Jamalisms Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 There are only a handful of QBs that truly elevate teams. The rest are varying degrees of average. Is it OK for teams to stop trying to find elite QBs? Just as much a crap shoot as coaches. Why bother once you have Fitzpatrick... or in Mularkey's case, why bother once you have Locker? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, Jonboy said: Ehhhhh....I disagree guys. To me, this feels like a desperate argument to try and make us feel better about the organization giving the entire fanbase the Bud Adams double-bird. How are we defining a "few coaching exceptions?" Because I can think of quite a "few:" Mike Zimmer- Is there anyone who would deny his impact on the Vikings? I'm not sure anyone expected such a quick turnaround. Bruce Arians- Again...any arguments here? The guy has done an incredible job at cleaning up after Whiz and has the Cardinals back in the upper echelon of teams. Andy Reid- Say what you want, his teams are consistently in the playoffs and he's proven what he can do with a variety of different players in both Philly and KC. Todd Bowles- The guy nearly made the playoffs in his first year as HC with Ryan freakin' Fitzpatrick as his QB. John Harbaugh- Already has a Super Bowl and consistently keeps the Ravens in contention. Jim Harbaugh- No, he's not in NFL anymore, but the 49ers were crap before he got there and they were crap after he left. Marvin Lewis- Laugh if you want. I doubt he'll ever be elite, but his teams consistently compete for division titles against the likes of the Ravens and Steelers. He's also won with different QBs and different skill position players. Pete Carroll- Surely I don't need an argument here. Bill Belichick- Or here. That's 9 coaches right there. Yes, players are absolutely more important than coaches, but to pretend that coaching doesn't matter might be one of the most absurd arguments I've seen. You guys are hoping Mariota is another Manning or Rodgers who could win with "average" coaches like Dungy and McCarthy. Are we really going to put Mularkey on that level? Heck, I hope he can be that elite too, but what if he's just as good as someone like Flacco or Rivers? Then it sure would've been nice to have an above average coach who can help hide other deficiencies. Look at that rosters of those coaches and get back to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonboy Posted January 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, oldschool said: Look at that rosters of those coaches and get back to me. 10 minutes ago, Jonboy said: Yes, players are absolutely more important than coaches, but to pretend that coaching doesn't matter might be one of the most absurd arguments I've seen. What exactly would you expect me to find if I took you up on the offer to research those rosters? That the rosters suck, but a good coach elevated them to not sucking? Is that the only thing that would justify "elite" or even "good" coaching in your mind? Pretty tough standard and insanely difficult to judge or research. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 Just now, Jonboy said: No one said coaching doesn't matter. Only that the majority of HC's are grouped close together. Give Mularkey the Broncos or Panthers and he's going to win like Kubiak and Rivera have this year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonboy Posted January 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, oldschool said: No one said coaching doesn't matter. Only that the majority of HC's are grouped close together. Give Mularkey the Broncos or Panthers and he's going to win like Kubiak and Rivera have this year. 1 hour ago, Superhorn said: There will be all sorts of hand wringing and finger pointing between those that did and did not support Mularkey in this fan base, but the reality is that - on the average - coaching just doesn't matter at the NFL level. I disagree that "on average" it doesn't matter. And it's easy to say if you give Mularkey to the Panthers this year. But what about the previous years Rivera spent helping to groom Cam and get them to where they are now? Could Mularkey have done that? I doubt it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rns90 Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 1 minute ago, oldschool said: No one said coaching doesn't matter. Only that the majority of HC's are grouped close together. Give Mularkey the Broncos or Panthers and he's going to win like Kubiak and Rivera have this year. That's basically it. The argument is that most of these guys are the same and if you give them enough talent, you will win. I do think that head coaches do have a resposibility to motivate the players or at least keep the locker room/clubhouse harmonious. If they can't do that, they are pretty much toast (Wiz and Kelly as examples). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superhorn Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 47 minutes ago, Jamalisms said: If you prefer not to use the equivalent of two full seasons, we can use his whole record to make the same point. It's almost as terrible. As I said on the podcast, anyone who wants to argue that coaching hardly matters is free to do so, provided they don't complain about coaching elsewhere. If coaching matters, his record - absent equally redeeming things (that don't exist) to offset it on his resume - is compelling enough. Bill Walsh ... was SF his second gig as head coach in the NFL? If not, it seems an even worse comparison than Belichick. You guys don't aim low with the comparisons for Mularkey... though with these comparisons, nobody is allowed to be a bad coach. Bill Walsh isn't a perfect analog. There isn't one. Mularkey is his own coach with his own circumstances. Furthermore, I won't begin to pretend that Mularkey is Walsh, by any stretch. The point with Walsh (or Parcells, or Carroll, or countless other great HCs) is that he was on the brink of being fired without a great QB. This is a recurring theme in NFL history. Rare are the instances where a coach continually wins without a franchise QB. Coaching does matter, but, I suppose my issue is just pointing to his record as a blanket statement. There are others that I respect that hate the Mularkey hire because he appeared to lose the team last year for instance. While I don't totally agree with that stance, I think it has far more substance - and is more germane to this discussion - than the record a coach produced with JP Losman, Kelly Holcomb, Blaine Gabbert, and Chad Henne as the quarterbacks. Like most things, I think the "why" is just as relevant as the "what". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 9 minutes ago, Jonboy said: I disagree that "on average" it doesn't matter. And it's easy to say if you give Mularkey to the Panthers this year. But what about the previous years Rivera spent helping to groom Cam and get them to where they are now? Could Mularkey have done that? I doubt it. How could you possibly know Mularkey couldn't have helped bring Newton along? Ill answer for you. You don't. You are coming across as a petulant child with all this anyone but Mularkey crap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonboy Posted January 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 1 minute ago, oldschool said: How could you possibly know Mularkey couldn't have helped bring Newton along? Ill answer for you. You don't. You are coming across as a petulant child with all this anyone but Mularkey crap. Lol. Show me where I said I "know" anything about what he would've done with Newton. You're the one who suggested he would've had the exact same results this season. And "anyone but Mularkey?" When have I ever said that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superhorn Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 13 minutes ago, Jonboy said: I disagree that "on average" it doesn't matter. And it's easy to say if you give Mularkey to the Panthers this year. But what about the previous years Rivera spent helping to groom Cam and get them to where they are now? Could Mularkey have done that? I doubt it. That's really difficult to evaluate. It's also unclear how much grooming Rivera - a defensive coach - did with Cam. And, it wasn't long ago that many believed Rivera should be, or would be, fired. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonboy Posted January 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 Just now, Superhorn said: That's really difficult to evaluate. It's also unclear how much grooming Rivera - a defensive coach - did with Cam. And, it wasn't long ago that many believed Rivera should be, or would be, fired. It's about as difficult to evaluate as asking how Mularkey would've done in the same time frame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rns90 Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 1 minute ago, Superhorn said: That's really difficult to evaluate. It's also unclear how much grooming Rivera - a defensive coach - did with Cam. And, it wasn't long ago that many believed Rivera should be, or would be, fired. So would you say that the coordinators/position coaches that the HC hires are just as important? And what do you think about the new guys that Mularkey has hired? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superhorn Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 16 minutes ago, Jonboy said: I disagree that "on average" it doesn't matter. And it's easy to say if you give Mularkey to the Panthers this year. But what about the previous years Rivera spent helping to groom Cam and get them to where they are now? Could Mularkey have done that? I doubt it. Perhaps a better way to put it is this: It's not so much that coaching doesn't matter. It's that if you're good enough to rise up in the ranks to get a head coaching spot, then "on average" you know what you're doing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 Coordinators matter the most in my opinion. The HC really just has to motivate the team and make good decisions on game day. Mariota is going to make Mularkey look good and would do the same for any HC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamalisms Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, Superhorn said: Perhaps a better way to put it is this: It's not so much that coaching doesn't matter. It's that if you're good enough to rise up in the ranks to get a head coaching spot, then "on average" you know what you're doing. At what point does the unknown and a projection of "on average" transition away and actual coaching results replace it? Mularkey is, in fact, the worst or the second worst coach - by results - to get a third chance. What can anyone point to that justifies giving him more benefit of the doubt and contextual excuse than anyone else has ever gotten? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.