Would the "average" avid football fan be a better "coor (1 Viewer)

[Zow]

First of all, I'm not normally one to question a head coach's decision (I was a Tice supporter for chrissakes). They live and breathe football pretty much year round and have done so for years. Hard to question them. But today just boggled my mind. Let me example some of today's decisions:

1. Mike Holmgren - decision to kick onside w/ 6 minutes left. NO wasn't moving the ball at all and 6 minutes is enough time for two scores. Then, on 4th and and long but in field goal range and down 11 he goes for it when they still needed two scores. Calling a FB run on 4th and 4 (might have been an audible though).

2. Brad Childress - Lots of little decisions. Giving Chester Taylor more touches than AD despite AD playing like the best football player on the planet. Having AD return kicks and risk injury and have to come off the field for the first set of downs. Using CT as his prime back in 4th quarter possession w/ the lead (obvious running situation). Decision to pass on first and second down up 14.

3. Lovie Smith - onside kick with plenty of time left.

4. Wade Phillips - decision to kick field goal on 4th and goal in the 4th quarter down 14 and knowing his team's defense can't stop Brady at all.

Some other notables from earlier in the season:

1. Joe Gibbs - not having Portis in the game in the red zone to win the game.

2. Jack Del Rio - Consistently running the ball under 20 times a game (to his credit, they are winning though).

3. Scott Linehan - Yikes.

4. Norv Turner - Giving LT2 like two touches in the second half of GB game (I think).

5. Bill Belichik - deciding to use sideline cameras.

I'm sure there have been some others too. So, this got me wondering, speaking specifically to actual in-game decisions, is it possible that the average avid football fan (meaning someone like us who watches the game every weekend, may have played competitively at one point, has hundreds of games of Madden knotched on their belts, etc.) could actually call a better game than some of today's head coaches? Again, I'd normally say I'm crazy here, but there have been some blatantly poor decisions made here which almost defy general logic.

 

[Da Guru]

Holmgren..no TOs 3 and 10 from the 20 and he runs the ball up the middle, then in stead of taking the sure 3..he goes for it fails..1:48 left on the clock..Saints just run it out.

I may not be able to "coach" better..but I think I would not run the ball up the gut with noTOs remaining.

 

[Zow]

Actually I think Bill Simmons has had several rants about this. And that the average fan would be a better GM than some NBA GMs as well.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I finally understand why my Bengals have voted against replay every time it's come up. I have never seen somebody throw away more timeouts than Marvin does with awful awful challenges. The 1st challenge they lost today on the 4th down was such an obvious one to NOT do - it was clear the guy didn't make it. Now of course, did he challenge the spot on the play immediately before where it looked like Palmer might've made it? HELL NO. We have all these games we are trying to come back in and he compounding things by leaving us with 1 TO left late in the game instead of 3. I honestly hope we don't challenge another play the rest of the year.

-QG

 

[BeachBums]

This is stupid. There's a LITTLE BIT more to being an HC than calling plays. It's easy with John Madden and Al Michaels telling you what to think.

 

[Zow]

So it's 7-5 right now... any of the seven wanna chime in and either defend these guys or defend their jobs? Obviously coaches are going to make mistakes or bad subjective strategy decisions, but hey, they're paid millions to make good decisions and some of the decisions I've seen suggest incompetence in my opinion.

 

[Zow]

This is stupid. There's a LITTLE BIT more to being an HC than calling plays. It's easy with John Madden and Al Michaels telling you what to think.

I clearly stated we're talking about in-game decisions. Not talking about who to cut, how to run a practice, keeping up team morale, etc. I'd totally agree you can have a great head coach who may not be the best at make in-game decisions. But I mean it's gotta be bad when a girl who doesn't watch football goes, "do they have to run the ball on first down every time?" In-game decisions are a significant part of being a head coach.

 

[831hoops]

So it's 7-5 right now... any of the seven wanna chime in and either defend these guys or defend their jobs? Obviously coaches are going to make mistakes or bad subjective strategy decisions, but hey, they're paid millions to make good decisions and some of the decisions I've seen suggest incompetence in my opinion.

 

[Zow]

So it's 7-5 right now... any of the seven wanna chime in and either defend these guys or defend their jobs? Obviously coaches are going to make mistakes or bad subjective strategy decisions, but hey, they're paid millions to make good decisions and some of the decisions I've seen suggest incompetence in my opinion.

???

 

[BeachBums]

This is stupid. There's a LITTLE BIT more to being an HC than calling plays. It's easy with John Madden and Al Michaels telling you what to think.

