Has there been a "great" coach who is clearly conservative?

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

It was a long time ago now but my gut tells me Belicheck probably did not allow for his offensive coordinator to be as aggressive today as they were back when they won their original three super bowls. Brady wasn't the same QB that he has grown to be now. In this case, a Tiger can actually change it's stripes when it comes to coaching philosophy. McDermott could change as Allen gets better and as both gain more experience individually. I mean how many years total has McDaniels been OC there in New England now too? That helps a lot as well I'm sure. 

[Reks Ryan]

Don Shula, until he had Marino.   
 

I would make the argument that if he had been more conservative and had a better running game w Marino they would’ve been more successful and maybe won a SB together.   Shula won 2 SBs and an NFL championship as a conservative coach.  But never won a ring w Marino winging it all over the field.
 

 

[GunnerBill]

On 12/22/2019 at 2:35 AM, bills11 said:

The only conservative great coach I can think of would be from soccer Jose Mourinho ..I agree with your premise though ..Sean needs to add aggressiveness to his repertoire Everytime we get ahead we basically go into clock wasting mode up 17-13 the gameplan needed more aggressiveness not conservative clock management .

 

There are plenty of very successful conservative soccer coaches. 

 

I don't happen to think McDermott is that conservative to be honest. 

[Kelly the Dog]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

Being conservative means at least in part being a slave to routine and highly averse to variety/novelty. Lombardi was the equivalent of someone who ate excellent pancakes for breakfast, a very good cheeseburger for lunch, and a nicely cooked piece of steak and mashed potatoes for dinner (followed by a bowl of solid vanilla ice cream) every day at the same times for seven straight years. No Thai or Ethiopian food for him. 

He lived in Green Bay, Wisconsin! The closest Thai and Ethiopian food was in Thailand and Ethiopia!

[Solomon Grundy]

On December 21, 2019 at 9:40 PM, Kelly the Dog said:

The guy that pressured and blitzed every play? 

He had Lawrence Taylor. Taylor was the best at his position pressuring QBs. Blitzing wasn't necessary. Didn't see Parcells blitzing his DBs much

On December 22, 2019 at 4:38 PM, Kelly the Dog said:

Levy of the full time no huddle attack offense. That's another great one. Hilarious. 

You can thank Ted Marchibroda for the offensive method

[jkx2]

On 12/21/2019 at 9:32 PM, Kelly the Dog said:

Neither of those were. Staubach was one of the most revolutionary QBs. Bob Hayes was the opposite. 

 

Knox was not an overly conservative coach. On either side of the ball. When he had Ferguson and Cribbs here we were not conservative. 

 

 

Chuck's nickname was "Ground  Chuck" for God's sakes.

Edited December 28, 2019 by jkx2

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

I think the offense is playing conservative.

 

1. Because Allen is still very young and so much personal on the offense side of the ball is new.

 

2. Our defense is a top 3 unit and McD is leaning on them to carry the team. 

[MJS]

15 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

I understand and concede the point.

 

I remember that team as rolling up points and killing people. But I was young.

 

It depends on your definition of conservative though. When you are running the ball down a team's throat and they cannot stop you, and you roll up points and win games and championships with an attacking defense led by Ray Nitchske I just don't call that being "conservative." Just running is not being conservative when it is working and you are dominating. If it WASNT working and you were running all the time then yes, that would be overly conservative.

That is where I stand. Saban and Marv were better overall than Knox, who was consistently a very good and not great coach, IMO. I did love the 1980-81 Knox coached Bills though as a team.

You seem to be saying that anything that works is aggressive and anything that doesn't work is conservative.

[MJS]

12 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

I find the Patriots under Billy B to be mostly conservative. They tend to play in a way that is super disciplined and philosophically designed to limit mistakes and capitalize on their opponents mistakes. Yes they take some chances here and there like any coach but overall I think they mostly play to force you to lose the game. Marty Schotenheimer was a coach who had a lot of regular season success playing a conservative type of game. Bill Cowher was also a very conservative coach who let his ground game and defense win a lot of games who won a lot and did win a Super Bowl. 

