Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn
But, for example, what if the coach gameplans the strength out of the opposition. Belichick often effectively neutralizes a teams strength, especially on offense. That is coaching, it isn't happenstance the players do it. They still have to follow through and accomplish it, but the design is by the coach that they follow.
|
But the players can still fuck it up, like the Cheaters did against Miami last week (and let's not even get into the idea that probably all of Belicheat's "good coaching" is actually cheating). Likewise, great players can make a stupid scheme look ingenious. For all the bitching and moaning we hear around here about the Tampa 2, the 2005-2007 Bears and Colts (with a healthy Bob Sanders) sure made it look pretty damn good. Why? Dwight Freeney, Robert Mathis, Bob Sanders, Antoine Bethea, Marlin Jackson, Kelvin Hayden, even Gary Brackett for the Colts, Brian Urlacher, Tommie Harris, Lance Briggs, Charles Tillman, Nate Vasher, Mike Brown for the Bears. Can schemes help or hurt players situationally? Sure, but in general teams draft for scheme (i.e. a Frank Reich offense would not likely draft a RB like Derrick Henry) so the players that are drafted should, in theory, be good fits for the scheme in which they're playing. Ultimately the performance on the field by the players is what will make the difference on gameday in most cases. Maybe a bad call, like 4th and 2 (
), hands a team a win on occasion, but that's negative coaching impact, because the coach on the winning side had no say in the go for it vs. punt decision on that play.