How to separate "talent" from "coaching"

[BengalChris]

(09-08-2021, 02:08 PM)tms Wrote: I see what you're saying and it's a gruesome stat. But the Bucs fared even worse in the years when he threw fewer picks lol. There must have been more to the story. For that matter, you should bring it up with TheLeonardLeap. He seems to think they won because the defense improved. So unless he's suggesting the defensive improvement (and the team's more broadly) can be explained by Winston not throwing interceptions on offense, I'm just the middleman here. If anything I'm the common thread between all of you. It's clear that there was was an "X-factor" that impacted positively on all three phases of their team. 

I mean, you could say it was addition by subtraction, but I think that's too simple. These are professional teams. I personally think it was addition by addition- but exactly what they added is hard to isolate. It goes beyond stats and analytics. It's fascinating.

Each year is a new year.

(09-08-2021, 02:14 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: What changed other than Tom Brady? They had a 2nd year in a new defense. That's generally when you see the big change. Just look at the Bengals in 2007 were the 24th scoring defense. Zimmer comes and they are the 19th scoring defense in 2008. Then 2009 happens and they are the 6th scoring defense and go to the playoffs.

You focus on the 2020 changes, but there were huge 2019 changes that just took time to all gel together in a new defense. They added Ndamukong Suh and Shaquil Barrett, they drafted Devin White. None of that was because of Brady.

So what changed for the Bucs? They went from the 29th scoring defense to the 8th scoring defense. Tom Brady's intangibles didn't make the defense become a top-10 defense. TWO 2nd Team All-Pro LBs along with a bunch of great pass rushers all in their 2nd year in the system did that. 

But sure, focus on what they did a decade ago as somehow proof that the 2020 Bucs wouldn't have been a good team without Brady even though those weren't the same players or coaches and thus completely irrelevant. The Bucs are loaded and Bruce Arians is getting the best out of them. The same way that he had Carson Palmer QB'd team go 13-3 and win a playoff game.

The Bucs actually looked at a little sketchy in Nov. They lost 3 of 4 games going into their bye week.

At that point, and the team talked about this after the season, they took a step and looked at what they did well on offense and what didn't work well. They started calling more screens and runs and changed the game plans up that way. They didn't lose a game after that, all the way to a SB win.

I'm sure there were changes that I don't know about, but the bye week changes were key.

 

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2021, 01:35 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: George nailed it.

Considering that no one was comparing Taylor to Reid, George actually missed the point completely.

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2021, 02:16 AM)tms Wrote:  It's historically accepted in basketball that one player can change a team. Nobody ever wondered whether prime Lebron could singlehandedly make his teams competitive in CLE > MIA > CLE > LAL- or singlehandedly leave them in tatters by walking away- because that's what NBA superstars do. It's not so simple in the NFL for all the above reasons and more.   

Actually it is histoprically accepted that the Quarterback is by far the most important nposition on a team and can change the fortunes of an entire team.

If you don't believ me then explain why they are paid TWICE AS MUCH as the top players at other positions.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-08-2021, 02:33 PM)tms Wrote: There was no winning without Brady. That's not just a claim, it is a fact. You're shooting the messenger lol. 

It's an interesting theory that they all came together at the right time- and the right timing is ultimately every team's goal- but there's no way to prove that. There are far more teams whose Master Plan never materializes than there are those like the Bucs who manage to catch lightning in a bottle. And I mean, that they finished 29th in scoring defense in 2019 is not somehow proof that they were bound to finish in the Top 10 last year lol. Come on now. All we know for sure is that they won 7 games with largely the same roster. The rest is speculation- not just in terms of why they improved as a team, but also as individual players. 

Now, you could say that their development was inevitable, but there are plenty of holes in that argument. For one, Shaq was just a guy before 2019, when he blew up the league with 20 sacks- yet the Bucs only won 7 games then. It was only after Brady got there (and Shaq's production slipped) that they became a winner. it's another case where contradictions abound. There is no straight line in how they advanced to the next level other than Brady joining the team.

Not what I said. They were 31st in 2018. Then they got a new coaching staff. They went up a little to 29th in 2019, and then took their big jump forward. The straight line is 2 2nd Team All-Pro LBs and a DC who got his players at full speed in his system.

Just because Barrett had less sacks in 2020 doesn't mean he slipped, it means the rest of the defense picked it up. They were 7th in sacks as a team in 2019 and 4th in 2020.

The straight line is 5-11, (Bruce Arians and staff come on), 7-9, 11-5.

But again, sure, keep believing that a team with a Top-10 offense, Top-10 defense, a ton a talent, and a good HC heading into his 2nd year was destined to continue to be a loser without Tom Brady. That's way more logical to believe in mystical winning juice.

