NFL Thread 11

[Kalbear]

From reading FO, specific analysis of OLine performance on an individual basis is very, very hard and time consuming. But FO does have specific metrics of OLine performance that are pretty interesting. They can be found over here.

Note that much like QB, RB, WR and defensive performance line performance is tied together with all sorts of stuff. QBs are often just as responsible for being sacked as the line is (not to mention blocking RBs), RBs are often responsible for doing great runs, etc. But it's a start, and more importantly it rates based on the opposition.

[The Dude]

Of those, who do you not consider a great coach? Cowher, Holmgren, Payton, Belichick, Johnson are great without any reasonable contest, I think. Dungy is at least good given what he was able to do in both Tampa and in Indy, though it's interesting that his teams did well in the regular season and lost in the playoffs consistently, isn't it? (this was why he was fired in Tampa). Tomlin appears to be a fairly good coach given Pittsburgh's track records in the last few years.

That is interesting, and it reminds of a coach named Marty who was ultimately vicitimized by his own stigma. Maybe the best coach to never make it to the Superbowl? Norv's just basically followed in his footsteps despite always having a highly talented team.

[Kalbear]

To be fair to New England, as far as FO is concerned NE is good everywhere. They've had great WR performance, great RB performance, great QB performance and great line performance. Hell, even their TE is great. I would think that their turning on of god mode happened at the same time Mankins came back, which also marked a better running game, fewer hurries on Brady and the like. Then shortly after they got Branch into the bit. But yeah, I think their OLine is the real reason that they've been dominant as hell.

And their defense has been playing really well too. Though the offense is the one that is in historically amazing levels.

[arrowfan]

Also wrong, btw. Holmgren is one of the only coaches alive that was involved in two separate franchises going to the superbowl (the Pack and the Hawks). Cowher took the Steelers to a superbowl in 1995 as well as winning in 2005.

(abreviated quote) ... argument of coaches, QBs, players, etc.... Gonna chime in here. Have to agree with Razorbeef to some extent on the coaches thing. But here's my angle on it: It's voodoo. There's a chemistry that must be there... a mix of the players and the coaches.

I have to bring up a monumental game of this season... Eagles@Giants, with a win Giants would have taken the division even with a loss to the Pack the following week. They had a healthy lead - at home. And blew it. Well, see if Ditka was the coach (!) (hate him all ya want)... he'd be pacing the sidelines bitching out random players even with the lead (while madly chewing his cud). They would not have lost that game!

I guess all I'm saying is team chemistry counts for a lot, a mix between the players and coach. voodoo.

Teams with chemistry win games and are fun to watch. I'd say Belichick, in combination with the GM seems to have this down to an (unfair) science! Yikes. But, yea you can tell the dif between well coached teams and not.

Not sure how, or if, this applies (prolly just blatant homerism) ... but the Packers have chemistry!! Sure, they've got a lot of talent, but injuries played a major role in this tough season they've had. I think their the coaching staff was a major factor in them getting this far.

Anyway, i think it's clear that both are needed and neither can be without the other - great players and tough coaches - to make a championship team.

[Rockroi]

The team with the most repeated success in the playoffs and the superbowl has had a history of solid QB play, strong defense, good ownership, a great recruiting and scouting pipeline and a strong tradition in doing things a specific way. That's the Steelers. By comparison everyone else is johnny-come-latelies.

Ogh, that's just a cop-out. In 1993, the game changed forever with a salary cap and the end of Plan B Free agency. Everything before then has to be measured with a different stick. I think its tremendous that the Steelers have been able to remain relevant through that transition, but so did the Cowboys and the Pats are the current model franchise for all sports.

Belichick's won 3 and gone to 4.

Had Tom Brady. Has never had any playoff success without him.

Cowher's won 1 and gone to 2.

Had Rothelesberger for one, O'Donnell for the other, but lost that one. Rothlessberger has since won one without Coher.

Holmgren's won 1 and gone to 2.

