thebandit27 Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 Good article on Coach's tape evaluation. Here's the link for everyone: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...ex.html?eref=T1 Some comments from Cosell that caught my attention... Regarding Sanchez: But I get really uncomfortable when I keep hearing that a quarterback has 'it' and that is the focus of the discussion surrounding that player. If people are talking about the 'it' factor, they aren't discussing what he actually does on the field. I personally liked Sanchez a lot coming out of USC, but it's funny reading about the "it" factor, because I see a lot of that around this board when people talk about Edwards...and unfortunately, I agree with Cosell. Regarding Defensive Trends: The other thing is that the Tampa 2 defense has been fading a bit because you really need to get pressure from your front four and that isn't always easy. But we may see more Tampa 2 on defense to stop the Wildcat. It was designed by Bud Carson when he was in college to stop the option because you essentially have a nine-man front since the corners are your run support players on the perimeter. Interesting that the Tampa 2 is tailored to stop the Wildcat, but Miami ran it against us with a level of success. I wonder if ours is a personnel issue, which leads me to... Regarding Schemes vs. Talent: I am a big believer that coaching plays a significant role in wins and losses in the NFL. Talent-wise, teams are not that different. Outside of the quarterback position, it very often comes down to coaching, which is primarily playing to your strengths and minimizing your limitations. Some organizations are better than others at utilizing their players and really diagnosing what makes the other team successful. Bill Belichick is really good at that. He has a great feel for the strengths of his own players and taking away the one or two things that the other team does well. I found this particularly interesting, since there was a thread covering this topic yesterday. I agree with Cosell again, that coaching is a big factor in separating the good teams from the lousy ones. It seems like it's more important to have a coach that can construct a system and game plan around the talent he has than it is to have a level of talent measurably above the other teams in the league. Anyone agree? Disagree? Care? Not care? Discuss at will...
Fewell733 Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 On "It" Factor - I think it's only valid if you're describing what you're seeing from the player on the field as that "it" factor. I think it's really just a shorthand way of describing things that are less quantifiable to the average fan - field and pocket awareness, getting rid of the ball, finding the open man, not doing too many stupid things. If the "it" factor is something in the guy's personality that is independent of his performance I think its worth far less as might be the case with Sanchez. Cover-2 and the Wildcat - recall that it was run against us with great success when they picked on an injured McGee over and over again. This goes to coaching... Scheme v. Talent - I think he's right. The best teams make the best us of their talent. However the best teams generally also have some of the best talent. And its exceptional if you are able to win without very good quarterback play. NE is the common example for this under Belichick. NE has the luxury of having arguably the best QB, the most dangerous WR, and the best slot receiver in the league. He makes good use of not great or over the hill linebackers and guys in the secondary - but there are half a dozen former 1st and 2nd round picks on that defense that anchor it. Without guys like Seymour, Warren, and Wilfork - I don't think Belichick looks so good. as was seen in our loss to Miami, our coaching was unwilling to trust the rookie and went with an injured McGee and we got picked apart - that game was an example of bad coaching, imo.
PromoTheRobot Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 The "IT" with Edwards was that he saw his receivers better than Losman, until his concussion. Hardly an intangible. PTR
Ramius Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 Regarding Schemes vs. Talent: I am a big believer that coaching plays a significant role in wins and losses in the NFL. Talent-wise, teams are not that different. Outside of the quarterback position, it very often comes down to coaching, which is primarily playing to your strengths and minimizing your limitations. Some organizations are better than others at utilizing their players and really diagnosing what makes the other team successful. Bill Belichick is really good at that. He has a great feel for the strengths of his own players and taking away the one or two things that the other team does well. I found this particularly interesting, since there was a thread covering this topic yesterday. I agree with Cosell again, that coaching is a big factor in separating the good teams from the lousy ones. It seems like it's more important to have a coach that can construct a system and game plan around the talent he has than it is to have a level of talent measurably above the other teams in the league. Anyone agree? Disagree? Care? Not care? Discuss at will... This is dead-nuts accurate and highlites why dick jauron will do nothing but anchor this team at the bottom. By my view, there are basically 4-6 teams with a lot of talent who can win 12-13 games, and 4-6 teams so completely devoid of talent that they'll only win 2-3 games. The remaining 20 odd teams in the NFL all have similar talent levels and will depend on coaching to put them over the hump. Good coaches get the teams to 10 wins and the playoffs. Bad coaches cause teams to lose games and prevent them from succeeding (jauron). The Bills are squarely in that middle group, and we probably have 9 or even 10 win talent. Unfortunately, piss poor coaching from jauron and co. will cost us at least 2 wins this season, once again putting us in the 7 win range.
