The importance of the Head Coach

[Cincydawg]

Two extremes here, and the "truth" somewhere in the middle.  My question is how many wins does the head coach gain if he is great versus mediocre or even bad?  

Extreme One:  It makes no difference at all.  The ball bounces oddly, recruiting is ephemeral, midgame adjustments are over rated, coaches largely are subject to the whims of the game and 19 year olds who make mistakes.  A great coach is simply one whose teams win, and vice versa, but it is just probability, random walk, nothing special.

Extreme Two:  A great coach can take what would have been a 6-6 squad to 11-1 in a single year by pulling out those 3 point losses by savvy coaching into 3 point wins.  Some team catches an easier schedule and beats bad teams and ends up ranked highly.

For simplicity, presume recruiting is not a factor in this.  Assume the assistants are all the same.  Assume the roster is the same.  How well would Florida or Tennessee have fared this year with Urban Meyer at the helm?  One win better?  Two?  Three?  Is Smart suddenly a coaching genius?

"We" fire coaches who lose key games of course, but how much is their fault as opposed to their responsibility?

I am of course simplifying out of the equation keys like program culture that can take a few years to develop, S&C efforts, and recruiting, etc.

Great coaches often do well in Year Two at a program even with someone else's recruits.

[MikeDeTiger]

Just guessing and theorizing obviously, but in your scenario I'll say somewhere between 2-3.  

It's a bit of an exercise in fantasy to filter out program culture/mindset.  That doesn't exist separately from a coach in the real world.  

[Cincydawg]

So, a great HC instills a great culture and mind set, beyond Xs and Os etc.?

I think we'd all agree with that, and you're right, it's a key component of coaching that leads to wins and not losses.

It also appears to take at least one season to change that.  Year Two seems to highlight whether it has happened or not, unless the program has simply recruited poorly.

[rolltidefan]

i'd guess somewhere between 0-2/3. i guess a great hc could come up with a better fit scheme and gameplan for players than a mediocre one.

but it's hard for me to remove some of the more important aspects of what makes a great hc great. filling out a staff, recruiting, roster management, etc. is what makes great hc great. some can be/are great x/o's, but not necessarily.

i don't think saban is some genius with x/o's, though he's likely quite good. so dropping him on uf or ut might give them 1-2 more wins, but might not.

and if you're talking them taking over right before fall camp, i'd say even smaller chance it makes a difference.

[Cincydawg]

I think the "culture" part, which can take some time, is significant.  Picking able assistants might be even more critical.  Then there is recruiting and Xs and Os.

I think Saban is a master at the culture and picking assistants.  He can recruit because it's Alabama, but he could recruit at other major programs almost as readily.

So, did MacElwain and Jones fall down on the culture thing?  Mark Richt?

Do these coaches who do well at places like ISU and BGSU simply have the culture thing down?  Is that the difference?

You can look at Urban Meyer and he has won everywhere.  Interesting discussion, thanks.

[MikeDeTiger]

^^^  agree


Usually when you see a team improve or decline with a new coach, it's going to mostly have to do with the other factors Cincy is equalizing.  I guess he's getting at how many wins is just X's and O's worth, and ~2 is also my guess, though it depends on the season and the games.  If your team is going to play in several close games--all else being equal--then you probably get 1 or 2 of those that you might not otherwise.  If you're winning or losing big most weekends, meaning your games aren't close, the X's and O's factor is going to diminish significantly.  


Bud Elliot at SBN has some pretty convincing data about talent acquisition.  I don't know coined the phrase "It's not the X's and O's, it's the Johnny and Joes," but it definitely seems to hold up.  Alabama is Alabama not because they're coached great (they are, but so are many others), but because 80% of their roster is blue chips.  Unless you have a roster somewhere in the ballpark + a QB like a Vince Young or a Deshaun Watson, you're not going to beat them.  Best you can hope for is they don't have a good day.  


All that said, in those close games, tactics become magnified.  Maybe not pivotal, but depending on the situation, ever more crucial.  I believe it was the 2012 game between LSU and Arkansas when John L. Smith was the Hogs interim coach, and they lost a close one to us.  John L. Smith was not a good coach.  At the end of the game, down less than a score and moving the ball on us, he decided to punt on 4th and short, even though they almost surely converted, almost surely would keep moving and score, and time would run out and probably win.  But even if not, you really had no choice.  I don't think either team had timeouts, or enough of them, and ARK's hand was forced.  Amazingly, he called punt.....because?.....I guess that's what you're supposed to do on 4th down?  LSU didn't even have to pick up a first down, I don't think, and we ran the game out.  

