PDA

View Full Version : Who is Most Responsible for Winning?


Gort
04-20-2009, 06:00 AM
Head Coach or Quarterback.

it seems that this question really lies at the root of the division on the OM over Baby Jay's departure.

let me pose some hypotheticals? when the Ravens won, was Billick or Dilfer more important to the team? how about with the Steelers? Roethlisberger or Cowher/Tomlin? in NE, is it Brady or Bellichik? on the other hand, was it Reeves or Elway who earned those AFC championships all those years ago?

jmz313
04-20-2009, 06:01 AM
Coach. He picks what players play.

NUB
04-20-2009, 06:06 AM
Owner --> GM/Coach --> Players

gyldenlove
04-20-2009, 06:29 AM
Head Coach or Quarterback.

it seems that this question really lies at the root of the division on the OM over Baby Jay's departure.

let me pose some hypotheticals? when the Ravens won, was Billick or Dilfer more important to the team? how about with the Steelers? Roethlisberger or Cowher/Tomlin? in NE, is it Brady or Bellichik?

i think the answer is obvious. it's ALWAYS the head coach that is more valuable to the team and most responsible for winning. i don't understand the Cutler fans who insist that without Jay, there is no chance of ever winning another game. and the slights against McD are just silly. McD will prove himself to be a competent HC here, IMHO.

What I don't get is Cutler haters who say he is a bad QB because he had a 17-20 record.

The head coach is obviously more important than the QB, likewise the defense is more important than the QB and I would go as far as saying the other 10 offensive players are more important as well.

Killericon
04-20-2009, 06:33 AM
Depends.

DrFate
04-20-2009, 07:02 AM
Please try to oversimply this question. :oyvey:

I guess Barry Switzer was the reason the Cowboys won that last ring, right?

You can find plenty of examples of medicore QBs that have success as well as mediocre coaches that have success.

Gort
04-20-2009, 07:04 AM
Please try to oversimply this question. :oyvey:

I guess Barry Switzer was the reason the Cowboys won that last ring, right?

You can find plenty of examples of medicore QBs that have success as well as mediocre coaches that have success.

that's an exception that proves the rule. much like Tomlin taking over the team Cowher built and winning a championship in the next year.

i should have had a 3rd choice. how about the GM?

is HC > GM or GM > HC?

Mogulseeker
04-20-2009, 07:07 AM
I'm going to say QB, but the Coach affects the QB.

The QB is actually in the game.

But the coach also controls all aspects of the team, not just passing the ball.

Too simple of a question.

Gort
04-20-2009, 07:20 AM
I'm going to say QB, but the Coach affects the QB.

The QB is actually in the game.

But the coach also controls all aspects of the team, not just passing the ball.

Too simple of a question.

ok, who's more important.

a good GM, a good HC, or a franchise QB?

broncofan7
04-20-2009, 07:53 AM
Players ultimately win the games...coaches can hinder the talent they have (Dan Reeves not building a 49ers /LA Rams style attack while in Denver) and that talent can still overcome ineptitude (see barry switzer's SB victory). Take Tom Brady off the Pats and they are tantamount to a Jake Plummer/Shanny led Broncos team--solid and effective but not going to win any championships. Put John Elway on those Shanny teams and they win SB's. Give Bellicheat Vinny T or Cassel and he can make the playoffs. Coaches can make a team good but the quarterback can make a team GREAT. I fear that we may have lost a potential great one......

lex
04-20-2009, 07:57 AM
Head Coach or Quarterback.

it seems that this question really lies at the root of the division on the OM over Baby Jay's departure.

let me pose some hypotheticals? when the Ravens won, was Billick or Dilfer more important to the team? how about with the Steelers? Roethlisberger or Cowher/Tomlin? in NE, is it Brady or Bellichik? on the other hand, was it Reeves or Elway who earned those AFC championships all those years ago?

Josh has made this about him. So, with that, he bears the greater burden by far.

Mogulseeker
04-20-2009, 08:00 AM
ok, who's more important.

a good GM, a good HC, or a franchise QB?

Too simple a question.

I'd go for franchcise QB being more expedient simple because a good coach is easier to find, but a good coach is more vital to a teams overall success.

BMarsh615
04-20-2009, 08:15 AM
Quarterback no doubt. Mike Shanahan was one of the best coaches of all time IMO and he never got to a SB without a franchise QB. Bill Belicheck was just some no name until Bledsoe got hurt and lucked into Tom Brady.