I clearly stated we're talking about in-game decisions. Not talking about who to cut, how to run a practice, keeping up team morale, etc. I'd totally agree you can have a great head coach who may not be the best at make in-game decisions. But I mean it's gotta be bad when a girl who doesn't watch football goes, "do they have to run the ball on first down every time?" In-game decisions are a significant part of being a head coach.

Uh, yeah I guess I didn't read the whole page of instructions to vote. Sorry 'bout that. And I'd still vote no. I can understand the frustration of your poll, but it's easy to call plays with 20/20 hindsight.

 

[thayman]

No. The average fan, and the above average fan for that matter, doesn't understand the job. It's not just calling plays, it's also coming up with plays, adjusting to the defense/offense.

I do think that the average fan can be a much better announcer though.

 

[Broncobiv]

1. Mike Holmgren - decision to kick onside w/ 6 minutes left. NO wasn't moving the ball at all and 6 minutes is enough time for two scores. Then, on 4th and and long but in field goal range and down 11 he goes for it when they still needed two scores. Calling a FB run on 4th and 4 (might have been an audible though).

Holmgren made lots of dumb calls tonight, IMO. But the WORST was at the very end of the game, like you said.FACTS:

There is about a minute and a half left on the clock.

You're down by 11 - you need two scores to win...TD/2PT, and a FG.

After one score, you need to recover an onside kick and then get the other score.

You're facing 4th and 9 in FG range.

The two scores can come in either order...FG, then TD, or TD, then FG.

So Holmgren goes for it on 4th and 9 instead of kicking the gimme FG. Either way, FG or TD/2PT, they'd still need to recover the onside kick (the hardest part of the whole plan). WTF was he thinking???????

 

[831hoops]

1. Mike Holmgren - decision to kick onside w/ 6 minutes left. NO wasn't moving the ball at all and 6 minutes is enough time for two scores. Then, on 4th and and long but in field goal range and down 11 he goes for it when they still needed two scores. Calling a FB run on 4th and 4 (might have been an audible though).

Holmgren made lots of dumb calls tonight, IMO. But the WORST was at the very end of the game, like you said.FACTS:

There is about a minute and a half left on the clock.

You're down by 11 - you need two scores to win...TD/2PT, and a FG.

After one score, you need to recover an onside kick and then get the other score.

You're facing 4th and 9 in FG range.

The two scores can come in either order...FG, then TD, or TD, then FG.

So Holmgren goes for it on 4th and 9 instead of kicking the gimme FG. Either way, FG or TD/2PT, they'd still need to recover the onside kick (the hardest part of the whole plan). WTF was he thinking???????

Maybe he was thinking, "if we miss the conversion, we'll need 2 TDs instead of a TD and a FG."

 

[Zow]

This is stupid. There's a LITTLE BIT more to being an HC than calling plays. It's easy with John Madden and Al Michaels telling you what to think.

I clearly stated we're talking about in-game decisions. Not talking about who to cut, how to run a practice, keeping up team morale, etc. I'd totally agree you can have a great head coach who may not be the best at make in-game decisions. But I mean it's gotta be bad when a girl who doesn't watch football goes, "do they have to run the ball on first down every time?" In-game decisions are a significant part of being a head coach.

Uh, yeah I guess I didn't read the whole page of instructions to vote. Sorry 'bout that. And I'd still vote no. I can understand the frustration of your poll, but it's easy to call plays with 20/20 hindsight.

1. I'm not "frustrated" as it's just a game I have no say in it. But I'm finding myself consistently saying "what the hell is he thinking" prior to the play and thought has me curious as to whether I could do a more efficient job in this aspect of coaching. Thought this would then create an interesting instruction. 2. We do benefit from 20/20 hindsight, but I think what was so shocking to me for most of my examples was that the decisions seem so mathematically/statistically obvious. Think of some of these calls like pinch hitting for A-Rod, intentionally walking a guy w/ the bases loaded, pulling the goalie down one w/ 5 minutes left in hockey, etc.

 

[thayman]

This is stupid. There's a LITTLE BIT more to being an HC than calling plays. It's easy with John Madden and Al Michaels telling you what to think.

I clearly stated we're talking about in-game decisions. Not talking about who to cut, how to run a practice, keeping up team morale, etc. I'd totally agree you can have a great head coach who may not be the best at make in-game decisions. But I mean it's gotta be bad when a girl who doesn't watch football goes, "do they have to run the ball on first down every time?" In-game decisions are a significant part of being a head coach.

