Big Blue Huddle

I think a prime example of just how impactful coaching is, would be Dexter Lawerence.   He was good but unspectacular for the first 3 years of his career.   He gets coached up by the Giants' Andre Patterson (who is one of the best in the business), and now he is a very special All-Pro nose tackle   

Quote from: MightyGiants on February 07, 2025, 07:44:57 AMI think a prime example of just how impactful coaching is, would be Dexter Lawerence.   He was good but unspectacular for the first 3 years of his career.   He gets coached up by the Giants' Andre Patterson (who is one of the best in the business), and now he is a very special All-Pro nose tackle   

I think he was better than good

Quote from: MightyGiants on February 07, 2025, 07:44:57 AMI think a prime example of just how impactful coaching is, would be Dexter Lawerence.  He was good but unspectacular for the first 3 years of his career.  He gets coached up by the Giants' Andre Patterson (who is one of the best in the business), and now he is a very special All-Pro nose tackle 

He had a terrible head coach though, and he had an iffy at best defensive coordinator. And yet he became what he is. So can a player be great if he has a terrible head coach and a less than ideal next-in-command as long as he has a solid position coach for a year or two? That argument seems a bit framed to me.

Andrew Thomas became an all pro offensive tackle on this team. His head coach was unquestionably terrible. His offensive coordinators/play callers were completely unsuccessful. The O line coach was considered a disaster during his ascent to all-pro status and and was unceremoniously run out of town. How exactly did Thomas become so good with all this supposedly horrible coaching around him? Was he just randomly lucky?

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on February 07, 2025, 11:02:40 PMHe had a terrible head coach though, and he had an iffy at best defensive coordinator. And yet he became what he is. So can a player be great if he has a terrible head coach and a less than ideal next-in-command as long as he has a solid position coach for a year or two? That argument seems a bit framed to me.

Andrew Thomas became an all pro offensive tackle on this team. His head coach was unquestionably terrible. His offensive coordinators/play callers were completely unsuccessful. The O line coach was considered a disaster during his ascent to all-pro status and and was unceremoniously run out of town. How exactly did Thomas become so good with all this supposedly horrible coaching around him? Was he just randomly lucky?

Why do owners spend millions and millions on coaches?  Why are they always fired and hired?  You guys are certainly entitled to your beliefs.  I will confess, I find the idea that coaching isn't important, truly baffling.   Then again, I am puzzled at the denial of a prime example of coaching making a huge difference.   Still, if you guys want to believe only players really matter....  You be you

Maybe you guys can start a petition to end the coach and assistant coach of the year honors.

Quote from: MightyGiants on February 08, 2025, 06:14:17 AMWhy do owners spend millions and millions on coaches?  Why are they always fired and hired?  You guys are certainly entitled to your beliefs.  I will confess, I find the idea that coaching isn't important, truly baffling.   Then again, I am puzzled at the denial of a prime example of coaching making a huge difference.   Still, if you guys want to believe only players really matter....  You be you

Maybe you guys can start a petition to end the coach and assistant coach of the year honors.

Rich,

I never said coaching isn't important or that "only players matter." You are putting words in my mouth and deliberately exaggerating my position (while conveniently opting to not answer the very reasonable question I asked you).

All I am trying to demonstrate here is that some players have the talent to overcome poor coaching, and on the flip side, that some are so untalented that even playing under the best coaches isn't going to make them good players.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on February 08, 2025, 06:22:43 AMRich,

I never said coaching isn't important or that "only players matter." You are putting words in my mouth and deliberately exaggerating my position (while conveniently opting to not answer the very reasonable question I asked you).

All I am trying to demonstrate here is that some players have the talent to overcome poor coaching, and on the flip side, that some are so untalented that even playing under the best coaches isn't going to make them good players.

Jeff,

Let's be fair.  What you did was refuse to acknowledge and try to dismiss a prime example of a coach making a huge difference.   I will confess that it's difficult to have quality conversations when you simply refuse to acknowledge evidence or a clear-cut point.   That point is in no way diminished or incorrect because of the reality that coaches can't turn chicken poop into chicken salad, or, on rare occasions, a player will individually play well despite poor coaching.