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2021, 01:46 PM)tms Wrote:  The defense swapped just three starters: at NT, CB and S. None was a game-changer. In fact, I might argue they were all were lateral moves. Yet the Bucs still made the ultimate leap.

So the defense adds three new starters and has a second year player improve dramatically yet your argument is that it was the new QB that made them better?

Sorry, but there is simply no logic to back up your theory.

[tms]

(09-08-2021, 02:39 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not what I said. They were 31st in 2018. Then they got a new coaching staff. They went up a little to 29th in 2019, and then took their big jump forward. The straight line is 2 2nd Team All-Pro LBs and a DC who got his players at full speed in his system.

Just because Barrett had less sacks in 2020 doesn't mean he slipped, it means the rest of the defense picked it up. They were 7th in sacks as a team in 2019 and 4th in 2020.

But again, sure, keep believing that a team with a Top-10 offense, Top-10 defense, a ton a talent, and a good HC heading into his 2nd year was destined to continue to be a loser without Tom Brady. That's way more logical to believe in mystical winning juice.

I just think you're using the exception to prove the rule, and reinforcing my claim in the process. How did Lou's defense play in its second year? The fact that it's anyone's second year does not necessarily dictate success. Sometimes the second year is when it all comes together; sometimes that's when it all falls apart; more commonly nothing really changes. 

I would also concur with you that stats like sacks oversimplify arguments- yours and mine alike. A team's scoring defense is similarly raw and meaningless in a vacuum. The fact that a bunch of areas improved while only one of them changed, might say more about that one new factor than any mystical organic growth that occurred lol

And lighten up, would ya? Holy smokes

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2021, 02:51 PM)tms Wrote:  The fact that a bunch of areas improved while only one of them changed, might say more about that one new factor than any mystical organic growth that occurred lol

But you have already admitted that more than one of them changed.

Based on your logic we could just as easily claim that Gronk was the difference and Brady was just along for the ride.

[tms]

(09-08-2021, 02:35 PM)BengalChris Wrote: Each year is a new year.
 

Word.

[TJ528]

(09-07-2021, 10:18 PM)Bengalfan4life27c Wrote: 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

Doesnt game management include wins?  I mean Zac has 6 wins in 32 chances.  

Marvin may have made a lot of questionable moves but at least he closed out games unlike his current counter part. 

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(09-08-2021, 02:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Considering that no one was comparing Taylor to Reid, George actually missed the point completely.

I thought you were comparing the two in your OP, you know, how Reid only had 5 wins his first season as a HC and became a
great coach. Could happen with Taylor, we don't know, this is the year we will really know something that is for sure.

[Shake n Blake]

(09-08-2021, 02:16 AM)tms Wrote: Meh I appreciate the effort but this analogy is not apt. Let's keep it to football. It's apples and oranges otherwise. The NBA is a superstar league. 5 players on the court at a time, with the cream of the crop playing 80% of the game and dominating play. Football is 11 v 11 with 3 distinct phases, each player with his own niche, 53-man rosters in total, and far more moving parts. It's historically accepted in basketball that one player can change a team. Nobody ever wondered whether prime Lebron could singlehandedly make his teams competitive in CLE > MIA > CLE > LAL- or singlehandedly leave them in tatters by walking away- because that's what NBA superstars do. It's not so simple in the NFL for all the above reasons and more.   

In fact, the original point was precisely that debate: whether Brady could replicate his football success without Belichick. Not only did he prove that he could, but he didn't even need to join a proven contender to do it. We can argue about how close the Bucs really were until we're blue in the face, but that's pure speculation. The results are clear. Roughly the same crew that had won 7 games the year before (and 17 over the previous 3) promptly became a freaking Super Bowl winner (something we have NEVER done) by adding just one major piece.

It's football, not basketball. It's Brady, not Lebron. Yet he managed to do it anyway... and at 43 years old to boot. It is remarkable.

LeBron could make them "competitive" single handedly...not be championship contenders (which they were) single handedly. The analogy fits because I'm comparing 2 very smart legends going to good situations.

You keep bringing up the win totals and losing culture as if that means anything. The Browns had an even worse losing culture...til they suddenly didn't.

Brady played a (large) role, but to suggest he took a "terrible" team to a championship all by his lonesome is asinine. If that's the case, Brady should have 20 rings. Fact is, no player in any sport has ever won a championship without considerable help.

[NUGDUKWE]

Yeah Brady definitely picked Tampa for a reason and that's because they were not only loaded but they have a good offensive minded coach. Now Brady definitely put that very talented team over the top.

[tms]

(09-08-2021, 06:24 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: LeBron could make them "competitive" single handedly...not be championship contenders (which they were) single handedly. The analogy fits because I'm comparing 2 very smart legends going to good situations.

