While I agree that Ingram should be the most used RB on the Saints, that simply isn't what happened in Carolina at all. The 2008-2009 teams ran the ball greatly, because Gross, Kalil and Otah were all healthy and playing at pro bowl levels. That never existed after that, as Otah couldn't stay healthy, and Gross started to decline, and became more injury prone as he aged. Also the QB play fell off a cliff as Delhomme was a walking pick-6, and the Moore-Clausen duo bombed. Then they drafted Newton, the entire offense changed, and Fox was gone.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Sean Payton is Extremely Overrated as a Coach (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter fantasycurse42
- Start date
Dismattle
Footballguy
Believe that's a bit much.. I actually took Coach B, as quite the Coach. Id have just as soon witness Cleveland be bad, for the peoples. I also like too believe, I seen potential in Brady, and hoped Coach would get him. So my point is, A Coach is at least worth three points. But if you can either evaluate Growth, or get Lucky? We may be talking SB's, as the difference. As stated Brees who? Great QB, but yeah Team sport too. Best from worst matter's a lot..
I meant to type sub .500 not 0-4.
As far as your last statement - I think if you were to ask the 32 beat writers for every individual teams - the guys who have their pulse on football more than anyone - "Who is more important to the Pats... Belichik or Brady?" - 32 of 32 would say Brady. I know this, because this exercise already existed. Look up one of Vic's old columns from his Packers time, it's in there. He covers this concept thoroughly. I've read a lot of questionable and dumb stuff on these forums but it blows my mind someone would think a 5x super bowl winning QB was less important than his coach when that's the hardest & most important position on the field.
Coaches get far too much credit and far too much blame in today's game. There are literally thousands of coaches from high-school to college that could do what lower tier guys in the NFL are doing. There is probably some next level which is why I say the top 25 are at another level - but among those, they are mostly interchangeable.
That's because people are lazy and don't critically think about topics.
Bill Walsh went sub-.500 in the 10 years cumulatively of coaching gigs (WR/QB/offensive coordinator) prior to taking the 49ers job. Then he takes that job and they draft Montana and win four Super Bowls. It's because he had Montana - not because he's one of the best ever coaches.
Chuck Noll was successful because during one of his first seasons coaching they ended up drafting 3 hall of famers IN ONE DRAFT CLASS (1974 - Lynn, Stallworth, Lambert). During his SECOND YEAR COACHING they had the #1 pick and drafted TERRY BRADSHAW with the #1 pick. They were so terrible Noll's first season that they got the #1 pick and drafted Terry freakin' Bradshaw. Give me a break. Since this was before free agency those guys never left and he just kept building dominating teams with an amazing core of talent.
I'm not saying these guys weren't also great coaches - but the reason they won so much was because they had GREAT PLAYERS.
Put me coaching a team of Rodgers, Bell, and the dallas o-line and I'm pretty sure I could get them to the playoffs doing nothing but itching my nutsack on the sideline all game.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dismattle
Footballguy
I seriously doubt that. In fact, give me a Belichick coached team made up of nothing but guys who were cut at the end of the preseason, and I think that team probably finishes with a better record than the Rodgers/Bell/Cowboys line team coached by you. Coaches don't get enough credit in my opinion.
We see things 100% differently here. Good teams start at the top. Owner, Coach, GM. Players are after all those things, though it goes hand in hand, because a good GM gets good players, a good coach schemes those players to their strengths, and a good owner hires a good GM and Coach.
By that logic ... you think you could put Greg Popovich with a team of 5 D-league players vs a team with Lebron and Curry (and no coach) and you think the D-league players are going to win? Like... you seriously believe that? My goodness.
I challenge you to write in to your favorite NFL team and ask the guys covering the team if they'd rather have 5 years of elite Belichik or 5 years of elite Brady... and if any writer in the league comes back with "elite Belichik" I'll be happy to admit there's at least some debate about it. Right now I think there is no debate whatsoever. You're so far off base it blows my mind.