I really don't understand why all the members of your little PM group find it so difficult to just acknowledge the reality that coaching matters, it matters a lot.  Your exceptions don't create a rule; they are just that, exceptions

Quote from: MightyGiants on February 08, 2025, 06:33:53 AMJeff,

Let's be fair.  What you did was refuse to acknowledge and try to dismiss a prime example of a coach making a huge difference.   I will confess that it's difficult to have quality conversations when you simply refuse to acknowledge evidence or a clear-cut point.   That point is in no way diminished or incorrect because of the reality that coaches can't turn chicken poop into chicken salad, or, on rare occasions, a player will individually play well despite poor coaching.

I really don't understand why all the members of your little PM group find it so difficult to just acknowledge the reality that coaching matters, it matters a lot.  Your exceptions don't create a rule; they are just that, exceptions

I think coaching matters IMMENSELY. Look no further than Bill Parcells. Every single team he went to got better immediately. Every one. To me, the jury is still out in Daboll. Whereas he was proven correct on Jayden Daniels, he was also very wrong on his assessment of Jones. He also does a lot of strange things during games as has been hashed out in other threads. But ultimately we shall see.

As for your remark pertaining to "your little PM group"....if someone said that to you, you would call it an attack and a whole thing would ensue. Why can't we just have discussion and debate without tossing in a few barbs.

Quote from: MightyGiants on February 08, 2025, 06:33:53 AMJeff,

Let's be fair.  What you did was refuse to acknowledge and try to dismiss a prime example of a coach making a huge difference.  I will confess that it's difficult to have quality conversations when you simply refuse to acknowledge evidence or a clear-cut point.  That point is in no way diminished or incorrect because of the reality that coaches can't turn chicken poop into chicken salad, or, on rare occasions, a player will individually play well despite poor coaching.

I really don't understand why all the members of your little PM group find it so difficult to just acknowledge the reality that coaching matters, it matters a lot.  Your exceptions don't create a rule; they are just that, exceptions

Again, for some reason you continue to make false claims. Nowhere did I say coaching does not matter. Nor have I ever said that. Any claim to the contrary is a flat out lie.

Of course coaching matters. However I do not think it is more important than, or even equal to, the caliber of talent on the field.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on February 08, 2025, 06:52:54 AMAgain, for some reason you continue to make false claims. Nowhere did I say coaching does not matter. Nor have I ever said that. Any claim to the contrary is a flat out lie.

Of course coaching matters. However I do not think it is more important than, or even equal to, the caliber of talent on the field.

Perceived talent on the field is often a function of coaching.  Hell, I have always said that coaching development of draft prospects is half the equation for success (or failure).  We certainly can have a REASONED discussion and even disagreement about the overall importance of coaching.  I disagree with your assertion that it's not equal to talent, but it's okay to disagree.   The issue I have is when you and the other members of your group refuse to even acknowledge a fair and valid point.

You were so invested in trying to diminish the role coaches plays in the NFL you refused to credit Dex's D-line coach for the impressive and surprising improvements Dex made under his coaching.

If everyone were immensely talented, they'd all be the first pick of the NFL Draft.

Why was a 6th round pick who became the GOAT not the first pick of the first round?  How did he become the GOAT?

He was taught and shown things - Coaching

He was willing to be coached - PLAYER

Somehow the messaging was said in a way that it was effectively internalized which translated into development - COACHING

He had some base level of physical metrics, talent and skills - PLAYER

He was mature - PLAYER

He plays in a scheme that maximizes his skill - COACHING

Somehow he eventually sees things from his position that his peers do not easily see - PLAYER

Somehow the game starts to slow down for him as he processes info - PLAYER from all of the above coming together.

This is how I see how players become great.

Quote from: Philosophers on February 08, 2025, 07:30:50 AMIf everyone were immensely talented, they'd all be the first pick of the NFL Draft.

