Stapleton: QB evaluations

[T200]

I'd like to pose the following question to anyone who cares to answer:  why do fans believe coaching can tangibility alter a veteran players' trajectory, when 99.9% of the data proves it's unlikely?  I can't think of a single example of a below average QB, who started 60 games, that was transformed into a sustained above average/PB starter, simply by changing coaches.  Yet, we continue to talk about coaching and 'the system' as if they make tangible differences on veteran QB's careers.  Why? I think fans overcomplicate football; coaching is not the impetus for DJ failures, he's failing because he lacks the attributes to succeed. As JC stated, he just not very good. IMO, it really is that simple. 

I asked this question a while ago in a Bill Belichick thread: If Tom Brady gets drafted by another team, would we even know who Tom Brady is?

Belichick has a brilliant football mind and, IMHO, is the best coach to ever walk the sidelines. I felt some type of way when folks suggested that Brady "made" Belichick the great coach that he is. I don't think so. It was indeed a symbiotic relationship. Brady was an ideal student. He wasn't drafted high and didn't have these lofty accolades and accomplishments in college, so there was no ego with him. He did, however, have a chip on his shoulder and an aversion to losing. He was a sponge and soaked up everything Bill had to offer.

In the end, I think it was a case of the student surpassing the teacher in terms of being able to directly affect how the team performed on the field. Brady took Belichick's football vision and made it happen.

Similar to Phil Jackson and Michael Jordan. Is Jordan the GOAT without Phil?

[Ed Vette]

I asked this question a while ago in a Bill Belichick thread: If Tom Brady gets drafted by another team, would we even know who Tom Brady is?

Belichick has a brilliant football mind and, IMHO, is the best coach to ever walk the sidelines. I felt some type of way when folks suggested that Brady "made" Belichick the great coach that he is. I don't think so. It was indeed a symbiotic relationship. Brady was an ideal student. He wasn't drafted high and didn't have these lofty accolades and accomplishments in college, so there was no ego with him. He did, however, have a chip on his shoulder and an aversion to losing. He was a sponge and soaked up everything Bill had to offer.

In the end, I think it was a case of the student surpassing the teacher in terms of being able to directly affect how the team performed on the field. Brady took Belichick's football vision and made it happen.

Similar to Phil Jackson and Michael Jordan. Is Jordan the GOAT without Phil?

The HC also develops the team around the QB and the Offensive Scheme. Would iconic QB's have been successful without those symbiotic relationships?

" Joe Montana and Steve Young had Bill Walsh. Dan Marino had Don Shula. Dan Fouts had Don Coryell. Johnny Unitas had Weeb Ewbank. Bart Starr had Vince Lombardi. Brett Favre had Mike Holmgren. Roger Staubach had Tom Landry. Peyton Manning had Tony Dungy. Tom Brady has Bill Belichick. Drew Brees has Sean Payton."

https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/1878171-breaking-down-the-relationship-between-nfl-qbs-and-head-coaches.amp.html

[Ed Vette]

Wouldn't it be a hoot if someday...

Brian Daboll- Tommy DeVito

I know one member here that will do victory laps if that day ever comes. And it's not me.

@BluesCruz

[kartanoman]

Totally agree King, and there are examples all over the place that back your point up.

Joe Montana had probably his best season ever in 1989. That was the year Seifert took over for Walsh. Was Seifert a better coach than Bill Walsh? Or was Montana just a an elite player who played great throughout his career and happened to put up his best numbers that year?

Bill Walsh was an all time great and a legend. Seifert is basically an afterthought. Shouldn't Montana's performance have collapsed in 1989, if coaches have such influence? Why was that pretty much his best season?

Interesting comparison. Methinks it was less about the transition of Walsh to Seifert than it was a veteran 49ers team, with an abundance of leadership on both sides of the ball, who stuck together and committed to each other the goal to repeat.

I will offer one benefit of Walsh yielding to Seifert, though, and that is the turmoil Walsh put that team through in 1988 almost cost his team a chance to win it all. He blew it the year before in that shocking loss to Minnesota and I suspect he was feeling the inner turmoil regarding his own ability to coach. His impeccable standard was nearly his downfall several times throughout his career. By 1989, their team was a powerhouse and a class above the rest of the league. Seifert was an excellent defensive coordinator and had all of Walsh's coordinators intact. But most important, the 49ers no longer had that inner turmoil of Walsh grinding them down because it became counterproductive by then. Their season and playoff run was testament to that. Laying 55 on the Broncos was unheard of and still boggles my mind today.