 

I think there are actually a lot of "great" conservative coaches. But we tend to attribute aggressiveness in coaching to winning when in the end selected moments of aggression are outliers as opposed to the coaches general nature. 

Plus Belichick is a defensive minded coach. I've noticed on offense they usually take what the defense gives them and take what points are there. If that means kicking a bunch of field goals, they'll do that. They go for it on fourth down or take shots down the field when most teams would. Nothing has ever been all that innovative. They just execute better than everyone else and play disciplined football. Seems like a conservative approach on offense to me.

[Rochesterfan]

On 12/22/2019 at 7:13 PM, BringBackOrton said:

@Kelly the Dog‘s premise is that passing is aggressive but also running is aggressive if you’re Lombardi. Going for the kill throwing deep is aggressive but playing for overtime isn’t conservative if you’re good.

 

Time to end the topic when the guy who set the discussion can’t even keep straight his own parameters.

 

Totally agree - He calls McDermott conservative with no real definition, but then argues with no good reason why others are not.

 

It is a poorly thought out premise with no basis in reality.   McDermott is not overly conservative or aggressive by any measure.  He goes for it on 4th down as much or more than others.  He tries for TDs rather than FGs as shown by their Redzone TD percents and going for it on the goal line.  His run to pass ratio does not lean overly conservative and we have had games where the team starts out with 10-15 passes right from the get go.  Definitely not conservative.

 

His defense is a zone based defense meaning he wants to flood zones, but he mixes up the defenses and attacks and blitzes in a normal way.  It is not overly conservative - nor is it super aggressive.

 

The biggest thing to me is how we completely miss the changes in his coaching and people are still basis things off his first year.  McDermott started off with a weak team and was much more conservative.  He had a bad QB in Taylor that he did not trust and did not instill confidence in the passing game.  He kicked lots of FGs and punted on almost all 4th downs.  It lead to blowouts, but he understood the team was weak and even when getting blown out he stayed conservative.  Now he is a totally different coach.  He trusts JA more and has been rewarded more - so he goes for more 4th downs and punts less.  He passes more and has one of the better Red Zone scoring teams.  He has 2 WRs that are putting up career years.

 

Do not make up your mind on whether McDermott is conservative or not - he is evolving as his players grow and change.  My guess is if the offense gets 1-2 more players this off-season and are a bit more explosive- he becomes more aggressive.

 

Now do I believe he is going to be Doug Pederson level aggressive - Nope, but everything points to him continuing to move above the middle of the pack as the team becomes better.

 

Now the final thing on this thread - many types of coaches win Super Bowls and sometimes they are conservative and sometimes aggressive, but the problem is that successful coaches that are conservative- do not get labeled that way.  Lombardi was ultra conservative at the end of the conservative era, but it worked for his team.  Marv - even with the no huddle- was super conservative.  The offensive philosophy does not change his coaching style.  Doug Pederson is super aggressive, but it backfires on him on several occasions, but was enough to win at the biggest time.  BB - like McDermott - falls squarely in the middle and was more aggressive at times and has been more conservative at other times.  There is no one right way - you need to have the proper feel of your team and push the right buttons at the right time.

[oldmanfan]

Classic thread.  Ask a leading question, get numerous answers showing why you might be wrong, then either refuse to accept the answer or change the question.

[NewEra]

On 12/21/2019 at 6:19 PM, ScottLaw said:

I hate everyone and have hated everyone since everyone had arrived. Hate.  Everyone.

Fixed.

[NewEra]

On 12/22/2019 at 5:52 PM, jrober38 said:

My biggest issue with McDermott is he so clearly takes his foot off the gas once we get a lead. 

 

I get that he's a defensive guy, and he trusts his D, but our play calling is clearly different when we have a lead in the second half. 

The world must be coming to an end!!  I agree with something you said.

 

to me, this is McDs most conservative area. I think he can be aggressive at times (going for it on 4th) more so than bills coaches of the past.  He had been bringing the blitz recently (prior to the pat game).  I feel that he has gotten more aggressive based on his personnel and will continue to as our personnel improves.  
 

