** THIS THREAD IS FROM 5 DAYS BEFORE THE START OF THE 2021 SEASON. NEW POST AT END**


I don't believe that coaches can win without good players, but I also believe some coaches can win with less talent than others (or lose with more).  

Andy Reid is one of the greatest coaches of all-time.  He took over an Eagles team that won 3 games and had the unusual distinction of finishing dead last in both yards gained and yards allowed.  He only won 5 games his first season, but since then he has made the playoffs 16 out of 21 years.  He has won 17 playoff games with 2 different teams going to 6 Conference Championship Games and 3 Super Bowls.  But he also went 6-10 in '05 and 4-12 in '12.  Sometimes even the best coaches can't overcome losses of talent due to injury or free agency.

So if a guy like Andy Reid has a bad year, no one claims he is a terrible coach.  But when dealing with a lot of players and new coaches that don't have a track record it is very hard to determine how much of the problem is coaching and how much is lack of talent.

I have a couple of ideas, but once I will admit that I don't have all the answers in this area.  So I'd like to hear what you guys think.

-I think one way to separate coaching from talent is too look at what happens at the very end of a half or end of a game. I feel the effects of coaching are magnified in the more difficult situations.

-Some fans like to point to penalties, but when you look at the numbers every year there are a lot of the best teams that are among the most penalized.

-I find it very difficult to criticize play calling.  If a coach plays it by the books and fails he is not creative enough.  If he tries something out of the ordinary and fails then he is stupid for not doing what every other coach knows is best.  Fans want coaches to "keep their foot on the pedal" with a lead until they throw away a game like we did against Tampa Bay in 2010.  Lots of Bengal fans claim Marvin Lewis cost us a lot of games by being too conservative with a lead, but when asked to give just one single example most come up blank.  Lots of fans also claim the Bengals threw the ball too much last year, but our run game was really bad.  I felt we had to throw a lot to have any chance of winning.

-From what I saw last year it seemed like much of the problem in pass blocking was players not knowing what to do.  I saw more mental mistakes than guys just getting bullrushed or beaten with speed.  But I have absolutely no way of measuring that with statistics.  I do know that Baltimore got 5 sacks from DBs in our first meeting.  Those guys were not just running over our O-linemen.  I blame a lot of that on coaching, but again it is hard to say 100%.  Sometimes there are players so dumb that not even top coaches can do anything with them.

Any other suggestion on how to (or not how to) split the blame between players and coaches?

I don't know if we should put a percentage on it (say...60% players, 40% coaching for example). I think it'd be more accurate to just say you need great players to win, but great coaches need far fewer great players.

I said when we hired Taylor that it shouldn't take 5 years to figure out if he's a great coach. You see an impact with great coaches right away. There are countless examples, but Reid and Jim Harbaugh were a couple good ones (among dozens at least).

Taylor has proven himself to be "just a guy" at best, and - more likely - a bad coach who gets less out of his players. Some will blame Turner or now Lou, but those hires were hand picked by Taylor. You can't blame the line because Taylor was well aware of that issue coming in, and hasn't pressed the Brown family to get more serious about it. Instead, he and his staff defended guys like MJ and Hart.

I'm excited to see the offense this year because it's the offensive scheme Zac Taylor has wanted to implement since he got to Cincinnati and has just had the cast to pull it off.

Reid has a coaching background decades beyond Zac's. He's coached teams with little talent and teams with a ton of talent and everything in between in the NFL since 1992 when Zac was about 10 years old. So we really can't compare Reid's season's good or bad to Zac's.

So let's see Zac's background: Assistant QB coach of the Dolphins 2012 (During the five games Taylor served as OC, the Dolphins went 2-3 and averaged 17 points per game), then a gap and Offensive Coordinator at UC 2016. 2017 Rams assistant wide receivers coach and 2018 QB coach. 2019 hired to be head coach of the Bengals. And here we are now.

Apparently the Bengals are now loaded on offense with Mixon, Chase, Boyd and Higgins. Let's see what this offensive genius can do. But in no current universe should Zac's name even come up when talking about Andy Reid's history. And yes I know the OP didn't mention Zac by name but I feel it was very much implied.

I hope Zac isn't as bad has he has been for sure. This season will be his go big or get out as far as I'm concerned.

(09-07-2021, 06:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't believe that coaches can win without good players, but I also believe some coaches can win with less talent than others (or lose with more).  

Andy Reid is one of the greatest coaches of all-time.  He took over an Eagles team that won 3 games and had the unusual distinction of finishing dead last in both yards gained and yards allowed.  He only won 5 games his first season, but since then he has made the playoffs 16 out of 21 years.  He has won 17 playoff games with 2 different teams going to 6 Conference Championship Games and 3 Super Bowls.  But he also went 6-10 in '05 and 4-12 in '12.  Sometimes even the best coaches can't overcome losses of talent due to injury or free agency.

