Why are so many head coaches so awful at their jobs?

[kyle21121]

1 hour ago, PapaShogun said:

Also, there are some things that coaches get blamed for that may be out of their control. I remember Jeff Fisher and Norm Chow wanted to draft Matt Leinart in the 2006 draft. They didn't want to draft Vince Young. Too bad though, because owner Bud Adams wanted Vince Young for the franchise. Like Bill Parcells once said, if they want you to cook the dinner at least let you pick out some of the groceries. That goes for general managers and team presidents too. Sometimes they don't mesh well together. Then there are player contracts and other business aspects. Also injuries. All of this gets in the way of trying to assemble a team and just do X's and O's. Personally I think head coaches overall get a lot of flak that they don't always deserve. It's a results-based business though and someone has to take the fall. 

Oh yea all sorts of things can happen if the coach/FO aren't on the same page it's not really good for anyone. When an owner basically says this is the guy he's a star we have to pick him no matter what even if he doesn't fit what the staff wants to do it'll come back and bite you more often than not. So coaches will get blamed for that but also had they gotten Matt and it failed they'd also be blamed with the owner being able to say well I wanted Vince Young I gave you that pick and look what happened. Rightly or wrongly most things will come back to the coach and they'll receive some of the blame. 

[43M]

Fans act like they could do the job so much better, and thats the most comical part of it.

Its a very very very hard job.    Even Bill Cowher has said the grind got to be too much for him and admired the men who coached for 20-30 years.

Just like a very small percentage of players become truly great, the same goes for NFL coaches.    And it also seems that in this era with Belichick, fans have a higher, unrealistic expectation of head coaches.     All coaches....even great ones....have their flaws.       You cant hold these guys up against Belichick and act like its a fair comparison.     It happens with QBs too IMO.

Bottom line....its a very hard job and alot arent cut out for it, but fans think they know more than they actually do and label coaches as terrible that really arent that bad....just flawed.

[Soko]

The better question is why do certain owners/GMs feel content hiring guys with long records of failure? Answered mostly on the first page. Ultra safe mindsets, nepotism, a wholesome inability to make sound football decisions (what exactly qualifies an owner as credible to hire competent football staff?), and bad luck that is more of a factor in football than most other sports IMO.

[Carmen Cygni]

I'll go on record and say I don't mind retreads despite past failures. There have been a good handful of instances where their first, or even second, set of circumstances weren't ideal or they simply needed a growing process. Pete Carrol is a prime example here. Carrol didn't succeed in the NFL until he was able to tinker with his defensive philosophies and scheme in b/w NFL stints during his tenure at USC.

[Teen Girl Squad]

1 hour ago, alfalcone said:

There is far too much nepotism in the hiring process for coaches.  Friends and family are hired at the expense of well qualified individuals.  Additionally, I think owners are far too risk adverse, which results in retread hires rather than innovators.

A related and arguably even more important factor with the nepotism factor is that more than any other sport, NFL (and football) coaches treat all of their methods/schemes like they are nuclear launch codes. Rather than share and get better and player development, game management etc... most of them try to win with their secret formulas (and copying other coaches without understanding the game better.

 

9 minutes ago, celestial said:

Name the coaches who would have done better in McAdoo's position and explain how. Explain how he's going to stop Eli, when the offensive line played well in Philly and LA for example, from staring down receivers and throwing INTs, or throwing behind receivers, and still win games. 

McAdoo's problem schematically is that he makes its incredibly hard for a limited roster to succeed. He runs 95% of his plays out of the same formation, which means the defense rarely gets confused/most chunk yardage plays are stopped. He can diagram a million plays that are all variations of slants but if they are so nuanced that none of the receivers can run it as precisely as needed to make it work, if Eli doesn't have the time to read the million variations or the arm talent to fit it in tighter windows then it doesn't matter how good the play is on the chalkboard. I actually think that there are a lot of coaches who really know how to design schemes but the true coaches know how to design plays that players can actually execute in real time. Rodgers runs a lot of RPOS, Peyton ran one of the simplest offenses in the league but his ability read defenses meant he almost always knew the best play to run. Too many coaches coach like Madden, expecting CPU precision on every playcall and then blame the lack of talent when they can't do it.