Players, not plays. Google that concept and you'll see a dozen coaches in the league admit to it. The coaches themselves subscribe to that philosophy. Gonna be done with this thread now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
AP was a head-scratcher but they drafted Kamara after Peterson was already signed. Even with not knowing they'd be able to draft Kamara the money spent on Peterson would have been better used elsewhere. We're talking about an offense that made UDFA like Pierre Thomas, Khiry Robinson and Chris Ivory look like pro-bowlers, why waste money on an aging malcontent?
btemp
Footballguy
I would 100% take elite Belichick. No question in my mind.
I also don't understand how anyone here thinks they can separate the player from the coach. A huge chunk of what makes a good coach is being a good COACH. One of Belichick's greatest strengths isn't his gameplanning or player acquistion but his ability to coach coaches. Being a great coach is so much more than gameplanning - as Bill Walsh himself talked EXTENSIVELY about. Its about building an organisation, identifying talent at both the staff and player level, leadership, coaching, etc. etc. etc. People downplay the impact of organisational culture, but if you've ever worked at a horrible/great workplace you know how much this downgrades or elevates performance.
Someone here posted that Bill Walsh isn't Bill Walsh without Montana. This is silly. Montana (and Steve Young) aren't who they are without Walsh. One was a 3rd round pick and one was a 1st round bust and now both are Hall of Famers. Thanks to their coach.
Of course you need great players. Just like players need a great coach. But people seem to forget that Belichick won 10 games with Matt Cassell and went 3-1 with Brissett and Garappolo.
Or look at all the dysfunction after Jim Harbaugh left. Look at how relatively poorly the Packers with the best QB of the last 10 years. Or look at Lovie Smith - who was he without Rod Marinelli and Dave Toub (and the rest of the staff)? He went from having perhaps the best defense of the decade to being one of the worst coaches in the NFL with the Buccaneers. As a Bucs fan one of his biggest problems was his coaching staff was terrible and players went to Tampa and got worse.
If there's one thing want to emphasize, its that being an elite coach is so much more than gameday. It's hiring and training personnel and players, its running a winning organisation - all these things that go unnoticed but are critical to being a consistent winner.
I also don't understand how anyone here thinks they can separate the player from the coach. A huge chunk of what makes a good coach is being a good COACH. One of Belichick's greatest strengths isn't his gameplanning or player acquistion but his ability to coach coaches. Being a great coach is so much more than gameplanning - as Bill Walsh himself talked EXTENSIVELY about. Its about building an organisation, identifying talent at both the staff and player level, leadership, coaching, etc. etc. etc. People downplay the impact of organisational culture, but if you've ever worked at a horrible/great workplace you know how much this downgrades or elevates performance.
Someone here posted that Bill Walsh isn't Bill Walsh without Montana. This is silly. Montana (and Steve Young) aren't who they are without Walsh. One was a 3rd round pick and one was a 1st round bust and now both are Hall of Famers. Thanks to their coach.
Of course you need great players. Just like players need a great coach. But people seem to forget that Belichick won 10 games with Matt Cassell and went 3-1 with Brissett and Garappolo.
Or look at all the dysfunction after Jim Harbaugh left. Look at how relatively poorly the Packers with the best QB of the last 10 years. Or look at Lovie Smith - who was he without Rod Marinelli and Dave Toub (and the rest of the staff)? He went from having perhaps the best defense of the decade to being one of the worst coaches in the NFL with the Buccaneers. As a Bucs fan one of his biggest problems was his coaching staff was terrible and players went to Tampa and got worse.
If there's one thing want to emphasize, its that being an elite coach is so much more than gameday. It's hiring and training personnel and players, its running a winning organisation - all these things that go unnoticed but are critical to being a consistent winner.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Basketball is a way different animal than football. There is far more game-planning and coaching strategy in football than in basketball. In basketball one or two great players can control a game. In football you can take the best player out of the game far more easily.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
You are making it way too simple. You don't think Belichick helped make Brady a great player? They are both important to the team's success and I think you could make the case either way.
You remember the Pats went 11-5 with Matt Cassell playing QB, right?
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Dedfin
Footballguy
Just hilariously bad to assume the Saints had it in the bag. I think he's overrated, but he had a great season and a great SB.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
Everyone acts like Belichick, Walsh, Carroll etc. just went into their 2nd jobs trying to coach the exact same way as the 1st time. I am sure they changed a lot and it helped make them better coaches.