Why was a 6th round pick who became the GOAT not the first pick of the first round?  How did he become the GOAT?

He was taught and shown things - Coaching

He was willing to be coached - PLAYER

Somehow the messaging was said in a way that it was effectively internalized which translated into development - COACHING

He had some base level of physical metrics, talent and skills - PLAYER

He was mature - PLAYER

He plays in a scheme that maximizes his skill - COACHING

Somehow he eventually sees things from his position that his peers do not easily see - PLAYER

Somehow the game starts to slow down for him as he processes info - PLAYER from all of the above coming together.

This is how I see how players become great.

Joe,

I think that's a really good way at looking at the equation.  Although sometimes the great coaches and certainly players will blur the lines.  Remember Keyshon Johnson?  It took a special coach like Bill Parcells to get the talent out of that mercurial player.  Other coaches tried and it was a disaster.

Even LT, I think, under another coaching staff, could have easily crashed and burned with all his personal demons and issues. 

Take Joe Montana.  He may have had an obscure career as a backup QB if he didn't team up with Bill Walsh and (at the time) revolutionary West Coast offense.

Quote from: MightyGiants on February 08, 2025, 08:01:33 AMJoe,

I think that's a really good way at looking at the equation.  Although sometimes the great coaches and certainly players will blur the lines.  Remember Keyshon Johnson?  It took a special coach like Bill Parcells to get the talent out of that mercurial player.  Other coaches tried and it was a disaster.

Even LT, I think, under another coaching staff, could have easily crashed and burned with all his personal demons and issues. 

Take Joe Montana.  He may have had an obscure career as a backup QB if he didn't team up with Bill Walsh and (at the time) revolutionary West Coast offense.

It's the way I see things, rightly or wrongly. 

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on February 07, 2025, 11:02:40 PMHe had a terrible head coach though, and he had an iffy at best defensive coordinator. And yet he became what he is. So can a player be great if he has a terrible head coach and a less than ideal next-in-command as long as he has a solid position coach for a year or two? That argument seems a bit framed to me.

Andrew Thomas became an all pro offensive tackle on this team. His head coach was unquestionably terrible. His offensive coordinators/play callers were completely unsuccessful. The O line coach was considered a disaster during his ascent to all-pro status and and was unceremoniously run out of town. How exactly did Thomas become so good with all this supposedly horrible coaching around him? Was he just randomly lucky?

Very well stated, Jeff. You know your position is solid when the opposing side either refuses to answer, or worse, reframes the question or resorts to outright lies.  Moreover, the notion that Lawrence's improvement is purely a byproduct of coaching suggests an overly narrow perspective that fails to account for other contributing factors. It also exemplifies the common mistake of conflating correlation with causation.

Dexter Lawrence's performance trajectory most logically follows the traditional development curve we see in top-tier defensive tackles, rather than being primarily attributable to coaching. Historically, college linemen—both offensive and defensive—often need extra time to adapt to the NFL's physical demands. While positions like wide receiver and cornerback hinge on speed and agility ("twitch"), linemen rely more on brute strength, technique, and gap discipline. It's common for even highly drafted interior linemen to see their biggest performance jump in Years 2–3, as they refine their skills and physically mature.

Empirical examples support this notion. For instance, Aaron Donald showed promise immediately but still saw his game evolve further in his second and third seasons. Chris Jones also went from 2.0 sacks as a rookie to 6.5 in his second year and then broke out fully in Year 3 with 15.5 sacks. Similarly, Fletcher Cox didn't become a truly dominant force until several years into his career. These cases align with the established principle that linemen, due to the nature of their responsibilities, often require a longer developmental timeline compared to other positions.

If coaching were the primary catalyst for Lawrence's improvement, we would expect a parallel rise in performance among similarly coached players. Yet, teammates like Woodrow Hamilton, Trent Harris, Raymond Johnson, and David Moa, among others, have not shown the same leap. Additionally, if Sean Spencer or Wink Martindale were uniquely responsible for engineering extraordinary growth, we might expect them to be retained or swiftly hired to other prominent NFL positions. Their lack of immediate rehire as top-tier defensive minds does not reinforce the notion that coaching alone accounted for Lawrence's surge.