Unless you have a top 5 of all time defense you won't win a SB if you don't have a franchise QB.

Kaylore
04-20-2009, 08:19 AM
Three units have to play together. The QB is only responsible for one of the three. The Head coach is responsible for all of them. Pretty obvious.

Tombstone RJ
04-20-2009, 08:22 AM
Obviously, the HC is the most important factor in a team's ability to consistently win, year in and year out. Examples: Vince Lombardi, Bill Walsh, Chuck Knoll, Tom Landry just to name a few.

When you have a talented QB to implement the HC's offense, and both QB and HC are on the same page, then you have the potential to win a lot of games.

Cito Pelon
04-20-2009, 08:24 AM
The coaching staff as a whole has the most impact.

Mogulseeker
04-20-2009, 08:28 AM
Depends.

Tranquility has better absorbtion power.

Cito Pelon
04-20-2009, 08:36 AM
Three units have to play together. The QB is only responsible for one of the three. The Head coach is responsible for all of them. Pretty obvious.

Yup, the HC has to put together the three units, therefore the HC is most important.

It's definitely a three unit game. Every year, the best three unit teams win in the playoffs.

Garcia Bronco
04-20-2009, 08:37 AM
The players on the field

footstepsfrom#27
04-20-2009, 09:04 AM
EVERYTHING rises and falls on leadership...everything.

It begins at the top...ownership. It's no accident that the same franchises win consistently and lose consistently, and it spans coaches and QB's over many years. Yes there are ups and downs, but if you look at the consistent winners and loses, it's the ownership and front office that get it done on the bottom line.

colonelbeef
04-20-2009, 09:07 AM
Please try to oversimply this question. :oyvey:

I guess Barry Switzer was the reason the Cowboys won that last ring, right?

You can find plenty of examples of medicore QBs that have success as well as mediocre coaches that have success.

Exactly.

Completely depends on the situation.

footstepsfrom#27
04-20-2009, 09:13 AM
Please try to oversimply this question. :oyvey:

I guess Barry Switzer was the reason the Cowboys won that last ring, right?

You can find plenty of examples of medicore QBs that have success as well as mediocre coaches that have success.
I get your point but Switzer's not the best example to use. Picking the most talented team in the last quarter century that was handed intact and coming off a Superbowl win hardly defines the norm. If anything, Switzer failing to win the '94 Superbowl is more indicative of the importance of the coach. Mediocrity at QB or coach is a major impediment to winning consistently. Ownership and executive decision making by the FO is still the consistent factor however.

Miss I.
04-20-2009, 09:36 AM
wait, did you say winning or whining? Cuz if its' winning, it's joint effort by the team, GM and coach (it is a team sport afterall...and even if you just look at the players, I would say team-all, but QB certainly has strong influence, but it isnt his game to win alone...when he tries, we lose). If it's whining, then I say QB.

bronco militia
04-20-2009, 09:39 AM
what?!?!?! no fan option??!?!

DenverBrit
04-20-2009, 09:46 AM
Josh has made this about him. So, with that, he bears the greater burden by far.

It will always be about the coach.....if it weren't, Shanny would still be in Denver.

But keep on hating like a jilted schoolgirl, :curtsey:.....it suits you.

Taco John
04-20-2009, 09:47 AM
I think Billick is probably the worst example you can use to say that the coach is the most important piece.

Rohirrim
04-20-2009, 09:56 AM
It changes from champion to champion. In the old days, the coaches (Lombardi, Shula, Landry) were king. Watching a lot of Broncos' games in the 80s in appeared to me that Elway won a lot of games in spite of Reeves' mismanagement. Then you had systems champions like Bill Walsh who created teams that were unbeatable. I don't think there are hard and fast rules. What you are looking for is that spark that makes you the kings of your era. It's a combination of coach, players and philosophy that hits at the right time and rules the game, only to pass after a few years when a new team, with a new combination takes control.

Cito Pelon
04-20-2009, 10:45 AM
I think Billick is probably the worst example you can use to say that the coach is the most important piece.

Reeves may be the perfect example of how important an HC is. Reeves was a demon on gameday, drove his team to victory against impossible odds. He was the HC in Conference title games with three different teams. In the SB with two different teams.