Uh, yeah I guess I didn't read the whole page of instructions to vote. Sorry 'bout that. And I'd still vote no. I can understand the frustration of your poll, but it's easy to call plays with 20/20 hindsight.

1. I'm not "frustrated" as it's just a game I have no say in it. But I'm finding myself consistently saying "what the hell is he thinking" prior to the play and thought has me curious as to whether I could do a more efficient job in this aspect of coaching. Thought this would then create an interesting instruction. 2. We do benefit from 20/20 hindsight, but I think what was so shocking to me for most of my examples was that the decisions seem so mathematically/statistically obvious. Think of some of these calls like pinch hitting for A-Rod, intentionally walking a guy w/ the bases loaded, pulling the goalie down one w/ 5 minutes left in hockey, etc.

There is a lot more to coaching then just calling plays.

 

[-OZ-]

null vote.

No way - no one can understand the pressure of head coaching

I know plenty of people who could handle the pressure, but that alone doesn't make them a good NFL coach. But I would vote no, for different reasons.Some of these decisions would look ingenious if they worked. Coach makes a decision, players must execute, but the opponent gets a vote too.

 

[-OZ-]

has hundreds of games of Madden knotched on their belts

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Head coaches are paranoid control freaks, to categorize them all in one fell swoop. That's why they put in 16 hour days and try to play GM, head coach and call plays all at once.

If they were more secure in their jobs (practically impossible, I know) they could delegate away some of these tasks. Even better would be if they could delegate away the things that they aren't good at and keep what they know - or just manage the task leads.

"Surround yourself with the best minds" is not just a saying.

This is part of why Bill Walsh was Bill Walsh.

 

[mr. furley]

no

 

[Da Beers]

average fan, no.

average fbg,

 

[Zow]

This is stupid. There's a LITTLE BIT more to being an HC than calling plays. It's easy with John Madden and Al Michaels telling you what to think.

I clearly stated we're talking about in-game decisions. Not talking about who to cut, how to run a practice, keeping up team morale, etc. I'd totally agree you can have a great head coach who may not be the best at make in-game decisions. But I mean it's gotta be bad when a girl who doesn't watch football goes, "do they have to run the ball on first down every time?" In-game decisions are a significant part of being a head coach.

Uh, yeah I guess I didn't read the whole page of instructions to vote. Sorry 'bout that. And I'd still vote no. I can understand the frustration of your poll, but it's easy to call plays with 20/20 hindsight.

1. I'm not "frustrated" as it's just a game I have no say in it. But I'm finding myself consistently saying "what the hell is he thinking" prior to the play and thought has me curious as to whether I could do a more efficient job in this aspect of coaching. Thought this would then create an interesting instruction. 2. We do benefit from 20/20 hindsight, but I think what was so shocking to me for most of my examples was that the decisions seem so mathematically/statistically obvious. Think of some of these calls like pinch hitting for A-Rod, intentionally walking a guy w/ the bases loaded, pulling the goalie down one w/ 5 minutes left in hockey, etc.

There is a lot more to coaching then just calling plays.

But I'm only talking about playcalling and game/time management. Would you prefer I switch the title?

 

[WhoDat]

Just one small example...

Given the fact an OC will run a specific play; show a look/formation/personel package against today's opponent with the express intent of putting it onto film to fool another opponent that will be played anywhere from 1-15 weeks from now...no, the average football fan does not have a shot at play calling in the NFL.

Are there specific instances where the average fan could find the proverbial sunshine or nut that often finds the dog's backside or is located by the squirrel? Yes, it could happen. Long-term or even sustained success over a single game...no way an average fan could make calls.

 

[culdeus]

An average fan wouldn't make good playcalls or be able to read defense, but I'm convinced that they need someone in the booth making the "logic calls". Someone that keeps an eye on the telecast for good replay spots. Someone to watch the card for times to go for two and when to just run up the middle to eat clock and when to get hyper-agressive down late in the game.

I think coaches spend so much time game planning for 2nd and 8 and 2nd and 4 and 3rd and 5 and all that they forget about the big picture.

 

[MarcO]

1. Mike Holmgren - decision to kick onside w/ 6 minutes left. NO wasn't moving the ball at all and 6 minutes is enough time for two scores. Then, on 4th and and long but in field goal range and down 11 he goes for it when they still needed two scores. Calling a FB run on 4th and 4 (might have been an audible though).

Holmgren made lots of dumb calls tonight, IMO. But the WORST was at the very end of the game, like you said.FACTS:

There is about a minute and a half left on the clock.

You're down by 11 - you need two scores to win...TD/2PT, and a FG.

