Not what one expects when you hire an offensive minded head coach

[MightyGiants]

https://x.com/NFLonCBS/status/1719078718994542937?s=20

[jgrangers2]

At some point you need the personnel to actually do things on offense. Too many people expecting coaches to be magicians who can make it work with anyone. I kind of don't care if he can't turn bad personnel into production. All that matters is what he would do if given the talent to succeed.

[sooners56]

Coaching does matter but it is still highly overrated. Did Bill Belichek and Sean Payton forget how to coach or are the groceries not up to par?

As far as Daboll, I'd assume with a better Oline, better WRs and a better QB he would all of a sudden become a good coach again.

[Gmo11]

This season isn't exactly fair unless you want to say Jones' regression is Daboll's fault which would be a fair criticism.  Losing 13 OL to injury is going to derail a season.  Jones playing like he can't throw a ball 15 yards on a line is going to derail a season.  Barkley getting hurt...Parris Campbell being....Parris Campbell all of this is going to derail a season.

But the bright side of this is that they can hopefully start a real rebuild now without the mirage of last season staring them in the face.  Reality seems to have set in so we can get this rebuild going in the right direction.  Starting with Leonard Williams but hopefully not ending with him.

[kingm56]

Why does this surprise anyone?  He's the same coach who produced the 31, 30, 29 and 23 ranked offenses.  Like 99.9999% of all OCs, he's as good as his QB.  I'm continually mystified by the notion that coaching is as important to QB play, as QB play is to coaching.  Brian Daboll is very good HC when he has an AP QB, just like Sean Payton and Lil Bill are HoF coaches when paired with AP QBs; they're below average when paired with below average QBs. I'm surprised fans struggle as much as they do with this concept.

I'll grant you coaching was more important to players' development before the modern era; however, today's game is vastly different:

1.   Kids are exposed to professional coaching early in life; my son received coaching from pro players/coaching starting at 8, via football camps; this is true for a lot of young kids
2.   College (to some extent HS) programs are as sophisticated as Pro teams.  Gone are the days of USC running student body right/left, Texas and ND wishbone and other simplistic offenses. Today, there's little difference between college and pro programs.  QBs don't require the same level of coaching as 30/40 years ago.
3.   Young people have access to trainers, gyms and other performance apertures that did not exist two decades ago.

I believe some fans have difficulties adjusting to this new paradigm; they want to believe that DJ is an OC away from becoming Mahomes.  They still want to believe what Coach Walsh, Gibbs, Schula and Parcells accomplished years ago is still true.  However, the game is fundamentally different...it just is

[kingm56]

Coaching does matter but it is still highly overrated. Did Bill Belichek and Sean Payton forget how to coach or are the groceries not up to par?

As far as Daboll, I'd assume with a better Oline, better WRs and a better QB he would all of a sudden become a good coach again.

Hey now, you're stealing my line! I've been talking about this for 5-years. 

[DaveBrown74]

Why does this surprise anyone?  He's the same coach who produced the 31, 30, 29 and 23 ranked offenses.  Like 99.9999% of all OCs, he's as good as his QB.  I'm continually mystified by the notion that coaching is as important to QB play, as QB play is to coaching.  Brian Daboll is very good HC when he has an AP QB, just like Sean Payton and Lil Bill are HoF coaches when paired with AP QBs; they're below average when paired with below average QBs. I'm surprised fans struggle as much as they do with this concept.

I'll grant you coaching was more important to players' development before the modern era; however, today's game is vastly different:

1.   Kids are exposed to professional coaching early in life; my son received coaching from pro players/coaching starting at 8, via football camps; this is true for a lot of young kids
2.   College (to some extent HS) programs are as sophisticated as Pro teams.  Gone are the days of USC running student body right/left, Texas and ND wishbone and other simplistic offenses. Today, there's little difference between college and pro programs.  QBs don't require the same level of coaching as 30/40 years ago.
3.   Young people have access to trainers, gyms and other performance apertures that did not exist two decades ago.

I believe some fans have difficulties adjusting to this new paradigm; they want to believe that DJ is an OC away from becoming Mahomes.  They still want to believe what Coach Walsh, Gibbs, Schula and Parcells accomplished years ago is still true.  However, the game is fundamentally different...it just is

Very well summed up, King.

A further example to your point is to consider Bill Belichick's entire head coaching career WITHOUT Tom Brady. You're basically looking at the Cleveland years and the Mac Jones years as well as the one year when Brady was hurt and he had Matt Cassell (which actually wasn't bad). Overall it's a pedestrian at best record, and it's not a small amount of data. It's practically a decade's worth.

This is of course not to say Belichick isn't a good or great coach. He is. But the point (which King has aptly made) is that coaching is not nearly as influential a force on the results teams have over time as many seem to think.

[MightyGiants]

Why does this surprise anyone?  He's the same coach who produced the 31, 30, 29 and 23 ranked offenses.  Like 99.9999% of all OCs, he's as good as his QB.  I'm continually mystified by the notion that coaching is as important to QB play, as QB play is to coaching.  Brian Daboll is very good HC when he has an AP QB, just like Sean Payton and Lil Bill are HoF coaches when paired with AP QBs; they're below average when paired with below average QBs. I'm surprised fans struggle as much as they do with this concept.

I'll grant you coaching was more important to players' development before the modern era; however, today's game is vastly different:

1.   Kids are exposed to professional coaching early in life; my son received coaching from pro players/coaching starting at 8, via football camps; this is true for a lot of young kids
2.   College (to some extent HS) programs are as sophisticated as Pro teams.  Gone are the days of USC running student body right/left, Texas and ND wishbone and other simplistic offenses. Today, there's little difference between college and pro programs.  QBs don't require the same level of coaching as 30/40 years ago.
3.   Young people have access to trainers, gyms and other performance apertures that did not exist two decades ago.