Remember that in 1988 Walsh was rotating Montana and Young and the team floundered at 6-5 before he decides to stick with Joe. Montana never forgot that and played perhaps his best football from that point until Leonard Marshall nearly killed him in the 1990 NFC Championship Game.

Sorry for the history conjecture, but your post just jarred a ton of football memories out of my brain. During that period, I was pi$$ed all the time because I knew only the Giants could stand toe to toe with those guys. The three regular season games from 1988-90 were all neck and neck affairs. But our guys got them at the one game they wanted the most, the three-peat conference championship. That loss devastated their organization so badly it set them back a couple of years and ended Montana's career in SF. If you think about that, how can you not be overwhelmed by that? That game alone, in my opinion, put Parcells in the Hall of Fame. It was his greatest coaching effort on display.

Giants-49ers rivalry was far more intense than 49ers-Cowboys.

Peace!

[Philosophers]

This board has evolved into a view that the only thing that affects winning is a QB's play.  While QB play is extremely important it is not everything.  Team chemistry, player communication, coach-player communication, development, all three units (i.e. offense, defense and special teams) performing well especially at key moments all matter.

Fans use one off examples to make broad generalizations then say the facts soeak for themselves.  How does anyone know if Michael Jordan would be a GOAT if he played on a team with a completely different style coach whose personality and style of coaching was 180 degrees different than Phil?

Tom Brady won a SB playing for a different head coach.  It's one example.  It proves nothing.

Team sports require so many things to fall in a positive way and for a level of personal play to be one of never giving up.

Michigan beat Ohio St not because of a QB but because of so many other things, many of them intangible.

[andrew_nyGiants]

Michigan beat Ohio St not because of a QB but because of so many other things, many of them intangible.

I respectfully disagree with this statement:

McCord is a TERRIBLE QUARTERBACK who chokes at big moments. He has by far the best skill positions in the country, and is backed up by one of the top defenses in the country.

This game based on pure talent comparison should not have been close. Ohio State should've won by two touchdowns.

Their HC - QB lost the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Philosophers]

I respectfully disagree with this statement:

McCord is a TERRIBLE QUARTERBACK who chokes at big moments. He has by far the best skill positions in the country, and is backed up by one of the top defenses in the country.

This game based on pure talent comparison should not have been close. Ohio State should've won by two touchdowns.

Their HC - QB lost the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I don't know how you can say that.  Michigan has better QB play, total RB play and OL play.  OSU has better WRs but they have had better WRs for the past 3 years and they have lost all 3 times.  On D, their DLs are damn close but Michigan has much more depth.  They can rotate in three fresh DL with no drop off.  Ohio State has better LBs.  In the secondary, OSU's Denzel Burke and Michigan's Will Johson are a tie.  Michigan's Rod Moore is a better safety than anyone in OSU's secondary.  Rest of secondaries are a push.  Michigan's special teams are better.

This is McCord's first season so hard to say he chokes.  In the second of two INTs, McCord's arm was hit by a DL as he released it.  Not on him.

Ohio State did not lose the game.  Michigan won the game, but it was a well played game on both sides.  Michigan won the rushing battle and therefore time of possession and turnover battles.  Their defense had OSU contained most of the game.  When Ohio State needed to stop Michigan in the last two possessions, they could not.  Game over.

[kingm56]

https://www.milehighreport.com/platform/amp/2016/4/22/11477522/veteran-nfl-qbs-who-got-better-after-changing-teams

Ed,

In the 45 years of football this list covers, it's an incredibly weak list, especially when compared to the literal thousands of examples that prove the point.  You're talking about less than 1% of QBs, which should be considered the margin, not the norm.  The game is also fundamentally different than when Jim Plunkett, Rich Gannon, Harbaugh, Steve Young, Testaverde, and Randall Cunningham entered the league in the 80s, which is why I'm always careful to use 30 years as a threshold. BTW, Cunningham is a super odd example as he was a 3x Pro Bowl/AP QB before going to Minn.  He passed for more yards in Minn than Phil, but so did every other QB who played in the 2000s vice 80s; again, the game changed.  There's no way Minn Cunningham was better than Phili Cunningham; the latter was dangerous.

Moreover, Plummer, Chandler and Smith did not significantly improve; in fact, all three were replaced with other QBs, while each were in their primes.  Den spent a #1 pick on Cutler when Plummer was just 31, KC #1 on Mahomes when Smith was only 32. Chandler is another odd example, as he had two good seasons in Atl, followed by 3 bad ones, leading to him being cut and replaced by Doug Johnson in 2002; he was just 33.  IMO, the fact there are no recent tangible examples speaks volumes.