Actually, Holmgren has gone to three, but it was important that you remembered the time-line I was utilizing which was from 1999 through the current season (one decade). This was why I didn't mention Johnson. Anyway, Holmgren had Brett Favre for two (went 1-1). Matt Hasselbeck is a very good QB, not as good as Favre.

Jimmy Johnson's won 2.

Right, but here is where the theory looks more problematic: That team went onto to win a Superbowl with Aikman at QB and without Johnson. In fact, Christ, that team won with Barry Switzer. Let me repeat that in case it was lost on anyone: BARRY SWITZER COACHED A SUPERBOWL WINNING TEAM! In my opinion, this is more damning to your theory than Trent Dilfer is to mine. Seriously, what this says is large amounts of talent can, almost, coast to a Super-bowl even with a frighteningly bad head coach. Talent trumped coaching.

Coughlin's won 1.

Payton's won 1.

Dungy's won 1 and gone to two.

Dungy has only been to one. I mean, he SHOULD get credit for 1.5- the TB team that Gruden took to the SB was all his. Regardless, I am not sure I consider Payton a "great" coach (at least not while he is off the performance enhancing drugs). I mean ... he ... he lost to the Seahawks. Coughlin I think had one great year of coaching and does a really good job, but I am not sure he is "great." Dungy... I mean, you know who his QB was for the ONE season he made it to the SB, right?

Tomlin's won 1 (and is the youngest coach ever to do so)

Vermeil's won one.

Gruden's won one.

Billick's won one.

Vermile is the only one I would consider "great," but that's for his success with two franchises in two different eras 9and his two QBs... Haworski and Warner). The others is a crap-shoot. For starters, Billick's schtick got super-old after that SB season and he wants back into coaching. Not a lot of offers have come his way since. He also had Ray Lewis which seems relevant. Gruden... I really, really don't know. Part of me thinks he gets a lot of credit for being excitable.

But what about all the coaches I mentioned who made it to the Superbowl but lost? By this logic, these guys should be going back more often than not and winning at some point. But the coaches we mentioned ... not many go back. Now, both Holmgren and Cower went to 2 and 3 Superbowls with 2 QBs each. Parcells is actually forgotten here: he went to 3 SB with 3 different Qbs, but two were pre-salary cap, and frankly he had diminishing returns ever since. Shanahan, as you mentioned, never went to a SB without Elway, yet Elway had been to THREE without Shanahan. I don't see much consistency at all. By contrast: Warner went to 3 Superbowls with 2 different teams under three coaches; Manning went to 2 Superbowls with 2 different coaches; Rothlesberger went to 2 Superbowls with 2 different coaches; Aikmen went to 3 SB under 2 coaches (one of them, it bares repeating, was Barry Switzer). Even if you want to throw in Elway, he went to 5 Superbowls with 2 different coaches.

Overall, I agree, that football is a very complicated game that cannot be drawn up or down with one metric or one silver bullet, but multitudes of factors that come and go. I like studying those factors and see how they operate. In the coach-QB dynamic, you need a lot of strength; the symbiotic relationship the two create is greater than the sum of their parts. Walsh and Montana were a spectacular team- some claim the best QB and best head coach in NFL history. One NEVER won a championship without the other. I am with you on this. Its a complicated sport with many dimensions. No argument.

Now, why are we even discussing this? My point has been that Manning's lack of overall PLAYOFF (yes, we are talking about PLAYOFFS!) success- not his lack of Superbowl success- will impact his overall legacy. And I think its fair: they have changed coaches, offensive weapons, defense personnel, etc, but Manning has remained constant. And there is a wide streak of underachievement in his performances. Yes, its a part of a larger whole, but one deserving of some viewing.

[Kalbear]

Ogh, that's just a cop-out. In 1993, the game changed forever with a salary cap and the end of Plan B Free agency. Everything before then has to be measured with a different stick. I think its tremendous that the Steelers have been able to remain relevant through that transition, but so did the Cowboys and the Pats are the current model franchise for all sports.

