Great coaches v great players...is there even a debate?

IMO a really great coach is one who can adapt his "system" to the talent he has, as opposed to the talent he wished he had. But you need both, great talent and great coaching. On the talent side, you can make up for "holes" - players who aren't superstars - with a coach who can design system that accommodates those "holes". That's why Belichick has been able to have his dynasty. But a great coach can't make up for everything, like losing the key piece or pieces of his team, or at least he can't do it overnight, again as shown by the Patriots losing Brady.

I think where Phil Jackson failed in NY was due to him being the GM and not being able to coach. Even when he acquired players he thought would be able to make the triangle work, his coaches couldn't implement his vision. And TBF, he wasn't as good a judge of talent as he thought he was.

If I were building a team, I would start with a blueprint and acquire all the talent - coaches and players - to fit to that blueprint. And like all plans they describe an ideal outcome, but they need to be flexible enough to change to the reality of actual conditions. And sometimes you need to go back to the drawing board and get rid of certain sections and design new ones. The most successful teams do that. The Jets? They don't even know what a blueprint is - although I have some small hope that Douglas does and we're seeing him execute his plans to it. Only time will tell if that's true.

 

I would say the success of a team is way more about the players than the coaching - you see it when a team loses a franchise QB that they fall off a cliff the next season - for me the success of a team is 30% QB; 30% rest of team; 20% coaching; 10% random luck factor

this explains the Jets this year - 5% QB score, 5% rest of team, 0% coaching, 0% luck

edit: this is a view I held for a long time ever since I noticed every 'legendary' coach had had a top tier QB on their team during their time - a quality QB can overcome bad coaching (see the Packers) whereas you never see a coach enjoying success without a quality QB (on a consistent basis)

 

This is spot on. A good coach with mediocre talent will usually still be competitive even if they aren't successful, because they find things that will work with what they have. Look at Parcells: In 99, we lost Vinny in the first game, then went 8-8 while rotating between Ray Lucas, Rick Meier, and Tom Tupa at QB. He somehow made it work to a point where the Jets somehow finished with a respectable record.

 

This isn’t an either-or issue

In terms of franchise success, which is the debate you introduced...

Both good players and good coaches are essential

The head coach in the NFL gets most of the credit and blame for the success or failure of a team

But football is a very complicated sport with lots of different chess pieces

There are coaches for every position now and coordinators for every unit

So the coaching staff as a whole is really important, not just the head coach

But to keep the argument simpler, we can stick with just the head coach and the players

The GM is also obviously vital, as is the entire scouting team

The owners are very important as well for a variety of reasons

But sticking with just players and the head coach...

In a general sense, the better the head coach, the more he can do with his players — he can make them more successful than a lesser coach — Gase is a great example of this, as Jets routinely look better after they leave

Another obvious example would be the awesomeness that transpired after Parcells’ arrival

In a similar vein, the better the players, the more head coaches can be successful coaching them

If one theoretically assembled a Pro-Bowl roster at every position, nearly all (and possibly all) NFL head coaches could win a Super Bowl (coaches like Gase may still blow it)

The probability of winning goes up as the quantity of good players increases, especially if these good players are found at many different positions

On the other hand, the less talented the roster, the fewer coaches will be able to win with it, and the lower the probability of success

So there is an interaction between coaching and playing that ultimately sets up a spectrum of probabilistic outcomes

The greatest coach in the history of the NFL isn’t taking this Jets roster anywhere near a Super Bowl

The same analogy applies to the QB position on the Jets

The best QB in the NFL would look average to maybe slightly above average, at the very best, with the current roster

The same analogy also applies to offense and defense

The better a team’s offense, the worse a defense can be and still win

And obviously vice versa

Most teams that wind up winning the Superbowl have a top 10 head coach, and a top 8 offense/defense (averaged together)

If a team has a top 3 offense/defense, theoretically speaking there are many more head coaches who can win a Super Bowl with that roster, in comparison to a team whose offense/defense is ranked 8th

The real juggernauts that come along every now and then and blow teams away in the playoffs always have amazing player talent

On the other hand, a team like the Pats, who have won many playoff games and Super Bowls by narrow margins time and time again...that sort of consistency over time with different roster pieces playing key roles... is the hallmark of a team with outstanding coaching

In general... putting aside the synergistic reality of the players/coach interaction for the purposes of making an argument

When a team has a loaded roster (including an above average QB) and a great coach... 11-14+ wins year after year... almost always in the playoffs and in the mix to win conference championships and SBs... the higher the caliber of QB on such a team, the greater the probability of winning the Super Bowl... all time loaded defenses like the Dilfer-led SB-winning Ravens are anomalous and therefore one-offs... but still an important case example that underscores the general nature of the sliding-scale probability algorithm that predicts success...

In general (there are always going to be rare exceptions)...

