Does the Commanders' turnaround really give bad team fans hope?

[MightyGiants]

I don't recall him ever saying he believes "coaching has so little impact..."

He's always said that talent is more important than coaching. That's been his stance for as long as I've known him.

Tim,

I have heard him just that repeatedly over the years.   He admits he is going after people who believe differently that coaching is an important aspect of a team's success.  The reality is a team will not enjoy proper success without both talent and quality coaching.   If you want to see what all the talent in the world will do without quality coaching, look no further than the Cowboys

[expatriot]

Going back to the title of this thread....the answer is no.  As I have mentioned before, I've been a fan since 1967.  Saw some really bad Giants football and some great fun football  along the way.  Maybe I am just getting too old, but I have NEVER been so down, depressed, hopeless, and worst, uncaring about the Giants than I am now. Absolutely ZERO confidence they can turn it around with those asshats running the team. So the draft now is a big meh.  Those feelings are compounded because football in general sucks now.  Rule changes, politics, too many damn flags, everything for the offense, cant hit a guy. It's FOOTBALL!   Just terrible product and I am really, truly, struggling to watch anymore.

[babywhales]

It happens through time consistently enough it certainly could offer hope but should not offer the expectation.
In recent history it has happened 3 times and I could easily find more just going back.

2017 Rams were 4-12 in 2017 only to win11 games in 2018 and 13 in 2018 and lost super Bowl.  Eventually winning it all in 2021.

The Bengals only own 6 games in 2019 and 2020 only to go 10-7 in 2021 and lose the Super bowl.   Lost the AFC championship in 2022 and have not made playoffs since

The Redskins were in the playoffs in 2020 and won 19 games over the next 3 seasons.  this past season they go 12-5 and lost the NFC championship

The future holds no guarantees allow it appears promising.

The Giants averaged 4.4 wins a season from 2017-2021 and then went 9-7-1 with a playoff win, then the wheels feel off over the next 2 seasons.

Quick turnarounds are possible but hardly the norm and even when they do occur there is no guarantees they are sustained.

[Gmo11]

Matt,

I really don't understand why you believe coaching has so little impact in the NFL.  One need only look at the Chargers to see how much coaching can change a team's fortunes.

I tend to think talent is more important but a truly inept coach can certainly derail things the same way a truly elite coach can mask deficiencies.  The truth is that most coaches, even the successful ones or the ones that get fired, are somewhere in between.  The chargers had an all time terrible head coach and then brought in Harbaugh who is actually quite good.  That is a huge upgrade.  The Bears just fired an unusually inept coach and we'll see what happens with them next year even if the new guy isn't Belichick, simply not being an all time buffoon likely leads to more wins for them.

Personally I don't think Daboll falls into either elite or buffoon territory.  Which leads me to believe if they get this man an competent QB the team will be successful at least compared to recent standards. 

[MightyGiants]

I tend to think talent is more important but a truly inept coach can certainly derail things the same way a truly elite coach can mask deficiencies.  The truth is that most coaches, even the successful ones or the ones that get fired, are somewhere in between.  The chargers had an all time terrible head coach and then brought in Harbaugh who is actually quite good.  That is a huge upgrade.  The Bears just fired an unusually inept coach and we'll see what happens with them next year even if the new guy isn't Belichick, simply not being an all time buffoon likely leads to more wins for them.

Personally I don't think Daboll falls into either elite or buffoon territory.  Which leads me to believe if they get this man an competent QB the team will be successful at least compared to recent standards. 

Much like quarterbacks, there really can only be so many elite ones.  The reality is there are only like a half dozen truly great coaches.

Proven:

Andy Reid
The Harbaugh brothers

May have what it takes

Dan Campbell
Kevin O'Connell

Much like quarterbacks, there are a few just off the top

Sean McDermott
Mike Tomlin
Kyle Shanahan
Sean McVay

The rest sort of just come and go as teams cycle in and out of coaches, hoping to find one of the special ones.  Much like with the quarterback, if you don't have one of the top coaches, you better hope you have an uber-talented team like the Eagles.

[kartanoman]

Rich,

I continue to be baffled about why we fans are the only group who's even giving the poor performance of Ronnie Barnes and the training staff any type of attention much less criticism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Hi Andrew.