[Iamcanadian]

Really, for a HC, it comes down to how good his QB is. If he has a solid franchise QB and cannot win, then definitely get rid of the HC, if he does not have a franchise QB and the team show no or little improvement after 2 seasons, it is time to dump him.

If a HC has no franchise QB, but the team shows improvement in season 2, he is worth keeping for at least another year.

The really great HC's had a pattern to their success. Year 1, dump the deadwood off the team and you can ignore their win total, because it will not be pretty. If they secure a franchise QB, you will see the team improve to around 6 to 8 win and in season 3, they will contend for the SB. If they have not yet secured a franchise QB, they will still bring home around 6 wins and find a way to at least compete for a playoff spot in season 3.

If the team has a bad owner, he likely hired a miserable FO, who in turn hired a rotten HC and it really does not matter who has the final say, the owner will find a way to screw the team somehow!!!

[Carmen Cygni]

8 minutes ago, Teen Girl Squad said:

McAdoo's problem schematically is that he makes its incredibly hard for a limited roster to succeed. He runs 95% of his plays out of the same formation, which means the defense rarely gets confused/most chunk yardage plays are stopped. He can diagram a million plays that are all variations of slants but if they are so nuanced that none of the receivers can run it as precisely as needed to make it work, if Eli doesn't have the time to read the million variations or the arm talent to fit it in tighter windows then it doesn't matter how good the play is on the chalkboard. I actually think that there are a lot of coaches who really know how to design schemes but the true coaches know how to design plays that players can actually execute in real time. Rodgers runs a lot of RPOS, Peyton ran one of the simplest offenses in the league but his ability read defenses meant he almost always knew the best play to run. Too many coaches coach like Madden, expecting CPU precision on every playcall and then blame the lack of talent when they can't do it.

That was improved this year. In '16 the Giants ran 11 personnel 92% of the time. This season their 11 personnel set has dropped drastically to 58%, 12 personnel at 20%, and 01 personnel at 14%. So they have improved in that aspect. But overall, you make some very good points about realistic expectations of execution.

[celestial]

13 minutes ago, Teen Girl Squad said:

A related and arguably even more important factor with the nepotism factor is that more than any other sport, NFL (and football) coaches treat all of their methods/schemes like they are nuclear launch codes. Rather than share and get better and player development, game management etc... most of them try to win with their secret formulas (and copying other coaches without understanding the game better.

 

McAdoo's problem schematically is that he makes its incredibly hard for a limited roster to succeed. He runs 95% of his plays out of the same formation, which means the defense rarely gets confused/most chunk yardage plays are stopped. He can diagram a million plays that are all variations of slants but if they are so nuanced that none of the receivers can run it as precisely as needed to make it work, if Eli doesn't have the time to read the million variations or the arm talent to fit it in tighter windows then it doesn't matter how good the play is on the chalkboard. I actually think that there are a lot of coaches who really know how to design schemes but the true coaches know how to design plays that players can actually execute in real time. Rodgers runs a lot of RPOS, Peyton ran one of the simplest offenses in the league but his ability read defenses meant he almost always knew the best play to run. Too many coaches coach like Madden, expecting CPU precision on every playcall and then blame the lack of talent when they can't do it.

The Rams ran 11 personnel at a high % too, so I don't think predictability is the problem. QBs also throw slants all the time on 3 stop drops. If Brady doesn't have a problem reading it and throwing slants like he can't do anything else most years, Eli should have no problem reading it. McAdoo's slants aren't the reason Eli throws INTs or behind receivers. The only reason Blake Bortles wins in Jacksonville is because he combines running with inaccuracy. 

To reference Peyton, he ran a simple offense with many of the same plays to great success. He was able to do this because he was accurate and doesn't throw behind receivers.

[Scoundrel]

38 minutes ago, celestial said:

Name the coaches who would have done better in McAdoo's position and explain how. Explain how he's going to stop Eli, when the offensive line played well in Philly and LA for example, from staring down receivers and throwing INTs, or throwing behind receivers, and still win games. 

