Tomlin Rated #6 Best NFL Coach

[Ron Burgundy]

Hey gee well whaddaya know!

This is our training camp.

 

[Drink IRON City]

This is our training camp.

Flucking - A............... We train hard at argumentive study. We can **** load it more than any other group of fans in the world. If it's RIGHT, we can make it WRONG. If it's WRONG, we can make it RIGHT. Problem with that..............???



Salute the nation

 

[SteelBuckeye]

This is our training camp.

I've been studying the playbook

 

[Wingman]

All I can say is years ago when I was in college you guys sure would have made philosophy class a lot more fun than it was. The whole damn thing was a circular argument and a terrific waste of time and money. Last time I used any of that bullshit my children were taking philosophy in college, hows that for a circle.

 

[deljzc]

A more interesting question is not whether Tomlin is #6 out of a group of 32 but rather whether can we really properly evaluate anything that only has 32 people?

What level of coaching do we really see in the NFL?

We seem to assume that these 32 are the "best of the best" and the cream rises to the top (through the ranks of high schools and colleges), but I'm not sure there's a lot of evidence to support that. The criteria of hiring seems too random to me.

I can't even accurately say that if a defensive coach coaches a team to a top-5 defense, does that make him a top-5 defensive coach? The players are completely independent in the analysis? Really?

Yet consistently, when head coaches in the NFL are hired just from the subset of assistant coaches around the league, it appears having a "unit" that is top-5 is almost a prerequisite. For example, I like Dan Quinn. He is good friends with my neighbor. I shook his hand a few times in passing and at a game he got us tickets for once.

But is he a top-32 head coach? I don't know. He holds that position now, in a snap shot in time, but that might not mean the same thing. He got hired because he was defensive coordinator of a top-5 defense consistently over the past few seasons. But was that his doing or his players? And if it's even 50% on the players, shouldn't that mean owners should expand their search to include top-15 defensive and offensive coordinators?

What I see is a very inexact science when vetting and selected head coaches in the NFL. The criteria used to come up with candidates does not appear to be based on any solid mathematical (historical) data. Owners often use other criteria beyond the field (name recognition, headline appeal, outside business plus/minuses). If anything the process seems very shotgun approach to me.

And that's just hiring outside the good-ole-boys club of ex-head coaches that seem to regurgitate over and over and over again.

And using just wins/losses to determine the definition of a good or bad coach seems short-sighted as well.

I mean a list of job qualifications a head coach has to have is probably 20+ items. Shouldn't we be rating all those criteria? Shouldn't the goal be to get the best candidate in THOSE criteria and trust that if you put a good coach and get him good talent, the wins are an automatic result?

That seems much more scientifically plausible that to hire coaches that coach good players and assume they will coach bad players to the same success.

 

[antdrewjosh]

It appears to be a big deal to you. So much so that you use illogical thinking and out right myths to discuss it. You are assuming things that you have no idea about. What does Cowher believing in a great defense have to do with drafting Andrews? Does Tomlin not believe in a great defense? Does he not believe in the running game? Oh... do you think Tomlin wins a SB without Ben? Really? Who's the QB of this great team?

The fact is that Tomlin defenders want to make Ben a Rooney pick so that it makes Tomlin look better. Period. That's all it is. So they take a piece of a story and exaggerate it to make it look like Cowher never even wanted Ben. When in reality they don't know ****. All they know is that Rooney wanted Ben and he was going to make sure he got him. But nothing in that story says anything about Cowher.. not ONE thing. Nothing but conjecture, myth and opinion based on nothing.

How you equate wanting Andrews to wanting Defense is beyond me. Wanting Andrews ties into wanting a strong running game. Yet you somehow equate to defense just so you can be right. It's ok to believe the style of players drafted on defense changed under Tomlin without a shred of evidence but it's wrong to believe the owner of the team when he says he had to step in and steer the convo back to Ben. I've never said Tomlin doesn't win a Super Bowl without Ben or with Ben. Same for Cowher. I don't believe in the his players. Who drafted who bullshit. You won period. Every year is different. Nothing is guaranteed. **** happens and a coach has to make it work to win a Super Bowl. My argument was for the people who swear the only reason Cowher didn't win was because he didn't have a franchise guy. My opinion is he didn't think he needed one. Strong Defense and a great rushing attack is how he wanted to win. So even when he had the opportunity he had to be talked into it a little. There had to be some discussion.

 

[Drink IRON City]

Here is the thing, Has tomlin ever had a losing season? NO!!! could be sixth best in NFL.

Has tomlin ever had a non winning (record) SEASON? YES!!! Might not be sixth best in NFL.


Poison or what>???? How many merigo rounds does one need to ride, before realizing they are going in circles??? six!!!!!!!


Salute the nation

 

[Wingman]

A more interesting question is not whether Tomlin is #6 out of a group of 32 but rather whether can we really properly evaluate anything that only has 32 people?

What level of coaching do we really see in the NFL?

We seem to assume that these 32 are the "best of the best" and the cream rises to the top (through the ranks of high schools and colleges), but I'm not sure there's a lot of evidence to support that. The criteria of hiring seems too random to me.

I can't even accurately say that if a defensive coach coaches a team to a top-5 defense, does that make him a top-5 defensive coach? The players are completely independent in the analysis? Really?

Yet consistently, when head coaches in the NFL are hired just from the subset of assistant coaches around the league, it appears having a "unit" that is top-5 is almost a prerequisite. For example, I like Dan Quinn. He is good friends with my neighbor. I shook his hand a few times in passing and at a game he got us tickets for once.

But is he a top-32 head coach? I don't know. He holds that position now, in a snap shot in time, but that might not mean the same thing. He got hired because he was defensive coordinator of a top-5 defense consistently over the past few seasons. But was that his doing or his players? And if it's even 50% on the players, shouldn't that mean owners should expand their search to include top-15 defensive and offensive coordinators?

What I see is a very inexact science when vetting and selected head coaches in the NFL. The criteria used to come up with candidates does not appear to be based on any solid mathematical (historical) data. Owners often use other criteria beyond the field (name recognition, headline appeal, outside business plus/minuses). If anything the process seems very shotgun approach to me.

And that's just hiring outside the good-ole-boys club of ex-head coaches that seem to regurgitate over and over and over again.

And using just wins/losses to determine the definition of a good or bad coach seems short-sighted as well.

I mean a list of job qualifications a head coach has to have is probably 20+ items. Shouldn't we be rating all those criteria? Shouldn't the goal be to get the best candidate in THOSE criteria and trust that if you put a good coach and get him good talent, the wins are an automatic result?

That seems much more scientifically plausible that to hire coaches that coach good players and assume they will coach bad players to the same success.

I think it is possible to evaluate a sample size of 32. Also most of the other coaches that get head coaching jobs come from another location (team) or the ranks of the coordinators. So lets say total of three guys per team you have a pool of 96 guys that would likely cover all aspects of 99% of the head coaching jobs, still a small sample but not too much to look at.

Nice post del.

I will throw one wild card into the bunch. Those guys are the best that are coaching in the NFL. There might also be others who are not in coaching at all that could be better. Think of some folks that have chosen other fields but are very smart and very dedicated to their craft. Had they applied that same level of dedication and intelligence to sports we might have a much better group here.