy Maddox was in the middle of a long contract.

Rodgers was passed over by everyone.

No one wanted Brees in free agency expect Miami and he nearly went there.

Manning and Luck were obvious overall #1s....and people debated on Manning.

No one on earth saw Wilson being this.

 

And that's pretty much it, right?

 

There's like 8 guys you would want, which gives you a 1 in 4 shot and even then everyone screws it up.

 

1. Romo was an undrafted free agent with an interesting pedigree, I require a few draftnik's talking him up fifteen years ago.

 

2. There was a relatively well respected guy in New England who absolutely LOVED Brady. Technically Brady probably should have been cut after the first camp, he was hot and cold, and they had veteran backups in place, this is a team notorious for only keeping 2 QB's on roster, but they specifically found a spot for Brady because of how many people liked him.

 

3. Ben Roth: I can't speak to it though that's basically exactly where he was projected to go, and the Steelers are pretty well known for drafting lineman and front seven guys early, so no surprise that there was somebody they liked and were considering their, and Ben Roth was also almost identical to the circumstances of the Rodgers situation where the coach wanted immediate help, and the F.O. preferred the better long term value and interest of stealing a potential franchise QB who fell to them after a so-so year.

 

4. Rodgers was 1b in that draft. Apparently his confident/****iness really rubbed the Niners and a few other teams the wrong way. Idiots.

 

5. Well, Brees had a shoulder injury that scared the hell out of a lot of docs, quite a few teams were worried it was a permanent deleterious injury there. Intersting to think of what would have happened if Nick Saban and the Dolphins had gotten him, as they were looking likely to do, instead of Payton and the Saints.

 

6. In fairness, there were two knocks on Manning at the time, one stupid, one legit. 1. He didn't have unbelievable or elite, or very good arm talent, he basically graded out average there. When you had Leaf there with outstanding arm talent, it caused some people to go full stupid including me (of course I have the excuse of having known literally nothing about his ghastly mental make up issues, which apparently were notorious all around campus and the locker room) and 2. Peyton always played tight, and tended to choke in big games. Won zero big games in Tennessee, and never won any of his season's biggest games in the NFL until the miraculous upset of the Patriots in part a product of rule changes they had enacted after whining, and because they played one of those once a decade or so fraudulent super bowl teams, the bears. Manning's never been able to win with it all on the line, and his playoff record underlines that. He lacks his brother Eli's Zen Surfer-dude mentality that plays great in super bowls when being relaxed and at ease is HUGE.

 

7. Wilson-McC loved him, and there were some fanboys at CPND, maybe here too. I never considered him because of the size issue. Nobody since LeBaron was able to build a career of quality with his size. I just didn't even dig into it because it seemed irrelevant. Should have realized that he might play a bit like Tarkenton did.

[The Consigliere]

Tomlin, so over ratted. Falls into a job where a good, not great coach leaves right after a SB win. Team has great players and coaches and a real good young QB and wins a SB his first year. Sounds like George Seifort or Barry Switzer. The Steelers have a good organization with the Roonies but where was that organization from the 30s to the 70s with the Roonies? They get a great coach, in 70, who has a few great drafts and all of a sudden they have the greatest organization in history before free agency. Rumers of steroid use by the Oline at that time overlooked. Then Cower who everyone thinks is wonderful losses 3 AFC Championships at home when he was a double didget fav. Now I think Cower is a good coach but not HOF and I would trade our record with the Steelers in a heartbeat but they did get lucky with Ben.

 

The entire league was on roids and coke in the seventies and eighties. Also worth noting that Seifert coached the best team in the NFL in '89 and '90, and the second best from '92-'94, and the Niners went into the toilet after firing him, he was WAY WAY WAY better than Mike Tomlin although like Tomlin, it's worth wondering how good he would have looked with a typical roster, rather than a fantastic one. I think Tomlin is a perfectly fine coach, just not a great one, though I respect that they get the value of going for 2.

[StonewallJackson]

Rodgers is the greatest QB I have ever seen. And yes, I'm serious. He has INSANE accuracy even when he's running full speed. Seems like nearly every game he makes a couple throws that just make my jaw drop.

 

Same.  I've been watching football for a long time and he is the best quarterback I've ever seen.  The command and control he has, along with his arm strength and accuracy is just incredible.  Basically the perfect quarterback.

 

Anyways, as for this thread, I'm not entirely sure what the point is.  I don't think McCarthy is the worst coach in the NFL but it's a disgrace that he's only won one Super Bowl with Rodgers.  A lot of that is on the defense.  How that applies to the Redskins?  I don't know 

When I watch Tom Brady play, I see a guy who has completely mastered the QB position.  He just cannot be stopped.  He sees exactly what the defense is doing and knows precisely where to go with the football.  It's just a matter of his receiver being open.  It's almost unfair that a guy can be that good at such an important position. 

 

Yeah Rodgers is at that level, or beyond.  The amount of offsides and 12 man penalties he creates is immense.  Apparently right after a play ends he's looking over at the other sideline to see which players might be coming in and knows what package the defense will be in before they're even on the field.

 

I'm just happy when we can get a play off without a penalty on US.

Rodgers was drafted one spot ahead of Jason Campbell. That still bothers me to this day.

 

I wasn't too ticked off because I thought Rodgers would bust and I really thought Jason Campbell would be great.  Shows how much I know.

A bit OT maybe...but was thinking last night why Rodgers isn't roasted like P. Manning is...people say he's one of if not the greatest...but he only has one title? 

 

And maybe the biggest choke in a playoff game last year against the Hawks?

 

So maybe youre right..he is the worst coach in the NFL. 

 

Because Manning actually choked and played badly in the playoffs.  With the Packers, it's defense, ST, and coaching that have let them down, not Rodgers.  

[StonewallJackson]

RGIII has more raw talent and ability than Aaron Rodgers and a rookie RGIII was playing the position as effectively as an eighth year Aaron Rodgers in 2012. But RGIII had the misfortune of getting drafted by a dumpster fire team that's one of the three or so worst franchises in the league.

 

This is crazy.  RGIII's peak was still nowhere close to Rodgers.  The myth and legend of 2012 RGIII continues to grow.  

[StonewallJackson]

Just because it's so incredible, I'll post this:

 

Rodgers in his last 16 games in Lambeau:

 

16-0, 35 PPG 

4,631 yards (9.2 Y/A) 

348/501 passing (69.5%) 

46 TDs 

0 INTs 

129.1 passer rating 

[50yrSKINSfan]

The entire league was on roids and coke in the seventies and eighties. Also worth noting that Seifert coached the best team in the NFL in '89 and '90, and the second best from '92-'94, and the Niners went into the toilet after firing him, he was WAY WAY WAY better than Mike Tomlin although like Tomlin, it's worth wondering how good he would have looked with a typical roster, rather than a fantastic one. I think Tomlin is a perfectly fine coach, just not a great one, though I respect that they get the value of going for 2.

I guess you could find a guy or two on every team that has used PED in the early 70s, but the Steelers and Raiders were notorious for drafting O linemen that weighed in at like 225. Then 2 years later they were 275 monsters with arms and legs bigger than every other teams O linemen, hence the bad reputations. I did not mean anything negative against Geo Seifort, I was just implying he fell into a great gig. Without salery cap and free agency and the creative bookeeping  the 49s kept that team together longer so Seifort had the players.

[Hubbs]

You need a hug today or something?  The missus upset she found your porn stash?  Talk to me, I'm listening.

 

I have a porn stash. It's called "the Internet."

[PokerPacker]

How are those calculations coming along?