The smartest guy in the room...

[Patjew]

I'm actually in London right now, and woke up pretty early because I'm jet-lagged

Cheerio then.

 

[RussFrancis]

FWIW, I enjoyed the article because I found it largely defensive of Belichick's approach to the game, but it also objectively questioned the 'logic' behind actually filming the coaches, and risking the enormous can of worms that would potentially open should that ever become public knowledge.

And whether or not it was the writer's intent to point out a general shortage of intelligence in the fields of both NFL coaches and players, that's the message he delivered. There's no arguing that by and large, his point is well taken.

That said, just how intelligent is any coach without a great player? Where would Belichick be without Tom Brady? How many titles did Bill Walsh win without Joe Montana? Obviously there's something to be said for identifying, acquiring, and developing those players. But coaches are given FAR too much credit when a team wins. And far too much blame when it loses. When it really just boils down to players getting the job done on the field. Last year's record-breaking brilliance demonstrates that perfectly. Put Randy Moss and Tom Brady on the same team, 2 of the top 5 all-time at their position, and tell them to go play catch. Then watch what happens. It doesnt take a 'genius' to figure out what could potentially happen.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

i thought it was a good article and i haven't read rolling stone in years. i didn't agree with every word, but i thought it was well written.

 

[Patjew]

I still like reading RS every now and then, even if I don't like alot the acts they write about. They've had some great writers there. Mikal Gilmore is one of my favorites.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

I mistyped that, I didn't mean "relatives of ex-athletes" I simply meant relatives of ex-coaches.

And you seem really pissed off for some reason, and incapable of discussing this without resorting to insults, so I think I'll end it with you here.

Interesting point that someone raised the topic of nepotism re this thread. Does the name Taibbi ring any bells? Taibbi's dad is Mike Taibbi who once worked in Boston as a reporter and is now with MSNBC. He didn't get his job via nepotism, just we go into professions we know or see our friends/relatives pursue.
He has mastered the art of controversy. Just do a search for Taibbi and the death of the pope and you'll find a tasteless link that I won't post here. He writes some interesting stuff regardless of your political views but like many at RS, he thinks he's smarter than the rest of us...

 

[TripleOption]

Interesting point that someone raised the topic of nepotism re this thread. Does the name Taibbi ring any bells? Taibbi's dad is Mike Taibbi who once worked in Boston as a reporter and is now with MSNBC. He didn't get his job via nepotism, just we go into professions we know or see our friends/relatives pursue.
He has mastered the art of controversy. Just do a search for Taibbi and the death of the pope and you'll find a tasteless link that I won't post here. He writes some interesting stuff regardless of your political views but like many at RS, he thinks he's smarter than the rest of us...

n 1992 Taibbi moved to Uzbekistan, but was forced to leave six months later after writing articles critical of the country's president, Islom Karimov. Afterwards, Taibbi worked for The Moscow Times as a sports editor, before moving on to work in Russia and Mongolia as a professional athlete and as a correspondent for Montsame, the Mongolian National News Agency.

Awesome.

 

[TripleOption]

I mistyped that, I didn't mean "relatives of ex-athletes" I simply meant relatives of ex-coaches.

Still dead wrong, but don't let that stop you.

 

[Patjew]

n 1992 Taibbi moved to Uzbekistan, but was forced to leave six months later after writing articles critical of the country's president, Islom Karimov. Afterwards, Taibbi worked for The Moscow Times as a sports editor, before moving on to work in Russia and Mongolia as a professional athlete and as a correspondent for Montsame, the Mongolian National News Agency.

Awesome.

That may be the weirdest CV I have ever seen.

 

[upstater1]

Although a smarmy a-hole myself, I think I have to agree with this. Although he's a great writer, this guy's horse is very high.

Isn't all (or at least most) "intelligence" very specific. I don't think Einstein or Hawking could coach a football team or even necessarily survive on a desert island, but those guys ain't too dumb. Likewise, while Ditka may not have a gigantic IQ, he sure has alot more football smarts than 99% of us, not to mention a great knack for motivation and self-promotion. Same for Parcells (although he may actually have a very high IQ). I'd like to see what makes this writer so smart other than his writing techniques and pomposity.

That said, he's still fun to read.

I'd say you're missing the point of the article though. I agree with you that a smart guy--just being smart--couldn't coach a football team. But the writer is saying that Belichick is SMART, relatively. And he's among people who aren't that smart (if you buy his theory that most coaches come from the player ranks, and let's face it, on a real world level, the players are indeed, NOT THAT SMART. There's evidence out there that proves it). So, he's saying that a guy who CAN coach football and IS smart would tend to look down on the nitwits around him.

I think the writer is misinformed about the type of people who become coaches, though he is correct that there are real nitwits out there (John Madden and Mike Ditka, etc.).

I would also say that he's wrong that real geniuses never make errors, whether it's the scientist prof. who sleeps with a 20 year old co-ed, the dot.com genius who rips off his company and gets tagged, etc.

People have character flaws, and though intelligence can sometimes help people avoid huge errors, it doesn't always happen this way.