I believe some fans have difficulties adjusting to this new paradigm; they want to believe that DJ is an OC away from becoming Mahomes.  They still want to believe what Coach Walsh, Gibbs, Schula and Parcells accomplished years ago is still true.  However, the game is fundamentally different...it just is

So I take it, you're not a bit "you start building in the trenches" type

[MightyGiants]

Very well summed up, King.

A further example to your point is to consider Bill Belichick's entire head coaching career WITHOUT Tom Brady. You're basically looking at the Cleveland years and the Mac Jones years as well as the one year when Brady was hurt and he had Matt Cassell (which actually wasn't bad). Overall it's a pedestrian at best record, and it's not a small amount of data. It's practically a decade's worth.

This is of course not to say Belichick isn't a good or great coach. He is. But the point (which King has aptly made) is that coaching is not nearly as influential a force on the results teams have over time as many seem to think.

Do you think that perhaps longevity and age might be a factor in the case of Bill Belichick?  How many top assistants has he lost over the years?  How often can you replace that sort of quality?   Plus, Bill was quite the innovative football mind.  Do you think there could be a limitation to how many new ideas Bill could produce?  He's also 71, how many HCs retire by their 60s?   How many HCs enjoy success in their late 60s or early 70s.  I know there are a couple but compared to the overall sample of HCs, those appear to be exceptions rather than the rule.

[dasher]

That's what happens when you don't have an OL or a Josh Allen at your disposal like he had at Buffalo.
You're now a 32nd.

[DaveBrown74]

Do you think that perhaps longevity and age might be a factor in the case of Bill Belichick?  How many top assistants has he lost over the years?  How often can you replace that sort of quality?   Plus, Bill was quite the innovative football mind.  Do you think there could be a limitation to how many new ideas Bill could produce?  He's also 71, how many HCs retire by their 60s?   How many HCs enjoy success in their late 60s or early 70s.  I know there are a couple but compared to the overall sample of HCs, those appear to be exceptions rather than the rule.

Age may play a role to a degree, but basically Brady left and the team collapsed. Brady went to a team that was previously bad, and then he immediately won a Super Bowl and made the playoffs the next year. I mean that's pretty stark, is it not? The Bucs are not a team that you normally see in the playoffs. Then Brady retired and now the Bucks are a losing team again. The evidence (in this sequence of events) seems pretty straightforward. Blaming the sudden dip in the Pats' performance post the Brady departure on things like age and the loss of assistants (Belichick disciples have been getting hired away for two decades) feels like a reach.

Also, age was clearly not a factor for Belichick in Cleveland, where he spent five seasons amassing a subpar 36-44 record.

For the record, I think Belichick is an amazing coach. Probably top five of all time and easily top 10. I just don't think the influence of head coaches is as gargantuan as I think others do. And that is not at all to say they don't matter. Obviously they matter. I just dispute how much they matter.

[4 Aces]

It's completely unacceptable.

I doubt Daboll gets fired, but I see the Hufnagel/Gilbride mandate coming down on Kafka. Hopefully for his sake, Northwestern's still interested. I've never seen a guy get credit for doing so much without ever having done anything. He's still a greenhorn who may or may not know what he's doing. Think NW's nuts for handing him the keys to their castle.

[Hadron]

How many more HC/OC's need to be fired with Jones at QB?

[T200]

Age may play a role to a degree, but basically Brady left and the team collapsed. Brady went to a team that was previously bad, and then he immediately won a Super Bowl and made the playoffs the next year. I mean that's pretty stark, is it not? The Bucs are not a team that you normally see in the playoffs. Then Brady retired and now the Bucks are a losing team again. The evidence (in this sequence of events) seems pretty straightforward. Blaming the sudden dip in the Pats' performance post the Brady departure on things like age and the loss of assistants (Belichick disciples have been getting hired away for two decades) feels like a reach.

Also, age was clearly not a factor for Belichick in Cleveland, where he spent five seasons amassing a subpar 36-44 record.

For the record, I think Belichick is an amazing coach. Probably top five of all time and easily top 10. I just don't think the influence of head coaches is as gargantuan as I think others do. And that is not at all to say they don't matter. Obviously they matter. I just dispute how much they matter.

I wonder if we would know who Brady is if another team drafted him instead of the Pats.

[MightyGiants]

Age may play a role to a degree, but basically Brady left and the team collapsed. Brady went to a team that was previously bad, and then he immediately won a Super Bowl and made the playoffs the next year. I mean that's pretty stark, is it not? The Bucs are not a team that you normally see in the playoffs. Then Brady retired and now the Bucks are a losing team again. The evidence (in this sequence of events) seems pretty straightforward. Blaming the sudden dip in the Pats' performance post the Brady departure on things like age and the loss of assistants (Belichick disciples have been getting hired away for two decades) feels like a reach.

Also, age was clearly not a factor for Belichick in Cleveland, where he spent five seasons amassing a subpar 36-44 record.

For the record, I think Belichick is an amazing coach. Probably top five of all time and easily top 10. I just don't think the influence of head coaches is as gargantuan as I think others do. And that is not at all to say they don't matter. Obviously they matter. I just dispute how much they matter.

Brady left the Pats to join a talented Bucs team with a top-notch coach in Bruce Arians (when Brady left the Bucs the team was far less talented than when he joined them and they had lost their ace head coach).

Belichick hasn't had a franchise-caliber QB since Brady left