KOKBILLS Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 I am a big believer that coaching plays a significant role in wins and losses in the NFL. Talent-wise, teams are not that different. Outside of the quarterback position, it very often comes down to coaching, which is primarily playing to your strengths and minimizing your limitations. Some organizations are better than others at utilizing their players and really diagnosing what makes the other team successful. Bill Belichick is really good at that. He has a great feel for the strengths of his own players and taking away the one or two things that the other team does well. This point was made ad nauseum last Season concerning Dead Dick and this Coaching Staff...I completely agree concerning the talent from Team to Team...there are a couple Teams with better talent, a couple with poorer, and the rest are about the same overall...It then comes down to Coaching and Our HC has a history of losing to winning Teams...He's good at it...It's what he does best...
Arkady Renko Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 Regarding Defensive Trends: The other thing is that the Tampa 2 defense has been fading a bit because you really need to get pressure from your front four and that isn't always easy. But we may see more Tampa 2 on defense to stop the Wildcat. It was designed by Bud Carson when he was in college to stop the option because you essentially have a nine-man front since the corners are your run support players on the perimeter. Interesting that the Tampa 2 is tailored to stop the Wildcat, but Miami ran it against us with a level of success. I wonder if ours is a personnel issue, which leads me to... Anyone agree? Disagree? Care? Not care? Discuss at will... They didn't do anything against us using the Wildcat. They won the old fashion way.
offde-fence Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 It seems like it's more important to have a coach that can construct a system and game plan around the talent he has than it is to have a level of talent measurably above the other teams in the league. Anyone agree? Disagree? Care? Not care? Discuss at will... I very much agree with you on that. I think it is no where more evident than the teams that get new head coaches, like Miami and Atlanta, most recently, and field a team not too much better, talent wise, as the previous season, yet have tremendously better results. Certainly, players, schedules, and luck have roles to play, but those teams go to show how coaching makes a big difference. Also, when teams suffer serious injury - Brady, for example - and continue to win, because of coaching and "system", and, then there are the perennial winners - like Pittsburg, N.E., Indy, Philly... all greatly attributed to coaching. So, with that much to gain by having the better coach, I've wondered for years why owners don't go out and pay much, much more to secure a quality coach? Why wouldn't they fork over a few more millions for a coach - as opposed a single player - who could easily get hurt, or fail to live up to expectations?
NewHampshireBillsFan Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 It seems like it's more important to have a coach that can construct a system and game plan around the talent he has than it is to have a level of talent measurably above the other teams in the league. Anyone agree? Disagree? Care? Not care? Discuss at will... I very much agree with you on that. I think it is no where more evident than the teams that get new head coaches, like Miami and Atlanta, most recently, and field a team not too much better, talent wise, as the previous season, yet have tremendously better results. Certainly, players, schedules, and luck have roles to play, but those teams go to show how coaching makes a big difference. Also, when teams suffer serious injury - Brady, for example - and continue to win, because of coaching and "system", and, then there are the perennial winners - like Pittsburg, N.E., Indy, Philly... all greatly attributed to coaching. So, with that much to gain by having the better coach, I've wondered for years why owners don't go out and pay much, much more to secure a quality coach? Why wouldn't they fork over a few more millions for a coach - as opposed a single player - who could easily get hurt, or fail to live up to expectations? On coaching: 1.) Buffalo really is cheap in this modern era and doesn't want to pay a lot for coaching and it hurts us. 2.) Some teams are willing to pay a lot for coaching but still don't get great coaching. Example is the Redskins with an over the hill 3 time super bowl winning coach (Gibbs) who no longer had anything special but coached the team to mediocrity for years. 3.) Some teams have the money to pay a lot for coaching but the owner wants to be the big shot like with Jerry Jones in Dallas and so hires our old friend Wade Phillips. 4.) Some supposedly fantastic coaches have long stretches where their team doesn't really do that great like Fisher in TN, Shanahan in Denver, and even Cowher in Pittsburgh who won one SB in all the what, 15 years he was HC. These coaches definitely make the playoffs more often than the Bills. 5.) The NJ Jets should have the money to get a great coach and went with Rex Ryan (who I like) but in many ways how is Ryan different from Greg Williams or Mike Mularkey, both of whom were also promising assistants when first hired. So even though the Bills are cheap other teams often hire the same type of coaches we have hired. I guess the bottom line is there is no certainty that any coach will bring certain success. Belicheat* is both a great coach and a great cheater* but even with him* how much of the SB wins have been Brady.