After one score, you need to recover an onside kick and then get the other score.

You're facing 4th and 9 in FG range.

The two scores can come in either order...FG, then TD, or TD, then FG.

So Holmgren goes for it on 4th and 9 instead of kicking the gimme FG. Either way, FG or TD/2PT, they'd still need to recover the onside kick (the hardest part of the whole plan). WTF was he thinking???????

This is exactly why fans THINK they could make better coaches - it's easy to second guess when you are ignore the contributing factors.I think Hasselback audibled the 3rd down play to a run - Fullback draw for 1 yard. I think this because of his post game comments and the look on his face. This play screwed everything up - it's now 4th and 9 , Hasselback can't spike it to stop the clock and to get the field goal team on the field is going to take at least an additional 30 seconds off the clock bringing it down to under 1 minute to play. The failed pass play got off with 1:21 to play but it was the same personel on the field.

Not saying it was the right thing to do - but I think Holmgren just decided the odds were long anyway and he had a better shot of getting the first down or TD here than he would of recovering an on-side kick and scoring a TD/ 2PT conversion with 30-50 seconds left and no timeouts.

It wasn't as bad a call as you make it out to be.

 

[Perfect Tommy]

Sometimes coaches make horrible decisions, but I see no evidence that fans could make better decisions. Often the most heavily criticized decisions are actually correct or at least reasonable while big mistakes are just ignored. Every time I see a team down by 14 points score a late TD I wince as they comfortably kick the extra point. Going for the two-point conversion is so much better, but not one coach in the NFL seems to realize this.

By the way, Holmgren is one of those coaches that has always made a lot of bad decisions even when he was with the Packers.

Cheater Belichik is the best NFL coach I have seen at making those in game decisions. Andy Reed is also very good.

 

[SKribbles]

Sometimes coaches make horrible decisions, but I see no evidence that fans could make better decisions. Often the most heavily criticized decisions are actually correct or at least reasonable while big mistakes are just ignored. Every time I see a team down by 14 points score a late TD I wince as they comfortably kick the extra point. Going for the two-point conversion is so much better, but not one coach in the NFL seems to realize this.

By the way, Holmgren is one of those coaches that has always made a lot of bad decisions even when he was with the Packers.

Cheater Belichik is the best NFL coach I have seen at making those in game decisions. Andy Reed is also very good.

Please explain.

 

[Zow]

An average fan wouldn't make good playcalls or be able to read defense, but I'm convinced that they need someone in the booth making the "logic calls". Someone that keeps an eye on the telecast for good replay spots. Someone to watch the card for times to go for two and when to just run up the middle to eat clock and when to get hyper-agressive down late in the game. I think coaches spend so much time game planning for 2nd and 8 and 2nd and 4 and 3rd and 5 and all that they forget about the big picture.

I'm definitely on board with this. You'd think some of the HC's assistant coaches would tackle him at some points though. But perhaps they have enough on their plates too. Really though, would it kill an owner to pay some Madden nut to sit in the booth for like 100,000 a year to make these logic calls? Head coaches' egos would probably flip though.

 

[Zow]

Sometimes coaches make horrible decisions, but I see no evidence that fans could make better decisions. Often the most heavily criticized decisions are actually correct or at least reasonable while big mistakes are just ignored. Every time I see a team down by 14 points score a late TD I wince as they comfortably kick the extra point. Going for the two-point conversion is so much better, but not one coach in the NFL seems to realize this.

By the way, Holmgren is one of those coaches that has always made a lot of bad decisions even when he was with the Packers.

Cheater Belichik is the best NFL coach I have seen at making those in game decisions. Andy Reed is also very good.

Please explain.

I'm also shuked as to why the 2 pt. conversion here is the better play?? I'll also add that I don't remember a time this year when I questioned a coach's choice to either kick the EP or go for two. I think all head coaches "get" this strategy decision.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

By the way, Holmgren is one of those coaches that has always made a lot of bad decisions even when he was with the Packers.

Game management has never been one of his strengths. That was brutal last night.

 

[MikeIke]

Sometimes coaches make horrible decisions, but I see no evidence that fans could make better decisions. Often the most heavily criticized decisions are actually correct or at least reasonable while big mistakes are just ignored. Every time I see a team down by 14 points score a late TD I wince as they comfortably kick the extra point. Going for the two-point conversion is so much better, but not one coach in the NFL seems to realize this.

By the way, Holmgren is one of those coaches that has always made a lot of bad decisions even when he was with the Packers.

Cheater Belichik is the best NFL coach I have seen at making those in game decisions. Andy Reed is also very good.