So if a guy like Andy Reid has a bad year, no one claims he is a terrible coach.  But when dealing with a lot of players and new coaches that don't have a track record it is very hard to determine how much of the problem is coaching and how much is lack of talent.

I have a couple of ideas, but once I will admit that I don't have all the answers in this area.  So I'd like to hear what you guys think.

-I think one way to separate coaching from talent is too look at what happens at the very end of a half or end of a game. I feel the effects of coaching are magnified in the more difficult situations.

-Some fans like to point to penalties, but when you look at the numbers every year there are a lot of the best teams that are among the most penalized.

-I find it very difficult to criticize play calling.  If a coach plays it by the books and fails he is not creative enough.  If he tries something out of the ordinary and fails then he is stupid for not doing what every other coach knows is best.  Fans want coaches to "keep their foot on the pedal" with a lead until they throw away a game like we did against Tampa Bay in 2010.  Lots of Bengal fans claim Marvin Lewis cost us a lot of games by being too conservative with a lead, but when asked to give just one single example most come up blank.  Lots of fans also claim the Bengals threw the ball too much last year, but our run game was really bad.  I felt we had to throw a lot to have any chance of winning.

-From what I saw last year it seemed like much of the problem in pass blocking was players not knowing what to do.  I saw more mental mistakes than guys just getting bullrushed or beaten with speed.  But I have absolutely no way of measuring that with statistics.  I do know that Baltimore got 5 sacks from DBs in our first meeting.  Those guys were not just running over our O-linemen.  I blame a lot of that on coaching, but again it is hard to say 100%.  Sometimes there are players so dumb that not even top coaches can do anything with them.

Any other suggestion on how to (or not how to) split the blame between players and coaches?

Like you implied, talent is innate and differs from performance.  So, as example, Chase is talented but not performing well in preseason.   Athletes with less talent then the league average may perform well. But it doesn't mean bad coaching. Some athletes are head cases and high maintenance.

I guess I would suggest using performance metric data to compare individual expectation of performance.  Coaching is subjective and usually comes down to outcome goals like winning or the end of year record.  Some might say winning a playoff game equates to good coaching.  I think Trey Hopkins is a product of good coaching, good scheme fit, and good development. I also think it comes down to a coaches relationship and ability to connect with players. I think Lou may have problem here, and Turner failed big time connecting and communicating with players.

Then there are variables such as team chemistry and synergy.  Team facilities for training. Lingering injuries. Lingering injuries is underestimated by most fans and can destroy an athlete psychologically.  

(09-07-2021, 06:54 PM)Synric Wrote: I'm excited to see the offense this year because it's the offensive scheme Zac Taylor has wanted to implement since he got to Cincinnati and has just had the cast to pull it off.

Thats what Michigan fans have been saying for a decade now.

(09-07-2021, 07:17 PM)George Cantstandya Wrote: But in no current universe should Zac's name even come up when talking about Andy Reid's history. And yes I know the OP didn't mention Zac by name but I feel it was very much implied.  

Reid was in no way compared to Taylor.

The only reason I talked about Reid was to shut up the fans who claim that talent and injuries don't effect good coaches.

Good coaching,and when I say good,I mean very good coaching has a huge impact on how successful a team is in the NFL.I think players that are able to make a 53 man roster at the NFL level have to have some special talent just to make the roster.

That’s where coaching comes in,so as they can get the most out of that player,and then some.Of course we’re not just talking about Head Coach,but the entire coaching staff.

I’ve seen really good Quarterbacks who could have just barely average Wide Receivers,and send them to the Pro-Bowl,just because the Quarterback was that good.Then that receiver went to another lesser team,with a not so good Quarterback,and things didn’t turn out to well.Now what happens when that Elite Quarterback gets himself a trio of Elite Wide Receivers?

But,top level talent implemented into High level coaching sure sure does help.

When a player reaches the NFL, he is in very elite company.
All of a sudden he realizes ok, heres the pinnacle.
And here comes the $$$$.
Heres is where the coaching comes in
Its the HC, and the position coach job to get him.To buy
Into the program. Now they have to make sure every
Player is all in.
A good HC has to get everyone to.believe.
Cause once a player gets $$$$$$, he doesnt have to
Give that effort and dedication that he exhibited in college
Its to the coach to help keep him hungry
In the NFL a coach can make or break a team.
And good coaches are always evolving and learning
Staying ahead of the curve.
I want a HC to take the talent he has and be innovative
And not predictable. Create a identity.