In 2024, I attempted to use a "Strategic Approach" to evaluate the Giants' performance and one item I wanted to focus on was "Lost Man-Games Due to Injury." This is a metric the Giants have annually fallen in the top 10 as one of the teams with the most injured players (NOTE: targeting specifically starters and their backups) impacting their ability to field both a healthy and competitive team. Current state injury status shows the Giants' Injury List has 16 total players on Injured Reserve. That's second (2nd) in the entire NFL to only my friends down the street in Glendale (i.e. the Cardinals) who currently have 17 on I.R.

When you lose 17 players to I.R., which is the second highest total in the entire league, you have to ask the Medical organization not only "why" but "why again?"

Rich @MightyGiants is only calling out the obvious trend which has NOT shown evidence of improvement.

As far as a Strategic Imperative, their Balanced Scorecard rating finished a "bleeding" RED.

That's all there is to it. Root cause analysis? Corrective action plan? Anyone? This is the third year I've been looking at their website for anything resembling these and all I have uncovered was:

- New field turf that the players will choose
- New staff
- New analytics to work with new staff
- Newer staff to replace former "new" staff

Being serious, what problem statements are they defining that they are attempting to correct? Maybe the issue is they do not know how to "define and describe the problem."

I don't know.

Peace!

Peace!

[kartanoman]

It happens through time consistently enough it certainly could offer hope but should not offer the expectation.
In recent history it has happened 3 times and I could easily find more just going back.

2017 Rams were 4-12 in 2017 only to win11 games in 2018 and 13 in 2018 and lost super Bowl.  Eventually winning it all in 2021.

The Bengals only own 6 games in 2019 and 2020 only to go 10-7 in 2021 and lose the Super bowl.   Lost the AFC championship in 2022 and have not made playoffs since

The Redskins were in the playoffs in 2020 and won 19 games over the next 3 seasons.  this past season they go 12-5 and lost the NFC championship

The future holds no guarantees allow it appears promising.

The Giants averaged 4.4 wins a season from 2017-2021 and then went 9-7-1 with a playoff win, then the wheels feel off over the next 2 seasons.

Quick turnarounds are possible but hardly the norm and even when they do occur there is no guarantees they are sustained.

The variables a given team faces are so disparate that, eventually, a "moon and the stars alignment" inevitably configures itself for that given team and, for one season, they catch "lightning in a bottle."

Maybe the truly good teams can sustain their greatness longer. But for the also-rans, they must submit to the formula above?

Peace!

[kingm56]

I don't recall him ever saying he believes "coaching has so little impact..."

He's always said that talent is more important than coaching. That's been his stance for as long as I've known him.

You perfectly articulated my position, Tim!  It is unwise to entirely dismiss the influence of coaching. However, the degree of that influence relative to other factors, most notably the QB, continues to perplex me. My position posits that while coaching plays a role, it should be weighted between 10% and 15% of the overall "winning equation," whereas the quarterback (QB) position accounts for an estimated 55%. This viewpoint runs counter to a "pillar theory," which suggests that coaching constitutes one of the central pillars of success on par with other foundational elements.

I fundamentally disagree with the above notion. If you force me to place a percentage on the winning calculous, I see it as follows:

Quarterback (55%): The quarterback's performance is argued to be the single most critical factor influencing a team's success, especially given the position's outsized role in playmaking and game management.

Coaching (15%): Although coaching contributes to strategy, player development, and in-game adjustments, this factor is overshadowed by the players, most importantly the quarterback's, direct influence on on-field outcomes.

Other Variables (30%): Implicitly, the remaining percentage would include elements such as roster talent, team chemistry, injuries, and organizational stability.

This calculous is reinforced by the difference in annual compensation: the average HC salary of the top 20 coaches is $9M; the average QB salary for the top 20 QBs is $55M - that's a whopping 511% delta.  So, the NFL doesn't believe coaching is as important to QBs.  It's really not even close...

I've responded to multiple claims the Chargers are a prime case study of how coaching can transform a team. The data suggest,
the Los Angeles Chargers directly refute the notion that coaching alone can dramatically alter a team's fortunes.