I’d almost rather be losing by less than a TD than leading by less than a TD at the end of the game.  With a lead in the 4th, from my recollection, it’s either always run run pass punt or run run run punt.  We had one game (forget the opponent) where we were able to get some first downs to secure the lead and the win.  
 

That’s really the only problem I have with McD being conservative.

 

[Kelly the Dog]

10 hours ago, MJS said:

You seem to be saying that anything that works is aggressive and anything that doesn't work is conservative.

Not at all. I am saying that if you have a dominant mauling offense that piles up points and defenses cannot stop you that is not conservative just because you don't throw it all over the field, especially combined with an attacking defense.

[Kelly the Dog]

5 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Totally agree - He calls McDermott conservative with no real definition, but then argues with no good reason why others are not.

 

It is a poorly thought out premise with no basis in reality.   McDermott is not overly conservative or aggressive by any measure.  He goes for it on 4th down as much or more than others.  He tries for TDs rather than FGs as shown by their Redzone TD percents and going for it on the goal line.  His run to pass ratio does not lean overly conservative and we have had games where the team starts out with 10-15 passes right from the get go.  Definitely not conservative.

 

His defense is a zone based defense meaning he wants to flood zones, but he mixes up the defenses and attacks and blitzes in a normal way.  It is not overly conservative - nor is it super aggressive.

 

The biggest thing to me is how we completely miss the changes in his coaching and people are still basis things off his first year.  McDermott started off with a weak team and was much more conservative.  He had a bad QB in Taylor that he did not trust and did not instill confidence in the passing game.  He kicked lots of FGs and punted on almost all 4th downs.  It lead to blowouts, but he understood the team was weak and even when getting blown out he stayed conservative.  Now he is a totally different coach.  He trusts JA more and has been rewarded more - so he goes for more 4th downs and punts less.  He passes more and has one of the better Red Zone scoring teams.  He has 2 WRs that are putting up career years.

 

Do not make up your mind on whether McDermott is conservative or not - he is evolving as his players grow and change.  My guess is if the offense gets 1-2 more players this off-season and are a bit more explosive- he becomes more aggressive.

 

Now do I believe he is going to be Doug Pederson level aggressive - Nope, but everything points to him continuing to move above the middle of the pack as the team becomes better.

 

Now the final thing on this thread - many types of coaches win Super Bowls and sometimes they are conservative and sometimes aggressive, but the problem is that successful coaches that are conservative- do not get labeled that way.  Lombardi was ultra conservative at the end of the conservative era, but it worked for his team.  Marv - even with the no huddle- was super conservative.  The offensive philosophy does not change his coaching style.  Doug Pederson is super aggressive, but it backfires on him on several occasions, but was enough to win at the biggest time.  BB - like McDermott - falls squarely in the middle and was more aggressive at times and has been more conservative at other times.  There is no one right way - you need to have the proper feel of your team and push the right buttons at the right time.

I agree with a lot of this, and earlier I also said it depends on your definition of conservative. Apparently there are a lot more definitions than I imagined.

 

But 1) no conservative coach is always conservative and no aggressive or non-conservative coach is always aggressive, 2) going on fourth and one is not usually even a conservative v. aggressive by nature choice, it is going by the numbers and game specific. McDermott is clearly a conservative coach by nature on offense, defense, timeouts, stepping on the gas and trying to put teams away (which he never does), punting, etc. That's not even in question IMO.

[Big Turk]

Aren't most coaches by nature conservative?

On 12/21/2019 at 9:18 PM, Kelly the Dog said:

I'm trying to think of one. In any sport. 

 

Don't make this a hate McDermott stance or thread. I like him. I'm glad we have him. But it's arguable that his blatant conservative nature holds this team back. 

 

There are no facts. This is ALL opinion. And some of his conservative nature surely helps. We're 10-5 and will likely finish 11-5. 

 

But the object is to win it all. Josh is a unique talent. We need to score more points or there is little chance to win it all and that is the object. 