People can talk about Elway all they like, but if Elway didn't have Reeves bailing Elway out of all his mistakes early in his career, Elway would have been a failure. Elway was one scattergun dude, despite Shanahan as his QB coach and OC. 199 TD passes, 177 INT's from 1983-1994. Elway ran a lot, 3400 yds and 33 TD's rushing, made a lot of first downs with his legs.

I can argue that Elway was just an average QB until Shannon Sharpe and Terrell Davis came to town. What made Elway great was Dan Reeves, because Reeves put together a good D, good ST's, a productive running game.

Majik
04-20-2009, 10:51 AM
Head Coach, that's why we are going to win roughly 9 to 10 games this coming season

Rohirrim
04-20-2009, 11:05 AM
Reeves may be the perfect example of how important an HC is. Reeves was a demon on gameday, drove his team to victory against impossible odds. He was the HC in Conference title games with three different teams. In the SB with two different teams.

People can talk about Elway all they like, but if Elway didn't have Reeves bailing Elway out of all his mistakes early in his career, Elway would have been a failure. Elway was one scattergun dude, despite Shanahan as his QB coach and OC. 199 TD passes, 177 INT's from 1983-1994. Elway ran a lot, 3400 yds and 33 TD's rushing, made a lot of first downs with his legs.

I can argue that Elway was just an average QB until Shannon Sharpe and Terrell Davis came to town. What made Elway great was Dan Reeves, because Reeves put together a good D, good ST's, a productive running game.

That's true. You can argue anything you want. Doesn't make it any less ridiculous, but you can do it. ;)

footstepsfrom#27
04-20-2009, 11:13 AM
Reeves may be the perfect example of how important an HC is. Reeves was a demon on gameday, drove his team to victory against impossible odds. He was the HC in Conference title games with three different teams. In the SB with two different teams.

People can talk about Elway all they like, but if Elway didn't have Reeves bailing Elway out of all his mistakes early in his career, Elway would have been a failure. Elway was one scattergun dude, despite Shanahan as his QB coach and OC. 199 TD passes, 177 INT's from 1983-1994. Elway ran a lot, 3400 yds and 33 TD's rushing, made a lot of first downs with his legs.

I can argue that Elway was just an average QB until Shannon Sharpe and Terrell Davis came to town. What made Elway great was Dan Reeves, because Reeves put together a good D, good ST's, a productive running game.
One of the worst takes I've ever seen on this board.

R66v6s sucked eggs. I've had his discussion ad-nausium on here so there's no point in pursuing it...but in summary Elway made R66v6s, not the other way around.

DrFate
04-20-2009, 11:14 AM
I get your point but Switzer's not the best example to use.

How about Gruden winning with Dungy's team? Or Seifert winning with Walsh's team?

The premise of this thread is nonsensical. There is no 'one is more important than the other'.

rastaman
04-20-2009, 11:24 AM
Head Coach or Quarterback.

it seems that this question really lies at the root of the division on the OM over Baby Jay's departure.

let me pose some hypotheticals? when the Ravens won, was Billick or Dilfer more important to the team? how about with the Steelers? Roethlisberger or Cowher/Tomlin? in NE, is it Brady or Bellichik? on the other hand, was it Reeves or Elway who earned those AFC championships all those years ago?

Think of it like this....in many respects when it comes to winning in the NFL it takes a number of parts working together and individually to come up with a winning formula. Its the sum of all parts from the FO, the trainer, ball boy's, equipment manager, the players on ST, the HC, players on offense and defense, the execution, and the overall performances of one functioning unit.

Kinda like the human body.....how do we judge which organ w/i the human body is solely responsible for keeping you upright, creative, functionally alert or just plain healthy. You got your lungs, heart, digestive system, nervous systems, your brain, your vision, your pancreas, your ability to walk or being confined to a wheel chair.....etc! Which part of your anantomy can you do w/o or is more important btwn the quality of life or death!

Same concept goes toward winning in the NFL, its the sum of all the components and parts involved that ultimately decides whether you win, how you win or loose in the NFL.

The NFL is the "Ultimate Team Sport".....the QB and HC although important, are not the final cog on whether the team wins or looses.

