What is a head coach?

[lightsout]

I think we need to really ask this question and have a clear understanding. A head coach in the NFL is a supervisor to me. His job is to ensure the team and staff are doing what is supposed to be done to prepare and execute. If there's an issue with preparation or execution, it's his job to address it and ensure changes are made decisively and swiftly. When the team fails, it's 100% on him. When the team succeeds, it's 100% on the team and staff under him. The team itself has to believe in the head coach. They have to respect him and trust that what he wants achieved is going to bring success. This leads to higher morale and motivation to work hard and give maximum effort. This applies in nearly every job setting as well. poo leaders lead to poo workers which kills productivity and enjoyment for all parties involved. 

Rhule was a poo leader, at least at the professional level. Maybe his style is purely a college style and it works there, but not here.

Everybody seemingly wants Wilks fired. I don't. I think he's a hell of a supervisor. He has a passion and the ability to motivate and put people in positions to succeed. Look at Darnold, look at the OL, the running game, look at DJ since he took over, look at McAdoo even (not as positive but certainly better since Rhule has been gone).

I truly think Wilks deserves the job. I think we need a stronger DC but this team's improvement has been nothing short of a miracle. Watching this team these last two months, we're a better team.

Who are you gonna go get? Is he going to be better in the areas that Wilks is strong in AND better than Wilks where he is weakest? Or are you trading away Wilks' strengths for a guy who is better in some areas? And will that truly gain you wins?

I just think some here think the head coach is going to bring some giant cure for what ails us when the reality is, you're going back to the unknown and having to build trust with a group that has seen Rhule and then the turnaround with the guy that just got fired.

[therealmjl]

Wilks and Holcombe are tied at the hip. 

[LinvilleGorge]

He lost me yesterday. Taylor and Henderson clearly couldn't handle Mike Evans in man coverage with no over the top help. Holcomb never adjusted to that and Wilks never forced him to. The end result was three go route TD bombs. It's ultimately on the head coach. Especially when the head coach is not only a defensive specialist but a secondary specialist. That's inexcusable and it's a failed audition for getting the interim tag removed.

[1of10Charnatives]

You're really making two different arguments here, one of which I agree with to some degree, the other I do not, but they should be seperated for clarity.

The first is your belief that Wilks fits as an NFL head coach because of the way you define the job as a supervisor, but I believe your definition leaves out a key component of the job, and that is making ingame decisions like adjustments to your offensive and defensive gameplan, and making the call on what to do during crucial situations like 4th and short. I believe that these things are also part and parcel of the job, and they are areas where I believe yesterday demonstrated how Wilks falls short in those areas.

There is no universe in which Keith Taylor being stuck on an island single covering Mike Evans when Evans caught his third long bomb touchdown, the one that essentially put the game away, can be defended as competent coaching.

There is no universe in which failing to go for it at midfield on 4th and short when you already know Brady and his receivers are eating your secondary alive can be defended as competent coaching. It is cowardly coaching, plain and simple.

I'm a character guy. By all accounts Wilks oozes character. I'm a Charlotte native who would love nothing better than for a hometown guy to be our head coach. The idea is so appealing it makes me teeth hurt, but Wilks has shown me he has flaws that make him limited as an option.

Which brings me to your second point, who are we going to get that's going to be better? Quite frankly, I don't know, perhaps for now the best option truly is to go with Wilks for next season. No potential candidates out there blow me away. But there are only 32 head coaching jobs in the NFL, and there are literally hundreds of men who eat sleep and breathe football working for that opportunity. When you give someone their first shot, by definition you're taking a chance, but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

I believe that sticking with Wilks would represent nothing but a continuation of the Fox and Rivera tradition of picking a guy who can get you to respectability by staying in his lane, but whose limitations are unlikely to ever lead you to the promised land.

[carpanfan96]

6 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

He lost me yesterday. Taylor and Henderson clearly couldn't handle Mike Evans in man coverage with no over the top help. Holcomb never adjusted to that and Wilks never forced him to. The end result was three go route TD bombs. It's ultimately on the head coach. Especially when the head coach is not only a defensive specialist but a secondary specialist. That's inexcusable and it's a failed audition for getting the interim tag removed.