Please explain.

I'm also shuked as to why the 2 pt. conversion here is the better play?? I'll also add that I don't remember a time this year when I questioned a coach's choice to either kick the EP or go for two. I think all head coaches "get" this strategy decision.

I'm guessing Perfect Tommy's reasoning is that if the 2 pt. conversion works, another TD and PAT will give them the lead. If you miss the 2 pt. conversion you can go for it again on your next TD and still tie the game. Going for the 2 after the first TD at least gives you a chance for the win. As Tuesday Morning QB says "Kick early, go for it late."Not sure I agree that it should be the call, but I can see where it's coming from. If you want to win the game sometimes you need to take chances.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Head coaches are paranoid control freaks, to categorize them all in one fell swoop. That's why they put in 16 hour days and try to play GM, head coach and call plays all at once.If they were more secure in their jobs (practically impossible, I know) they could delegate away some of these tasks. Even better would be if they could delegate away the things that they aren't good at and keep what they know - or just manage the task leads."Surround yourself with the best minds" is not just a saying.This is part of why Bill Walsh was Bill Walsh.

This is important in any management position. Coaches make some of the worst decisions you could imagine, especially when it comes to clock management. The people who say that these are professionals and they know better are wrong. However, it is important to put in context. When a coach is making decisions he has 10 different things being presented to him at once and "stuff" is flying very fast. When you are sitting at home you can be much more myopic in your thinking. This brings us back full circle in that you should have someone who only has responsibility to tell you the best way to preserve time late in the game (or run it out). You should have someone calling plays (that you can overrule or work with). same for defense. You should then have someone who is a perspective giver for items like trends you want to adjust to (Overall). I could go on and on, but it is not easy what they do, but for the people who say the professionals know better, that is simply not (always) correct.

 

[doughboydeluxe]

1. Mike Holmgren - decision to kick onside w/ 6 minutes left. NO wasn't moving the ball at all and 6 minutes is enough time for two scores. Then, on 4th and and long but in field goal range and down 11 he goes for it when they still needed two scores. Calling a FB run on 4th and 4 (might have been an audible though).

The onsides was a little questionable, but I don't necessarily have a problem with it. Not kicking the FG was not a good plan.

2. Brad Childress - Lots of little decisions. Giving Chester Taylor more touches than AD despite AD playing like the best football player on the planet. Having AD return kicks and risk injury and have to come off the field for the first set of downs. Using CT as his prime back in 4th quarter possession w/ the lead (obvious running situation). Decision to pass on first and second down up 14.

Having AD return the last kick is what won the game for the Vikings. Would I use him on kickoffs? Probably not, but that last long return won the game, so how can I argue? How many touches do you want AD to have a game, 40? He carried the ball 20 times, not to mention running up and down the field with those carries. Maybe he was a little tired. Peterson had 9 carries in the 4th quarter, while Taylor had 8. You want him to carry the ball 17 times in a quarter?

3. Lovie Smith - onside kick with plenty of time left.

There was 2:36 left. We're not talking :30 here, but we're not talking 6 minutes, either.

4. Wade Phillips - decision to kick field goal on 4th and goal in the 4th quarter down 14 and knowing his team's defense can't stop Brady at all.

If they can't stop Brady, what difference does it make what they do? You have to operate under the assumption that your defense will get the ball back.

With most of these calls, if they work out, people are praising the coaches as geniuses.

 

[Phurfur]

I didn't read all the post but I know from coaching kids soccer it is not that easy. Things happen quickly and often and you have to be on top of them all.

 

[tribecalledjeff]

This is ridiculous. You sound just like a clueless parent who comes to me after a basketball game.

Parent: Why didn't my son play more?

Me: Help me understand - at what point in the game would you have liked to seen him play?

Parent: How about in the start of the 4th quarter when you were down 15 points?

Me: Sir, did you notice that since we were down, we were pressing? Did you notice that your son had 4 fouls and couldn't afford to play the aggressive style defense that we were playing? Did you notice that your son is 30 pounds overweight and too slow to play when we press? Did you notice that when he was in the game, the opposing coach called a play to isolate vs. him 3 times in row and his man scored 2 of those times and got fouled another? How about the fact that they were packing their defense into the lane and your fat, slow, unskilled son was not going to contribute offensively? Or did you notice the fact that I wanted to run a specific offensive set, one that your son doesn't know very well?

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. You see the decision, but you have no idea what the 10 other factors going into that decision were.

You know just enough to be dangerous. You don't know NEAR enough to do anything remotely resembling coaching a football game.