Cito Pelon
04-20-2009, 11:39 AM
That's true. You can argue anything you want. Doesn't make it any less ridiculous, but you can do it. ;)

Up yours. :)

You, me, a lot of people can have this argument for a long time. But, there's only a few people that actually remember Elway's first years in Denver, were actually of an age to understand how bad he was passing. Oh boy, he was bad. Dude could keep a play alive as good as Fran Tarkenton, though. Elway didn't cross the line of scrimmage until he had to, he'd twist and turn, balls galore. He'd stand like a statue until a guy charging him was right in his face, then do a 360 like a matador and slide away. He'd move from tackle to tackle, never knew what the heck he was gonna do, unless it was a handoff. That's where Reeves bailed him out. Reeves insisted on a strong running game, but never had the backs. That was Reeve's failing, he never got the tailbacks. The best tailback he had in all those years was Bobby Humphrey.

Reeves had the same O philosophy as Shanahan, establish the run, pass 30 times, run 30 times. Shanahan lucked into Shannon Sharpe, Terrell Davis, Gary Zimmerman, Steve Atwater, Elway, Rod Smith, all at the same time.

Cito Pelon
04-20-2009, 12:00 PM
One of the worst takes I've ever seen on this board.

R66v6s sucked eggs. I've had his discussion ad-nausium on here so there's no point in pursuing it...but in summary Elway made R66v6s, not the other way around.

What a laugh. Reeves coached three different teams to Conference Championship games. Denver, NY Giants, Atlanta Falcons. Reeves was in the Super Bowl with Chris Chandler at QB.

Do you even know what a Conference Championship is?

Elway was a fine QB, but Reeves made Elway's reputation as the winningest QB. Elway couldn't pass for **** early in his career, despite Shanahan as his QB coach and OC. What bailed him out was Reeves' insisting they were gonna run the ball, play good D, play good ST's. Elway was clueless in the pocket from 1983-1992, he made his money scrambling, keeping plays alive, he was superb at that, good as Fran Tarkenton. Elway would run all over the field, but he wouldn't cross the line of scrimmage, that's what made him unique with Fran Tarkenton.

footstepsfrom#27
04-20-2009, 12:14 PM
What a laugh. Reeves coached three different teams to Conference Championship games. Denver, NY Giants, Atlanta Falcons. Reeves was in the Super Bowl with Chris Chandler at QB.

Do you even know what a Conference Championship is?
It's a game that defines who qualifies to be considered 2nd best.

R66v6s was slaughtered in four consecutive Superbowl games; no offensive immagination, terrible at adjusting with NFL trends (insisted on small finesse llinemen, ie; Greg Kragen), bad drafts (Tommy Maddox...lol), a hotheaded control freak so out of touch in communication with his players that Louis Wright was appointed by the team to represent the team to tell R66v6s they didn't want to play for him unless he cooled it. He gets Elway for 10 years in his prime and wins 0 championships. Shanny get's him past his prime for 4 years and wins 2 Lombardies.

Do the math.
Elway was a fine QB, but Reeves made Elway's reputation as the winningest QB. Elway couldn't pass for **** early in his career, despite Shanahan as his QB coach and OC. What bailed him out was Reeves' insisting they were gonna run the ball, play good D, play good ST's. Elway was clueless in the pocket from 1983-1992, he made his money scrambling, keeping plays alive, he was superb at that, good as Fran Tarkenton. Elway didn't run to save his life, either. He ran to get some time to find the guy open that he couldn't find open in the pocket. Elway would run all over the field, but he wouldn't cross the line of scrimmage, that's what made him unique with Fran Tarkenton.
Elway ran because he had R66v6s offensive line and no decent offensive weapons to help him.

And that's my final word on this.

rastaman
04-20-2009, 12:17 PM
Up yours. :)

You, me, a lot of people can have this argument for a long time. But, there's only a few people that actually remember Elway's first years in Denver, were actually of an age to understand how bad he was passing. Oh boy, he was bad. Dude could keep a play alive as good as Fran Tarkenton, though. Elway didn't cross the line of scrimmage until he had to, he'd twist and turn, balls galore. He'd stand like a statue until a guy charging him was right in his face, then do a 360 like a matador and slide away. He'd move from tackle to tackle, never knew what the heck he was gonna do, unless it was a handoff. That's where Reeves bailed him out. Reeves insisted on a strong running game, but never had the backs. That was Reeve's failing, he never got the tailbacks. The best tailback he had in all those years was Bobby Humphrey.

Reeves had the same O philosophy as Shanahan, establish the run, pass 30 times, run 30 times. Shanahan lucked into Shannon Sharpe, Terrell Davis, Gary Zimmerman, Steve Atwater, Elway, Rod Smith, all at the same time.

Reeves wasn't very innovative when it came to offensive schemes and rarely thought outside the box. Hell why do you think Reeves budded heads with both Elway and Shanahan back in the 80's?

