Has coaching become more important in pro football?

[Airhog]

I tend to think it has. With all of the parity in today's league, owners cannot buy championship teams. Therefore the coach is much more important. Sure even back then, you needed a good coach to win football games, but in todays game, the coach can turn a team like the bengals into a playoff team.

[rkmsuf]

The Bengals are playing this weekend?

[wishbone]

I don't know...As a Niners fan I can say that their record suffered after replacing the coach. But I can also say that most of their losses were directly attributable to poor player execution. How much a coach can impact that is tough to tell.

[NYFAN]

I think coaching has clearly become more important in every sport. Now more than ever coachs need to prepare their teams better than they ever have before (in every aspect from scouting, game planning, etc...). Coachs also need to be a lot better at managing egos, dealing with front office, and motivating players (it's not like it used to be where players played sheerly for the love of playing).

[clintl]

A good GM is more important than a good coach. If they're the same guy, and can excel at both jobs, that's probably the best situation you can have.

[NYFAN]

I think the best argument you could have for that clintl is that the GM picks the coach... but I don't know how much other than that I agree with the statement. In football I think you may have your best point, but in other sports I would easily be able to argue.

[clintl]

A GM makes the personnel decisions, and therefore, has most of the control over team talent. That's why a GM is more important than a coach. Even the best coach can't win unless he is given players with enough talent to succeed.

[yabanci]

"Let's be honest," said one NFC owner not looking for a new head coach. "This league is now a coach's league, no matter what the players think. It's imperative you get the right guy. You better get someone in concert with what you want, the right fit, or you're going to be one of those three-and-out teams that is hiring someone new every three years. The right fit is more critical than ever."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1697489

[IMetTrentGreen]

hell yes it is

[QuikSand]

I remain surprised that coaches and key staff don't make higher salaries than they do.

These football enterprised lay out hundred of millions in costs each year to pay the players, operate the mammothe stadiums, manage their extensive staffs... and so forth. They are essentially prohibited by league rules (sal cap) from outspending other teams on player contracts -- so there's no real way to gain an advantage there. But there's no limit to what you spend on your coach and staff, other than what you are willing to pay.

With his track record, how much should someone be willing to pay Bill Parcells to coach? As much as one decent offensive lineman? As much as a starting-caliber safety? As much as a good receiver? I don't know - but then keep in mind that when you sign that player - it limits other things you could have done with that money. When you sign the coach, it doesn't. As long as you have the cash, you can have the coach and the player both.

I guess there aren't many "sure things" in the coaching world, but if a coach has the proven ability to win - why shouldn't he be getting paid an awful lot of money? Winning teams are much more profitable than losing ones, and they appreciate in value more. This doesn't seem that tough.

[Taur]

Well I love all the Coach love, but it is still a players first universe.

Just ask Dan Reeves who runs the asylum.

[akw4572]

I think the biggest factor a coach can bring nowadays is motivation. Especially veteran teams.........paging Bill Callahan.

[Francis_Cole]

definatly...

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by clintl
A GM makes the personnel decisions, and therefore, has most of the control over team talent. That's why a GM is more important than a coach. Even the best coach can't win unless he is given players with enough talent to succeed.

I want to really agree with this so I can continue to push for more of a GM-centric NFL sim.

[sabotai]

QS, wi things come to mind.

1) It's hard for a coach to have a proven ability to win. The life of an NFL head coach is pretty short, and they all have bad seasons. It's hard to determine if their good seasons were because they are good coaches or if they "just happened". Off the top of my head, there's only two coaches that I can think of (that are active) that have a cemented "proven ability to win". That would Bill Parcells and Dick Vermeil. Several are getting there.

2) The most important reason, I think, that coaches don't get the big bucks is because they don't fill seats. Players do. Atlanta had a higher average home attendance last year (with Micheal Vick) than the year they went to the Super Bowl. Players get paid the big bucks because they bring in the big bucks.

[clintl]

The top coaches are making around $5M a year. Granted, that's not as much as the top players, but it's quite a bit more than the average player, so I'm not sure that I even agree that top coaches aren't making big bucks.

[The_herd]

Originally posted by clintl
The top coaches are making around $5M a year. Granted, that's not as much as the top players, but it's quite a bit more than the average player, so I'm not sure that I even agree that top coaches aren't making big bucks.


An interesting article on how much money coaches made per win this season.

http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/6969039

Although it not fair to break coaching down this way, I think it clearly shows coaches aren't making much money compared to players, while at the same time showing that some coaches are vastly overpaid when comparing salary to production. Only 4 coaches are making over $4 million, and 2 of those only won 5 games this season. Cashing in as a coach isn't about wins and losses, its about name power.