 

I think he needs to relinquish some of his dearly held nature in order to be great. I don't think you can be great without a killer instinct. 

 

McDermott is conservative? Has any Bills coach ever gone for it on 4th down more than McDermott has in situations where he could have kicked a FG or punted and wasn't facing end of half/game situations?

 

I don't think I could name one.

Don't understand how McDermott gets labelled as conservative when he is actually aggressive.

Edited December 28, 2019 by matter2003

[JAMIEBUF12]

Marty Schottenheimer?

 

[Kelly the Dog]

1 hour ago, JAMIEBUF12 said:

Marty Schottenheimer?

 

He is a good example of what I would call a very good but not great coach, and his conservatism when he got into a big game or the playoffs was his downfall. This is a guy who was fired after a 14-2 season IIRC for being too conservative overall and playing it safe.

[oldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

He is a good example of what I would call a very good but not great coach, and his conservatism when he got into a big game or the playoffs was his downfall. This is a guy who was fired after a 14-2 season IIRC for being too conservative overall and playing it safe.

Why don’t you provide us all with an exact definition of the following:

 

1.  Conservative

 

2.  Great

[Big Turk]

51 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

So if you go for it occasionally on 4th down you are no longer conservative despite what you do over the course of the rest of the games/season?

 

If its to be believed, McDermott allows Daboll to call what he wants on offense without interference which would mean Daboll is the conservative one not McDermott.

[Locomark]

Yes, whoever won those cups with Jersey playing the left wing lock. Most boring hockey on the planet. 

[Rochesterfan]

3 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

I agree with a lot of this, and earlier I also said it depends on your definition of conservative. Apparently there are a lot more definitions than I imagined.

 

But 1) no conservative coach is always conservative and no aggressive or non-conservative coach is always aggressive, 2) going on fourth and one is not usually even a conservative v. aggressive by nature choice, it is going by the numbers and game specific. McDermott is clearly a conservative coach by nature on offense, defense, timeouts, stepping on the gas and trying to put teams away (which he never does), punting, etc. That's not even in question IMO.

 

I totally disagree that it is not in question- it appears that it is not in question for you, but as many other are pointing out - in your very thread and you seem to be happy to ignore - they do not feel he is very conservative and he has been changing with the team.

 

Many of us see a guy that has been constantly changing and his tendencies have changed with the team as it grows.  Year 1 he was conservative - with a very bad offense and a questionable defense.  Year 2 as JA became more accomplished as a rookie - he became more aggressive- going for it more and punting less - especially as he got past mid field.  This year the offense is marginally better and he has been more aggressive yet.  He is middle of the pact for 4th down attempts - which most definitely is a sign of aggression - especially for defensive HCs.  He runs both hurry up and regular offenses - so he is not overly conservative with his style.

 

I agree he does not step on the throat of the other team, but the offense still has a ways to go (it is the weakness of the team).  He has tried a few times and things have not gone well.  I think he is working the long game on this and would rather hoist the burden on the more experienced and consistent defense than put JA and the offense in a bad position.

 

I think you have made up your mind and although many others have presented various facts of how he has changed- you are choosing to believe he is a finished product.  I am not convinced that is the case.  I think he will continue to grow along with this team and they are becoming better together.  He is working hard to do what he feels is in the best interest of the team and sometimes that is different than what the fans think.  

[BADOLBILZ]

1 hour ago, Kelly the Dog said:

He is a good example of what I would call a very good but not great coach, and his conservatism when he got into a big game or the playoffs was his downfall. This is a guy who was fired after a 14-2 season IIRC for being too conservative overall and playing it safe.

 

Bill Cowher was Marty 2.0.

 

He lost 4 AFC Championship games.......AT HOME!    One of the years his team was 15-1.

 

He finally broke thru and won his SB in his 14th season with the Steelers but would otherwise be remembered as one of the great playoff failing coaches ever.

[Nick the Greek]

11 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Classic thread.  Ask a leading question, get numerous answers showing why you might be wrong, then either refuse to accept the answer or change the question.

You hit the nail on the head. I brought up the fact McD has gone for it on 4th down a few times, and gone for 2 on multiple occasions as well. He has definitely been aggressive at times.
 

