Rank the Roster 2023: #28

[Scott4Pack]

this roster has more depth then it's had in a decade, last season proved that rookies can start and play well.

The defense has definitely enough talent to perform at a high level, unfortunately I'm not convinced Barry is good enough to have them play up to potential.

There are a lot of question marks on offense though, starting with Love and the extremely young receiving corps. I read somewhere that the team's targets at wide receiver and tight ends are the second youngest unit in the NFL over the last 30 years, with only the 2017 Browns having had an even younger receiving corps. That didn't end well for them.

In addition I'm curious on how the offensive line will perform without having the benefit of a HOF quarterback possible making up for shortcoming on it.

IMO, head coaches and DC's are over-rated. We need look no farther than the Patriots. Now that they have mediocre players they have a mediocre record. Belichick has not changed, the players changed. If Belichick regains his mojo it will because of player acquisition, not coaching. Similarly, if GB brings the Lombardi trophy home in February of 2025, it will not be because of MLF or Barry, it will be because of Love, Watson, Musgrave, Tom, and the defensive players - primarily whether Gary makes a full recovery and whether LVN is the next Gary without having to wait a year as Gary did. And the credit for these players is with Gute.

The only doubts I have about the GB receivers are if Watson and Doubs stay healthy. They need a third option, but someone, Reed, Musgrave or Kraft will be that third option - this season's Christian Watson. They might even have a credible 4th option from those 3.

I don't understand how an aging QB losing his ability to run makes up for shortcomings in the Oline. Luke Butkus being a 1st year coach last season had a lot more to do with last season's sub par Oline performance than any QB. Jenkins being fully recovered and Myers and Runyan having good years is orders of magnitude more important than any QB.

I simply don’t have words to show enough disagreement with your point about coaches.

[TheSkeptic]

The defense has definitely enough talent to perform at a high level, unfortunately I'm not convinced Barry is good enough to have them play up to potential.

There are a lot of question marks on offense though, starting with Love and the extremely young receiving corps. I read somewhere that the team's targets at wide receiver and tight ends are the second youngest unit in the NFL over the last 30 years, with only the 2017 Browns having had an even younger receiving corps. That didn't end well for them.

In addition I'm curious on how the offensive line will perform without having the benefit of a HOF quarterback possible making up for shortcoming on it.

IMO, head coaches and DC's are over-rated. We need look no farther than the Patriots. Now that they have mediocre players they have a mediocre record. Belichick has not changed, the players changed. If Belichick regains his mojo it will because of player acquisition, not coaching. Similarly, if GB brings the Lombardi trophy home in February of 2025, it will not be because of MLF or Barry, it will be because of Love, Watson, Musgrave, Tom, and the defensive players - primarily whether Gary makes a full recovery and whether LVN is the next Gary without having to wait a year as Gary did. And the credit for these players is with Gute.

The only doubts I have about the GB receivers are if Watson and Doubs stay healthy. They need a third option, but someone, Reed, Musgrave or Kraft will be that third option - this season's Christian Watson. They might even have a credible 4th option from those 3.

I don't understand how an aging QB losing his ability to run makes up for shortcomings in the Oline. Luke Butkus being a 1st year coach last season had a lot more to do with last season's sub par Oline performance than any QB. Jenkins being fully recovered and Myers and Runyan having good years is orders of magnitude more important than any QB.

I simply don’t have words to show enough disagreement with your point about coaches.

We in Green Bay (at least some of us) remember Vince Lombardi and Fritz Schumer. They made a difference. And so a lot of people assume that coaches are important to a team's success. It can be true, it was true - then. But these were the exceptions, once in a century exceptions. Lately we have had a whole series of defensive coordinators with basically the same result, a D in the 5-15 range relative to the rest of the league. It does not seem to matter. When there are good players, the D is good, when there are not so good players the team does not over-achieve - with the exception of Fritz.

And who determines whether the players are good? Mainly the GM.

[CWIMM]

IMO, head coaches and DC's are over-rated. We need look no farther than the Patriots. Now that they have mediocre players they have a mediocre record. Belichick has not changed, the players changed. If Belichick regains his mojo it will because of player acquisition, not coaching. Similarly, if GB brings the Lombardi trophy home in February of 2025, it will not be because of MLF or Barry, it will be because of Love, Watson, Musgrave, Tom, and the defensive players - primarily whether Gary makes a full recovery and whether LVN is the next Gary without having to wait a year as Gary did. And the credit for these players is with Gute.

