11-28-2019, 02:14 AM
The premise that is laid out by the OP is too hypothetical for my taste. I get that certain rosters during certain time periods are far better than others. There are certain groups of players out there who could probably be told to "go base cover 2" by any old schlub and they'd do fine at it, or certain players who can just be told to "rush the passer" and do an elite job without much instruction. The problem I have is that if you can't evaluate a head coach by their win/loss total, or anything other than the product that they put on the field relative to their peers, what can you judge them by? Would it be fair to go down a rabbit hole of hypotheticals based upon someone else's results? How could you ever be objective with such an analysis? Where would it end? "Gee, if Sean Payton had come to town with two Andrew Whitworths on the line and Tim Couch in his prime, but was hamstrung by a crappy defensive coordinator..." Do you see how absurd this line of thinking can get very quickly? How can you attribute any of Marvin Lewis's wins or losses to a hypothetical coach? Isn't Marvin Lewis's record Marvin Lewis's record? Aren't Zac Taylor's results Zac Taylor's? Why would Zac Taylor be entitled to any hypothetical wins from a different theoretical timeframe?