 

[pizzatyme]

This is ridiculous. You sound just like a clueless parent who comes to me after a basketball game. Parent: Why didn't my son play more? Me: Help me understand - at what point in the game would you have liked to seen him play?Parent: How about in the start of the 4th quarter when you were down 15 points?Me: Sir, did you notice that since we were down, we were pressing? Did you notice that your son had 4 fouls and couldn't afford to play the aggressive style defense that we were playing? Did you notice that your son is 30 pounds overweight and too slow to play when we press? Did you notice that when he was in the game, the opposing coach called a play to isolate vs. him 3 times in row and his man scored 2 of those times and got fouled another? How about the fact that they were packing their defense into the lane and your fat, slow, unskilled son was not going to contribute offensively? Or did you notice the fact that I wanted to run a specific offensive set, one that your son doesn't know very well? I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. You see the decision, but you have no idea what the 10 other factors going into that decision were. You know just enough to be dangerous. You don't know NEAR enough to do anything remotely resembling coaching a football game.

And to play Devil's Advocate, there is a lot of politics that goes into someone becoming a head coach at most levels. Just because some is a head coach, doesn't make them any better of a game manager. Coaching has as much to do with opportunity as it does skill.The same goes for being a GM. I damn well guarantee you that I could do atleast as poorly as Matt Millen.Some coaches are better off letting someone else call the plays and them making the needed decisions. I think Holmgren is one of those coaches. There was no reason for him to go for it on 4th when they just needed the FG there.

 

[zDwinger]

No.

Most could not coach youth football in my experience.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I'm pretty sure there's about a dozen people in the Shark Pool alone that could be a better GM than what's running the Dolphins and the Rams.

Coaching? No way.

 

[pizzatyme]

No. Most could not coach youth football in my experience.

But wouldn't you agree that there are very good youth football coaches who understand the game and, if given the opportunity, could coach HS football, and so on and so on all the way up to the NFL level.80% of youth coaches do it to be able to coach their sons.20% of youth coaches understand the game enough to be a good coach.5% of youth coaches could coach at the next level.I also think 5% of HS coaches could coach at the college level.1% of the college coaches could coach in the NFL.I honestly feel that I could coach at least as good as Art Shell. Art Shell was coaching because he played the game. Did that make him a good coach?

 

[zDwinger]

I'm pretty sure there's about a dozen people in the Shark Pool alone that could be a better GM than what's running the Dolphins and the Rams.Coaching? No way.

I would question this also. A lot more going on there than meets the eye.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I'm pretty sure there's about a dozen people in the Shark Pool alone that could be a better GM than what's running the Dolphins and the Rams.Coaching? No way.

I would question this also. A lot more going on there than meets the eye.

Half dozen?While there may be more than meets the eye, it's still not rocket science. Given some experience, I'm certain there's guys that follow everything football that could do the job.

 

[831hoops]

This is ridiculous. You sound just like a clueless parent who comes to me after a basketball game. Parent: Why didn't my son play more? Me: Help me understand - at what point in the game would you have liked to seen him play?Parent: How about in the start of the 4th quarter when you were down 15 points?Me: Sir, did you notice that since we were down, we were pressing? Did you notice that your son had 4 fouls and couldn't afford to play the aggressive style defense that we were playing? Did you notice that your son is 30 pounds overweight and too slow to play when we press? Did you notice that when he was in the game, the opposing coach called a play to isolate vs. him 3 times in row and his man scored 2 of those times and got fouled another? How about the fact that they were packing their defense into the lane and your fat, slow, unskilled son was not going to contribute offensively? Or did you notice the fact that I wanted to run a specific offensive set, one that your son doesn't know very well? I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. You see the decision, but you have no idea what the 10 other factors going into that decision were. You know just enough to be dangerous. You don't know NEAR enough to do anything remotely resembling coaching a football game.

The old Bobby Knight quote comes to mind:"I'll forget more about basketball than you will ever know."

 

[Chaka]

Stay out of the Shark Pool woz.

Go back to the FFA and do what you are meant to do; regale us with stories of your failed dating life and the supplemental workout poisons you put in your body.

XPLODE!!111111

 

[Liquid Tension]

1. Mike Holmgren - decision to kick onside w/ 6 minutes left. NO wasn't moving the ball at all and 6 minutes is enough time for two scores. Then, on 4th and and long but in field goal range and down 11 he goes for it when they still needed two scores. Calling a FB run on 4th and 4 (might have been an audible though).

The onsides was a little questionable, but I don't necessarily have a problem with it. Not kicking the FG was not a good plan.