I agree that even great head coaches or coordinators can't overcome a lack of talent on the roster to have them compete for a Super Bowl. But they can definitely make them perform at a higher level than mediocre or worse coaches.

Taking a look at the Packers' defense with currently eight former first rounders on the roster either coaching or scouting should be to blame if they don't perform up to expectations.

The only doubts I have about the GB receivers are if Watson and Doubs stay healthy. They need a third option, but someone, Reed, Musgrave or Kraft will be that third option - this season's Christian Watson. They might even have a credible 4th option from those 3.

At this point, I'm not convinced Watson and Doubs will end up being decent #1 and #2 receivers in this league. Especially with a quarterback starting his first season.

I don't understand how an aging QB losing his ability to run makes up for shortcomings in the Oline. Luke Butkus being a 1st year coach last season had a lot more to do with last season's sub par Oline performance than any QB.

Rodgers was a master reading opposing defenses and setting up protection based on it. In addition he was awesome at moving away from pressure in the pocket as well. I don't believe Love will be able to do that at a similar level this season. That will put additional pressure on the offensive line.

I'm a bit confused about your comment on Butkus. You mentioned that head coaches and coordinators are overrated but on the other side blame the OL coach for the unit's struggles. That doesn't seem to be consistent.

I think people naturally equate youth with learning curve, and that, with expected mistakes and broken plays, and that is often the case, thing is Love isn't a rookie QB, and he has 3 receivers that showed last season they are up to the challenge, and at least 2 in this draft that look just as ready this season to contribute.

Love is a first year starter though, therefore I expect growing pains along the way. Especially considering the receiving corps is lacking experience as well.

and Love passed the eye test in I admit a small back up roll last season, several occasions under a extreme pass rush forced him to maneuver to avoid the sack and throw the ball, imo Love is a lot further along then most rookie starting QB's, I think he'll do fine

The Eagles hardly tried to pressure Love but played prevent defense for the most part in that game. He will have a tougher time being successful with teams game planning for him this year.

[APB]

Rodgers was a master reading opposing defenses and setting up protection based on it. In addition he was awesome at moving away from pressure in the pocket as well. I don't believe Love will be able to do that at a similar level this season. That will put additional pressure on the offensive line.

True, but I also think Love's ability (and willingness) to run away from pressure will add a different dynamic than what we've seen from Rodgers of late. That will force defenses to be accountable and, perhaps, offset some of that pressure on the OLine.

The Eagles hardly tried to pressure Love but played prevent defense for the most part in that game. He will have a tougher time being successful with teams game planning for him this year.

Multiple Eagles players have gone public in saying this simply wasn't true. Yes, they were playing with a lead but they insist they hadn't gone "prevent" or "soft" on Love. Love simply beat their rush and coverages with good, timely reads and targeted throws. Darius Slay has been particularly complimentary of Love and his performance:

"As a defense, when A-Rod goes out, we feel great,” Slay said on Monday. “That’s one of the greatest quarterbacks ever, so if he goes out, we got to go out here and really get active. The D-line gets a little hungrier because they know with a young buck coming in, they can get after the quarterback since A-Rod makes a lot of checks and communication at the line of scrimmage, that’s hard to sack. So, young buck (Love) comes in and actually does a very, very solid job. Green Bay got a bright, bright future, like a bright one because buddy was slinging it.

“I ain’t going to lie, he low-key looked like A-Rod, like he’s been learning a lot,” Slay continued. “It should be a blessing for him to be behind a GOAT and learning like that at a high level, and he’s a talented kid as well. He’s a first-round draft pick, so he has a lot of talent. He just has to wait his time, just how A-Rod waited his time for Brett Favre. His time is going to come, and you can see the gun-slinging mentality he had just like him (Rodgers). With the quick release and the flick, picking the back leg up, he’s copy and pasting him (Rodgers) for sure, and that’s a great player to be copy and pasting from.”

https://theeagleswire.usatoday.com/2022 ... onfidence/

[TheSkeptic]

IMO, head coaches and DC's are over-rated. We need look no farther than the Patriots. Now that they have mediocre players they have a mediocre record. Belichick has not changed, the players changed. If Belichick regains his mojo it will because of player acquisition, not coaching. Similarly, if GB brings the Lombardi trophy home in February of 2025, it will not be because of MLF or Barry, it will be because of Love, Watson, Musgrave, Tom, and the defensive players - primarily whether Gary makes a full recovery and whether LVN is the next Gary without having to wait a year as Gary did. And the credit for these players is with Gute.