In sum, the evidence suggests that Dexter Lawrence's leap is a product of natural, year-over-year progression rather than a miraculous coaching boost. The physical nature of trench warfare—where players need to develop the strength and technique to consistently beat seasoned NFL linemen—inevitably requires more time. Wide receivers, by contrast, often exhibit faster progress as their job is heavily predicated on twitch, route running, and timing. In fact, if you recall, I started a thread this offseason indicating we would know if Nabers was good or not based on his rookie performance, and my conclusions were based on the same analysis that wide receivers typically offer quicker insight into their long-term potential. Given these position-specific timelines, Lawrence's steady rise remains consistent with how most elite defensive tackles eventually come into their own.

Quote from: kingm56 on February 08, 2025, 12:46:06 PMVery well stated, Jeff. You know your position is solid when the opposing side either refuses to answer, or worse, reframes the question or resorts to outright lies.  Moreover, the notion that Lawrence's improvement is purely a byproduct of coaching suggests an overly narrow perspective that fails to account for other contributing factors. It also exemplifies the common mistake of conflating correlation with causation.

Dexter Lawrence's performance trajectory most logically follows the traditional development curve we see in top-tier defensive tackles, rather than being primarily attributable to coaching. Historically, college linemen—both offensive and defensive—often need extra time to adapt to the NFL's physical demands. While positions like wide receiver and cornerback hinge on speed and agility ("twitch"), linemen rely more on brute strength, technique, and gap discipline. It's common for even highly drafted interior linemen to see their biggest performance jump in Years 2–3, as they refine their skills and physically mature.

Empirical examples support this notion. For instance, Aaron Donald showed promise immediately but still saw his game evolve further in his second and third seasons. Chris Jones also went from 2.0 sacks as a rookie to 6.5 in his second year and then broke out fully in Year 3 with 15.5 sacks. Similarly, Fletcher Cox didn't become a truly dominant force until several years into his career. These cases align with the established principle that linemen, due to the nature of their responsibilities, often require a longer developmental timeline compared to other positions.

If coaching were the primary catalyst for Lawrence's improvement, we would expect a parallel rise in performance among similarly coached players. Yet, teammates like Woodrow Hamilton, Trent Harris, Raymond Johnson, and David Moa, among others, have not shown the same leap. Additionally, if Sean Spencer or Wink Martindale were uniquely responsible for engineering extraordinary growth, we might expect them to be retained or swiftly hired to other prominent NFL positions. Their lack of immediate rehire as top-tier defensive minds does not reinforce the notion that coaching alone accounted for Lawrence's surge.

In sum, the evidence suggests that Dexter Lawrence's leap is a product of natural, year-over-year progression rather than a miraculous coaching boost. The physical nature of trench warfare—where players need to develop the strength and technique to consistently beat seasoned NFL linemen—inevitably requires more time. Wide receivers, by contrast, often exhibit faster progress as their job is heavily predicated on twitch, route running, and timing. In fact, if you recall, I started a thread this offseason indicating we would know if Nabers was good or not based on his rookie performance, and my conclusions were based on the same analysis that wide receivers typically offer quicker insight into their long-term potential. Given these position-specific timelines, Lawrence's steady rise remains consistent with how most elite defensive tackles eventually come into their own.

In this world, there are those who examine and accept evidence and use the evidence to form their opinions.  Then there are those who have there opinions and form the evidence to match their opinions.

It's a shame for great coaches like Andre Patterson, that some fans refuse to acknowledge the fine work they do.

Quote from: MightyGiants on February 08, 2025, 02:45:20 PMIn this world, there are those who examine and accept evidence and use the evidence to form their opinions.  Then there are those who have there opinions and form the evidence to match their opinions.

Agreed, and you will find no better example of this than in the multi-year back and forth debate in this forum around Daniel Jones.