Thurman#1 Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 The "IT" with Edwards was that he saw his receivers better than Losman, until his concussion. Hardly an intangible. PTR The "IT" factor, poise, it's all the same. It is absolutely meaningless UNLESS ... ... it leads to better performance, higher YPA numbers, better clutch results, better red zone results, better third-down results, more consistency, etc. So far it hasn't produced much in Trent's case. Until he gets rid of the inconsistency and starts playing to a higher level, the "IT" factor is essentially just code for "I like the guy and that's the way it is."
C.Biscuit97 Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 Good article on Coach's tape evaluation. Here's the link for everyone: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...ex.html?eref=T1 Some comments from Cosell that caught my attention... Regarding Sanchez: But I get really uncomfortable when I keep hearing that a quarterback has 'it' and that is the focus of the discussion surrounding that player. If people are talking about the 'it' factor, they aren't discussing what he actually does on the field. I personally liked Sanchez a lot coming out of USC, but it's funny reading about the "it" factor, because I see a lot of that around this board when people talk about Edwards...and unfortunately, I agree with Cosell. People have refer to Trent's "it" factor on the field. Sanchez' "it" factor refers to his marketability. Facts are if McCoy and Bradford were in the draft, Sanchez is the 4th QB off the board and New York is talking about someone else's "it" factor. Regarding Defensive Trends: The other thing is that the Tampa 2 defense has been fading a bit because you really need to get pressure from your front four and that isn't always easy. But we may see more Tampa 2 on defense to stop the Wildcat. It was designed by Bud Carson when he was in college to stop the option because you essentially have a nine-man front since the corners are your run support players on the perimeter. Interesting that the Tampa 2 is tailored to stop the Wildcat, but Miami ran it against us with a level of success. I wonder if ours is a personnel issue, which leads me to... Everything comes in trends. In the early 90s, it was the 3-4. Then, it switched back to 4-3s and Cover 2. and now it's back to 3-4s. But the wildcat did nothing against last year so that is a very valid point. Regarding Schemes vs. Talent: I am a big believer that coaching plays a significant role in wins and losses in the NFL. Talent-wise, teams are not that different. Outside of the quarterback position, it very often comes down to coaching, which is primarily playing to your strengths and minimizing your limitations. Some organizations are better than others at utilizing their players and really diagnosing what makes the other team successful. Bill Belichick is really good at that. He has a great feel for the strengths of his own players and taking away the one or two things that the other team does well. I found this particularly interesting, since there was a thread covering this topic yesterday. I agree with Cosell again, that coaching is a big factor in separating the good teams from the lousy ones. It seems like it's more important to have a coach that can construct a system and game plan around the talent he has than it is to have a level of talent measurably above the other teams in the league. Anyone agree? Disagree? Care? Not care? Discuss at will... This part is silly to me. He just simply glosses over the QB position like it isn't by far the most important position in sports. Switch the Bills QBs for the decade with any of the top guys, and it doesn't matter who was coaching. Great Qbs make coaches. There are very few coaches (Shanahan, Gibbs) who can win consistently with average QBs.
C.Biscuit97 Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 The "IT" factor, poise, it's all the same. It is absolutely meaningless UNLESS ... ... it leads to better performance, higher YPA numbers, better clutch results, better red zone results, better third-down results, more consistency, etc. So far it hasn't produced much in Trent's case. Until he gets rid of the inconsistency and starts playing to a higher level, the "IT" factor is essentially just code for "I like the guy and that's the way it is." You do realize Trent just finished his 2nd season right? And in the first season he wasn't even suppose to play? Yet, he posted a very respected 85 QB rating. Give the guy a chance and drop the unrealistic expectations. Facts are that you are hard pressed to find another QB in Bills history that has come straight from college that has played as well as Edwards has in his first 2 years.