I agree that even great head coaches or coordinators can't overcome a lack of talent on the roster to have them compete for a Super Bowl. But they can definitely make them perform at a higher level than mediocre or worse coaches.

Taking a look at the Packers' defense with currently eight former first rounders on the roster either coaching or scouting should be to blame if they don't perform up to expectations.

The only doubts I have about the GB receivers are if Watson and Doubs stay healthy. They need a third option, but someone, Reed, Musgrave or Kraft will be that third option - this season's Christian Watson. They might even have a credible 4th option from those 3.

At this point, I'm not convinced Watson and Doubs will end up being decent #1 and #2 receivers in this league. Especially with a quarterback starting his first season.

I don't understand how an aging QB losing his ability to run makes up for shortcomings in the Oline. Luke Butkus being a 1st year coach last season had a lot more to do with last season's sub par Oline performance than any QB.

Rodgers was a master reading opposing defenses and setting up protection based on it. In addition he was awesome at moving away from pressure in the pocket as well. I don't believe Love will be able to do that at a similar level this season. That will put additional pressure on the offensive line.

I'm a bit confused about your comment on Butkus. You mentioned that head coaches and coordinators are overrated but on the other side blame the OL coach for the unit's struggles. That doesn't seem to be consistent.

I think people naturally equate youth with learning curve, and that, with expected mistakes and broken plays, and that is often the case, thing is Love isn't a rookie QB, and he has 3 receivers that showed last season they are up to the challenge, and at least 2 in this draft that look just as ready this season to contribute.

Love is a first year starter though, therefore I expect growing pains along the way. Especially considering the receiving corps is lacking experience as well.

and Love passed the eye test in I admit a small back up roll last season, several occasions under a extreme pass rush forced him to maneuver to avoid the sack and throw the ball, imo Love is a lot further along then most rookie starting QB's, I think he'll do fine

The Eagles hardly tried to pressure Love but played prevent defense for the most part in that game. He will have a tougher time being successful with teams game planning for him this year.

Butkus is a position coach. I was talking about head coaches and DC's. A position coach can have a very definite impact on how the players perform. It is his job to teach technique. I will admit though that the HC and DC generally choose the position coaches and to the extent that they make good or bad choices greatly affects the team - within a few years. But HC's and OC's and DC's are focused on schemes and play calling and this is what I think is over-rated. As for choosing position coaches, this should not be rocket science. Do the players under his tutelage see big improvements in their 2nd and 3rd year or do they stagnate? In the case of an Oline, do they work together as a unit or focus on pancaking their man while a LB blows past them without being noticed? NFL position coaches generally have a 5-10 year history and there should be plenty of film on their players to see improvement or stagnation. And a fyi, it is not players like Bakh or Jenkins that determine whether the GB Oline coach is any good, it is the Newman's and the Nijman's and JRJ's and Tom whose year to year improvement or stagnation that identifies whether they are well coached.

Now lets apply this to a different position coach. The DB coach. Did Stokes and Jean-Charles make the kind of improvement that we expected? Forget Alexander and Rasul, it was obvious on their first game that there was something special.

On the other hand, Gary was really raw as a rookie. But he got better every year to the point where he was as good as anyone in the league. And Enagbare major league outperformed as a rookie relative to where he was drafted. It should not be rocket science for a DC to know that the OLB's have had good coaching.

[Pckfn23]

The Eagles hardly tried to pressure Love but played prevent defense for the most part in that game. He will have a tougher time being successful with teams game planning for him this year.

Just want to highlight this quick. After a handful of film analysis sessions we know the Eagles were not playing prevent and were trying to take away what the Packers were doing. It is correct, they were not pressuring him hard, but they definitely were not playing prevent.

