What Makes a Head Coach Good (or great)

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Lots of thins is the real answer. Feel free if anyone wants to insist that only ONE thing (or even a relatively small number of things) is THE key and our intrepid posters will come up with myriad examples where an HC is judged by most to be successful even though he did things in a fairly opposite manner to the theory presented.

 

However, for discussion (and arguments) sake, this post will attempt to narrow it down to a couple of things that really strike me as of great import to being a good coach.

 

The first of course is dumb luck.

 

It's the epitome of something which is necessary for success but not sufficent at all to assure success. its easy to be so bad that even luck will not save you (yet Barry Switzer is a great example that it is possible to build a team so great for Jerry Jones commitment of cash, to a collection of great players on the field, to Jimmy Johnson having built a great team with the hep of Mike Lynn trading him the farm for Herschel Walker that even a fool like Switzer could not screw it up and fail to win the SB.

 

One need look no further than Bill Belichick for an example of one of the most (if not the most) successful NFL HCs in history to see the essential role that dumb luck has played in his success with the Pats. While he made a lot of his good luck himself (picking Tom Brady in the 6th after he and every team in the league passed on picking him numerous times which turned out to be a key to taking advantage of the dumb luck of Lewis collapsing Bledsoe's lung with a tough hit). it is clear that a lot of his success would not have occured without dumb luck:

 

1. The Refs application of the tuck rule in a game against the Raiders was essential to the Pats winning a must-win game in their first run.

2. BB completely misreading and messing up the Milloy negotiations and having his players publicly turn on him and call him out for doing this (a mistaken read so bad even BB was apologetic) yet, this error ironically united the team (though it was in thinkinghe was dumb) and it was the fact that this team was a TEAM which won them their first SB, A series of injuries and the initial debacle against the Bills forced a gut check on the team and united by their shared disdain for BB's GM work and appreciation of him being one the best game coaches in the league they roared to victory.

3. Weaseling out of his pledge to NYJ to become their coach and defecting to NE put him in the position to win 3 SBs even though it showed that as a person you can trust Bb as far as you can throw him.

4. The aforementioned Bledsoe injury. As said, he deserves the credit for picking Brady, but no one (including BB knew or even thought he would be this good. If Lewis had not knocked Bledsoe out of the picture, I'm far from the only one who is pretty sure that the Pats would not have even made the playoffs under Bledsoe the year they won their first SB.

 

With a failure to make the playoffs his first year on top of a record of almost total failure in Clevelnd (1 playoff game in 5 years to his credit) its not hard to imagine a world where BB might be nothing more than the best HC never to win the SB were it nor for Lewis' hit.

 

The other item I would flag as essential for a good HC is more relevant to our current situtaion with MM. I think the other important factor to identify is something I would call PREDICTABLE INCONSISTENCY.

 

What I mean is, that while in a perfect world it would be wonderful if all people were treated equally and/or judged simply on their accomplishments in life or the NFL, it is not a perfect world.

 

In fact, simply because accomplishments do matter alot all people are not treated equally. As someone pointed out in another thread, if you are a reserve TE and you show up late for a meeting or mouth off the wrong way, you might easily be cut and few would blink an eye. However, if one is a player of the caliber of lets say a Troy Aikman, you can show up late a few times (he nver would though which is part of why he was Troy Aikman) and you would never be cut.

 

I think that when one looks at a great HC, you get good examples from Bill Parcells case. He epitomizes for me prredictable inconsistency. Parcells has a rep as a hard ass. However, hiseasy acceptance and good relationship with idiots like Keyshawn Johnson and sometimes tragically failed performers like Drew Bledsoe belies in many ways his rep as a hardass.

 

I there is something which is always consistent about Parcells is loyalty to his players as an HC and a leader IF the player does let down their teammates. His loyalty is unflagging if a player steps up to the plate and does his best, but his loyalty flags like a shot if a player fails to respect his teammates and/or himself.

 

He seems to have one of the best senses of humor among HCs in the NFL and he uses it to find fault with a smile. He is not consistenly cheerful, but it is fairly predictable what is going to get his goat and bring forth his ire.

 

What the problem seems to be with MM as best as I can tell is that he has become fairly unpredictable in terms of how he relates to his players. The problem I fear from the cut of Shaw, the benching of Adams, and now the suspension of Moulds is that I hope it is clear internally why MM lowetred the boom on these particular players in the way he did.

 

However, for me as a watcher from the outside, MM does not seem to be predictable at all in terms of the exoectations and performance he requires from players.

 

Things do not appear as bad as the random fear which Tom Coughlin seemed to sow in NC. However, though there is often a short-term payoff in these acts of toughness (Coughlin's early success with NC until they gave up on him, and perhaps the Bills respoding to the wake-up call of the Shaw cut last year until the implosion this year) in the longrun i think an HC dies well when he operates inconistenly as life and good results dictate, but does so in a predictable manner so everyone on the team knows where they stand.

