Talent vs. Coaching

[sleepingcobra]

There are ~1,700 players in the NFL. Of those 1,700, probably a little more than half get real, consequential amounts of playing time. Let's just say 1,000. So we're talking about the 1,000 best football players out of the 6,999,999,000 other people on the planet. Give or take.

 

Within that subset of people the variances are minimal. The differences in speed, closing time, reaction time, positioning, read-recognition, hands, sight-lines, intuitiveness, jump-timing, turn-timing, etc. of the 31st best cornerback and the 84th best cornerback in the NFL are minimal. We're talking about a game of milliseconds. A game of fractions. A game of lightning-fast decision-making, muscle-twitch and a few pounds-per-square-inch difference during the average NFL play in which there are suddenly 22 moving parts in 5 second bursts.

 

And then it stops.

 

Jim Harbaugh this year again proved (he's not the only one to prove it) what we've known intuitively all along. On defense, talent matters more than on offense. On offense, more than anything else, the game plan needs to be superior. I'm not saying Aaron Rogers would suck on the Vikings - but I'm saying he certainly wouldn't look as good. Dan Marino would have won just as many rings as Joe Monatana if he played in Walsh's system. Barry Sanders would have just as many rings as (probably more than) Emmitt Smith had he played under Jimmy Johnson (and behind that o-line). I realize these are extreme examples - but they are a sufficient analogy. And I'm not saying talent doesn't matter - if everyone is good, an average system can be sufficient; Kelly, Thomas and Reed were more successful in the K-Gun than would have been, say, Gelbaugh, Warren and Kane.

 

But the Bills can't afford top talent. And there is one place you can improve that doesn't cost as much as 4 superstar offensive players. It's the game plan, stupid.

 

Gailey's spread offense came out guns blazing to start the season. Then they spluttered. They spluttered before Jackson got hurt. What happened? Did they suddenly start facing better teams? No. They got adjusted to. In the NFL, see, teams watch "film of you playing," and develop a "game plan" in order to "beat you." When opposing teams started stacking the box with blitzers and jamming our receivers at the line, Gailey's system came to a screeching halt.

 

For all intents and purposes, Gailey did not adjust back (he did small things, but not enough). Right now I see two roadblocks to the playoffs. Our offensive system, and our defensive talent. Gailey needs to be reflexive enough to adjust to a team that's beating his initial system, in-game. So far, he hasn't shown that he's creative enough to get it done. On defense, as we all know, the plan is less important than speed. And speed costs money. Wannstedt is a good start (and it must be noted that George Edwards' system was so bad he made an already swiss cheese defense look like a warm, wet mop), but we need speed.

[DanInUticaTampa]

The offense was fine until Jackson and wood went down. As soon as that happened, the play calling became suspect. But before that, the play calling and game plans were good, for the offense.

 

Defense is another story, and it has more than one problem

[yungmack]

I was following your thinking until I hit this:

 

"But the Bills can't afford top talent." Really? Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought every team had the same amount to spend on talent and not a penny more. And I seem to remember as well that the Bills have gotten themselves in trouble by spending too much for talent. So maybe the problem isn't that they can't afford talent so much as it is that they either don't choose to spend it or they've managed to screw up the budget by overpaying for underachievers.

 

As to Gailey's shortcomings with game plans, you do remember that the Bills were one of the top offenses early in this past season, right? Then receivers started to drop like flies. Then Wood, Jackson, Bell, Chandler et al, went down. I'm not suggesting that Gailey handled it properly but it's pretty darned hard to game plan when you're flying guys in on Friday, signing them on Saturday and putting them on the roster on Sunday.

 

The problem with the Bills isn't the offense per se but the defense. If you get your opponent off the field with a 3-and-out, and do that frequently, not only don't they score as much -- and your offense isn't playing from behind so often -- but your offense gets more time on the field and more shots at scoring.

 

If you want to improve the offense for 2012, then focus on the defense. And on keeping the offense healthy. Do those two things and Gailey will look like a genius

[BuffOrange]

Jim Harbaugh this year again proved (he's not the only one to prove it) what we've known intuitively all along. On defense, talent matters more than on offense. On offense, more than anything else, the game plan needs to be superior. I'm not saying Aaron Rogers would suck on the Vikings - but I'm saying he certainly wouldn't look as good. Dan Marino would have won just as many rings as Joe Monatana if he played in Walsh's system. Barry Sanders would have just as many rings as (probably more than) Emmitt Smith had he played under Jimmy Johnson (and behind that o-line). I realize these are extreme examples - but they are a sufficient analogy. And I'm not saying talent doesn't matter - if everyone is good, an average system can be sufficient; Kelly, Thomas and Reed were more successful in the K-Gun than would have been, say, Gelbaugh, Warren and Kane.

 

Wow. If Mike McCarthy is that great why did his 49ers offense rank dead last his last year there? And why did Jimmy Johnson get bludgeoned by Denver/Jacksonville when he went to Miami? And why did Billick's offense consistently stink in Baltimore after being awesome in Minnesota? And why has Martz bounced around the league since St Louis? And why is NE's offense always awesome no matter who their coordinator is whether it's Weiss, McDaniels, and whoever it is now?

[Jim in Anchorage]

 

 

Jim Harbaugh this year again proved (he's not the only one to prove it) what we've known intuitively all along. On defense, talent matters more than on offense. On offense, more than anything else, the game plan needs to be superior. I'm not saying Aaron Rogers would suck on the Vikings - but I'm saying he certainly wouldn't look as good. Dan Marino would have won just as many rings as Joe Monatana if he played in Walsh's system. Barry Sanders would have just as many rings as (probably more than) Emmitt Smith had he played under Jimmy Johnson (and behind that o-line). I realize these are extreme examples - but they are a sufficient analogy. And I'm not saying talent doesn't matter - if everyone is good, an average system can be sufficient; Kelly, Thomas and Reed were more successful in the K-Gun than would have been, say, Gelbaugh, Warren and Kane.

 

 

Sure. I can just see Marino running sideline to sideline.

[thewildrabbit]

To me coaching is everything, Harbaugh in San Fran is a perfect example.

 

The 49ers GM and scouting dept has been getting it right the last few years, their problem was a decent head coach to put it all together. He took a QB that everybody thought was below average and would never be any good. Harbough gave his QB a proper game plan to build his confidence and manage the game and the result was the NFC championship game in one year.

 

The 2010 Buffalo Bills had a bunch of assistants with little or no NFL experience and it showed. The 2011 team did better but was held back by a sub par DC and some injuries to key players. The 2012 team will need some key draft pieces and some free agent help and add some depth and they should win more games. Also, lets hope that the play caller doesn't go pass crazy every time the Bills lose the lead.