 

[upstater1]

n 1992 Taibbi moved to Uzbekistan, but was forced to leave six months later after writing articles critical of the country's president, Islom Karimov. Afterwards, Taibbi worked for The Moscow Times as a sports editor, before moving on to work in Russia and Mongolia as a professional athlete and as a correspondent for Montsame, the Mongolian National News Agency.

Awesome.

I actually think this IS awesome. That takes real balls.

And really, I think he's more of a madman than a genius for doing this.

 

[PatsFan37]

Wow, there's a lot of misinformation and misbegotten opinion being thrown around in this thread. You've inspired me on this Sunday morning to throw around some more.

Football players are dumb? I have this argument with my niece all the time. Some are, some aren't. Some, like Vrabel and Watson, if they couldn't make millions playing football, would be in medical school or law school. Others are dumb as a rock. Same as the real world.

There are many facets to intelligence, and people who are smart in one area can be dumb in others? That's a commonly held, politically correct, and scientifically invalid observation. It also defies common sense. There is a concept of g, a general intelligence, that is partly heritable and partly environmental, that seems to affect most aspects of mentation. People who score above average in math skills also tend to score above average in verbal skills, assuming English is their first language. You may disagree, but you'd be wrong. This stuff is pretty easy to prove.

People succeed for lots of different reasons. Charisma and leadership skills, aggression and ambition, intelligence and judgment, physical size, physical appearance. There's no need to apologize for others lacking intelligence any more than apologizing for others lacking charisma, size, judgment, or appearance. But you do need to avoid painting an entire profession with an ugly brush, from smart, character guys like Fernando Bryant, to thugs like Michael Vick. Or for that matter, from reporters like Tom Curran who would bring grace and wisdom to any profession, to smug self-aggrandizing intellectuals like Easterbrook.

I did think the excerpt from the article was funny. But it was also insulting to a lot of good people.

 

[Patjew]

I'd say you're missing the point of the article though. I agree with you that a smart guy--just being smart--couldn't coach a football team. But the writer is saying that Belichick is SMART, relatively. And he's among people who aren't that smart (if you buy his theory that most coaches come from the player ranks, and let's face it, on a real world level, the players are indeed, NOT THAT SMART. There's evidence out there that proves it). So, he's saying that a guy who CAN coach football and IS smart would tend to look down on the nitwits around him.

I think the writer is misinformed about the type of people who become coaches, though he is correct that there are real nitwits out there (John Madden and Mike Ditka, etc.).

I would also say that he's wrong that real geniuses never make errors, whether it's the scientist prof. who sleeps with a 20 year old co-ed, the dot.com genius who rips off his company and gets tagged, etc.

People have character flaws, and though intelligence can sometimes help people avoid huge errors, it doesn't always happen this way.

You may be right about that. Honestly, I was more caught up in commenting on the back-and-forth ABOUT the article than the article itself.

That being said, I guess I just don't like it when broad brush strokes are used to imugn a group of people with anything other than a tiny bit of anecdotal evidence. So while I agree that BB generally is the smartest guy in his "room" and that many athletes are not exactly brilliant, that doesn't lead me to believe that NFL head coaches as a whole aren't "more intelligent" than average, whatever the heck that means.

BUT, I do agree with most everything you've written, and honestly I really did like that article. The guy is a helluva writer. I guess I'm just into full disclosure or whatever.

 

[TripleOption]

I actually think this IS awesome. That takes real balls.

And really, I think he's more of a madman than a genius for doing this.

There's a fine line between having balls and being stupid. Being the editor of a newspaper in Russia reminds me of the big fish in a small pond cliche. To take a page from the writer's theories, I don't think the newspapers in Russia are overflowing with journalistic talent.

 

[TripleOption]

Wow, there's a lot of misinformation and misbegotten opinion being thrown around in this thread. You've inspired me on this Sunday morning to throw around some more.

Football players are dumb? I have this argument with my niece all the time. Some are, some aren't. Some, like Vrabel and Watson, if they couldn't make millions playing football, would be in medical school or law school. Others are dumb as a rock. Same as the real world.

There are many facets to intelligence, and people who are smart in one area can be dumb in others? That's a commonly held, politically correct, and scientifically invalid observation. It also defies common sense. There is a concept of g, a general intelligence, that is partly heritable and partly environmental, that seems to affect most aspects of mentation. People who score above average in math skills also tend to score above average in verbal skills, assuming English is their first language. You may disagree, but you'd be wrong. This stuff is pretty easy to prove.

People succeed for lots of different reasons. Charisma and leadership skills, aggression and ambition, intelligence and judgment, physical size, physical appearance. There's no need to apologize for others lacking intelligence any more than apologizing for others lacking charisma, size, judgment, or appearance. But you do need to avoid painting an entire profession with an ugly brush, from smart, character guys like Fernando Bryant, to thugs like Michael Vick. Or for that matter, from reporters like Tom Curran who would bring grace and wisdom to any profession, to smug self-aggrandizing intellectuals like Easterbrook.

I did think the excerpt from the article was funny. But it was also insulting to a lot of good people.