Hell, Elway accumulated the vast majority of his NFL record of 563 sacks during Reeves tenure in Denver! This was due to Reeves lack of vision and interest of protecting Elway in the first place. Elway was forever running for his life b/c Reeves provided him a lousy line!!!

Shanny and Elway were trying to be more creative with the play calling, and Reeves viewed this as being subversive and disrepectfull to him.

Reeves even fired Shanny for perceived or alledged insubordination for going behind his back. Reeves took on a paranoid personna and attitude. We all witnessed how plain--boring and vanilla Reeves offense was when the Falcons went to the SB and played the Broncos.

Speaking of luck! Every coach that won a SB or multiple SBs LUCKED into drafting the right players.....its called the DRAFT! Believe or not it does take some luck to draft the talent required to win a SB or SB's.

From Bill Walsh to Chuck Noll, these coaches were able draft the right players for their system(s) but b/c the draft isn't an exact science....it takes some luck to get it right with their draft picks.

Orange_Beard
04-20-2009, 12:19 PM
Team sport.

Kaylore
04-20-2009, 01:04 PM
I believe the question was who is more important between the head coach and the QB. Some of you have turned this into a "are the players or the coaches more important" argument. It's not.

It's talking about just two people: The coach and the quarterback. There is no question the QB is the most important guy on the offense and a big part of the team. However the Head Coach runs all three units and ultimately the QB takes marching orders from the Head Coach. If a team sucks and is losing, it's not QB's fault. Sometimes teams win in spite of the QB ala the Broncos in 2006. There are instances where the QB has such an amazing game that the team wins in spite of his supporting cast. However those are the exception to the rule and more representative of an awesome player than the overall value of that position to every team in the league.

It's the Coach.

Cito Pelon
04-20-2009, 01:38 PM
It's a game that defines who qualifies to be considered 2nd best.

R66v6s was slaughtered in four consecutive Superbowl games; no offensive immagination, terrible at adjusting with NFL trends (insisted on small finesse llinemen, ie; Greg Kragen), bad drafts (Tommy Maddox...lol), a hotheaded control freak so out of touch in communication with his players that Louis Wright was appointed by the team to represent the team to tell R66v6s they didn't want to play for him unless he cooled it. He gets Elway for 10 years in his prime and wins 0 championships. Shanny get's him past his prime for 4 years and wins 2 Lombardies.

Do the math.

Elway ran because he had R66v6s offensive line and no decent offensive weapons to help him.

And that's my final word on this.

Those teams didn't get near the SB without Reeves on gameday. Reeves had his faults, but he was one of the best HC's I've ever seen on gameday. Super Bowl gameday he sure didn't get it done, though. Just kind of stood around, very unlike his usual gameday persona.

Also, dumbass that you are Steps, Shanny also besides Elway lucked into Shannon Sharpe, Zimmerman, Tom Nalen, Steve Atwater. That sure helped, eh?

Get your nose out of Shanny's ass. He didn't have near the success Reeves had, nowhere near it. Shanny built on Reeves and Wade's teams, added a little on his own, then when he had to build a team on his own he ended up with one playoff win, one AFC West title from 1999-2008.

Cito Pelon
04-20-2009, 01:49 PM
Reeves wasn't very innovative when it came to offensive schemes and rarely thought outside the box. Hell why do you think Reeves budded heads with both Elway and Shanahan back in the 80's?

Hell, Elway accumulated the vast majority of his NFL record of 563 sacks during Reeves tenure in Denver! This was due to Reeves lack of vision and interest of protecting Elway in the first place. Elway was forever running for his life b/c Reeves provided him a lousy line!!!

Shanny and Elway were trying to be more creative with the play calling, and Reeves viewed this as being subversive and disrepectfull to him.

Reeves even fired Shanny for perceived or alledged insubordination for going behind his back. Reeves took on a paranoid personna and attitude. We all witnessed how plain--boring and vanilla Reeves offense was when the Falcons went to the SB and played the Broncos.

Speaking of luck! Every coach that won a SB or multiple SBs LUCKED into drafting the right players.....its called the DRAFT! Believe or not it does take some luck to draft the talent required to win a SB or SB's.

From Bill Walsh to Chuck Noll, these coaches were able draft the right players for their system(s) but b/c the draft isn't an exact science....it takes some luck to get it right with their draft picks.