[Simon]

Feel free if anyone wants to insist that only ONE thing is THE key and our intrepid posters will come up with myriad examples where an HC is judged by most to be successful even though he did things in a fairly opposite manner to the theory presented.

I think that wins is the one thing that make people consider a coach great.

Jimmy Johnson has a bunch of wins and people consider him great. Even though he is probably the most over-rated coach or GM I have ever seen.

So I think you could say that there does exist one single thing that can make a coach appear great, but that it takes a myriad of things to actually make a coach great.

[Bill from NYC]

Great post FFS. I would however like to add something about Parcells.

Coach Parcells has a program; a specific, proven way of doing things. One guy refused to go with it and Parcells had him escorted out of the stadium by security. Most players simple buy into it.

He wants what he calls "special players" on the OL. I heard him say this, and he gets them.

He also goes after defensive ends. He drafted Canty, Ware, Abraham, and Ellis in TWO DRAFTS!!!!!! When Bruce left, how many years did it take the Bills to find even 1 good defensive end (Schobel)??? The Bills are generally after injured, or soon to be injured "skill players."

 

I agree with everything you said about luck, but Parcells has a theory about building a football team that simply lends itself to winning, and win he does wherever he goes.

 

Canty and Ware were sacking quarterbacks while Bills fans were anxiously awaiting the return of Roscoe Parrish. Now Parrish is back, and was almost crippled once again, this time by a punter.

See the difference?

[Bill from NYC]

I think that wins is the one thing that make people consider a coach great.

Jimmy Johnson has a bunch of wins and people consider him great. Even though he is probably the most over-rated coach or GM I have ever seen.

So I think you could say that there does exist one single thing that can make a coach appear great, but that it takes a myriad of things to actually make a coach great.

525977[/snapback]

 

Another thing that a coach needs to be great is balls.

Paul "Bear" Bryant suspended Joe Namath before a bowl game. He called him into his office and told him that his decision was final, and if it was overturned, he would in fact resign from the University of Alabama.

These two remained close, and Namath has repeatedly likend him to a father.

 

Discipline can work.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Great post FFS. I would however like to add something about Parcells.

Coach Parcells has a program; a specific, proven way of doing things. One guy refused to go with it and Parcells had him escorted out of the stadium by security. Most players simple buy into it.

He wants what he calls "special players" on the OL. I heard him say this, and he gets them.

He also goes after defensive ends. He drafted Canty, Ware, Abraham, and Ellis in TWO DRAFTS!!!!!! When Bruce left, how many years did it take the Bills to find even 1 good defensive end (Schobel)??? The Bills are generally after injured, or soon to be injured "skill players."

 

I agree with everything you said about luck, but Parcells has a theory about building a football team that simply lends itself to winning, and win he does wherever he goes.

 

Canty and Ware were sacking quarterbacks while Bills fans were anxiously awaiting the return of Roscoe Parrish. Now Parrish is back, and was almost crippled once again, this time by a punter. 

See the difference?

525985[/snapback]

 

Thanks for the kind words and good observations BINYC. One of the other things I wonder about is also what role getting out of Dodge has in Parcells success. One ofthe reasons he has been successful in a number of places is that he does not hang around in one place too long.

 

I think part of the Parcells model is when he realizes or sense he has gotten as much out of a situation as can be produced he takes off. I think not overstaying his welcome is part of his success.

 

I doubt that if he had stayed with the Jets there would have been any additional success for the team or for him. By leving when he did, I think thi episode is reasonably judged a success by him as NYJ made a big jump from absolutely putrid to about average.

 

As they were not going to be much better for several years, he did not waste time or his rep here.

[Bill from NYC]

Thanks for the kind words and good observations BINYC.  One of the other things I wonder about is also what role getting out of Dodge has in Parcells success.  One ofthe reasons he has been successful in a number of places is that he does not hang around in one place too long.

 

I think part of the Parcells model is when he realizes or sense he has gotten as much out of a situation as can be produced he takes off.  I think not overstaying his welcome is part of his success.

 

I doubt that if he had stayed with the Jets there would have been any additional success for the team or for him.  By leving when he did, I think thi episode is reasonably judged a success by him as NYJ made a big jump from absolutely putrid to about average.

 

As they were not going to be much better for several years, he did not waste time or his rep here.

525996[/snapback]

 

Great point, but one slight correction.....

 

>>>>>By leving when he did, I think thi episode is reasonably judged a success by him as NYJ made a big jump from absolutely putrid to about average.<<<<<

 

The Parcells jests were 30 minutes away from being in a superbowl. They were beaten in the 2nd half by Denver.

 

That said, do you want another example of how what you said about "luck" is true?

Parcells cut Neil O'Donnell. He couldn't stand him, and went after Harbaugh, who signed with another team (Cleveland?). Well, he had to "settle" for Testeverde, who turned out to play much better than Harbaugh, and he almost took them to the superbowl.

You are right; even the great ones need some luck.