Actually that's the most remarkable thing about the Steelers- their success in completely different eras of play. The Steelers since the salary cap have gone to three superbowls and won 2 with 2 different coaches. There aren't many teams that can compare to that level of success in the same period, and none over that long of a time. The Pats were strong in 2000s, the Cowboys in the 90s, but the Steelers were a strong team for basically the last two decades. That their team continuously has the Steeler identity no matter who is coaching, what players they have, etc - that's an amazing feat. There aren't many teams like that; the only other one that hasn't reinvented itself depending on who is coaching/playing would likely be the Bears, who have always been about defense for, like, ever.

Now, why are we even discussing this? My point has been that Manning's lack of overall PLAYOFF (yes, we are talking about PLAYOFFS!) success- not his lack of Superbowl success- will impact his overall legacy. And I think its fair: they have changed coaches, offensive weapons, defense personnel, etc, but Manning has remained constant. And there is a wide streak of underachievement in his performances. Yes, its a part of a larger whole, but one deserving of some viewing.

I'm not sure that's reasonable at all.

Manning's had two coaches. One had a fairly decent record of sucking in the playoffs. The other hasn't had any record of doing anything at all, and virtually nothing changed as far as the Colts were concerned in transition. Do you really think that having Caldwell gives the Colts any significant advantage?

Also, on underachieving - how? How is losing to the superbowl champions underachieving? I realize that they were favored, but so were the pats. What does who is favored actually matter? Heck, who is favored is almost entirely determined by people betting on the games, and do you know who bets most on games? Completely blind, homertastic fans.

The Simmons quote you mentioned before was interesting in what you omitted, in that he compared Manning's success (or lackthereof) in the playoffs with a number of QBs:

the combined playoff record of Joe Montana, Brady, John Elway, Troy Aikman, Bart Starr and Terry Bradshaw is 78-28?

Montana was great by all accounts. So was Brady. Elway was a choke artist who just couldn't get it done until he got a running game and a good coach. Aikman had Johnson and sucked pretty much after he went. Bradshaw was about the shittiest QB out there; he happened to fit the Steelers mold, but this is a guy who was benched during the superbowl and the playoffs because he wasn't doing well.

Really - do you want to attribute the 'record' of playoff wins to someone like that? Seriously?

I think that the only reason that Manning's success in the playoffs will impact his legacy is because if he had just a bit more wins, he would be by every single measure the unanimous best QB to ever play the game. As it stands he probably still is that, but because football is a team sport and he couldn't play defense as well as he played offense (much less coach) he'll be remembered as a guy who lost quite a bit in the playoffs too but still was just nuts - and people will stupidly assume that every playoff lost is entirely due to Manning just not being able to make his team win.

But what about all the coaches I mentioned who made it to the Superbowl but lost? By this logic, these guys should be going back more often than not and winning at some point. But the coaches we mentioned ... not many go back.

The thing is that there are a lot of reasons that your team does or doesn't get to a superbowl, and it's just a hard thing to do. Belichick is really the exception rather than the rule. As you said, superbowls aren't what we were talking about, but let's separate it: there's coaches that are good at getting to the playoffs, there are coaches that are good at winning in the playoffs. Of these:

Cowher was quite good.

So was Holmgren.

Reid is pretty good too, despite not winning it all; the Eagles have done pretty well in the playoffs overall since he's been there, and given that they've done it with esteemed QBs like AJ Feeley, Jeff Garcia, Kevin Kolb and Michael Vick I'd say he's more to do with it than McNabb is.

As you said, Parcells is great. Just a great coach by any reasonable measure.

Dungy's good at getting to the playoffs but not great when he has to face other good coaches.

Schotty is just meh in the playoffs but insanely good at getting there, better than almost any other coach.

Harbaugh seems to be pretty consistently decent so far. So does Tomlin. Hard to say without more years under their belts.

Shanahan was great; I don't know why he was canned. Washington is still a huge mess though, and I don't know if any coach can do so with Snyder.