During Brandon Staley's tenure:
2021: The Chargers finished with a 9–8 record, narrowly missing the playoffs.
2022: They improved to 10–7, earning a Wild Card spot.
2023: The plummeted to 5-11 - The dip is directly attributed to the significant injuries suffered by quarterback Justin Herbert, including rib and shoulder issues.

During JH's tenure:
2024: With an 11–6 record, they again made the playoffs but were eliminated in the Wild Card round.

Despite minor fluctuations, the team's overall postseason result during these periods remained effectively the same. This continuity suggests that the improvement in record was notdriven exclusively—or even primarily—by coaching.  In the lone season Herbert experienced substantial injuries, the team struggled; otherwise, they were competitive, whether Staley or Harbaugh was the coach. 

Where coaching is presumed to be of equal or near-equal importance to other factors—explaining the Chargers' similar outcomes across these seasons becomes difficult. The 2021 and 2022 Chargers produced comparable results under what is often labeled a "bad coach" as under a purportedly "good coach." This scenario challenges the assertion that coaching is a foremost pillar of success, as the quarterback's health and performance appear to drive outcomes more substantially.

From an objective data perspective, these observations suggest that while coaching cannot be entirely discounted, it constitutes a comparatively smaller fraction of a team's overall success. In the context of the Los Angeles Chargers, quarterback performance—particularly Justin Herbert's health—emerges as the critical factor. Consequently, the Chargers' experience clearly demonstrates that consistent or improved records can be tied more closely to the QB's well-being than to major changes in coaching.  Thus, the Chargers' example proves the exact opposite.

[T200]

@kingm56 Well-articulated, Matt. Although, I'd swap the coaching and other variables percentages. Regardless, you point is still well-made. 

[kingm56]

@kingm56 Well-articulated, Matt. Although, I'd swap the coaching and other variables percentages. Regardless, you point is still well-made. 

Fair enough, Tim!  The percentages are not particularly well thought out. Fundamentally, I'm attempting to portray that I believe the QB is 4 to 5 times more important than coaching.

[Painter]

Is hope not what all "bad teams" have year after year? Perhaps, we feel that having freed themselves of Snyder has enabled the Commanders to finally get a franchise QB. Maybe so, but I wouldn't count on either happening with Our Heroes short of a bolt in a bottle. Moreover, I suspect that Cows fans, for all of their more usual regular season success, have been wondering how long Jerrah will be able to cling to his mortal coil?

Just think of the many things we can impute from the letters NFL aside from Not For Long such as: No Free Lunch, No Fun League, No Friends Left, Nerd For Life, and/or/but Never Forget Loyalty.

Cheers!

[Philosophers]

You perfectly articulated my position, Tim!  It is unwise to entirely dismiss the influence of coaching. However, the degree of that influence relative to other factors, most notably the QB, continues to perplex me. My position posits that while coaching plays a role, it should be weighted between 10% and 15% of the overall "winning equation," whereas the quarterback (QB) position accounts for an estimated 55%. This viewpoint runs counter to a "pillar theory," which suggests that coaching constitutes one of the central pillars of success on par with other foundational elements.

I fundamentally disagree with the above notion. If you force me to place a percentage on the winning calculous, I see it as follows:

Quarterback (55%): The quarterback's performance is argued to be the single most critical factor influencing a team's success, especially given the position's outsized role in playmaking and game management.

Coaching (15%): Although coaching contributes to strategy, player development, and in-game adjustments, this factor is overshadowed by the players, most importantly the quarterback's, direct influence on on-field outcomes.

Other Variables (30%): Implicitly, the remaining percentage would include elements such as roster talent, team chemistry, injuries, and organizational stability.

This calculous is reinforced by the difference in annual compensation: the average HC salary of the top 20 coaches is $9M; the average QB salary for the top 20 QBs is $55M - that's a whopping 511% delta.  So, the NFL doesn't believe coaching is as important to QBs.  It's really not even close...

I've responded to multiple claims the Chargers are a prime case study of how coaching can transform a team. The data suggest,
the Los Angeles Chargers directly refute the notion that coaching alone can dramatically alter a team's fortunes.