Guest dog14787 Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 People have refer to Trent's "it" factor on the field. Sanchez' "it" factor refers to his marketability. Facts are if McCoy and Bradford were in the draft, Sanchez is the 4th QB off the board and New York is talking about someone else's "it" factor. Everything comes in trends. In the early 90s, it was the 3-4. Then, it switched back to 4-3s and Cover 2. and now it's back to 3-4s. But the wildcat did nothing against last year so that is a very valid point. This part is silly to me. He just simply glosses over the QB position like it isn't by far the most important position in sports. Switch the Bills QBs for the decade with any of the top guys, and it doesn't matter who was coaching. Great Qbs make coaches. There are very few coaches (Shanahan, Gibbs) who can win consistently with average QBs. I agree, belicheat looks closer to average without Shady Brady, Take away Eli the Giants don't win the Superbowl, same thing with the Colts without Peyton or the the Steelers without big Ben. Superstar QB's bring home Championships
Thurman#1 Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 This is dead-nuts accurate and highlites why dick jauron will do nothing but anchor this team at the bottom. By my view, there are basically 4-6 teams with a lot of talent who can win 12-13 games, and 4-6 teams so completely devoid of talent that they'll only win 2-3 games. The remaining 20 odd teams in the NFL all have similar talent levels and will depend on coaching to put them over the hump. Good coaches get the teams to 10 wins and the playoffs. Bad coaches cause teams to lose games and prevent them from succeeding (jauron). The Bills are squarely in that middle group, and we probably have 9 or even 10 win talent. Unfortunately, piss poor coaching from jauron and co. will cost us at least 2 wins this season, once again putting us in the 7 win range. It's worth remembering that there is a legitimate argument that just the opposite is true, that coaches are over-hyped and that talent rather than coaching is what generally makes the difference. Here's a quote from Gregg Easterbrook on this very subject: "But as sports become ever-more important and ever-more analyzed, there seems an increasing tendency to want to believe that everything on the field happens for a reason. The ball didn't just bounce into some guy's hands, good coaching put the guy into the right position. The receiver didn't just run fast and get open, hours of round-the-clock study enabled the coach to determine precisely what pass pattern to call. It wasn't that the Colts played well Saturday while the Chiefs had an off day, this happened because Tony Dungy did an astonishingly good job of preparing his team using subtle psychological tools plus mega-brilliant game planning, while Herman Edwards did a poor job of preparing his team. Actually, Dungy and Edwards probably both did pretty much the same things all week before that game – Indianapolis just has better players than Kansas City. But we don't want to believe that, we want to believe the coach is in near-total control of events and outcomes." A few years old, obviously, but just as relevant today. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...terbrook/070109 His argument is that coaches basically use the same drills, run practice the same way and have less impact on player mood and team morale than they, and we, would like to believe. Here's his take on motivation, very relevant to the argument about Jauron's capabilities: "Next is the illusion of special motivational ability. Anyone who's been involved in competitive athletics knows that 90 percent of motivation comes from within the athlete. But the coaching guild doesn't want you to know that. A good coach can help the athlete realize the last 10 percent of motivation, while a bad coach can depress what the athlete already has – but in either case the real power of athletics comes from the players' psyches. But we live in a moment when celebrities and supposed experts get $50,000 to give motivational speeches, during which they stand on a stage flailing their arms and screaming "Get going, get going." We want to believe there are secret motivational tools that will unlock our hidden potential. Athletes will tell you that an amazing percentage even of successful coaches have poor interpersonal skills and are poor motivators – mainly, they yell. Show me a coach who yells a lot, and I'll show you a coach who is wasting everybody's time. But the illusion that coaches have incredible motivational abilities adds to their mystique." One more, from a different column about what Easterbrook refers to as "the Illusion of the SuperCoach." "The first flaw is obvious -- coaches don't play! A coach's hard work, good judgment and good play calling help, but these are only a few of many factors in sports success -- and all trail the athletic ability of the players by a large margin. I'd hazard an unscientific guess that in football, the coach can be responsible for up to a 10 percent swing in results: 10 percent more points scored under good coaching, 10 percent fewer under bad coaching. In a close game or a Super Bowl run, that 10 percent swing really matters. In the majority of games, the coaching differential between opponents is small." http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...terbrook/071218 I think this is dead-on.