And then we have almost no other consistency. Fox, Gruden, Payton, Whisenhunt, Coughlin, Ryan, Martz, Childress (how bad was he?), McCarthy, Turner, hell, folks like Jim Mora - clearly some of these guys were there entirely because of who they had and not because of their skill. One nice thing is that coaching has both a longer shelf life and more moving around than player trading, so we often get to see coaches do well in one place and do well in another. Holmgren, Parcells, Dungy all showed they can do what they do well multiple places. So did Schotty - he was ruthlessly consistent in his lack of getting anywhere.

In that respect it seems like the Patriots are more about Brady than Belichick, given that Belichick has had no playoff success and limited overall success without Brady.

[Bronn Stone]

I have to bring up a monumental game of this season... Eagles@Giants, with a win Giants would have taken the division even with a loss to the Pack the following week. They had a healthy lead - at home. And blew it. Well, see if Ditka was the coach (!) (hate him all ya want)... he'd be pacing the sidelines bitching out random players even with the lead (while madly chewing his cud). They would not have lost that game!

Disregarding the fact that a Ditka coached team would have never been in position to win the division in the first place. Without Buddy Ryan to do his heavy lifting, he was useless. Of course, without Ditka to impose a tiny bit of sanity on him, Ryan was mostly useless. But at least the seed was strong.

Rock - it is impossible to determine if Peyton overperformed in the regular season or underperformed in the post-season. You cite the ridiculous fact that the Colts were favored - which means nothing to that argument - since overpeforming in the regular season would directly cause the team to be overrated by bettors in the post-season. Peyton dominates weak teams. But strong ones have the resources to exploit the Colts flaws - and they've had significant flaws all along the way. The QB can only do so much.

Belichick is one of the strongest coaches in the history of the league. He's also one of the most effective cheaters. It makes for a lethal combination.

[Kalbear]

I guess all I'm saying is team chemistry counts for a lot, a mix between the players and coach. voodoo.

I think there are simply lots of ways to win, and it's not easily quanifiable. Sometimes it comes down to a great matchup vs a great weakness (like the Pats/Giants). Sometimes it comes down to team chemistry and having the balls to try things (like the Saints and the 2001 Pats). Sometimes it's a great defense. Sometimes it's one single person just willing their team to victory. Some times its having the other team's plans. There's no one way, and having the best QB doesn't mean that you're going to have such a huge advantage that you'll automatically win or even be expected to most of the time. Any more than having the best coach does.

Not sure how, or if, this applies (prolly just blatant homerism) ... but the Packers have chemistry!! Sure, they've got a lot of talent, but injuries played a major role in this tough season they've had. I think their the coaching staff was a major factor in them getting this far.

It's hugely blatant homerism.

McCarthy makes routinely horrible decisions. Not only is he a bad playoff coach, he's a pretty horrible regular season coach. One of my pet theories is that when you see a team that should win a bunch but doesn't due to luck or weird things, that's a sign of bad coaching. No team is more indicative of this than the Packers. If you look at Football Outsiders for the last 3 seasons the Packers have been one of if not the highest-rated team each year. Yet they lose games they should win (like the Atlanta game this year or the Arizona game last year), they routinely fuck themselves over with stupid penalties and the like (like how they lost to the Bears) and make really idiotic decisions left and right. They have the highest pythagorean win total difference to actual wins I've ever seen. What that means is that statistically they should win a lot but don't.

To me, that's a sign of coaching. And watching the games I've seen tons of that; stupid penalties, bad challenges galore, dumb playcalling, mental mistakes - that's the Packers. That's honestly why I think Atlanta will win (though I dearly don't want them to) - because I have zero faith that the Packers can beat a team that plays as cleanly as Atlanta does. In the playoffs more often than not it's the team that makes the fewest mistakes that wins, and Atlanta is as clean as they come.

[Rockroi]

Manning's had two coaches. One had a fairly decent record of sucking in the playoffs.