You'd think in a 32 team being fed by 130 D1 schools and a salary cap in place talent would be close to the same. Where your talent is on the field and does it line up with what you as coaches are trying to accomplish is an often overlooked thing. Parcells...Bellicheck....Ravens....Steelers....those guys/organizations have always seemed to understand that.

Like if we have Chase and Higgins running three yard outs or similar routes all year that a guy like Irwin could be almost as effective running I am gonna blow my lid. Parcells was really good at knowing this season I am gonna do xyz and I am going to ask a lot from Player X so I need a stud there and am going to pay a stud. Player Y just needs to do his assignment and that is all I am gonna ask him to do and I just need a guy there. Steelers know they have Big Ben and he's gonna extend plays. They aren't gonna pay WR's. They've let AB, Santonio, Mike Wallace and others too walk only to replace them with 4th/5th tounders who can run. Ravens always seem to have an idenity on both sides of the ball that fits where their talent lies.

Little League/High School ..... It's the Joe's not the X's and O's.
College.....Coaching and QB become more important but superior talent across the board can still overcome
NFL......It's a coaches/coordinators and QB league. Everyone has talent. Who's being put in the best positions to show it?

Well this is an interesting topic.

I'm not sure there can be a set percentage or ratio. There's a third factor in play, which is the team's front office. For a guy like Andy Reid the front office is also him. Same is true for Belichick.

But in Cincinnati there's a distinct separation between the front office and the coaching staff and personnel. How do you count it when a coaching staff says they do not want player X, but the front office desires something that player X has and drafts him anyways. You can end up with a John Ross. What then? Yes, this would go down as lower quality talent, but we could all see that Marvin got blamed for Ross' failure early on. Of course, 3 years later an entire new coaching staff comes out and says they aren't sure Ross even cares about football.

Andy Reid saw something in Mahomes that Bengals staff didn't. Andy traded way up to snag him. We took Ross. Look at the gap that that one decision created between the success of each of the two teams. And who can say that Marvin could have gotten Mahomes to be the Mahomes we see today? No one. In fact, I don't think he would have, but he would have done more for the Bengals than Ross did.

I see guys like Belichick and Reid do more with less. I also see them acquire better talent to work with.

Van Noy plays great under Belichick, but not great elsewhere.

Belichick drafted Brady in the 6th round and Brady was only a part-time starter at Michigan. Then the two together became a great team. Does anyone see Brady accomplishing what he did all this time without Belichick? Yeah, he did here in Tampa last season, but the Bucs are loaded on both sides of the ball. Seriously what other coach would have started Brady in those playoff games when the team's franchise QB is coming back form an injury? Very few coaches, if any at all. Bledsoe was their guy. But for some years Marvin wasn't even allowed to make up his own game day roster. How does that work exactly?

The Bengals front office let Troy Blackburn send text messages to players in contract negotiations and we then all got to watch Whitworth say adios, which created a mess for several years. Marvin really thought Whit was coming back. Surprise, surprise, surprise as Gomer Pyle use to say.

An inept front office can really screw up your roster. I know this then shows up in the talent side of the equation, but an Ogbuehi playing LT is more like negative talent than just lessor talent.

(09-07-2021, 06:44 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I said when we hired Taylor that it shouldn't take 5 years to figure out if he's a great coach. You see an impact with great coaches right away. There are countless examples, but Reid and Jim Harbaugh were a couple good ones (among dozens at least).

Good point. Marv ran a tight ship from Day 1, which was esp impressive given the time. You knew right away that he had staying power. And he was just average in retrospect. Zac hasn't even sniffed that mediocre level in two years. It's now or never for the guy... or at least it should be imo.

(09-07-2021, 06:54 PM)Synric Wrote: I'm excited to see the offense this year because it's the offensive scheme Zac Taylor has wanted to implement since he got to Cincinnati and has just had the cast to pull it off.

This was lame excuse #21. Taylor has been running his offense since he got here. It hasn't worked out well. Besides, he's suppose to be getting wins, not hobbyhorsing his favorite plays.

 

Talent can overcome coaching Barry Switzer and Brian Billick are examples.

1 think Taylor is better than Marvin in game management. The jury is out as far as gameplanning

(09-07-2021, 10:05 PM)BengalChris Wrote: This was lame excuse #21. Taylor has been running his offense since he got here. It hasn't worked out well. Besides, he's suppose to be getting wins, not hobbyhorsing his favorite plays.

 

Wrong.