You keep bringing up the win totals and losing culture as if that means anything. The Browns had an even worse losing culture...til they suddenly didn't.

Brady played a (large) role, but to suggest he took a "terrible" team to a championship all by his lonesome is asinine. If that's the case, Brady should have 20 rings. Fact is, no player in any sport has ever won a championship without considerable help.

Again, no need to reach for Lebron if you think the argument holds without him. There should be enough "very smart legends going to good situations" in the NFL to back up the claim. Let's control for as many variables as possible.

"You keep bringing up the win totals and losing culture as if that means anything." Lol yes. I do. Guilty as charged. If there's not a correlation between those two factors then we must live on different planets. Cleveland absolutely had a losing culture, you're right. I don't know that they're necessarily out of it now. They've had just one good year. But if they are, what does that even disprove? If you think I'm saying teams need Tom Brady specifically to emerge from their losing ways, you're just arguing with yourself. Plenty of teams have been burdened by losing cultures at some point and managed to put the train back on the tracks (without Tom Brady!). It doesn't mean it was easy for them to do so, let alone that it happened on autopilot.  

My point is not that controversial. Brady evidently brought the kind of leadership to Tampa that they needed. He didn't singlehandedly win them any games- it's a team sport! But he did clearly, if not 'singlehandedly' exert the type of influence on his teammates that helped them fulfill their potential. That is no small thing. The gap between potential and performance in this league is arguably all that separates the best from the rest. And it's a lot more plausible to credit him for what happened than to say that countless disconnected parts in Tampa- with no prior track record of success- somehow came together at the precise moment he walked in the door. I mean, that may or may not be true, but it is a wild coincidence if it is. I'd say he had at least as much to do with it as them- if not more, given the six rings on his fingers.

We have no counterfactual so we'll never know what would've happened without him. But to not give Brady full credit for changing the dynamic of that team and significantly accelerating their development makes us sound like Bills fans. No franchise caught in a playoff drought of 13 years and counting can be described as "loaded" imo- I don't care who they are. There is nothing easier than to look back and claim that all of history was a foregone conclusion. If you thought the Bucs were just one strong QB away from a Super Bowl win before they acquired Tom Brady, please tell me which losing teams are "loaded" this year because I could really use the money.

[Bilbo Saggins]

The question is a bit like asking "what's the difference between art and pornography?"  A computer can't really do it.  Objective data can't really do it.  When you see it as an intuitive human being who is halfway competent at what you do, then you see it and you can't necessarily write a book as to why.  Apparently Zac Taylor, who owns the absolute worst win to loss ratio in all of NFL history since Bert Bell, has done enough to earn a job as one of the 32 most elite head coaches in all of football existence.  Somehow, paradoxically, Duke Tobin has done enough in the eyes of Bengals ownership to earn another stint as an elite executive and that this is a coherent strategy for attempting to build a championship football team.  Perhaps talent and coaching complement each other when one is competent?  Perhaps a top down culture of just not giving a rat's ass about results breeds things like, oh I dunno, sitting with injury rather than laying one's career on the line...?  I don't know if "talent" or "coaching" is really even so much of an issue as "a reason to believe in the goal."  Has Tobin with his chronic whiffs in the first round given anyone reason to believe in his own competence aside from his decisions to draft Green and Atkins?  Has Taylor done anything at all to inspire the slightest whiff of confidence?  Does anyone really want to go out and sacrifice their body for an owner who has publicly stated that good players earning more money in free agency and having the right to choose where they want to play is a materially bad thing that never should have been allowed to happen? Nevermind talent, how about basic human motivation?

[fredtoast]

(09-09-2021, 07:27 AM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: The question is a bit like asking "what's the difference between art and pornography?"  A computer can't really do it.  Objective data can't really do it.  When you see it as an intuitive human being who is halfway competent at what you do, then you see it and you can't necessarily write a book as to why.  Apparently Zac Taylor, who owns the absolute worst win to loss ratio in all of NFL history since Bert Bell, has done enough to earn a job as one of the 32 most elite head coaches in all of football existence.  Somehow, paradoxically, Duke Tobin has done enough in the eyes of Bengals ownership to earn another stint as an elite executive and that this is a coherent strategy for attempting to build a championship football team.  Perhaps talent and coaching complement each other when one is competent?  Perhaps a top down culture of just not giving a rat's ass about results breeds things like, oh I dunno, sitting with injury rather than laying one's career on the line...?  I don't know if "talent" or "coaching" is really even so much of an issue as "a reason to believe in the goal."  Has Tobin with his chronic whiffs in the first round given anyone reason to believe in his own competence aside from his decisions to draft Green and Atkins?  Has Taylor done anything at all to inspire the slightest whiff of confidence?  Does anyone really want to go out and sacrifice their body for an owner who has publicly stated that good players earning more money in free agency and having the right to choose where they want to play is a materially bad thing that never should have been allowed to happen?  Nevermind talent, how about basic human motivation?