See, here I think you are, to be fair, contradicting yourself. How come Dungy has a "fairly decent record of sucking" in the playoffs when he actually brought his team to the NFC Championship game? I mean, yeah, his record was 2-4 with TB, but do you know what his overall playoff record is?

Seriously, I looked it up (I SWEAR TO GOD THIS IS TRUE)... its 9-10 (same as Manning's). I mean, yeah, Dungee never tasted a SB without Manning, but he also got Manning there and nearly got a relatively underwhelming TB team there as well.

The other hasn't had any record of doing anything at all, and virtually nothing changed as far as the Colts were concerned in transition. Do you really think that having Caldwell gives the Colts any significant advantage?

It would if he coached against the Colts, that way the Colts would get an extra time-out. No, actually, I think Caldwell is probably a bad coach. But doesn't that sort of point more towards the "its the QB that's the more important factor?" Remember, I do not really subtract much from Manning's score sheet merely because he lost a Superbowl (though, the manner in which he lost it is something I think is interesting). No. Its the 7 losses in the first game he plays in the playoffs. And while I am sure you do not think being favored is important, I find its relevant: he more than likely had the better team. Yes, on same of those games, Brady had the better team as well (2007 SB, 2009 WC game- Pats IIRC were favored, but not certain) and lost. But your rational- that "Completely blind, homertastic fans" set the line is not just disingenuous, but illogical. I mean, by this logic 1) all the homertastic fans should... cancel each other out. And 2) if the most homertastic fans had THAT much control of the line... than shouldn't the Jets have been favored last week?

(side Note: Simmons' podcasts on Monday have provided a LOT of insight into how Vegas sets the line and how they take into account those "homertastic fans"; how some teams are public and get that much attention and action).

I mean, regardless, we both agree this is a remarkably complicated game and has many factors. I think one factor is how THIS one QB has had underwhelming success in the post season. But, then again, its part of that relationship with other factors - coaches, good defense, lack of injuries, and a smattering of luck (I put luck far lower on my list than you do, and I'm the guy who had to watch a scrub catch a football on his helmet... BEAT THAT!) I just think that Manning's lack of overall playoff success is a down side to his career. Look at it this way: he has had so many shots, you would think he would have made more of those opportunities.

Okay, well, I think we agree on a few levels, so lets look at this another way.

The NFL decides to start all over again- each team empties their roster and releases every coach, assistant coach, and GM. They choose, at random, 32 different people to help put the NFL back together again; each person gets their own team. Your team, say the Bears, decides that you, kal, will make the very first chocie in putting their new team back together? Who- among all the player, coach, and executive talent in the NFL would you take to help rebuild the Bears?

(and if you say Jay Cutler, you will be fired on the spot).

(oh, and I'l break the suspense, I probably take Belichick... which is kind of against my own point, but I think makes him more of the exception than the rule).

[Dinsdale!]

I have to bring up a monumental game of this season... Eagles@Giants, with a win Giants would have taken the division even with a loss to the Pack the following week. They had a healthy lead - at home. And blew it. Well, see if Ditka was the coach (!) (hate him all ya want)... he'd be pacing the sidelines bitching out random players even with the lead (while madly chewing his cud). They would not have lost that game!

I seem to recall Tom Coughlin pacing down the sidelines growling at everybody in sight. I think your absolutely wrong. Tom Couglin needed to calm down his team and did the awesome. There was a critical penalty in the 4th quarter. The Giants were driving, it was second and six with 4 to go very close to field goal range. The Eagles just used their last time out to prevent the giants from winning the game by running out the clock. Two runs of three yards and the giants win the game. False start by David Diehl. Now it's 2 and 11. I think a calmer couch makes for an offensive lineman and the Giants are way more likely to win that game.

[Kalbear]

Tough one, Rock. I'd probably go with Parcells. Parcells has been able to show front-office skill, coaching talent through multiple decades, and good scouting acumen. Belichick is probably a better coach but a worse developer of talent (though the last two years have been really stellar; what gives?)