One of the plays was on the safety, the cb was supposed to have help over the top and the safety went to the middle instead of over the top like he was supposed to.  Can't remember which one of them but you can go back at pre snap and see it's cover 2. 

[LinvilleGorge]

5 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

You're really making two different arguments here, one of which I agree with to some degree, the other I do not, but they should be seperated for clarity.

The first is your belief that Wilks fits as an NFL head coach because of the way you define the job as a supervisor, but I believe your definition leaves out a key component of the job, and that is making ingame decisions like adjustments to your offensive and defensive gameplan, and making the call on what to do during crucial situations like 4th and short. I believe that these things are also part and parcel of the job, and they are areas where I believe yesterday demonstrated how Wilks falls short in those areas.

There is no universe in which Keith Taylor being stuck on an island single covering Mike Evans when Evans caught his third long bomb touchdown, the one that essentially put the game away, can be defended as competent coaching.

There is no universe in which failing to go for it at midfield on 4th and short when you already know Brady and his receivers are eating your secondary alive can be defended as competent coaching. It is cowardly coaching, plain and simple.

I'm a character guy. By all accounts Wilks oozes character. I'm a Charlotte native who would love nothing better than for a hometown guy to be our head coach. The idea is so appealing it makes me teeth hurt, but Wilks has shown me he has flaws that make him limited as an option.

Which brings me to your second point, who are we going to get that's going to be better? Quite frankly, I don't know, perhaps for now the best option truly is to go with Wilks for next season. No potential candidates out there blow me away. But there are only 32 head coaching jobs in the NFL, and there are literally hundreds of men who eat sleep and breathe football working for that opportunity. When you give someone their first shot, by definition you're taking a chance, but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

I believe that sticking with Wilks would represent nothing but a continuation of the Fox and Rivera tradition of picking a guy who can get you to respectability by staying in his lane, but whose limitations are unlikely to ever lead you to the promised land.

Bingo. The "how do we know someone else will be better?" argument is just pure fear based and how teams get mired in mediocrity. If you aren't competing for SBs you should be trying to improve, not simply trying not to get worse. I'm not saying fire your coach every time you don't go to the SB, that would be absurd. What I'm saying is that if you don't think your coach can win a SB then you should move on. Yesterday showed me Wilks won't be winning a SB for all the reasons you mentioned.

[kungfoodude]

I am ambivalent about the situation. I understand the idea of Wilks and the draw. The players love him and he would likely make us respectable, albeit likely ultimately unsuccessful.

As I said earlier, John Fox 3.0. That's not terrible, after all our previous two John Fox's ended up in a Super Bowl. But....they also never managed back-to-back winning seasons. 

I won't pitch a fit if he's hired, especially if he makes good staff decisions. I just will expect it to be a bumpy ride and unlikely to be very successful overall.

If he isn't hired, well.....I guess that is a wait and see. Sadly, I don't approach the coaching search with as much hope as I do trepidation. Which I believe is warranted because of the looming specter of the meddling owner that hangs over the franchise at the moment.

 

[Wundrbread33]

Yesterday was rough. But as a whole, he’s taken a team that wasn’t “his” from the beginning of the football year, and taken them from poo to average. He’s done something to uplift multiple guys, including McAdoo, who’s offense looked abysmal half way through the season. 
 

I’d be completely comfortable giving him a 2-3 year deal, which in reality means 1 year to see what he can show. If the team doesn’t get better, or build upon this year, then part ways. 
 

I don’t know the behind the scenes, but Holcomb doesn’t seem like the killer DC we need. That’s my main concern. Wilks seems tied to him fundamentally. Would he be able to let him go if things don’t improve?

McAdoo may have saved his job, but would Wilks look to upgrade from him too?

 

Basically my main concern is the coordinators he is or will tie himself too. That makes or breaks many a HC.

 

I do think HC, as defined by OP, is indeed a managerial, delegation heavy, leadership role more than anything, and he seems good at it. 
 

The key is the people he’s delegating to. I’m not so confident in them. 

[lightsout]

16 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

You're really making two different arguments here, one of which I agree with to some degree, the other I do not, but they should be seperated for clarity.