When a team has an average roster and a great coach... 7-11 wins

A bad roster (25th percentile) with a great (top 5) coach... 5-10 wins

A good roster (75th percentile) with bad (bottom 5) coach... 5-10 wins

Bad coaches, regardless of roster composition, almost never win 12 games — a great QB having an exceptional year can occasionally lead to an outlier outcome here

So there are ceiling and floor effects in play as well

Factors like injuries, SOS, players performing well above or below expected performance, etc all impact both the size of the possible range of outcomes and the likelihood of performing closer to the top or bottom of these expected win ranges

In order to have a realistic shot at winning the big game, which is what all diehard long-suffering Jets fans deserve, aside from a vast improvement in GM and scouting (which also follows a similar floor-ceiling effect probability-based spectrum outcomes paradigm as coach/players)...

Both a good coach and a good roster are necessary

At this point, I’ll settle for consistently being in the playoffs mix year after year

Since players and their performances and salary demands/requirements generally change over a timespan of 3-5 years, in terms of the consistent longer-term winning we all desire, if absolutely forced to choose between one or the other, a good to great head coach would be my preference

But wouldn’t it be so nice to actually eat steak AND ice-cream on a regular basis?

 

I think Parcells showed in 1997 that it is largely a function of good coaching. He took Kotite's 1-15 team and turned it into 9-7 the next year. I am optimistic the jets can get a lot better next year with a competent coach and a good draft. And Frank Gore NOT wasting opportunities for younger backs.

 

It's more on the player.

Just ask Bill Belly. Couldn't win in CLE despite 10+ QBs (not named Brady) throughout 5 years. Couldn't win in NE with Drew Bledsoe year #1. Couldn't make the playoffs without Brady in Cassel and is now 2-5 without Brady here in 2020 while Brady still looks like Brady, without him..

LeBron James different sport but is another example of player greatness. Believe it or not he's the only NBA player All Time who's ever led and taken not one, not two, not three, not four but 5 different head coaches into the NBA Finals (I believe me or you could sit on the sideline benches as HC and watch LeBron take us to the finals).

Yes. Of course coaching matters especially in football you need a locker room who believes in their head coach but @ the end of the day great players like Brady, LeBron, Jeter, Peyton Manning are self made and their greatness as ball players will make any coach or manager or players around them look better than they really are. Can't stop greatness and yes the coaches coach but the players on the field make the plays.

Great coaches matter but the players will always play the game. Some players can play @ full speed and other's simply, can't. A great coach can help a great player become great but I don't believe great coaches can make an above average player, great.

And I don't think a bad coach can make a great player bad because a great #18 Manning even made a bad Gase look great while breaking All Time passing records in Denver (without Reggie Wayne and Marvin Harrison or Dallas Clark etc). Not even Gase could make Manning, look bad.

 

. . DR: TL
.

 

Anyone who saw the transition from Rich Kotite to Bill Parcells can tell you that coaching is a key component to a winning team.

With that said, you also need talent.

The Dallas Cowboys were so stacked after the Herschel Walker trade that they won a third consecutive Super Bowl without Jimmy Johnson.

 

Great players >>>>>>>>>> Great Coaches

To put this in prospective Adam Gase was at the helm of the best offence in NFL history in Denver.

 

Its both, but a FQB is the primary piece, look at last years Steelers team, they were in every game and ended up 8-8 without Ben, same team this year is on pace to win the AFC number one seed and have home field advantage.

Bellichick has not lost his ability to coach and implement a quality game plan, but he’s stuck with a terrible QB and yes Cam sucks, so his team no matter what they do can’t overcome bad QB play.

Jets have bad coach, no talent and no QB, that’s why they suck, All they have is a couple of good pieces and I believe that next years draft is going to be huge for them as they will need to have 3 or 4 of those picks come in and make some kind of impact.

My breakdown is 50% FQB, 25% HC and 25% rest of the talent on team.

 

There is not a sport on the planet that coaching means more than Football.

Obviously if you have Jet level talent, you could have Lombardi, Shula, Knoll, Parcells, Landry and Belichick all on the sidelines and you are not winning the Super Bowl.
But if you look at the truly great coaches they almost always field a competitive team, other than maybe inheriting a bottom team the first year or two.
For example Andy Reid, only 1 SB with crazy good offensive talent, but the team was still successful with Alex Smith and then all the successful years in Philly.

 

Dallas never won 3 consecutive SB's. When Johnson left they didn't make it that following year. It was the year after with Switzer ('96 season I believe). A monkey could've won with that group. Case in point, Switzer.

 

I still say it's like a 3 legged stool:

HC/CS - 33%
FQB/talent - 33%
GM/FO/Scouting - 33%

Of course those are broad categories, but that's the general breakdown IMO.

 

Bilicheat is a difference maker. He consistently builds solid teams through both the draft and FA. He usually wins all trades he makes. He kills it in preparation and gets the most out of his players on game day. He is usually a wiz at game planning and halftime adjustments. He understands winning and what it takes.

That said you still need some level of talent to get the the SB.

 

Shula coached his last 25 seasons without winning a thing and had one of the best QBs of all-time for 15 of those seasons. In this case, even though both these HOFs were on the same team for many years, it did not bring about the success which may have been expected.