Supersized coaching staff?

[mikey]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/sports/football/12coaches.html



.

 

[Mike the Brit]

"And the smallest staff in the league? New England has 12 assistants. Maybe Belichick knows something. His staff is shrinking. In February 2005, he won his third Super Bowl with 14 assistants."

Obviously, coaching is an area where a team should try to get any edge it can, since it's not subject to the cap. But the article makes a great point -- more isn't necessarily better. More scouts, trainers, video analysts, etc. is an advantage, but too many coaches may just get in the way.

 

[DarrylS]

I thought this was about the weight that Eric Mangini had put on.

 

[spacecrime]

Obviously, coaching is an area where a team should try to get any edge it can, since it's not subject to the cap. But the article makes a great point -- more isn't necessarily better. More scouts, trainers, video analysts, etc. is an advantage, but too many coaches may just get in the way.

The edge must be quality, not quantity.

 

[PatsRI]

I read this under Reiss blog http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2006/07/law_coaching_st.html and my first thought was "Mikey will be all over this", I was only joking but then I come here and look who posts it. Kraft says that accountability is one reason, where too much "middle management" is a bad thing.

Reiss also talks about Law mentioning the Pats, at this point it could still just be negotiating posture.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

My big takeaway from reading Halberstam's book on BB was that the Assistant Coach/Coordinator has to fit the Head Coach and the System. That's why Belichick keeps coming back to coaches he's groomed or worked with from an early age. Also, Belichick himself is a product of that approach. So, he can do more with 12 Assistants than a guy who's working with (relative) strangers can do with 16 or 20. I also liked Kraft's analogy to Middle Management in a corporation. Too many and you get not only poor communications and inefficiency but the product or service you're delivering gets diluted and innovation is stifled.

 

[Chevagus]

"And the smallest staff in the league? New England has 12 assistants. Maybe Belichick knows something. His staff is shrinking. In February 2005, he won his third Super Bowl with 14 assistants."

Obviously, coaching is an area where a team should try to get any edge it can, since it's not subject to the cap. But the article makes a great point -- more isn't necessarily better. More scouts, trainers, video analysts, etc. is an advantage, but too many coaches may just get in the way.

I wonder if part of the equation is how long a coach and his system have been in place. With BB, things have been run consistently for some time and so players and coaches are all pretty much on the same page and he doesn't have to worry about getting involved in every minute area. Conversely, on a team with a new Regime, the HC obviously doesn't have time to micro-manage all aspects of the team (but needs to hit the ground running) and so needs more coaches to implement his ideas especially in the areas with which he can't be closely involved. However, after several years in a system, the need to have assistants micro-manage some of these areas would probably disappear. It would be interesting to see if longer tenured coaches generally have smaller staffs.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

Adding more coaches reminds me about economics and the concept of finding the point of diminishing marginal returns. I will never forget at my University (Wash State) my Econ Prof explain the concept by talking about McDonalds. You need a few people to take the orders and a few to cook the burgers, and a few to do misc things but if you start having too many workers - they all start 'bumping' into each other, irritating each other, and everyones production starts going down. And the more you add on top of that, the faster the individual's production goes down. That is how I learned the concept of diminishing marginal returns. It has stuck with me ever since.

 

[Welker83]

I wonder if part of the equation is how long a coach and his system have been in place. With BB, things have been run consistently for some time and so players and coaches are all pretty much on the same page and he doesn't have to worry about getting involved in every minute area. Conversely, on a team with a new Regime, the HC obviously doesn't have time to micro-manage all aspects of the team (but needs to hit the ground running) and so needs more coaches to implement his ideas especially in the areas with which he can't be closely involved. However, after several years in a system, the need to have assistants micro-manage some of these areas would probably disappear. It would be interesting to see if longer tenured coaches generally have smaller staffs.

Excellent point! To go further Head coaches with a GM role may even hire more coaches because more of their time would be eaten up with the personel moves...

 

[PatsRI]

One thing I'd like to see is the size of the scouting staffs for each club. IMO if you invest in the scouting department and they are on the same page with the HC's philosophy (like here in NE) then maybe they are getting the right players that don't need 16 coaches to make them fit in.