On the Effect of Coaching

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by Brylok

LOL, really? What about those other teams I listed? You didn't even mention any of them. Not even Patriots hate will save you from this idiotic reply. Are you just trolling at this point? Keep dying on Pagano Hill. C'mon man!

Those listed teams haven't had the player talent or when they did, the breaks didn't go their way. Players and variance explain it all.

Originally Posted by rcubed

Mcvay must be really cheating hard with the rams thus year.
Someone should investigate harbaugh who quickly turns around every program he goes to.

If you'd read the article, you'd know regression to the mean is a thing. Also, Goff is a second year QB who clearly has made the second year jump, they put a lot of talent around him on the offense, and they already had a talented defense. Player talent and variance. Harbaugh's situation is similar, already talented team that finally got something out of the QB position and regressed to the mean based on player talent and variance.

That's not to say I don't think either of them are talented head coaches. They are, but if either one of them had the Browns roster this year, they wouldn't be much better than 0-10, maybe 1-9 or 2-8. Why? Because that roster is bad by NFL standards. The talent on the roster is much more determinant of the team's overall success than anything any coach can do except constantly and consistently cheat.

[YDFL Commish]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

Those listed teams haven't had the player talent or when they did, the breaks didn't go their way. Players and variance explain it all.



If you'd read the article, you'd know regression to the mean is a thing. Also, Goff is a second year QB who clearly has made the second year jump, they put a lot of talent around him on the offense, and they already had a talented defense. Player talent and variance. Harbaugh's situation is similar, already talented team that finally got something out of the QB position and regressed to the mean based on player talent and variance.

That's not to say I don't think either of them are talented head coaches. They are, but if either one of them had the Browns roster this year, they wouldn't be much better than 0-10, maybe 1-9 or 2-8. Why? Because that roster is bad by NFL standards. The talent on the roster is much more determinant of the team's overall success than anything any coach can do except constantly and consistently cheat.

Explain the Vikings then? Bradford, Bridgeport and Keenum have all had success. Many times, this was the case when there was very little talent around them.

The Vikings running game and O-Line were terrible last season. The previous two seasons, they had very little at talent at WR.

But somehow, Zimmer keeps winning. I guess that's not coaching though. It must just be luck.

[ChoppedWood]

Originally Posted by YDFL Commish

Explain the Vikings then? Bradford, Bridgeport and Keenum have all had success. Many times, this was the case when there was very little talent around them.

The Vikings running game and O-Line were terrible last season. The previous two seasons, they had very little at talent at WR.

But somehow, Zimmer keeps winning. I guess that's not coaching though. It must just be luck.

Have you seen their practices- they flip a coin and if it's head's they get the rest of the week off. If it's tails they play the card game "in-between" all week. Their talent level is good, but their variance is unparalleled- no one has that same kind of variance. Have you seen their variance facilities- top shelf stuff, they spared no expense.

Chuck Pagano sucks. Yes he has a lot of crappy players we all get that, each week we sit here and rail on tons of them for being crap, his coaching, makes them more crappy instead of less crappy. It is really not that hard, it's not.