During Brandon Staley's tenure:
2021: The Chargers finished with a 9–8 record, narrowly missing the playoffs.
2022: They improved to 10–7, earning a Wild Card spot.
2023: The plummeted to 5-11 - The dip is directly attributed to the significant injuries suffered by quarterback Justin Herbert, including rib and shoulder issues.

During JH's tenure:
2024: With an 11–6 record, they again made the playoffs but were eliminated in the Wild Card round.

Despite minor fluctuations, the team's overall postseason result during these periods remained effectively the same. This continuity suggests that the improvement in record was notdriven exclusively—or even primarily—by coaching.  In the lone season Herbert experienced substantial injuries, the team struggled; otherwise, they were competitive, whether Staley or Harbaugh was the coach. 

Where coaching is presumed to be of equal or near-equal importance to other factors—explaining the Chargers' similar outcomes across these seasons becomes difficult. The 2021 and 2022 Chargers produced comparable results under what is often labeled a "bad coach" as under a purportedly "good coach." This scenario challenges the assertion that coaching is a foremost pillar of success, as the quarterback's health and performance appear to drive outcomes more substantially.

From an objective data perspective, these observations suggest that while coaching cannot be entirely discounted, it constitutes a comparatively smaller fraction of a team's overall success. In the context of the Los Angeles Chargers, quarterback performance—particularly Justin Herbert's health—emerges as the critical factor. Consequently, the Chargers' experience clearly demonstrates that consistent or improved records can be tied more closely to the QB's well-being than to major changes in coaching.  Thus, the Chargers' example proves the exact opposite.

Matt - I love you to death man as you are one of my favorite posters on this board.  Your long post was a great read into how you think about this.

I have two observations to make:

1) Nobody is ever born great at something.  They may be blessed with certain attributes that are better than say the average person or the average person in that endeavor but those attributes have to be nurtured, to be developed, and in many cases new forms of doing things like mechanics have to be taught.

I'll use Tiger Woods as an example.  He was blessed at an early age with physical and mental talents however just those talents alone would not have gotten him to the PGA Tour nor to his ultimate excellence.  In his early years, his father likely had to kick him out of bed many times when he didnt want to learn or practice.  His father had to teach him early on the mechanics of a swing, catch swing flaws and correct them along the way, lift his spirits after a loss in early junior tournaments, etc.  Tiger was probanly close to quitting a few times in his youth like all kids.  After his father, Tiger had a succession of professional golf coaches who adjusted his swing and approach to the game, sometimes successfully and sometimes not.  Tiger has had nutritionists, personal trainers, psychologists, all helping him along the way.  Does all that from his father to today account for only 15% of the reason for Tiger's success?  No, I think it is more than that, at least double.

Now, look at Charlie Woods, Tiger's son.  He has had all the best coaching in the world yet he is nowhere near as good at this stage of his career as Tiger was.  Was that coaching?  No.  To your point, he simply is not as talented as his Dad was at that age and no amount of coaching will get him there.

I agree with you that talent trumps coaching but it is not 85%/15%.  A great dish is great because of the quality of the base ingredients, the choice of the ingredients to use, the proportion of those ingredients to each other and how long it is cooked.  A lot of that is subjective and that comes from the cook/coach.

Tom Brady did not possess natural GOAT level talent coming out of Michigan.  It had to get developed and nurtured along the way by both him and an army of folks to help with little things along the way.  Imagine if Brady did not find the diet, stretching, mental coaches over the latter part of his career causing his play to decline at 37 like most QBs.  If that happened, he'd have lost many of his last years and wins and stats and would unlikely be the GOAT.

As to your second point, you (or me or anyone else) do not know enough about all the factors in the Chargers success and failure under Staley and success under Harbaugh to reduce it to just Justin Herbert's health as to reasons for a certain win/loss record.  Football is way too complicated for reductionist thinking.

[babywhales]

IMO, a good coach with average players will out perform more often than not an average coach with good players.

As one side of the equation gets stronger it allows for some wiggle room on the other side of the equation.

There are plenty of examples and approaches to frame the argument to suit either side, but the balance between the two most be there.
 
Simply put it takes both