Reeves was very innovative in the passing game, but Elway couldn't pass for **** in the pocket. He couldn't lead a receiver for ****.

It's interesting that you bring up the boring Reeves vanilla O. That was the same O Shanahan ran in 1997-1998. Shanny had Shannon Sharpe and TD though. Same O philosophy, better players.

TDmvp
04-20-2009, 01:57 PM
coaches coach , players play , to quote Ditka ...

Obviously it's players ...

I could have coached the 85 bears , 98 Broncs , and those Bulls teams of the 90s ... Maybe I'm reaching a little on the Bears and Broncs cause of playcalling ... but you get what i'm saying and my dog could have coached the Bulls with M.J. ...


But Lombardi doesn't make last years Lions a 8-8 team and
Auerbach don't win titles with the Knicks of recent years .

DenverBrit
04-20-2009, 02:38 PM
coaches coach , players play , to quote Ditka ...

Obviously it's players ...

I could have coached the 85 bears , 98 Broncs , and those Bulls teams of the 90s ... Maybe I'm reaching a little on the Bears and Broncs cause of playcalling ... but you get what i'm saying and my dog could have coached the Bulls with M.J. ...


But Lombardi doesn't make last years Lions a 8-8 team and
Auerbach don't win titles with the Knicks of recent years .


The teams you mentioned had players chosen by the coach, the schemes....chosen by the coach, the playcalling.....yep, the coach.

Last years Miami is a classic example of a coach....and GM, turning a team around in a season.

As for your dog coaching the Bulls.......would have to be a Boarder Collie to pull that off. ;D

It's the coach and everything he brings to the table.

elsid13
04-20-2009, 02:45 PM
It always about the players. How many "HOF" coaches looked averaged when their star QB retired?

Popps
04-20-2009, 03:32 PM
One of the worst takes I've ever seen on this board.

R66v6s sucked eggs. I've had his discussion ad-nausium on here so there's no point in pursuing it...but in summary Elway made R66v6s, not the other way around.

Yea, you're just off-base, here.

Reeves may have had an ego and mismanaged Elway, at times... but he was a great head coach. His results speak for themselves. Multiple SB appearances and deep playoff runs with multiple teams. You think that's an accident?

I've had my complaints about him, and thought it was time for him to go (like Shanahan) .... but he still needs to be recognized as a great coach.

He and Elway stand alone as accomplished guys at their respective jobs, no matter what they did together.

Rock Chalk
04-20-2009, 03:43 PM
I believe the question was who is more important between the head coach and the QB. Some of you have turned this into a "are the players or the coaches more important" argument. It's not.

It's talking about just two people: The coach and the quarterback. There is no question the QB is the most important guy on the offense and a big part of the team. However the Head Coach runs all three units and ultimately the QB takes marching orders from the Head Coach. If a team sucks and is losing, it's not QB's fault. Sometimes teams win in spite of the QB ala the Broncos in 2006. There are instances where the QB has such an amazing game that the team wins in spite of his supporting cast. However those are the exception to the rule and more representative of an awesome player than the overall value of that position to every team in the league.

It's the Coach.

This pretty much sums up this "debate".

For any given random team, the HC is easily the most important person in the entire franchise. He is responsible for eh game plan, for the preparation, many times the very play calls themselves. He is responsible for getting all of the players in teh right positions to make the plays that need to be made. The players execute, individually. The HC executes the team.

While there are, and will always be exceptions to this rule, there are few QBs in the history of this game that have overcome bad coaching. There are however, numerous examples of HCs overcoming average or even bad QBs. In this decade alone there have been two HCs that have overcome average QBs.

the QB is one part of the team. The HC has to make the WHOLE team great. While a QB can go a long way to making a team great, you do not have to have a great QB to have a great team.

HC is so much more important than the QB that its kind of a silly question.

Bronx33
04-20-2009, 03:55 PM
The team

baja
04-20-2009, 04:14 PM
EVERYTHING rises and falls on leadership...everything.

It begins at the top...ownership. It's no accident that the same franchises win consistently and lose consistently, and it spans coaches and QB's over many years. Yes there are ups and downs, but if you look at the consistent winners and loses, it's the ownership and front office that get it done on the bottom line.