So now, not a single Bengal even cares about winning?  They are all just a bunch of indolent loafers?

I think here is where we see the difference between the men who have what it takes to make it to the NFL and the average fan.  Men who make it to the NFL are extremely self-motivated and driven.  They work hard to overcome obstacles to advance their careers.  Meanwhile many average fans look for any reason to slack off and do as little as possible.

The competition for the top dollars paid to NFL players is brutal.  The pride of NFL players in their public performances is great.  Even players on poor teams have enough pride in themselves to try as hard as they can t advance their careers or avoid being embarrassed on the field.

So while many "average Joe's" will say "I would not care if I embarrassed myself on national TV or got released for poor play, I would not try hard if I felt I wasn't on a great team" the type of guy who can make an NFL roster will be working hard to preserve their public image and make as much money as possible.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(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.

Spot on.
I think the OL we have can handle the scheme ZT wants to run. If so.. we have all of the skill players in place.
Just watch the Rams this year with Stafford, they finally have that QB that can toss it deep with accuracy. They been sputtering along with Geoff, now they are taking the next step and I won't be surprised if they are in the SB this year.

SF/McVay offense are similar and this is what Zac is trying to do here. Just hasn't been working yet.

[fredtoast]

(09-07-2021, 06:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: -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.

First of all, I am not really satisfied with our offense at this point. (28th in yards, 27th in 3rd down conversions) but since I wrote this I need to acknowledge that in just three games the Bengals have scored twice in the last 40 seconds of the first half and once with 0:00 left in overtime.

[Housh]

You can’t imo Fred. Bill Belicheck isn’t Bill if he doesn’t have those rosters he’s had over the past 2 decades. Marvin Lewis is probably a coach with a better legacy if 1/2 the time he was here he didn’t have a roster that kept getting around the 15th pick and lower.

[northernbengal]

(09-08-2021, 02:14 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: What changed other than Tom Brady? They had a 2nd year in a new defense. That's generally when you see the big change. Just look at the Bengals in 2007 were the 24th scoring defense. Zimmer comes and they are the 19th scoring defense in 2008. Then 2009 happens and they are the 6th scoring defense and go to the playoffs.

You focus on the 2020 changes, but there were huge 2019 changes that just took time to all gel together in a new defense. They added Ndamukong Suh and Shaquil Barrett, they drafted Devin White. None of that was because of Brady.

So what changed for the Bucs? They went from the 29th scoring defense to the 8th scoring defense. Tom Brady's intangibles didn't make the defense become a top-10 defense. TWO 2nd Team All-Pro LBs along with a bunch of great pass rushers all in their 2nd year in the system did that. 

But sure, focus on what they did a decade ago as somehow proof that the 2020 Bucs wouldn't have been a good team without Brady even though those weren't the same players or coaches and thus completely irrelevant. The Bucs are loaded and Bruce Arians is getting the best out of them. The same way that he had Carson Palmer QB'd team go 13-3 and win a playoff game.

I am gonna agree with you that they are absolutely loaded from a talent/ coaching perspective. Brady really made things easier for the defense by not turning the ball over. This season we are seeing a better result from Brady due to comfort in the offense, and if not for injuries in the secondary I think they are much better than last year.

[fredtoast]

(09-07-2021, 06:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: -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.

These numbers from 21 games in 2021 are mind blowing.

Bengals scored 7 TDs and kicked 9 FGs in the final 2 minutes of the first half.  Five of the FGs were in the final 5 seconds.  

Bengals only scored 1 td in the final 2 minutes of the 4th quarter, but it was the crazy game-tying 32-yarder against the Forty-Niners.  McPherson hit 4 FGs in the final 2 minutes of the 4th quarter and 3 of them were game winners with less than 5 seconds left (Jags, Chiefs, Titans playoff)

And McPherson's game winner opening day came with just 5 seconds left in the overtime period.

So in total the Bengals scored 22 times in the final 2 minutes of a half or game.

Incredible numbers.

(09-07-2021, 06:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: -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.

Said this before the season.  Before I knew the Bengals would be one of the least penalized teams in the league.

(09-07-2021, 06:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: -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 only criticize play calling when it does not work.  Dumb calls that succeed get praise while good calls that fail get criticized.

(09-07-2021, 06:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: -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.

Pass blocking was not very good this year, but better than 2020.  It seemed that I still saw a lot of pressure coming from mental failures on picking up stunts and blitzes.  I had really hoped Pollack would have fixed more of that.