Tony Dungy: defensive guru, Colt's offense one of the best in the game. Marvin Lewis: defensive guru, Bengal's offense far superior to defense. Brian Billick: offensive guru, Ravens D vs. O yada yada yada. You get where I'm going with this. So-called one-sided gurus seem to always have better teams on the opposite side of the ball. Why is that? Personally, I bet head coaches micro-manage their "specialty," take power and authority from their respective assistant coach and confuse their players. I'll bet Dungy said to Moore, and Billick to Ryan, "It's your show. Do what you do; I won't interfere." But maybe its just coincidence. What do you think?
Well, Tuna put together the LT defense, right? That'd probably be an example of a guru living up to the hype.
It's very true, and I think you hit it pretty well.... When a guy comes in as a HC, with significant experience on one side of the ball, it seems like he meddles too much in the respective coordinator's affairs. Look at Herm when he was here, trying to fuse his defense together with Cotrell's.....
Good point, but it also can be a good thing if they're coordinator and HC are working together. I think the coach should be involved, and give opinions, but let the coordinator do his thang.
The success relative to the "specialty" of the first two coaches listed has more to do with personnel than their "micro-managing." Also, if you take a closer look at Dungy he has done a terrific job with the defense. Dungy: Manning, Harrison and Edge were all there when he arrived. The Colts FO has made the decision to focus most resources on offense until Peyton retires. So, you have high draft picks like Wayne, Addai, Anthony Gonzalez and Tony Ugoh (traded up to get him) and prioritized signing of offensive players (ex Edge) over defensive ones. Outside of Freeney, the Colts have not attempted to resign numerous FAs at CB, LB, DT and S. There defense is above average which is a direct testament to Dungy's ability to take new players each year and craft them into a passable defense (which is all they need based on their high-powered offense.) Lewis: With the Bengals, the emergence of Palmer, Rudi, Johnson, Houshmandzedeh and Henry was not anticipated. So, when the group became the pieces of a "high-powered" offense they had to retain them. Again, new deals were give to RJ, CJ and Housh in the past few years. I am not saying that Lewis has done a great job with the defense here, but I can not recall any big name FAthey have brought in. Their last few drafts have focused on defense with mixed results to injuries / suspension of guys like David Pollack and Odell Thurman. However, I believe they are usually one of the top teams in TOs each year. Billick: For some reason, him and Ozzie can't pick offensive talent beside TE. Billick lobbied for Boller...Bust, McNair...washed-up/terrible deal, Lewis...stayed to long, Mason...overpaid, Clayton...potential wasted with no QB. So, I agree Billick has pretty much failed at his "speciality." However, it has nothing to do with micro-managing as he has fired Neuhiesel and Fassel in the last few years and assumed control of the offense.
Every makes it out like Mangini is a coattail rider with no football acumen who lucked into the Jets job due to another relationship, this time with Mike Tannebaum. While Belichick is a dick he is lauded everywhere on here as a "genius" who demands perfection. Do you really think that he would have carried Mangini for 10+ years if EM didn't know what he was doing? Would he have elevated him to DC, especially when he could have easily brought in someone else and left Mangini as the CBs coach? I am not saying Mangini is a genius or that his coaching hasn't been disappointing, but while he may not have been "ready" for a HC gig, he certainly understands how to coach.
If he kept them around and basically imposed his power / questioned all decisions, that is micro-managing. The fact that he chose to become the de facto OC means he is no straight managing. If you have a guy with a "specialty," why wouldn't you want him attending to that facet of the game?
First off, real good points, Blair. You're definitely the guy I was looking for when I posted this. To answer your question, I feel like the Head Coach of a team is kind of like the CEO of a corporation. Even though the CEO worked in "accounting" for thirty years and probably knows more about accounting than everyone in the company, you don't want him in accounting everyday telling his employees how to do their job better. For three reasons: 1) Every accountant there would be thinking, "Oh, shit, its the boss. Don't make a mistake, don't make a mistake, don't make a...DAMMIT!" 2) When the CEO leaves, who gives a shit what Joe Schmoe, the Accounting supervisor, has to say? Especially if it contradicts what the CEO had to say? 3) What happens when somebody from Accounting needs to get fired and they've been working hand-in-hand with the CEO all year? These three questions relate directly to what I feel the responsibilities of a HC are. 1) Motivate your players properly and let them play 2) Empower your coaching staff so that the players listen to and respect them and 3) Be the bad guy. Take the blame for losses, fire people, defer the praise for wins. I think coaches get into trouble when they ignore any of these responsibilities.
Just a couple examples of that 1, 2, 3. Mangini screws up with rule number one. Makes the players nervous, tries to force them into his way of thinking. Billick screws up rule number two. Nobody respected Fassel- Billicks fault. Herm Edwards screws up rule number three. He LOOOOOVES his men and takes a whole lot of camera time when his team wins.
ive noticed this too, but i have a different reason. I think these "gurus" let the hype get to their head. so, they figure "i can build a defense with average players" and they proceed to get more talent for the other side of the ball, with the hope that they can coach up the averae players. the problem is, talent matters a lot. right now, i could take over the chargers job and not be worse than norv turner. whereas jeff fisher has consistently done a job far better than the talent he has (he does have talent, but im just saying his squads seem to over perform)
I didn't say the loyalty factor didn't go the other way. I think anyone would feel a huge debt of gratitude to someone who took them from intern to NFL coach.
I was just wondering if sociopaths attract. They were together for ten years. And if, under the surface, the protege is as devious as the mentor, even if it is a given mangi doesnt possess nearly the football genius of belicheat.
He was an effective gopher for years. Given limited duties such as defensive assistant or DB coach and he did well. Maybe BB knew his limitations? In 2000, when BB acted as his own DC, then brought Crennel in over mangini to be the DC, with Mangini responsible for the secondary, reporting to Crennel. It was only years later, when Crennel left to the Browns in 2005 that EM got his chance. The defense was less than effective that season, for a variety of reasons. Mangini has to take a share of the blame at least. WHo knows why BB recommended he pass on the Jets offer. Out of hatred for the Jets? Concern for Mangini?