Last edited by a moderator:
There are also a metric crap-ton of coaches that went into their second jobs "improving themselves along the way" but didn't have Tom Brady so they sucked a big one. And there's wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more of those guys. Have to look at both sides, chief.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't write off Peterson yet. I mean, its not like the Vikings are good matchup for opposing running games. I'm not saying he's going to start dropping 100 yard games left and right, but he could still be a Blount-like player chipping in TDs and 50+ yards in games they don't instantly fall behind in. Yes the defense is awful(as usual) but some of these games the Saints will jump out to early leads in, and it seems premature to think Peterson won't be a part of maintaining those leads and keeping opposing offenses off the field to protect the defense.Payton loves getting glared at on the sidelines maybe?
Head scratcher.
I think Peterson is worth a flier if people cut bait on him in their leagues.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
He was dropped in my league.
and after having an E-ticket ride with Ingram last year and Payton's maddening use of RBs I would have to be very desperate to pick him up.
Maybe AP has a couple Flex-worthy starts this year - I'm not optimistic that he'll achieve your described numbers, but it's possible.
I see a back without a lot left in the tank, who'll be a malcontent in Payton's "everyone is JAG" system.
Kamara may well be the guy to own. Or Ingram. Or AP.
It will be likely fluid game to game and even within the game. When one RB seemingly gets a head of steam going he'll be replaced for one that doesn't. Different backs will be used at the GL or as blockers.
Oh yeah - and they still have Kuhn, vulture extraordinaire.
I have none desire to be part of that mess, but then I've got decent RB depth in both of my leagues.
My gut tells me that any time you plug AP into your lineup this year you're more likely to get 2-5 points than you are to get 11-15. I don't see him as a viable flex play. I'm not sure he'll see carries next week after the sideline flare-up. Payton has a doghouse a mile deep and AP dove into it head first.
If people add him, I wish them well and offer my condolences on a lost season.
btemp said:
I was a management major in grad school, and it's a way underrated skill. It's especially tough in FB. You're managing a large staff of coaches, plus a bunch of players, many of whom make more than you. Judging a HC by his in-game calls (or, in Andy Reid's case, by his clock management) is like judging Tim Cook based on how well he spoke at the latest iPhone launch.
BTW, am I correct that all the coaches to be fired for performance-related reasons after winning a SB have come in the past 10 years? Billick, Shanahan, Gruden and Coughlin (the last one not officially, but c'mon!) The only other ones I can think of are Jimmy Johnson and Vermeil, but given that both of them were forced out immediately after their SB wins, it seems pretty clear it had nothing to do with the team's performance.
Both Denver and Tampa Bay made huge mistakes firing Shanahan and Gruden respectively, as both of their next coaches McDaniels and Morris were significant downgrades. Denver hit on Fox after that, and Elway made some great decisions(including wooing Manning) but Tampa is only now recovering, almost a decade later.
Baltimore made the right call as Harbaugh has been excellent. Despite the wildcard berth last year, its not looking great for McAdoo, though time will tell.
Another good example (though not a SB winner) is Philly with Reid. They've made the playoffs once in four years since he left, wile he's made it every year but one in KC.
With the exception of Jeff Fischer, I can't think of too many opposite examples: teams sticking with a coach for longer than they should have. Though we may get two more tests of the theory this year if Payton and Marvin Lewis get canned.
btemp
Footballguy
A little off topic, but I'm not sure firing Gruden was a mistake. Certainly hiring Morris (and Schiano and Lovie) was. As a Tampa fan, Gruden struggled to rise above mediocrity. For all his supposed genius he struggled with bad offense and consistency after the SB win. And for a while his team had a bunch of HoFers. Part of it was a love of veterans and unwillingness to develop young players, case in point was Gruden believing he was better off with the veterans Griese and Simms and a rookie RB over Aaron Rodgers. The fact that Gruden also has never returned to the NFL seems to support this.
To our discussion, the mistake/problem Tampa had was it was a horrible organisation at multiple levels. You don't hire 3 terrible coaches in a row and repeatedly sit at the bottom of the NFL if its just a coaching/GM issue. It was an environment where any coach, front office staff or player would struggle to find success. But that is never talked about - it's just how bad Raheem Morris or Greg Schiano were as coaches. Yes, they were bad. But the institution behind them was worse.
Similar threads
