OT: Coaching

[Rawky77]

Given how there's only maybe 5 good head coaches in the league;

Instead of hiring horrible retreads; or unknown young ppl; should the teams that have horrible coaches rethink their structure (just slightly):

1. An OC who's job is to study the opponents D and prep the team for them
2. A DC whos job is to study the opponents O and prep the team for them
(so far no changes)
3. A quant analyst who studies probability of failure/success in various scenarios and who gives input on when to go for it on 4th, on 2 Pt conversions, on whether Pass or Run offense/defense is higher to succeed on the current play, etc etc
4. A Personnel guy who provides input on what the best personell for the current game plan or play is
5. The HC who just makes sure everyone else is doing their job and makes decisions when the underlings conflict

Honestly, the idea that most HCs make horrible decisions on when to go for it on 4th down, and when to go for 2 Pt conversions, I think having someone who can crunch hard numbers and say "your team has an x percent probability of success on this and the opposing team has a y percent probability of success in stopping you" would be the biggest benefit to some of these sissy coaches who play conservatively to the detriment of the team

I'm pretty sure one of the reasons BB is a better coach than most is because he's capable of estimating those stats better than most ppl; which is why we always have confidence and never second guess his 'contraversial' decisions (and those decisions happen to succeed a high percentage of time). Whereas almost atleast once a game, we're always saying "why the f did he do that" about the opposing coaches (usually its in punting or kicking a field goal on an obvious 'go for it' play)

Thoughts? If you were the GM and were going to hire a HC, and no good experienced ones were available, would you take your luck with a newbie like McDaniel, a retread like Turner, or try something different?

Herm tried something like that in NY with a guy who kept track of the time at the end of the game so he would not screw it up so often......did not work....because unless the Head coach understands the situation and the solution he is incapable of listening to anyone else tell him what to do.....after all it is his neck on the line not the guy who is feeding him the info....

The other issue is that all stats, numbers must be blended with reality in oder to be effective because reality unlike numbers is not linear. So if the Head Coach is incapable of doing what is needed to be done then get a new one.

 

[Truck]

Given how there's only maybe 5 good head coaches in the league;

Instead of hiring horrible retreads; or unknown young ppl; should the teams that have horrible coaches rethink their structure (just slightly):

1. An OC who's job is to study the opponents D and prep the team for them
2. A DC whos job is to study the opponents O and prep the team for them
(so far no changes)
3. A quant analyst who studies probability of failure/success in various scenarios and who gives input on when to go for it on 4th, on 2 Pt conversions, on whether Pass or Run offense/defense is higher to succeed on the current play, etc etc
4. A Personnel guy who provides input on what the best personell for the current game plan or play is
5. The HC who just makes sure everyone else is doing their job and makes decisions when the underlings conflict

Honestly, the idea that most HCs make horrible decisions on when to go for it on 4th down, and when to go for 2 Pt conversions, I think having someone who can crunch hard numbers and say "your team has an x percent probability of success on this and the opposing team has a y percent probability of success in stopping you" would be the biggest benefit to some of these sissy coaches who play conservatively to the detriment of the team

I'm pretty sure one of the reasons BB is a better coach than most is because he's capable of estimating those stats better than most ppl; which is why we always have confidence and never second guess his 'contraversial' decisions (and those decisions happen to succeed a high percentage of time). Whereas almost atleast once a game, we're always saying "why the f did he do that" about the opposing coaches (usually its in punting or kicking a field goal on an obvious 'go for it' play)

Thoughts? If you were the GM and were going to hire a HC, and no good experienced ones were available, would you take your luck with a newbie like McDaniel, a retread like Turner, or try something different?