For the crowd that thinks that the coordinators/coaching staff were the problem... - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

Patspsycho · 01-20-2010, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontradictioN

The question is how much of his job performance is due to him and how much of it is due to the Vikings having superior talent at almost every single position on the field? Hell, I could probably coach that team. I challenge you to name me one position where the Vikings do not have acceptable talent on the field, on both offense and defense.

And, I'm not sure I understand the last question...

Those incremental improvements are not by accident. It isn't as if it spiked one year because they got a blockbuster of a trade (e.g., Allen).

Sicilian · 01-20-2010, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synovia

Give an example of that in the modern NFL (and by Modern NFL, I mean the last 5 years, since the illegal contact rules changed)

And how exactly would you want me to quantify that? If your secondary can maintain coverage longer, the pass rush has more time to reach the QB. Hence the term "coverage sack". Just because a system isn't predicated on it doesn't mean the theory isn't true.

The pass rush may benefit the secondary more than vice versa, but that doesn't mean the impact of the secondary just gets thrown out the window.

robertweathers · 01-20-2010, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synovia

Eh, they've been drafting High for a couple of years, so of course they have good talent. The issue with Childress is, that had Bret Favre not mysteriously showed up, they'd still be an 8-8 team with no QB. He has seriously neglected the most important position on the field, and then lucked into a pro-bowler.

I agree but Childress recruited Favre who was familiar w/ the offensive system. A big part of coaching is recruiting talent and getting the talent to perform.

Patspsycho · 01-20-2010, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontradictioN

He's simply inherited a loaded team.

He inherited a "loaded team" that went 6-10. Explain.

upstater1 · 01-20-2010, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontradictioN

It's simple: without playmakers, your team is going to stall.

However, my question is geared to the people that believe that the coaching staff was more to blame this season than the personnel.

Hopefully someone can actually ANSWER this question.

It comes back to Belichick. He took a team with a DL of Ferric Collons, Mark Wheeler, Mike Jones and Pio Sagapolutele to the Super Bowl. So, when it comes to overperforming with poor personnel, Belichick has a track record.

I can't answer the question why, but since I have seen Belichick mold a team without top echelon talent into a top unit, I know he is a good judge of the coaching/talent dynamic. The fact that he got rid of Pees speaks volumes.

Don't forget that in 2001, in a poll of players, coaches and league executives, the Patriots were thought of as the least talented team in the NFL.

***Deus Irae*** · 01-20-2010, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontradictioN

The question is how much of his job performance is due to him and how much of it is due to the Vikings having superior talent at almost every single position on the field? Hell, I could probably coach that team. I challenge you to name me one position where the Vikings do not have acceptable talent on the field, on both offense and defense.

And, I'm not sure I understand the last question...

Anyone who doesn't understand that talent matters far more than the OC need only look at the Vikings from last season compared to this season. Unfortunately, the "Burn the Coordinators!" crowd are looking for scapegoats but don't have the balls to actually point to the head coach, who's stated time and again that the coordinators are running what he tells them to.

***mgteich*** · 01-20-2010, 04:20 PM

The truth is that Bill Belichick is the best HC ever, and is quite capable of simultaneously performing well at GM, head of player personnel, OC, DC, and stepping in to coach various positions as needed.

upstater1 · 01-20-2010, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brady_12

Maybe I'm missing something... You know that there was no attempt to retain Pees?

It has been reported.

upstater1 · 01-20-2010, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

Anyone who doesn't understand that talent matters far more than the OC need only look at the Vikings from last season compared to this season. Unfortunately, the "Burn the Coordinators!" crowd are looking for scapegoats but don't have the balls to actually point to the head coach, who's stated time and again that the coordinators are running what he tells them to.

Belichick fired Pees. If that transfer of ideas, orders or commincation from Belichick to Pees were running smoothly, he wouldn't have fired the guy.

***Box_O_Rocks*** · 01-20-2010, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstater1

The coordinators/coaching were the problem. How do I know? Because Belichick felt Pees wasn't working out, and he intimated that the situation with O'Brien wasn't optimal in terms of new ideas, communication. That doesn't necessarily mean O'Brien is bad, but it does mean Pees was not cutting it.

What's your point about Childress? A lot of ratty teams made it to the championship game. Heck, some ratty teams like Chicago with Rex Grossman even made it to the Super Bowl. Don't ask me to explain how crap teams get so far. But I know this: crap teams don't win the Super Bowl (unless they have an incredible amount of luck, 2007, cough cough).

Could you link me to the quote where BB "intimated" the situation with O'Brien was suboptimal? Thanks.