So Oakland & Dallas would be the exceptions?

footstepsfrom#27
04-20-2009, 04:23 PM
So Oakland & Dallas would be the exceptions?
The exceptions to what?

baja
04-20-2009, 04:27 PM
The exceptions to what?

this


It's no accident that the same franchises win consistently and lose consistently,

footstepsfrom#27
04-20-2009, 04:37 PM
this
Why would they be exceptions? Before Davis went senile he acted as defacto GM and made great decisions and the Raiders won. Their slide into oblivion coresponds with his own. Jones has also functions as a GM and his initial decision go hire Jimmy Johnson resulted in a dynasty. Jones problem is that he's allowed his ego to get in the way along the way and drag the team into mediocrity. Had he stuck with what he does best, hired a good GM and a strong coach they Cowboys would have won more than they have over the last decade.

BroncoMan4ever
04-20-2009, 04:40 PM
Depends.

exactly. it depends on the situation at QB and the HC. Elway was the most important part of the franchise when Reeves was here. Peyton Manning is more important than their new HC and anyone else on the team.

Bronx33
04-20-2009, 04:46 PM
Boob mojo is the key.

maher_tyler
04-20-2009, 04:48 PM
Head Coach or Quarterback.

it seems that this question really lies at the root of the division on the OM over Baby Jay's departure.

let me pose some hypotheticals? when the Ravens won, was Billick or Dilfer more important to the team? how about with the Steelers? Roethlisberger or Cowher/Tomlin? in NE, is it Brady or Bellichik? on the other hand, was it Reeves or Elway who earned those AFC championships all those years ago?

Coach...you need to be coached up to get to where you are...if guys just knew everything..there would be no need for coaches. I'd say 60/40...obviously having a guys like Elway, Brady, Manning hleps!!

baja
04-20-2009, 05:04 PM
Why would they be exceptions? Before Davis went senile he acted as defacto GM and made great decisions and the Raiders won. Their slide into oblivion coresponds with his own. Jones has also functions as a GM and his initial decision go hire Jimmy Johnson resulted in a dynasty. Jones problem is that he's allowed his ego to get in the way along the way and drag the team into mediocrity. Had he stuck with what he does best, hired a good GM and a strong coach they Cowboys would have won more than they have over the last decade.

You just disproved your own theory that the same teams consistently win. How does it feel to defeat yourself in an argument.

footstepsfrom#27
04-20-2009, 05:30 PM
You just disproved your own theory that the same teams consistently win. How does it feel to defeat yourself in an argument.
I did no such thing.

Where's Plummer???
04-20-2009, 05:31 PM
coach first but a you always need a QB who can think like a coach and change something if need be... like Maher said. 60/40

rastaman
04-20-2009, 05:34 PM
Reeves was very innovative in the passing game, but Elway couldn't pass for **** in the pocket. He couldn't lead a receiver for ****.

It's interesting that you bring up the boring Reeves vanilla O. That was the same O Shanahan ran in 1997-1998. Shanny had Shannon Sharpe and TD though. Same O philosophy, better players.

No actually, the type of O Shanny ran from 97-98, was the O he learned and refined into his own version of the West Coast Offense as the Offensive Coord for SF49ers from 91-94! Reeves did not run a West Coast Offense.

As for Elway passing in the pocket, he had at best marginal WR to pass too! Notice how none of the WR who played with Elway from 83-98 (Rod Smith may have a chance at the HOF), are not inducted into the Hall Fame!!! Also, Elway did play with a steller game breaking RB until Terrell Davis came on the scene. Look at Elway's success once Shanny brought the west coast offense to Denver, and TD took off with over 1,500yds, over 1,700 yds and over 2K yds in 3 consecutive years! The Broncos were unstoppable. What's unfortunate was that Elway only played for Shanny's west coast offense for 4years and not 10 years.

Who knows the fortunes of TD's career had Elway returned for the 1999 season! Maybe TD does not suffer a career ending injury trying to make a tackle on an intercepted pass---thrown by inexperienced Griese! or perhaps Shanny should have stuck with Brister for at least the first 8 games. But who the hell knows at this point.

Head Coaches are important, but unless they have talent in key positions on both sides of the ball.....they ain't winning!!!

The NFL is a players league and QB's need a system and surrounded by talent in order to win. Last time I check the head coaches don't take any snaps or make any plays on either side of the ball.

baja
04-20-2009, 05:39 PM
I did no such thing.

