Jump to content

Oranges, Lemons, Mike Vrabel, & Bill Belichick


Chaos

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Chaos said:

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

 

True.  And if you want to do that in the first/second year while tinkering- great!  But if the focus is not doing the extra work necessary to lay the foundation along the way (building the plane in the air), the success won't be sustained.

 

All that aside, this isn't a great case study.  Vrabel's in his second season.  This could all be a fluke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#1 may make you very good for one year in the future, #2 offers sustained and almost infinite success. Everybody wants coach #2.

 

Every coach falling closer to #1 likely got their mindset landing on a successful scheme for a particular group of players and are forcing that tailor made scheme on other rosters so that they're always chasing the past. I like to think every coach is truly #2 type starting out until they experiment long enough to find something that works.. and then depending on their skill, they either cling to that system or continue to tinker. The more stubborn they get- more on the static spectrum -, the less likely they'll ever replicate past success with new personnel.

 

It's like Rex Ryan having a one hit wonder with the Ravens and desparately clinging to that scheme without realizing all the things Ray Lewis or Darrelle Revis may have done to make all the other parts work.. because he doesn't have the genius to make minor tweaks that are necessary.

Edited by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BringBackFlutie said:

I think it's at least more than half important to establish 1, because it lays the foundation for 2.  2 is really hard to do without a foundation and solid identity, process, and culture.  2 without 1 is like working to be able to work; having two jobs; cleaning the house to clean the house; etc.

I don't see 2 as having the absence of any good system at all for the given year. But I see 1 as having the inflexibility to work with anything handed to it. In a vacuum it needs the exact personnel the coordinator figured out the scheme to begin with. 

 

To me this just sounds like a sliding scale of a coordinator's expertise at various schemes that fit personnel. Yes, with an all pro roster any coordinator's scheme looks like the best ever. Once they get to the pro level most of them have proved they've made SOMETHING work with some particular roster.

 

The spectrum is just missing a 3rd dimension. If someone is infinitely good at one scheme the scheme will be responsible for all success and if someone is infinitely adaptable they'd be NFL caliber with a Pop Warner roster.

 

Basically one end could hypothetically have a scheme to get a sack no matter the players or play call every play. And the other end has such adaptability to the best player that one given player influences the outcome. Coordinator #1 succeeds because he has a scheme that works no matter who is playing and coordinator #2 succeeds because he has so much mastery of all schemes to make his players look better

Edited by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P said:

I don't see 2 as having the absence of any good system at all for the given year. But I see 1 as having the inflexibility to work with anything handed to it. In a vacuum it needs the exact personnel the coordinator figured out the scheme to begin with. 

 

To me this just sounds like a sliding scale of a coordinator's expertise at various schemes that fit personnel. Yes, with an all pro roster any coordinator's scheme looks like the best ever. Once they get to the pro level most of them have proved they've made SOMETHING work with some particular roster.

 

The spectrum is just missing a 3rd dimension if someone is infinitely good at one scheme the scheme will be responsible for all success and if someone is infinitely adaptable they'd be NFL caliber with a Pee-wee roster.

I think the question is oversimplified. 

 

I view a system as a holistic body of processes, culture, concepts, and identity that lasts for years, and sometimes transcends regimes.  Sometimes that involves specific schemes, but to be successful, those schemes must be adaptable.  That's pretty necessary for sustained success, I think.

 

But if the number 1 posed in the original post is referring to an inflexible scheme that only works with very specific players, then number 2 is obviously way better.  It's not even a question.  I answered with the assumption of a bit more complexity.

Edited by BringBackFlutie
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...