How much credit/blame do Head Coaches really deserve?

[DocCat2]

Honest question. I've never played football (other than pickup playground games/flag football). I have often felt that Head Coaches have always been unfairly blamed for lack of success. I see teams with no talent pile up losing records and the coach then gets fired. It wasn't his fault the team didn't have any talent. I live outside Washington D.C. They fired their coach (and he might suck for all I know and deserve to be shown the door) but is it fair to blame him? I don't see any talent on either side of the ball... Unless he did the drafting, how is it his fault the team stinks? (I hate the Commanders so I'm not necessarily upset).

On the flip side of the coin, Northwestern didn't seem to have much talent in the cupboard coming of a 1-11 season and the hazing scandals. Yet Braun did lead this team to a bunch of wins, Bowl birth, and Bowl victory. Did the team have more talent than I was assuming they had? Or can a truly brilliant football coach have that type of an impact with middling talent??

I guess I'd be inconsistent if I said "it's not fair to blame the head coach when the team stinks" AND "Braun is the best coach ever for leading a talentless squad to victory" in the same breath.

From people who have played football in High School or College, thoughts on this???

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Honest question. I've never played football (other than pickup playground games/flag football). I have often felt that Head Coaches have always been unfairly blamed for lack of success. I see teams with no talent pile up losing records and the coach then gets fired. It wasn't his fault the team didn't have any talent. I live outside Washington D.C. They fired their coach (and he might suck for all I know and deserve to be shown the door) but is it fair to blame him? I don't see any talent on either side of the ball... Unless he did the drafting, how is it his fault the team stinks? (I hate the Commanders so I'm not necessarily upset).

On the flip side of the coin, Northwestern didn't seem to have much talent in the cupboard coming of a 1-11 season and the hazing scandals. Yet Braun did lead this team to a bunch of wins, Bowl birth, and Bowl victory. Did the team have more talent than I was assuming they had? Or can a truly brilliant football coach have that type of an impact with middling talent??

I guess I'd be inconsistent if I said "it's not fair to blame the head coach when the team stinks" AND "Braun is the best coach ever for leading a talentless squad to victory" in the same breath.

From people who have played football in High School or College, thoughts on this???

Less credit and less blame than they usually get.

 

[WildcatWillie]

My playing experience: 1 yr H.S. sub-varsity. (At that level and in the leather-helmet era we were lucky to have 1 1/2 coaches!)

At high levels now, it's been said that in football especially, "The head coach coaches the coaches and those coaches coach the players." By that reckoning the credit/blame game regarding player performance -- and especially won-lost records -- is mostly misdirected. It's a team game and surely gocatsgo is right: too much credit and blame alike go to the head coach only. In instances such as the Commanders firing, surely the head coach is mostly a scapegoat.

Whoever is the head of CFP champ or Super Bowl winner in any year will be regarded as a mastermind, however. Silly. (I happen to feel the same about individual leaders in government, military, business, etc. McArthur did not "win the war" in the Pacific, for instance, as I have read.)

 

[zeek55]

Didn't play football, but I think it's mostly just as long as the HC/OC/DC isn't so terrible that they're far below the average replacement (or conversely so far above average), their impact isn't overly dramatic.

The most important part of the job is talent identification/development; as long as they're at least servicable at the rest, you're okay.

We've been seeing these huge swings the past couple of years because we went from a GOAT candidate DC to a worst in FBS DC to a capable DC (whose ceiling we don't quite know) and our OC struggled to develop QBs (in part due to recruiting issues and it's not entirely in his hands).

But football is ultimately about Jimmies and Joes; a lot easier for Bajakian to get enough points to win football games when the defense is holding opposing teams to low scores and when he has a QB like Ramsey or Bryant to manage the game.

I always felt like our fans blamed McCall too much for the offensive woes; I always felt that he was a solid OC at maximizing what our roster could accomplish and he was good at QB talent identification/development.

 

[NUCat320]

A head coach is a culture builder. A head coach sets the tone by fostering camaraderie and preaching and living the team’s attitudes and values. A coach builds a culture where the WE matters more than the me.

It’s like everywhere — If you like who you work for, and you believe in the mission, and have teammates who believe in that vision, and you’re free to push the limits and make mistakes, you’ll be in a good position to succeed.


Coincidentally, I read this earlier today. It’s about how Josh McDaniels sucks, as a follow-to his midseason firing from the Raiders this season. It’s from a former NFL player, Nate Jackson, who is a really, really good writer. You should be able to get access with an email address.

The Problem Was Always Josh McDaniels | Defector

Josh McDaniels is a bad football coach. This is an objectively defensible statement. The proof is now in the tapioca, and the tapioca currently is splattered all over the turf at Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas. McDaniels is out, after less than two seasons as the Raiders’ head coach. They went...

defector.com

Can Josh design a good play? Sure. Can he make his players care about running that play? He cannot. There is a reason the Raiders have blown more double-digit leads than anyone else in the NFL over the last two years. When the game drags on, the team whose players care more about each other and, yes, their coach, will dig the deepest and find a way to win. I respected Mike Shanahan too much to leave a single drop of unspent juice in my tank. I would die to execute his vision. Josh elicited no such feelings.

 

[Hungry Jack]

I was an ice hockey goalie, and my son plays keeper in soccer. Both positions require specialized knowledge and instruction that an HC can rarely provide.

 

[Sheffielder]

A head coach is a culture builder. A head coach sets the tone by fostering camaraderie and preaching and living the team’s attitudes and values. A coach builds a culture where the WE matters more than the me.

It's funny...when reading the OP's original question my immediate answer (in the form of a question) is, "do you believe culture is a real and important thing?"