No, no, no. If you are smart, you have to be a journalist. Other occupations like being the HFC of an NFL team, a job held by 32 people worldwide, are reserved for morons.

 

[upstater1]

Wow, there's a lot of misinformation and misbegotten opinion being thrown around in this thread. You've inspired me on this Sunday morning to throw around some more.

Football players are dumb? I have this argument with my niece all the time. Some are, some aren't. Some, like Vrabel and Watson, if they couldn't make millions playing football, would be in medical school or law school. Others are dumb as a rock. Same as the real world.

There are many facets to intelligence, and people who are smart in one area can be dumb in others? That's a commonly held, politically correct, and scientifically invalid observation. It also defies common sense. There is a concept of g, a general intelligence, that is partly heritable and partly environmental, that seems to affect most aspects of mentation. People who score above average in math skills also tend to score above average in verbal skills, assuming English is their first language. You may disagree, but you'd be wrong. This stuff is pretty easy to prove.

People succeed for lots of different reasons. Charisma and leadership skills, aggression and ambition, intelligence and judgment, physical size, physical appearance. There's no need to apologize for others lacking intelligence any more than apologizing for others lacking charisma, size, judgment, or appearance. But you do need to avoid painting an entire profession with an ugly brush, from smart, character guys like Fernando Bryant, to thugs like Michael Vick. Or for that matter, from reporters like Tom Curran who would bring grace and wisdom to any profession, to smug self-aggrandizing intellectuals like Easterbrook.

I did think the excerpt from the article was funny. But it was also insulting to a lot of good people.

I guess he can only cite the available tests that are out there.

For one, there's the noted deficit of literacy skills in the top football recruits at the top football schools. Then there's the Wonderlic, which isn't a math/verbal sort of test, but more of a common sense type test. There are wonderlics available online. I'd bet that the posters on this board would score much much higher than the average NFL player on that test.

I can't think of any other two empirical measures that would pit football players against the general populace.

There are some other types of measures, such as how often these guys seem to be in trouble with the law or how badly they handle their money, but this is only anecdotal information, and it can easily be explained away as "celebrities think they can get away with stuff" or "when you have a lot of money, there's more of a risk of mishandling it."

 

[upstater1]

There's a fine line between having balls and being stupid. Being the editor of a newspaper in Russia reminds me of the big fish in a small pond cliche. To take a page from the writer's theories, I don't think the newspapers in Russia are overflowing with journalistic talent.

Oh? And why would you say that? First off, I didn't see where he was an editor. He was a reporter.

Secondly, do you know anything about the current free press in Russia? I could send you some very enlightening articles about it.

 

[Patjew]

I'm betting that this is one of those off-off-off-topic threads that somehow manages to remain in the main forum.

 

[upstater1]

You may be right about that. Honestly, I was more caught up in commenting on the back-and-forth ABOUT the article than the article itself.

That being said, I guess I just don't like it when broad brush strokes are used to impugn a group of people with anything other than a tiny bit of anecdotal evidence. So while I agree that BB generally is the smartest guy in his "room" and that many athletes are not exactly brilliant, that doesn't lead me to believe that NFL head coaches as a whole aren't "more intelligent" than average, whatever the heck that means.

BUT, I do agree with most everything you've written, and honestly I really did like that article. The guy is a helluva writer. I guess I'm just into full disclosure or whatever.

That article was the equivalent of the type of rabble-rousing we see Easterbrook do. More of the same "controversy-stoking" media we get everywhere. For many years, Greg Robinson was considered a genius in the NFL, and then he gets his own gig at Syracuse and he's horrible. Then you have Petrino in the college ranks doing great, gets to the NFL and he's bad. Charlie Weis is undeniably a very smart guy who NEVER played football in college. I still think he's a great coach and very smart, but he's not doing well in college.

I guess the point that I'm making is that there are definitely lots of highly intelligent coaches out there, but I'm also willing to bet that some of them are very very dumb.

 

[PatsFan37]

I'm betting that this is one of those off-off-off-topic threads that somehow manages to remain in the main forum.

It's vaguely about Belichick. Or was at one point.

 

[PatsFan37]

I guess he can only cite the available tests that are out there.

For one, there's the noted deficit of literacy skills in the top football recruits at the top football schools. Then there's the Wonderlic, which isn't a math/verbal sort of test, but more of a common sense type test. There are wonderlics available online. I'd bet that the posters on this board would score much much higher than the average NFL player on that test.

I can't think of any other two empirical measures that would pit football players against the general populace.

There are some other types of measures, such as how often these guys seem to be in trouble with the law or how badly they handle their money, but this is only anecdotal information, and it can easily be explained away as "celebrities think they can get away with stuff" or "when you have a lot of money, there's more of a risk of mishandling it."

Uh oh, I'm going to have to start questioning your literacy skills.

Neither a vague reference to a 'noted deficit of literacy skills' or betting on a hypothetical count as empirical measures.

I'll bet your average o-lineman, the quintessential image of the big dumb jock, is as smart as your average message board user. As a matter of record, o-lineman score pretty high on the Wonderlic. And over the last few years, I've seen some pretty dumb comments from message board users. Present company excluded, of course.