I think they needed a FG, were almost in range, and were moving well and LSU had played like garbage and deserved to lose.  He just made a horrible call that literally handed the game to us.  Literally almost any other coach in the nation would've beaten us that day.  That's an example of a bad coaching being worth a loss, where even a "below average" coach probably gets a win.  

[Drew4UTk]

i guess i don't agree with most the sentiment here, not that it matters.  

the buck stops at the HC.  it is up to him to set the tone. as examples:  it's up to him to determine if a team is practiced enough, or if they should 'run that drill a few more times'.  it's up to him to approve or reject offensive strategies and tactics.  it's up to him to determine if the secondary is being developed individually to a suitable component in the scheme and if component is being tactically utilized in the overall strategy. it's up to him to decide when to cut someone loose or when to push them a little more.  it's up to him to know each and every component of the team and the supporting ensemble as individuals with motivations and goals, and how to leverage them for his best application, as well as how they all fit together in the overall package, anticipating the production of that package accurately, and preparing them through repetition and redundancy in such a manner that they play at the top of their abilities on game day with unwavering confidence. 

i've coached sports teams- in the form of young ladies softball and peewee football.  i can't say that impacted me or my opinion enough to elicit the above response- what has impacted me enough is training young Marines for a long time- prepping them for what they're about to encounter, and making certain they have both intelligence about what they're doing to the point their training suffices as 'train the trainer' (they can correct others, in short), that they understand how different moving parts interact.  that their physical actions are not exactly their own, anymore, but instead muscle memory actions that happen of their own volition and due to repetitive and constant repetitive repetition- that is repeated repetitively on repetitive days weeks months... when their minds are dumbstruck- and it happens exactly like that in the 'game' i describe especially the first time- we want them to the point their bodies take over and perform without flaw while their minds may as well be counting sheep.   

the age group is the same as these players, and the demands of body is roughly equivalent though the strength and conditioning tactics are drastically different.  knowing what motivates them as individuals is easier than football players, i'd guess, as they're all Marines and not just a group of kids from varying backgrounds and experiences (they are delivered 'bought in' and/or 'assimilated') ... which means they generally are already 'team players' and understand there are strict and certain consequences for effing up... that is likely a helluva lot easier than dealing with often prima-donna football players.

in my line of work i can watch a kid arriving for training and determine with likely 99+% accuracy what battalion they graduated from off the island by simply observing them handle certain things.  the battalions make a difference that is noticeable- slight, but there.  i wager this is the same thing the retirement league (NFL) coaches thinks about players coming from one program or another... i wager they all have signatures that are unmistakable.  they're all capable, don't get me wrong, but they handle different things differently or respond a certain way that gives them away.  i imagine a good coach has a similar impact on players.  i also imagine those players are practiced in a certain way... 

i can tell you gents another thing, too- a good instructor in my line of work is stuck like chuck in the same role unless they've also demonstrated a talent in developing other trainers, though their salaries are far from stagnant.  i wager this is roughly the equiv to coordinators and specific unit coaches.... but even then, those instructors are made by the tone and the 'effectiveness of leverage' by the program manager. 

so... i respect y'alls opinion, but.... in my own, the HC makes ALL the difference in the world, and the results are wins- but not the goal.  the goal is development.     

[MikeDeTiger]

Well sure, but now it seems you're getting into territory Cincy was trying to filter out.  

It's a difficult line to follow.  As we've said, you can't really separate the other aspects of coaching out in the real world.  

I guess he's asking if literally everything were the same about this TN team, except before the season started Butch stepped down and Urban took over, how much difference does that make.  Without recruiting cycles, with the same staff, same players (same off-season prep?).....  I still say maybe a couple.  Mindset and mentality are huge, but a coach can't change that immediately.  It comes more and more with "his" players and his restructuring of the program....coaches, off-season routines, etc.

[Drew4UTk]

i got a bit carried away, huh?

case by case scenario's- a school like UT could easily be bowl eligible.  for the rest of the season i'd guess three of the four would be reasonable, and competitive in the LSU game.  IF those players had a coach that believed in them and let them play instead of every play being 'safe', they'd give more effort and play a lot more 'loose' and they'd likely give more effort and attentiveness in practice.   

in a case like UF, I just don't know.  it's not that their O is just bad, it's that there are components missing.  and it seems to me watching them on the sideline that they aren't or weren't in protest of Mcfishsandwich as they seem to be Jones. they still have some really good componentry, so it's really hard for me to guess with any reasonable accuracy. 

[Cincydawg]

I too can spot a 4th battalion Marine over any of the others nearly every time.

Off topic, we met a new couple last night and the guy, about 60, is a retired Marine officer and they had two sons go to USNA, one is a weapons officer on a destroyer off the Korean coast.  He had some good stories, was never in combat, and his stories were not about him at all specifically.