2. Brad Childress - Lots of little decisions. Giving Chester Taylor more touches than AD despite AD playing like the best football player on the planet. Having AD return kicks and risk injury and have to come off the field for the first set of downs. Using CT as his prime back in 4th quarter possession w/ the lead (obvious running situation). Decision to pass on first and second down up 14.

Having AD return the last kick is what won the game for the Vikings. Would I use him on kickoffs? Probably not, but that last long return won the game, so how can I argue? How many touches do you want AD to have a game, 40? He carried the ball 20 times, not to mention running up and down the field with those carries. Maybe he was a little tired. Peterson had 9 carries in the 4th quarter, while Taylor had 8. You want him to carry the ball 17 times in a quarter?

3. Lovie Smith - onside kick with plenty of time left.

There was 2:36 left. We're not talking :30 here, but we're not talking 6 minutes, either.

4. Wade Phillips - decision to kick field goal on 4th and goal in the 4th quarter down 14 and knowing his team's defense can't stop Brady at all.

If they can't stop Brady, what difference does it make what they do? You have to operate under the assumption that your defense will get the ball back.

With most of these calls, if they work out, people are praising the coaches as geniuses.

The average fan is the type of fan that boos the coach every time because they think the coach should go for it. The more sophisticated fan makes predictions before they happen and does not question with 20/20 hindsight. Some good decisions fail and some poor decisions work out, but in the long run, if a coach continues to make poor decisions they will work out far less often.I am not a fan of Herm Edwards and his righteousness arrogance, but he was correct when he said "you play to win the game." I could puke every time I hear an announcer or someone say "what do you have to lose" you are 0-whatever...WRONG, you have the game to lose, you play and coach the game the same way and that is what gives your team the best chance to win the game PERIOD! If going for 4th down gives you the best chance to win the game then you do it, but you don't throw logic out the window and be stupidly aggressive because "you have nothing to lose."

 

[Sheriff66]

Don't forget Jauron on MNF throwing on 3rd down with a rookie QB when a FG makes in a 2 TD game late in the 4th quarter...

 

[Lord Lucan]

I think Holmgren's call was absolutely the right one, though they should have been throwing to the end zone on both 3rd and 4th down. Assuming they recover the onside kick, it is a lot easier to move the ball 25 yards or so to get it into field goal range than it is to move it over 50 yards into the end zone against a defense that knows it only has to stop a TD, not a FG. The Seahawks needed a TD at some stage, and the best opportunity was when they were already on the 15-yard line.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I think Holmgren's call was absolutely the right one, though they should have been throwing to the end zone on both 3rd and 4th down. Assuming they recover the onside kick, it is a lot easier to move the ball 25 yards or so to get it into field goal range than it is to move it over 50 yards into the end zone against a defense that knows it only has to stop a TD, not a FG. The Seahawks needed a TD at some stage, and the best opportunity was when they were already on the 15-yard line.

Good to see someone who takes the other side and does so with logic

 

[Zow]

This is ridiculous. You sound just like a clueless parent who comes to me after a basketball game. Parent: Why didn't my son play more? Me: Help me understand - at what point in the game would you have liked to seen him play?Parent: How about in the start of the 4th quarter when you were down 15 points?Me: Sir, did you notice that since we were down, we were pressing? Did you notice that your son had 4 fouls and couldn't afford to play the aggressive style defense that we were playing? Did you notice that your son is 30 pounds overweight and too slow to play when we press? Did you notice that when he was in the game, the opposing coach called a play to isolate vs. him 3 times in row and his man scored 2 of those times and got fouled another? How about the fact that they were packing their defense into the lane and your fat, slow, unskilled son was not going to contribute offensively? Or did you notice the fact that I wanted to run a specific offensive set, one that your son doesn't know very well? I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. You see the decision, but you have no idea what the 10 other factors going into that decision were. You know just enough to be dangerous. You don't know NEAR enough to do anything remotely resembling coaching a football game.

