This statement that keeps being expounded upon "Tomlin won with Cowher's players" is more of a crutch to opine a limited understanding of what coaching actually entails. Regardless of what players are available, the coaches job is to prepare these players so as to execute the game plan. That game plan is created based on players attributes and the best scheme they fit in to win individual match ups. Whether it's offense or defense. It's a matter of putting players in the best position to win.
A coach will get rid of a player who doesn't buy into or contribute to the scheme that is being used with their role. Noll did it (obviously), Shula did it on two teams, Lombardi, from which all coaches are measured against, definitely ran his ship with the Pack and later with Washington. We know about Cowher with Richardson and Stephens, and Tomlin has as well to an extent. Regardless of the times, it's still a function of the coach to formulate the team into a personality. The way the league is dictates that personality. Both Noll and Shula ran ball control offenses and tremendous defenses. UNTIL the rules changed and opened up offenses ability to scor. Beginning in 78, and caused a 180 degree of personality. Chuck won during both defensive and offensive personas, because he was a brilliant game planner. Shula did the same thing, albeit without a championship. But when Marino came aboard that prior defensive personality changed. During the Renaissance of the late 80's and 90's with free agency, teams could now pick a scheme to concentrate on. And because of free agency, their was no luxury to having both fantastic personnel on either side of the ball. Some went offense (SF, Dallas, Wash, Miami, Hou, Buffalo, etc.,) and some went defense (Pitt, Chicago, Philly ATL, NYG/NYJ). With the exception of Jimmy Johnson, most coaches starting their term (Walsh, Parcells, Ditka, Shottenhiemer, then Cowher, Fisher, Wyche, Parcells again) integrating some players from previous regimes.
Someone threw pics of George Siefert and Switzer as an analogy. Did Siefert win with Walsh's players? Yes, but Siefert coached them and won championships. Switzer is a poor example, because while he had Johnson's players, Jerry ran the operation as a puppeteer (as he does now) and Switzer was a figurehead. All of his coaching decisions went through Jerry's phone.
You can argue eras, rule changes, etc. even the advent of free agency in 1992 till you're blue in the face.
The fact remains that in this era if you take your claim and apply it hypothetically to one Mike Tomlin, and one Hue Jackson anyone who is honest with themselves will know the outcome.
So according to you all Tomlin has to do if he were to hypothetically become the coach of the Cleveland Browns next year is: prepare his players, teach them schemes, and put them in the best position to win.
Now how many of us here believe that in 2 or 3 years Tomlin would hoist the Lombardi alongside his Brown players and take part in a victory parade through Cleveland?
Let me tell you how many here believe that "SteelerS Nation Ike" ( SteelerS Nation is the name the steelers have adopted to knock this site down a few pegs. And they have, look at the google page rank between steelersnationunite.com vs. this site)
NO ONE HERE BELIEVES THAT! And that would be because Tomlin's early success here was because of COWHER'S PLAYERS.
It's not a "crutch" as you claim, it's a fact that either ( i'm guessing)because you are a current or former player, or you are a member of the Pittsburgh media who believes every crumb camp Rooney tosses your way you won't accept.
I say this because I notice you almost always post in defense of the organization, and because of your SteelerS Nation avatar.