And crickets from the “he’s too conservative” crowd.

 

I mean, what more do you want, him to go for it on every 4th down???!! 

[ColoradoBills]

11 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Classic thread.  Ask a leading question, get numerous answers showing why you might be wrong, then either refuse to accept the answer or change the question.

 

Exactly.  I heard that Lou Saban once voted for Barry Goldwater.

That statement is as relevant as any other in this thread.

[Kelly the Dog]

16 minutes ago, Nick the Greek said:

You hit the nail on the head. I brought up the fact McD has gone for it on 4th down a few times, and gone for 2 on multiple occasions as well. He has definitely been aggressive at times.
 

And crickets from the “he’s too conservative” crowd.

 

I mean, what more do you want, him to go for it on every 4th down???!! 

Going for it on fourth down is almost always a no brainer to either kick or go for it. The 10-20% that it's actually a choice is often due to outside factors. Like a couple times when McD went for it on 4th down it was because he had zero confidence in his injured kicker. That was an easy decision, and neither shows aggressiveness nor being conservative.

[IDBillzFan]

On 12/21/2019 at 6:30 PM, SWATeam said:

I think McD can “evolve” to being more aggressive when he is confident he has the horses.  

 

Right now, I’d say this is how he thinks we can win.  The formula is good D and limited mistakes, winning close games- until we see more from the offense.  When we have a real offense hopefully the philosophy changes.

 

This is precisely where I fall. I'd be hard-pressed to give specific examples at this moment, but my sense is that he has gotten more aggressive as the season moved on. This isn't a team that can consistently score from anywhere on the field, so until then he's riding the horses he has and not the horses he ultimately hopes to have. Go get a big-body receiver who can contest and bring down the jump ball, for starters, and it'll be easier to get more aggressive. 

[Nick the Greek]

1 hour ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Going for it on fourth down is almost always a no brainer to either kick or go for it. The 10-20% that it's actually a choice is often due to outside factors. Like a couple times when McD went for it on 4th down it was because he had zero confidence in his injured kicker. That was an easy decision, and neither shows aggressiveness nor being conservative.

To actually go for it on 4th down versus trying for a field goal is always more aggressive, as you will take an easy 3 versus rolling the dice for 7.

now if the field goal is a 50+ yarder, going for it in that situation is REALLY aggressive, because of you don’t covert, you turn over in downs and the opposing team has great field position. 
 

I don’t see how you could ever argue kicking it is the same as going for it on 4th down. The 4th down try is always a bigger gamble. 

 

[mabden]

On 12/21/2019 at 9:25 PM, BringMetheHeadofLeonLett said:

Chuck Knox, Tom Landry

I was going to say Landry, but Knox also fits the bill.

[CardinalScotts]

Bellichick his first 10 years had  the #1 or 2 defense every  years he punted on the other side of the 50 a lot

still went for it on 4th down often but relied on his defense......ie brady 145yds first super bowl win but had the #1 ranked defense

 

Tomlin ultra conservative coach at times

John Harbaugh probably the most conservative of them all

Dungy super duper conservative

Pete Carrol is a mix more conservative than not

Mike Zimmer CONSERVATIVE

Dan Quinn very conservative to a fault

 

John Fox

 

going back years:

Schottenheimer

Gibbs

Landry

Vermiel ultra conservative in his early yearts..ucla-philadelphia then free wheeling with Chiefs-Rams

Seifert

 

actually a ton

7 hours ago, matter2003 said:

 

If its to be believed, McDermott allows Daboll to call what he wants on offense without interference which would mean Daboll is the conservative one not McDermott.

I disagree with the lead i think McD has a mission for Daboll  i.e. force them to use their timeouts ...or keep it on the ground

Edited December 29, 2019 by CardinalScotts

[cba fan]

On 12/22/2019 at 3:59 AM, Nitro said:

Lombardi, Landry, Grant, Knoll, and Dungy, to name a few 

Mike Ditka, Tom Coughlin, Kirk Ferentz,