What's a good predictor for head coach success?

[frash.exe]

Ron Rivera was hired in the midst of the whole youth movement that started around the 2010 offseason, and I also remember him emphasizing finding assistant coaches who were "teachers". It is for this reason that what you see today is the only team where people like Corey Brown get to commit atrocious follies like what he did with that punt return in Pittsburgh that basically spoiled any chance we had of winning.

One of my biggest gripes of the RivEra is this idea that Ron thinks he can bring any walk-on recruit on the team and turn him into a hyper productive player. But Ron's not Bill Belichick so often this doesn't work out. If I had a nickel for every time he talked up some undrafted player that anybody with a functioning neocortex could tell wasn't going to amount to anything, well then, I'd be buying some waterfront property in Hoboken. It's the reason Sione Fua gets to play a big chunk of the 2011 season. Then again you could make a case for Ron in the form of Josh Norman and Bene Benwikere. Gettleman's a much better talent evaluator than Hurney ever was so I expect scouting who's a good player and who isn't will get better with his influence.

But let's grant him that it's actually a strength of his to develop young players. So what else is he good at? Defense? I mean, the defense hasn't been good at all this year or in 2011. Situational game management? Definitely not. And as far as the grand picture, three losing seasons out of four, with the lone exception being a one and done playoff exit. That doesn't really work in his favor either unless your standards are very low.

What I'm saying is Ron was hired to do exactly what he is doing. So obviously Richardson and Hurney thought that this skill set was essential to building a consistent winning franchise. And Ron is very different from John Fox. The product may be the same at the end, but the means on how we get there are much different. Ron also failed to get hired as a HC until like his 9th interview with us. Those teams couldn't all have been just trying to satisfy the Rooney rule.

So let's say, for argument's sake, we're in the market for a head coach at the end of the season. Whose name comes up in college or in the NFL as an assistant or retread that has the requisite skills to bring winning to this franchise? What do they have in common with some of the coaching greats of today and why? Is there a general line of attributes that you need to have to gather consistent success or is it really just a crapshoot as far as we know?

[cbarrier90]

Really depends on where you think the team is going forward. Considering there's most likely going to be more veterans jettisoned for cap space this offseason I'd say you would want an effective player developer, but even more important at this juncture is giving Cam an offense that emphasizes his strengths as a quarterback and allows us to put up points week in and week out. It's for that reason I continue to advocate Gus Malzahn.

I don't think Ron fancies himself as a Belichick. In fact, i think he wants to be the opposite. He gives "good guys" on the roster too many chances while holding back the players who are actually effective. Andrew Norwell is the poster child for this flaw. It's an admirable trait in Ron as a person, but it's not conducive to winning football.

[bleys]

The traits I'd like to see would start with what I thought Rivera might follow through with and that's a smash kill destroy mentality.  He's kind of proven that was a joke of statement when he got hired.  But like Fox, it is what it is.

 

I'd like to see a guy that will put smart, capable people in positions to coach, but still knows what he's looking for from top to bottom.  Obviously you need coaches that are able to get the most out of a player.  But I'd like a coach who still knows what he's looking for in both offense, defense, and special teams.  A trait you can find in Belichick and Chip Kelly.  Not something you see from Rivera by putting the likes of Shula in total control of the offense and hoping for the best.  

 

A coach has to be intelligent enough to know all aspects of all things involving their team and having an ideal solution already in mind.  This doesn't guarantee success, and could also translate into an abrasive personality, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're looking to hire someone who can't get out of their own way.  Unless they are a genius, then whatever.  

 

as far as types of offenses and defenses, I'd like to see applications of what works best.  I'm tired of reading about fuging WCO or Coryell offenses when we're fully capable of running a successful offense regardless that doesn't rely on absurdly long play calls, incredibly perfect timing, or the prototypical perfect player at each position in order to expect success, but overall understands the basic concept of getting the ball out quick when your OL sucks donkey balls.   In other words, I think a coach capable of situational football would be a decent indicator as well.

 

 

[Ruff]

The best coaches put their players in a position to succeed. That's a very broad statement, I know, but here's what I mean:

I get that Byron Bell is left-handed, but using that as an excuse to play him at LT, when even fans could tell you he's slow and has horrible LT technique, is not the best way to use your players. The same applies to Cam, you have a dynamic option at QB, yet, you want to bottle him up and make him a game manager, which isn't his strong suit.

There's tons of options you could say that about on the team. What has happened is that Rivera and Co have tried to plug players into a system, because they don't have the chops to change the system to fit the talent.

We need a guy who understands what it means to utilize the talent we have, in the best way possible.