The first is your belief that Wilks fits as an NFL head coach because of the way you define the job as a supervisor, but I believe your definition leaves out a key component of the job, and that is making ingame decisions like adjustments to your offensive and defensive gameplan, and making the call on what to do during crucial situations like 4th and short. I believe that these things are also part and parcel of the job, and they are areas where I believe yesterday demonstrated how Wilks falls short in those areas.

There is no universe in which Keith Taylor being stuck on an island single covering Mike Evans when Evans caught his third long bomb touchdown, the one that essentially put the game away, can be defended as competent coaching.

There is no universe in which failing to go for it at midfield on 4th and short when you already know Brady and his receivers are eating your secondary alive can be defended as competent coaching. It is cowardly coaching, plain and simple.

 

I'll agree with you, and to be clear, I absolutely agree the in game adjustments and forcing your staff to adjust falls under the HC as a part of the "ensuring preparation and execution". If something isn't working, HC needs to get it fixed.

The 3 TDs with no help over top was incredibly heart breaking, because to me it was the one truly awful thing Wilks has allowed so far. After the first one, it has to be an order of "Williams isn't left one on one again no matter what". Then for it to happen two more times, when you've controlled the game expertly to that point, it's just terrible.

 

I don't know what the answer is. It sucks because you want to say with Horn that never happens anyway, but he wasn't playing so it doesn't matter.

[top dawg]

A head coach is an administrator, sure, but he has to be a strategist as well. He has to be able to look at a situation and make on-the-fly decisions at times, and instruct (basically, lead) his coordinators in the way that they need to go at any given time. 

[Mage]

This is how I know Wilks will be a bad head coach.

The only thing anyone ever talks about with him is how he's a great leader. How he has the teams respect.  Aka he's another conservative rah-rah coach.  What evidence is there that he has the ability to adjust to the opponent and out-scheme the other team?    

Yes, a HC needs to be a good leader, but come on now.  Nobody is sitting up on TV talking about how good of a leader Belichick is, or McVay, or Shanahan, or Payton, or Reid, or McCarthy, or Pederson, or Daboll etc.  But again, I get it.  Because outside of "being a leader," there really is no good argument in favor of Wilks.  

And do people actually think the team looked good, or did it just look better in comparison to Rhule's team?  Because there is a big difference.  And do we really want our standards to be, "he's better than Matt Rhule"?

[thefuzz]

Supervisor....not really IMO.

Closer to General Manager of a very expensive and busy restaurant.

You have the tie and suit on, you are addressing issues as they happen in real time, and prior to opening that night, had planned out the dinner service in VERY fine detail.  Something goes wrong...it's on YOU...and you alone to fix it and fast.

There is so much happening all around you, and you need to understand every single bit of it while making very tough decisions to keep this train on the tracks...it's trying to fly off all the time.

You had picked your chef, sous chef, pastry cook, and entire front of the house prior to opening the doors that night, you don't have to worry about them because you know they will do a great job....if you can keep the I's dotted and T's crossed.

That's closer to how I see a Head Coach in the NFL.  Possessing extreme knowledge of the X's and O's so you can plan ahead of time, and also have the ability to make TOUGH choices in the middle of chaos, while being a leader of men.

Couple bad (read conservative/careful) choices and the evening is ruined...and you may need to have a chat with the owner.

I think that Wilkes knows football, I think that he's a leader of men, however I don't think he possesses any better ability to plan for his opponents or make in game decisions than Ron and Foxy.

[top dawg]

It's called head coach for a reason. You are the captain of the ship. You just can't let the winds and waves take you any which way. Conditions and circumstances are continually changing, and you need to compensate for that if you want to get to where you want to go, and constant open lines of  communication with your crew is of utmost importance.

Edited January 2, 2023 by top dawg

[kungfoodude]

34 minutes ago, top dawg said:

A head coach is an administrator, sure, but he has to be a strategist as well. He has to be able to look at a situation and make on-the-fly decisions at times, and instruct (basically, lead) his coordinators in the way that they need to go at any given time. 

I think the most critical things are talent evaluation ability. I mean that from a player personnel standpoint and staff/coaching standpoint. You have to be able to identify the people to put around you to help make you successful.

That has been a big problem with multiple of our ex-head coaches. They have some pretty big blinds spots among players, coaches or both.

It would be great to have an offensive mind like Shanahan, McVay, DaBoll, etc. It's just not something the franchise has really experienced outside of maybe the Turner's.