I was a JV HS head baseball coach for three years and I know what you're saying. Some decisions work, some don't, and the average parent is not going to know everything that's going on. As I stated in the initial post I'm usually not one to question what a coach or GM does because they job is admittedly very tough, they're under a ton of financial and public pressure to succeed, and it's human to make mistakes. But I'm simply seeing decisions being made here which make no rational sense and the following points then led me to think I may not be completely whacked out in it's merely possible (not certain or even likely):1. Your example talks about a rational personnel decision based on actual FACTS of the game which directly correllate to the situation at hand (ex: kid w/ four fouls can't play tight, pressing defense). The mistakes I've highlighted are mathematical (ex: not kicking the FG) or not supported by in-game facts (ex: Minnesota without AD in the game and passing on first and second down up 14). 2. Head coaches and some GMs are not intellectually very bright. This can effect their in-game decisions if they cannot do quick math, remember certain plays, perform cost-benefit analysises (sp?), etc. Now I'm not saying head coaches are all dumb or anything like that (pretty sure guys like Belichik and Shanahan would do very well academically), but do you really think a coach like Mike Tice, Mike Holmgren, or Art Shell is smarter than the average adult? I don't and I think it's crazy that owners/GMs place the weight of intellectual game decisions accompanied w/ an insane amount of pressures on these guys. Because of this I think a strong argument could be made that teams would be better off w/ some football geek calling these shots. For a real-life example of this take consider Boston's hiring of Theo Epstein as GM or the A's hiring of Billy Beane compared to the hirings of stud players like Isaiah Thomas and Larry Bird. The amount of thought and analysis put in by the former two guys is lightyears ahead of the latter. 3. Again, I reiterate I'm only talking about in-game decisions. To think that the average football geek could coach better than anyone is ludicrous. I know I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to run a practice, boost player morale, or discipline players compared to actual head coaches.ETA: I think to analogize what I'm talking about directly to your example the proper situation would have to be like you deciding not to foul down a couple baskets with a minute left or you putting in all bang-low scorers down 3 points with 2 seconds left.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

Sometimes coaches make horrible decisions, but I see no evidence that fans could make better decisions. Often the most heavily criticized decisions are actually correct or at least reasonable while big mistakes are just ignored. Every time I see a team down by 14 points score a late TD I wince as they comfortably kick the extra point. Going for the two-point conversion is so much better, but not one coach in the NFL seems to realize this.

By the way, Holmgren is one of those coaches that has always made a lot of bad decisions even when he was with the Packers.

Cheater Belichik is the best NFL coach I have seen at making those in game decisions. Andy Reed is also very good.

Huh?Reid is awful at clock management and two-minute-drill type of stuff. Only Herm is worse, IMO.

 

[zDwinger]

No. Most could not coach youth football in my experience.

But wouldn't you agree that there are very good youth football coaches who understand the game and, if given the opportunity, could coach HS football, and so on and so on all the way up to the NFL level.80% of youth coaches do it to be able to coach their sons.20% of youth coaches understand the game enough to be a good coach.5% of youth coaches could coach at the next level.I also think 5% of HS coaches could coach at the college level.1% of the college coaches could coach in the NFL.I honestly feel that I could coach at least as good as Art Shell. Art Shell was coaching because he played the game. Did that make him a good coach?

No it did not make him a good coach. Just because you played the game does not mean you understand the complete game.I thought the question was the "average" avid football fan. This is a sound NO in my book. Now if you ask are there people that study football that could do a better job then I would say yes. I've seen coaches who take bad teams and make them good via coaching.

 

[thayman]

This is stupid. There's a LITTLE BIT more to being an HC than calling plays. It's easy with John Madden and Al Michaels telling you what to think.

I clearly stated we're talking about in-game decisions. Not talking about who to cut, how to run a practice, keeping up team morale, etc. I'd totally agree you can have a great head coach who may not be the best at make in-game decisions. But I mean it's gotta be bad when a girl who doesn't watch football goes, "do they have to run the ball on first down every time?" In-game decisions are a significant part of being a head coach.

Uh, yeah I guess I didn't read the whole page of instructions to vote. Sorry 'bout that. And I'd still vote no. I can understand the frustration of your poll, but it's easy to call plays with 20/20 hindsight.

1. I'm not "frustrated" as it's just a game I have no say in it. But I'm finding myself consistently saying "what the hell is he thinking" prior to the play and thought has me curious as to whether I could do a more efficient job in this aspect of coaching. Thought this would then create an interesting instruction. 2. We do benefit from 20/20 hindsight, but I think what was so shocking to me for most of my examples was that the decisions seem so mathematically/statistically obvious. Think of some of these calls like pinch hitting for A-Rod, intentionally walking a guy w/ the bases loaded, pulling the goalie down one w/ 5 minutes left in hockey, etc.

There is a lot more to coaching then just calling plays.

But I'm only talking about playcalling and game/time management. Would you prefer I switch the title?

Yes because that's only part of the job. You also couldn't call plays correctly with out knowing how your players performed in practice. If there is a injury do you know who to put in? etc etc... Going undefeated in Madden does not mean you would be unstoppable in the NFL.