Look at Nick Saban...in general I tend to believe it is wholly unnatural for a college football team to have sustained success beyond 2-3 year spurts. You have 100% player turnover every five years. Even the best programs with unlimited resources are going to recruit a bad QB or offensive line here or there, or a bad coordinator. I think we're seeing guys like Ryan Day and Dabo experience this - they are still truly gold standards of their profession. Likewise, Harbaugh was certainly down before he was up at Michigan right now.

And yet, someone like Nick Saban exists...a bad MFer who was able to get everyone from players and coaches to buy into what he was selling. He burned through offensive coordinators like water and kept reloading without fail. Players leave for the NFL? No problem.

Granted...guys like Saban and Urban are purple unicorns...and even Saban is realizing the existence of NIL is leveling the playing field in ways that will yield parity to his detriment.

So to me, yes, I think head coaches do get the appropriate level of credit and blame...but I also think expectations have become fundamentally irrational. What I would really love (not that this will ever happen), is to see contracts be fully binding and unbreakable. If a school wants to give a coach a 10 year contract, then barring death or dismemberment, both the school and the coach/signee have to honor it. If that sounds like too much of a commitment, then maybe consider a two-year contract instead.

 

[EvanstonCat]

It’s not just the Jimmy and the Joe’s. Coaching matters a lot. Just look at JONs defense vs. Hank and what we had this past year. The DL play especially this year under Smith. Night and day.

 

[csh2088]

You need to have talent on your team to be good or no amount of strategy is going to do you any good. Where a head coach comes in to play is in the close games and games against teams with equal talent.

 

[phatcat]

1. Sometimes, you can believe your eyes. A) if a team's fortunes change, better or worse, the coach has some responsibility. Likewise is their fortunes DON'T change over a period of time (stay good/stay suck) look to the coach.

2. A coach's responsibility goes far beyond game day. They are responsible for recruiting/drafting as well as player development. Likewise for choosing and retaining their staff. It the players/assistants succeed/suck, the HC has some responsibility. Same as any other business management

 

[hdhntr1]

Honest question. I've never played football (other than pickup playground games/flag football). I have often felt that Head Coaches have always been unfairly blamed for lack of success. I see teams with no talent pile up losing records and the coach then gets fired. It wasn't his fault the team didn't have any talent. I live outside Washington D.C. They fired their coach (and he might suck for all I know and deserve to be shown the door) but is it fair to blame him? I don't see any talent on either side of the ball... Unless he did the drafting, how is it his fault the team stinks? (I hate the Commanders so I'm not necessarily upset).

On the flip side of the coin, Northwestern didn't seem to have much talent in the cupboard coming of a 1-11 season and the hazing scandals. Yet Braun did lead this team to a bunch of wins, Bowl birth, and Bowl victory. Did the team have more talent than I was assuming they had? Or can a truly brilliant football coach have that type of an impact with middling talent??

I guess I'd be inconsistent if I said "it's not fair to blame the head coach when the team stinks" AND "Braun is the best coach ever for leading a talentless squad to victory" in the same breath.

From people who have played football in High School or College, thoughts on this???

It depends. Are you talking college or the pros? HCs and coaching staffs are responsible for getting the talent there in college but not really in the pros. For a new coach in college, the talent already is there or it isn't But after a couple years the new coaching staff is responsible for the talent there.

With Braun, the talent was here from years of recruiting and from the recent guys that Fitz had brought in, There was an exodus so part of Braun's job was to manage and deal with that and he managed to keep them together and motivated. But going forward it will be more difficult because of an additional exodus and refilling the pipeline with less recruited guys

 

[CatManTrue]

Less credit and less blame than they usually get.

Disagree. Where does the buck stop?

Look at Dan Campbell who will be lionized for Detroit’s turnaround - and deservedly so. Until it inevitably comes back to earth.

And then look at Belichick being canned by the Patriots despite the greatest run in football history. Also deserved. But he’ll be back on top of the coaching world if he turns another loser into a winner.

A bigger - and similar - question is if true CEOs deserve all that credit and blame. Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and the rest are eagerly awaiting the WildcatReport’s feedback.

 

[IGNORE2]

Honest question. I've never played football (other than pickup playground games/flag football). I have often felt that Head Coaches have always been unfairly blamed for lack of success. I see teams with no talent pile up losing records and the coach then gets fired. It wasn't his fault the team didn't have any talent. I live outside Washington D.C. They fired their coach (and he might suck for all I know and deserve to be shown the door) but is it fair to blame him? I don't see any talent on either side of the ball... Unless he did the drafting, how is it his fault the team stinks? (I hate the Commanders so I'm not necessarily upset).

On the flip side of the coin, Northwestern didn't seem to have much talent in the cupboard coming of a 1-11 season and the hazing scandals. Yet Braun did lead this team to a bunch of wins, Bowl birth, and Bowl victory. Did the team have more talent than I was assuming they had? Or can a truly brilliant football coach have that type of an impact with middling talent??

I guess I'd be inconsistent if I said "it's not fair to blame the head coach when the team stinks" AND "Braun is the best coach ever for leading a talentless squad to victory" in the same breath.

From people who have played football in High School or College, thoughts on this???

Depends - did NU win or lose the game?

 

[Katatonic]

A lot.

Hiring the right coordinators is up there, if not #1.

Look at the Eagles and Sirianni after he lost 2 talented coordinators and hired 2 retreads as their replacements (saw the same thing with Allen and IU).

Harbaugh didn't start beating dOSU until he replaced his longtime DC, Brown, with 2 talented rising defensive coaches who worked for his brother.

Andy has won in both Philly and KC due to his offensive brilliance and with Spags likely not going to get another HC offer, Reid no longer has to worry about the D (changing coordinators).

Sure, if a coach doesn't have the talent, there's only so much he can do by hiring the right staff, but he can make the most out of the talent he does have (just as Ryans did with the Texans).