Thurman#1 Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 You do realize Trent just finished his 2nd season right? And in the first season he wasn't even suppose to play? Yet, he posted a very respected 85 QB rating. Give the guy a chance and drop the unrealistic expectations. Facts are that you are hard pressed to find another QB in Bills history that has come straight from college that has played as well as Edwards has in his first 2 years. Dennis Shaw. That was easy. Took me almost two full seconds to come up with that name. Shaw was on some terrible teams and played in an era when QB stats were much less inflated than they are now, but for his era, he was pretty similar to a Trent. Oh, here's a way to start up yet again the same old controversy, but J.P. Losman. Losman had almost exactly the same amount of starts as Trent has now when he finished up his very good 2006 season. He regressed after that, but that's the point. Young guys sometimes regress. Other times they improve. Other times they stay the same. We have to hope that Trent is one of the ones who improve. And could you just quickly point to all the unrealistic expectations I have apparently shown. I'll wait.
Thurman#1 Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 This point was made ad nauseum last Season concerning Dead Dick and this Coaching Staff...I completely agree concerning the talent from Team to Team...there are a couple Teams with better talent, a couple with poorer, and the rest are about the same overall...It then comes down to Coaching and Our HC has a history of losing to winning Teams...He's good at it...It's what he does best... Regardless of coaching, I think you couldn't be more wrong about talent level of most teams being level. QB level alone plays out along a bell curve. It's not even close to equal. The same is true of talent level generally. There's a few more teams of mediocre talent than truly exceptional or truly lousy, but it's not a big group of 20 who are all the same. It plays out along a spectrum, and that talent spectrum, if you could graph it exactly, would in my opinion correspond extremely well with win-loss records.
Thurman#1 Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 People have refer to Trent's "it" factor on the field. Sanchez' "it" factor refers to his marketability. Facts are if McCoy and Bradford were in the draft, Sanchez is the 4th QB off the board and New York is talking about someone else's "it" factor. Everything comes in trends. In the early 90s, it was the 3-4. Then, it switched back to 4-3s and Cover 2. and now it's back to 3-4s. But the wildcat did nothing against last year so that is a very valid point. This part is silly to me. He just simply glosses over the QB position like it isn't by far the most important position in sports. Switch the Bills QBs for the decade with any of the top guys, and it doesn't matter who was coaching. Great Qbs make coaches. There are very few coaches (Shanahan, Gibbs) who can win consistently with average QBs. Pitchers are more important than QBs, IMHO.
Fingon Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 Dennis Shaw. That was easy. Took me almost two full seconds to come up with that name. And could you just quickly point to all the unrealistic expectations I have apparently shown. I'll wait. yeah, man. Shaw's legendary 57 QB rating really blows Edwards out of the water.
C.Biscuit97 Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 Dennis Shaw. That was easy. Took me almost two full seconds to come up with that name. And could you just quickly point to all the unrealistic expectations I have apparently shown. I'll wait. I plead ignorance because honestly, I really never heard of Dennis Shaw. So I looked up his stats: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/ShawDe00.htm 21 tds, 46 ints, and sacked 74 times in his first 2 seasons. Granted, it was a different era then, but those are outright terrible. But wither way, it just goes to show that Edwards is off to on of the better starts in Bills' history. We, as fans because of the last decade, simply lack patience now.
C.Biscuit97 Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 Pitchers are more important than QBs, IMHO. I don't know about that boss. Pitchers, at best, pitch once every 4 days. A QB plays in every game. The best pitcher in baseball, Roy Halladay, hasn't even sniffed the playoffs. You'd be hard pressed to see a good NFL QB who hasn't at least been to the playoffs once.
Fingon Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 I plead ignorance because honestly, I really never heard of Dennis Shaw. So I looked up his stats: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/ShawDe00.htm 21 tds, 46 ints, and sacked 74 times in his first 2 seasons. Granted, it was a different era then, but those are outright terrible. But wither way, it just goes to show that Edwards is off to on of the better starts in Bills' history. We, as fans because of the last decade, simply lack patience now. Yeah, it was a different era, but Shaw's best season he had 10 TDs to 20 INTs. Players like Sunny Jurgensen had 23 TDs to 10 INTs. John Brodie had 24 TDs to 10 INTs, John Hadl had 22 to 15, Lamonica had 22 to 15... etc... The good QBs still put up good numbers.
Recommended Posts