Geno it's a little late to be sour grapes 

[celestial]

3 minutes ago, Counselor said:

Geno it's a little late to be sour grapes 

For the record, Osweiler is demonstratively worse than Geno. Brock, despite a better line and receivers, hasn't reached the 89 passer rating Geno reached against the Raiders.

I ust don't see what was wrong with McAdoo's system. Like another poster said, Peyton ran a very simple system to great success. This implies that McAdoo's system is not the problem. All the QB has to do is throw accurately and not behind the receiver.

There is no coach that can win with a QB who throws INTs for no reason, throws behind his receiver for no reason and can't run. Or at least I don't know any coach like that.

[Scoundrel]

Just now, celestial said:

For the record, Osweiler is demonstratively worse than Geno. Brock, despite a better line and receivers, hasn't reached the 89 passer rating Geno reached against the Raiders.

I ust don't see what was wrong with McAdoo's system. Like another poster said, Peyton ran a very simple system to great success. This implies that McAdoo's system is not the problem. All the QB has to do is throw accurately and not behind the receiver.

I don't know what Brock has to do with me Geno, but talking about yourself in the third person is a bit sketchy. 

[celestial]

Just now, Counselor said:

I don't know what Brock has to do with me Geno, but talking about yourself in the third person is a bit sketchy. 

OK, Brock. My point stands. McDaniels in New England failed because he couldn't teach Tebow to throw accurately and not behind his receiver. And Tebow could run. 

When you guys have some names and some rationale, I'm up for discussion.

[Scoundrel]

4 minutes ago, celestial said:

OK, Brock. My point stands. McDaniels in New England failed because he couldn't teach Tebow to throw accurately and not behind his receiver. And Tebow could run. 

When you guys have some names and some rationale, I'm up for discussion.

You got me. Who would have thought Brock Osweiler and Geno Smith would be having a back and forth conversation on FF.

[Teen Girl Squad]

4 minutes ago, celestial said:

The Rams ran 11 personnel at a high % too, so I don't think predictability is the problem. QBs also throw slants all the time on 3 stop drops. If Brady doesn't have a problem reading it and throwing slants like he can't do anything else most years, Eli should have no problem reading it. McAdoo's slants aren't the reason Eli throws INTs or behind receivers. The only reason Blake Bortles wins in Jacksonville is because he combines running with inaccuracy. 

To reference Peyton, he ran a simple offense with many of the same plays to great success. He was able to do this because he was accurate and doesn't throw behind receivers.

Oh I agree that Eli was bad (and am still stunned about how many people were upset about his benching, any non QB would have been cut years ago if they played at Eli's level). I still think that McAdoo did a poor job setting his guys up for success for the reasons stated. Your (correct) point about Manning reminded me about the most important aspect that seperates great coaches from the pack, which I forgot to mention, which is that most coaches are poor at player development. A lot of old school coaches came from an era where colleges did the heavy lifting in teaching pro style concepts and players had more practice time to hone their skills. The Pats and Seahawks are the two teams who consistently improve as the season goes on and find late round gems to fill out their roster because Bill and Pete, I believe, are much better than most other coaches at player development. Given the short season, injury aspect, and limited practice time, understanding how to teach and rapidly improve skills (at least vital ones for success) is crucial. This is harder than it seems. Dante Scarnecchia of the Pats is a great example. With him, the Pats have a perennially top ten oline with average talent. Without him, Brady's career looked like it was over. Even the Seahawks haven't figured this out. 

[lancerman]

Because it's an incredibly hard job. Really think about it all but 9 of the current NFL head coaches were hired on their current team in the last 5 years. That means for whatever reason 23 of the current head coaches were either not head coaches or removed from a prior HC position at some point in the last 5 seasons. 

Bill Belichick, Sean Payton, Mike Tomlin, and Mike McCarthy are the only coaches in the league that can say they've been on their respective team for at least 10 years. 

All four of them have one thing in common. Elite QB and Super Bowls. 

A year ago Ben McAdoo took a 6-10 team and made them an 11-5 team that made the playoffs and everyone was excited about his team being Super Bowl contenders this year until the first game of the season. Consistency at the HC position is hard to find. Plain and simple.