Zac Taylor and Brian Callahan have wanted to run a heavy wide zone offense with tight formations. He tried it early in 2019 but thr Offensive Line consisting of John Jerry/Andre Smith - Michael Jordan - Trey Hopkins - John Miller - Bobby Hart were struggling to not only get push but get to their landmarks forcing which forced the Bengals to be more pass heavy early and completely revamping the run offense later in the season. In 2020 wanting their Offense to be something their Rookie QB was comfortable in and the multiple offensive line combinations forced Taylor and Callahan to use a heavy run gun spread offense.

This pre-season we are seeing a wide zone similar to the 49ers. They have condensed formations with alot of window dressings such as jet motions. I expect to see less formations and more plays run out of similar formations the mark of a wide zone.


I understand your objective is to just attack the coaching staff but it's much more fun to talk about football.

(09-07-2021, 10:41 PM)Synric Wrote: Wrong.


Zac Taylor and Brian Callahan have wanted to run a heavy wide zone offense with tight formations. He tried it early in 2019 but thr Offensive Line consisting of John Jerry/Andre Smith - Michael Jordan - Trey Hopkins - John Miller - Bobby Hart were struggling to not only get push but get to their landmarks forcing which forced the Bengals to be more pass heavy early and completely revamping the run offense later in the season. In 2020 wanting their Offense to be something their Rookie QB was comfortable in and the multiple offensive line combinations forced Taylor and Callahan to use a heavy run gun spread offense.

This pre-season we are seeing a wide zone similar to the 49ers. They have condensed formations with alot of window dressings such as jet motions. I expect to see less formations and more plays run out of similar formations the mark of a wide zone.


I understand your objective is to just attack the coaching staff but it's much more fun to talk about football.

None of that means a hill of beans. You have the players you have. His job is to win games! That is the purpose of the team.

The "if only I had ___ then I could win" is so lame. Next year it will just something else.

 

It's the NFL if a player has made to the league they have talent. Now maybe a team needs some top level talent to really go to the next level of being a championship caliber team. But I think it's the coaching that puts players in the right place to get the most out of the players and make a solid team. I think of like when Zimmer came here our defense wasn't good and as we went thru the year we started playing better. Same players but coached well and put in the right spots they elevated they're play.

(09-07-2021, 11:37 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: It's the NFL if a player has made to the league they have talent. Now maybe a team needs some top level talent to really go to the next level of being a championship caliber team. But I think it's the coaching that puts players in the right place to get the most out of the players and make a solid team. I think of like when Zimmer came here our defense wasn't good and as we went thru the year we started playing better. Same players but coached well and put in the right spots they elevated they're play.

That is an excellent point!

 

This is a fascinating question…  thanks for posing it.

I’ll try not to be too long winded, but I find this very interesting.  

If I were to try and sum up the role of a coach in one sentence, it would be: To make the team better than the sum of its parts.  

This applies equally to a low-talent roster as well is a high-talent roster.  Can the coach make the team perform better than the talent it has.  

I’ll draw comparison to the Miami Dolphins.  At the 2019 they also hired a new head coach, who was also in the super bowl (Flores got the same late start that Taylor did).  Miami gutted their roster and started the season allowing the most points in NFL history.  Flores was able to take a roster with the talent level to win 2 games and make them a 5 win team.  Considering the talent on the roster, I feel his coaching that year was very good, even though they didn’t win a ton of games.

On to the crux of the question, I think of a coach’s role similar to planning for a business or “war games” with 3 levels – Strategy, Operations & Tactical.  All of which are important to the team success.

Strategy – This is the team philosophy, identity and offensive & defensive schemes that the staff wants to run.

Operations – Implementation of the strategy – getting the right coaching staff to teach the schemes, getting player personnel/talent needed to execute, and game planning.

Tactical – Engagements. This is the on the field play.  Play calling, time management, execution by the players and on-field player leadership.

All 3 areas overlap with and provide feedback to each other.  If you don’t have the players to implement the scheme (strategy), then either the scheme needs to be modified or you have to get the right players.  

And all 3 areas are important - if you have the right scheme (strategy) and right players/coaches (operations), but your play calling and in game management is crap, you still won’t be successful (the LA Chargers under Lynn comes to mind, losing games they should win because of poor execution on special teams and clock management).

From a Bengals fan perspective, we’ve had issues in the past 2 years getting all 3 areas to mesh and work together.
- “Lou hasn’t had the right players to execute his scheme”
- “Jim Turner: not having the right coach to get the most out of the o-line talent on the roster”
- “With a weak o-line, burrow should not have been put in a position to throw 40+ times a game (play calling)”

Hopefully the Bengals are now in a position where the scheme and players mesh, we have the right coaches to teach it, and it is reflected in the on-field execution. And we get the most out of the talent we have on the roster.