Back ON topic, yes, I was trying to filter out some things and ponder how much a coach can impact a specific game after everything else is DONE.  I think Spurrier was a master at the Xs and Os, for example, with few rivals.

The culture comments are very on target even though not related to the game day environment thing.  I also ponder the "tone" of practices - practice hard with a lot of tackling and risk injury or the opposite, limit live tackling in practice and stay healthier.

I've watched UNC a few times over the past two years and their defense CONSISTENTLY tackles poorly.  Some of it is positional but a lot is the old "wrapping up" thing.  Runners seem to bounce off their tacklers and always fall/surge for 3-4-5 more yards.  That YAC thing is big when you change a 2 yard gain into 6 on first down.  I suspect this is a lack of live tackling in practice, but that is conjecture.  I SUSPECT Smart is more of a "tough practice" guy than Richt, and aside from technique, this also changes culture.  A team can come out all jazzed up and get smacked in the mouth if they come off delicate practices and try and remember what football is really about.  Do you practice kickoffs at full speed?

Then there is adapting your scheme to your personnel.  Do you have a dual threat QB?  A great passer who is not very mobile?  Do you have a young QB who is a gamer but kind of lacks all of the above to a degree?  Is your FB really good, or your TEs, or do you have a lanky 6'5" WR who perhaps is not that fast?  Just about every team has quality running backs with varying levels of speed of course.

How do you leverage your strengths?

[OrangeAfroMan]

Was it Bum Phillips that said about a great coach - he can beat yours with his and beat his with yours - ?

Not a lot of guys that's true for.  90s Spurrier, sure.  Saban.  I wouldn't say that about Fulmer or Miles or Stallings...just the really elite.  Meyer, probably.  Richt?  Probably not.  

It's mostly an attitude thing - you can have "let's play our best and we'll win" vs "let's win the game, and if you don't play your best, I'll find someone who will" kind of thing.  Not in a mean way, necessarily, just matter-of-fact.  It's the difference between being a dick and being a motivator.

[847badgerfan]

"It's not the X's and O's, it's the Johnny and Joes"


Pretty sure that was Lou Holtz.

I know for sure he said "We had too many Mary's and not enough William's" when he was the coach at William and Mary.

[Cincydawg]

My model for a coach who can get great recruits and fall short is Mark Richt.  UGA has as many top 100 players in the NFL as anyone (tied with Bama) and yet they would lose each year once or twice to Florida and somebody else.  He had championship level talent 4-5 times in his tenure and they never made the "playoffs".  (They would have under the current system a couple or three times.)

A mark of a great coach in my mind is not being upset by a much less talented team, ever.  You may get beat on occasion by a lesser talented team, but not one that is really quite a bit down in talent.  Turnovers happen in rashes at times.  Dooley almost never lost to bad teams, and his UGA teams often were spotty in talent.

I like this "culture" idea, and I think it may start at practice of course, a tough culture, no excuses.  Hiring good coordinators can make a huge difference if the HC is not great a calling plays obviously.

My idea of a "great coach" today includes Dantonio who seems to do more with less than most coaches out there.  Wisconsin is also a great model in that regard, tough teams that are painful to play.  Programs like OSU get so much talent is gets harder to assess but UM did well at Utah and BGSU of course.

I was a bit impressed with South Carolina yesterday.  I thought Muschamp was a bad hire, one bad call away from losing it entirely an assaulting a ref.  He seems to have calmed down a bit and his team was tough as nails.

[OrangeAfroMan]

It's about motivation - that's why Saban goes off on the media all the time.  He knows he has the most talent, so any loss is an upset loss, but he doesn't want his team to act like or know they're the most talented.  That's why he's gone so long without a loss to an unranked team.  I recall Spurrier went something like 8 years between losses to unranked teams, something like that.

You beat who you're supposed to, you play your game and worry about your job - who is on the other sideline shouldn't matter.  That's the challenge of these top-end coaches with the top-end talent - they're 20 year olds, so they get up for LSU, USC, Texas, etc and they play like crap against Vandy or Middle Tennessee, etc.  

Great coaches motivate - through playing time, mind games, bulletin board material, quotes - whatever it takes.  You scare your team if that's what they need, inspire them, joke with them, or whatever the tone dictates, you have to do it.  

Saban's assembled the most talented teams since pre-scholly limit days, yet Bama still gets upset (by very good teams), still has their lethargic games against whoever tech, etc.  Look at OSU yesterday - got the doors blown off by Iowa.  Huge talent disparity between the 2 teams, but OSU had nothing for them.  

A great head coach's ultimate goal is, honestly, boredom.  The knowledge that each player is like a machine and gives 100% attention and effort to every play vs every opponent, and because you're more talented, you win every game.  A foregone conclusion without anyone acting like it's a foregone conclusion.