Chaos

You might best stick to physics. Nothing I have said is a grass is greener argument. Which of the following points I made is a grass is greener argument? 1. If you are confident Daboll can win a championship. You stay with Daboll. End of discussion. 2. If you are confident Daboll can't win a championship, you have nothing to lose by changing him, unless you have a different goal than winning the championship. 3. If you are not sure about Daboll after two years, the professional GMs and Head Coaches need to evaluate whether or Daboll or someone else gives the team a greater chance to win the championship.

You missed the point. If the judgment is that Daboll will not be good enough to win the Championship, and winning the championship is your goal, then you have nothing to lose by changing him. If you have not reached a judgment on Daboll after two full seasons, then you might have the wrong people making this decision. Having said that, if Daboll is still in the "might" category, meaning he is essentially still a prospect, then you need to measure him (including the benefits of continuity) against the entire universe of prospects, and make a decision based on that.

Since you are too lazy to do research, I don't think I ever stated or even had an opinion about Luke K. being on the Bills. I was simply calling out your obnoxious post for what it was.

I am not sure the question that needs to be asked is "will someone else be better"? The first question that needs to be asked is "Will Daboll be good enough to lead make the offense championship caliber?" If the answer is yes, then the questions stop there. If the answer is no, then the next question is "Is my goal really too win the championship?". If the answer to that question is yes, then the next question Among the hundreds of college head coaches, NFL position coaches and ex-NFL head coaches and OC, is there someone who MIGHT be good enough to build a championship offense. If the answer to tha t question is yes, then hire that person. If the answer to that question is no, then you have have to find a new goal other than winning the championship. In the words of the fictional but brilliant Reese Bobby "If you ain't first, you're last." sidenote, Mr. Bobby later recanted saying he must have been high when he made the initial statement.

You can't win more than one, without winning one. So that is an important goal.

This is a weird thread to try to fit in a "I am smarter than everyone else post" . If you are looking for feedback it didn't work. Just seems kind of douchebaggish in context.

Its not an oversimplification. It describes two elements of coaching and seeks opinion on which element is more important. Either one is more important, or one they are both equal. All teams have some amount of both elements. If Vrabel tinkers his way to a super bowl victory, does that mean the ability to tinker on the fly is more important than laying a foundation ?

Do you the 2 and 4 Titans had a strategy and plan in process as they demoted their QB. Or do you think Vrabel, adjusted to the situation brilliantly?

As the original post pointed out, no coach is binary on 1 or 2, its a spectrum, the question is which is more important. Are you saying its exactly 50/50 in importance?

If we are just playing make believe, the playoff version of Derrick Henry, transforms the team. Like Jerome Bettis or John Riggins from the past, his window to play at that level is likely short, but it would be a huge change for the Bills.

Don't bring facts into the narrative, you will just confuse everyone.

So we agree, you don't know.

Lawsuits are civil, not criminal actions. Was the player charged with a crime?

the word core seems to refer to their importance among our free agents. These are the only regulars who are free agents, so they comprise the core group of free agents. I am not a d line guru. Its seems to me the only one of these four players who contributed at their position at an above average level in the league, is Jordan Philipps. Free agency is asset management, so you can't simply pay any price. But it is not clear to me that phillips contributions are easily replaced.

Can we also hire a guy to handle clock management during games.

I expect he retires a Patriot. But if he leaves, I think the likely landing spot is Las Vegas. Gruden is not thrilled with Carr, and could Brady an upgrade and a perfect bridge to a newly drafted QB. If this happens, Carr could very well end up in New England as the best free agent available.

He won't be having Aaron Rodgers. He will have the same salary cap difficulties. I am not optimistic. I wonder if Jason Garrett looks at Mike Vrabel and thinks "*****, I had the leauges best oline and E. Elliot, and did not think to run that offense"

Apologies for the weird thread title. Coaching skill sets and philosophies have a thousand variables. I am curious what people think about a variable I will call "approach to personnel". On one end of the spectrum we have: Coaches with a commitment to a system, and the focus is going to be on optimizing the system, and changing personnel in order to optimize the system On the other end of the spectrum we have Building and modifying systems to be optimal for the players on hand, and tweaking the systems to take best advantage of their particular talents. In real life everyone is somewhere in between the two ends of the system. But I think most coaches are nearer one end than the other. In recent history I think Bill Belichick has been the closest to "2" on the spectrum consistently. Drafting late in the draft every year actually has probably forced his hand a bit on that. Last and this season John Harbaugh showed major adjustment chops going from a Joe Flacco offense, to the anti-Joe Flacco offense with pretty good success The "legion of doom" Seahawks have morphed into the Russell Wilson Seahawks over time, driven by salary cap necessity. But the transition has been pretty smooth. This year at week 6, Mike Vrable dropped one lemon of a QB and replaced him with a different lemon, but seemed to make some pretty good lemonade with the rest of the team. The Mike McCarthy packers seemed like a team who after succeed was not able to innovate and adjust to compete again. A shift to a different coach and a different style has yielded pretty immediate results. For next season, the Rams let the DC who helped them get to the Super Bowl go, because they feel as though he and the existing personnel are not aligned to go to the next level. They seem to view Wade Philipps as a type "1" coach. The question I am asking following this ramble is: How important is it that a coaching staff be able to constantly adjust to available personnel, versus how important is to seek out the optimal personnel for a "system".

There are definitely different approaches to managing coaching staffs in the NFL. Jerry Jones was the poster child for continuity, hanging on to Jason Garrett for nine years, with only three playoff performances to show for it. Wade Phillips is less than a year removed from having a defense capable of contributing to an NFC championship. and is ash canned because he is viewed as not being the guy to be able to move the defense forward again.

And hold fourth quarter leads.

What is even more amazing is how often the bottom actually falls out.

In week 6, how many posters in this thread thought the Titans would be in this years championship game? Some pretty random things happen in the NFL.

People that offered that kind of money typically don't need help with motivation.

Since neither you or I will be offered $14 to broadcast a game, lets not pretend what our reaction to being offered $14 million would be.

I think item 3 is pretty dependent on item 1 in your list. You make very good points overall. Every fan of every team, other than maybe 1 or 2 in full blown rebuilds, think there team will be marginally better the next. The right way to think about it is how do we get better than the Chiefs and Ravens next year, and maybe the Titans now.