The other option is someone like Pioli or Polian. Both have been amazing for a while.

If we're talking living or dead, I might go with Halas or Chuck Noll.

But your rational- that "Completely blind, homertastic fans" set the line is not just disingenuous, but illogical. I mean, by this logic 1) all the homertastic fans should... cancel each other out. And 2) if the most homertastic fans had THAT much control of the line... than shouldn't the Jets have been favored last week?

You listen to Simmons; you know the answer. Pitt fans set the line a lot more than Ravens fans do. KC fans don't set any lines. Colts and Pats get lots of action on either side. New York gets lots of action. Some teams just have a ton of fans that'll bet the homer way, and it does set the line.

that being said, is your point that if your team is favored and you lose, it's more the QB's fault? I don't think you can be that simplistic reasonably.

[Kalbear]

And on this:

It would if he coached against the Colts, that way the Colts would get an extra time-out. No, actually, I think Caldwell is probably a bad coach. But doesn't that sort of point more towards the "its the QB that's the more important factor?"

See, I think you're getting mixed up here. Caldwell doesn't do anything special aside from make Brady scared and have flashbacks to 2006, and the Colts lose the superbowl. Do you think that if they had had a competent coach they wouldn't have? I'm not sure. I don't think they would have skipped the last two games, and I think that changes the attitude of the Colts significantly.

I talked with my wife and she reasonably said 'it depends on the team'. Some teams are all about the QB and the coach is superfluous; for the Colts, on offense I think that's very true. Some teams are all about the coach and can have high turnover and still be fine; the Steelers are a team like that, I think. Some teams have leaders who aren't the QB or coach and they inspire and win - Ray Lewis comes to mind here, but there are others around the league that do this, especially with younger QBs. And some are a combination of how the players and the coach interact.

Ultimately while I'm reasonably okay with penning more of the blame on coaching in general - especially in the playoffs - I think generalities like that really miss useful data. I think the Colts lost this year almost entirely because of a too-cautious gameplan in the 4th, and that wasn't Manning (at least as a QB), that was playcalling. I think that Seattle won mostly because of home field advantage and (shocking to me) coaching; Carroll knew that the Saints had a safety that could be preyed on and went after him over and over again. That wasn't Hass playing great or even any facet of the team playing well; that was almost all scheme.

By the same token I think that Cassel definitely lost the game for the Chiefs; while they didn't have much of a chance they had far less of one putting it in his hands. And I think that Rodgers outplayed Vick, but it ultimately came down to poor choices in coaching and some poor decisions by Vick.

I think for a lot of the losses by the Colts in the playoffs you can do a similar analysis and point to some crucial bits and then lay blame. I'm fine saying that a QB or a specific player won a specific game if the data backs that up, but assigning all wins and losses to QBs is silly. For instance, does Kurt Warner get the "L" in the 2009 superbowl even though his last useful drive (before a hail mary) he drove his team to the end zone and scored a TD and put his team ahead? Just doesn't make sense to say that he lost the game and that somehow made him worse than Roethlisberger that day.

[Stego]

And because he doesn't treat the media like his own personal lapdog, he's an arrogant, rude, petulant asshole. And maybe he is, but if he can keep bringing winning seasons to Chicago he can continue to be our arrogant, rude, petulant asshole.

You got farther with Grossman.

[Stego]

Tough one, Rock. I'd probably go with Parcells. Parcells has been able to show front-office skill, coaching talent through multiple decades, and good scouting acumen. Belichick is probably a better coach but a worse developer of talent (though the last two years have been really stellar; what gives?)

Foolishness. Parcells has been more a failure than a winner. He only won championships in New York with the Giants. He failed in Dallas, New England, New York with the Jets, and Miami. In fact, he never won without Belichick and repeatedly lost head-to-head. Belichick is 50% with the teams he head coached. Parcells has been proven to be a paper bag inflated by Belichick.