You claimed that the same teams win consistently due to the ownership

In a following post you claimed Oakland used to win than they became pathetic. (Inconsistent & same owner)

You than claimed Dallas won at first than became mediocre (Inconsistent & same owner)

rastaman
04-20-2009, 05:39 PM
coach first but a you always need a QB who can think like a coach and change something if need be... like Maher said. 60/40

You also need an offensive line that will give the QB the time think like a coach and make last minute changes/adjustment(s). You also need a running attack to keep the defensive 7 honest so they can't pen they're ears back and rush in and kill the QB.

Ummmmmmm maybe we need to add the importance of the offensive line who protects the QB and opens wholes for the RB's!

maher_tyler
04-20-2009, 05:44 PM
No actually, the type of O Shanny ran from 97-98, was the O he learned and refined into his own version of the West Coast Offense as the Offensive Coord for SF49ers from 91-94! Reeves did not run a West Coast Offense.

As for Elway passing in the pocket, he had at best marginal WR to pass too! Notice how none of the WR who played with Elway from 83-98 (Rod Smith may have a chance at the HOF), are not inducted into the Hall Fame!!! Also, Elway did play with a steller game breaking RB until Terrell Davis came on the scene. Look at Elway's success once Shanny brought the west coast offense to Denver, and TD took off with over 1,500yds, over 1,700 yds and over 2K yds in 3 consecutive years! The Broncos were unstoppable. What's unfortunate was that Elway only played for Shanny's west coast offense for 4years and not 10 years.

Who knows the fortunes of TD's career had Elway returned for the 1999 season! Maybe TD does not suffer a career ending injury trying to make a tackle on an intercepted pass---thrown by inexperienced Griese! or perhaps Shanny should have stuck with Brister for at least the first 8 games. But who the hell knows at this point.

Head Coaches are important, but unless they have talent in key positions on both sides of the ball.....they ain't winning!!!

The NFL is a players league and QB's need a system and surrounded by talent in order to win. Last time I check the head coaches don't take any snaps or make any plays on either side of the ball.

People just don't learn things off the top of their head...you even hear vets saying the are still learning new things they didn't know before...that stuff comes from coaching. How well do you think Plummer would have been without Shanny? Or even Cutler? I bet Cutler throws for at least 1k yards less this year than he did last year.

footstepsfrom#27
04-20-2009, 05:46 PM
You claimed that the same teams win consistently due to the ownership

In a following post you claimed Oakland used to win than they became pathetic. (Inconsistent & same owner)

You than claimed Dallas won at first than became mediocre (Inconsistent & same owner)
Well I assumed you were bright enough to recognize that the same individual could change over time; in this case one growing into old age and the other into a massive ego.

My bad.

Notice..."Everything rises AND FALLS on leadership."

Get it?

rastaman
04-20-2009, 05:58 PM
People just don't learn things off the top of their head...you even hear vets saying the are still learning new things they didn't know before...that stuff comes from coaching. How well do you think Plummer would have been without Shanny? Or even Cutler? I bet Cutler throws for at least 1k yards less this year than he did last year.

Last time I checked coaches and HC specifically don't run the ball, don't throw the ball, don't make tackles, don't catch the ball, and they don't score TD's!!!!

Also, the system a QB plays in and the talent they are surrounded with decides what type stats they put up!!! Lovee Smith is not known for his offensive prowess and the Cutler won't be throwing to the same talented group of WR's he had in Denver. So yes Cutler's stats won't be the same in Chicago as they were in Denver under Shanahan.

However, should Shanny find himself coaching the Bears in 2010, by 2011 Cutler will put up the same stats under Shanny's west coast offense. Hell, Cutler might be throwing to BMarsh by 2011!!! :~ohyah!:

baja
04-20-2009, 06:09 PM
Well I assumed you were bright enough to recognize that the same individual could change over time; in this case one growing into old age and the other into a massive ego.

My bad.

Notice..."Everything rises AND FALLS on leadership."

Get it?

No need to be abusive just because you embarrassed yourself.

footstepsfrom#27
04-21-2009, 12:39 AM
No need to be abusive just because you embarrassed yourself.
Abusive? No...I really did think you were bright enough to get it...seems obvious enough. Now that I think about it though...I think you're yanking my chain here. It's hardly rocket science so you must be more interested in trolling your own board than legitimate dialogue. Frankly I wouldn't admit to not understanding this if I were you...just my .02.

No problem.

baja
04-21-2009, 06:30 AM
You said there is a trend in the NFL that .... awe what the hell... never mind it's not worth the effort. I've watched you argue for 40 pages to avoid admitting you are wrong and I have no inclination to go there with you.