[Yoop]

IMO, head coaches and DC's are over-rated. We need look no farther than the Patriots. Now that they have mediocre players they have a mediocre record. Belichick has not changed, the players changed. If Belichick regains his mojo it will because of player acquisition, not coaching. Similarly, if GB brings the Lombardi trophy home in February of 2025, it will not be because of MLF or Barry, it will be because of Love, Watson, Musgrave, Tom, and the defensive players - primarily whether Gary makes a full recovery and whether LVN is the next Gary without having to wait a year as Gary did. And the credit for these players is with Gute.

I agree that even great head coaches or coordinators can't overcome a lack of talent on the roster to have them compete for a Super Bowl. But they can definitely make them perform at a higher level than mediocre or worse coaches.

Taking a look at the Packers' defense with currently eight former first rounders on the roster either coaching or scouting should be to blame if they don't perform up to expectations.

The only doubts I have about the GB receivers are if Watson and Doubs stay healthy. They need a third option, but someone, Reed, Musgrave or Kraft will be that third option - this season's Christian Watson. They might even have a credible 4th option from those 3.

At this point, I'm not convinced Watson and Doubs will end up being decent #1 and #2 receivers in this league. Especially with a quarterback starting his first season.

I don't understand how an aging QB losing his ability to run makes up for shortcomings in the Oline. Luke Butkus being a 1st year coach last season had a lot more to do with last season's sub par Oline performance than any QB.

Rodgers was a master reading opposing defenses and setting up protection based on it. In addition he was awesome at moving away from pressure in the pocket as well. I don't believe Love will be able to do that at a similar level this season. That will put additional pressure on the offensive line.

I'm a bit confused about your comment on Butkus. You mentioned that head coaches and coordinators are overrated but on the other side blame the OL coach for the unit's struggles. That doesn't seem to be consistent.

I think people naturally equate youth with learning curve, and that, with expected mistakes and broken plays, and that is often the case, thing is Love isn't a rookie QB, and he has 3 receivers that showed last season they are up to the challenge, and at least 2 in this draft that look just as ready this season to contribute.

Love is a first year starter though, therefore I expect growing pains along the way. Especially considering the receiving corps is lacking experience as well.

and Love passed the eye test in I admit a small back up roll last season, several occasions under a extreme pass rush forced him to maneuver to avoid the sack and throw the ball, imo Love is a lot further along then most rookie starting QB's, I think he'll do fine

The Eagles hardly tried to pressure Love but played prevent defense for the most part in that game. He will have a tougher time being successful with teams game planning for him this year.

Butkus is a position coach. I was talking about head coaches and DC's. A position coach can have a very definite impact on how the players perform. It is his job to teach technique. I will admit though that the HC and DC generally choose the position coaches and to the extent that they make good or bad choices greatly affects the team - within a few years. But HC's and OC's and DC's are focused on schemes and play calling and this is what I think is over-rated. As for choosing position coaches, this should not be rocket science. Do the players under his tutelage see big improvements in their 2nd and 3rd year or do they stagnate? In the case of an Oline, do they work together as a unit or focus on pancaking their man while a LB blows past them without being noticed? NFL position coaches generally have a 5-10 year history and there should be plenty of film on their players to see improvement or stagnation. And a fyi, it is not players like Bakh or Jenkins that determine whether the GB Oline coach is any good, it is the Newman's and the Nijman's and JRJ's and Tom whose year to year improvement or stagnation that identifies whether they are well coached.

Now lets apply this to a different position coach. The DB coach. Did Stokes and Jean-Charles make the kind of improvement that we expected? Forget Alexander and Rasul, it was obvious on their first game that there was something special.

On the other hand, Gary was really raw as a rookie. But he got better every year to the point where he was as good as anyone in the league. And Enagbare major league outperformed as a rookie relative to where he was drafted. It should not be rocket science for a DC to know that the OLB's have had good coaching.

your supposing that all players start at the same level, which is rarely the case, and Gary was no more RAW then other players at his position, Gary was held back because Gute just spent 120 mil. on 2 edge rushers, we see lower floor edge rushers start and contribute every season at the pro level, I wish people would quit spouting defenses for Gary

only 1.6 % of college eligible football players make a NFL roster, when ya look into this further it shows just how much better NFL coaching is then coaches players have in college and how much higher the floor is in the NFL then college football, imho coaching is the main reason why.

By wludford@wludford Apr 26, 2022, 8:53pm CDT

Five years ago I did a piece detailing how most draft picks are busts, based on a study of 1996-2016 draft picks. The results, which are based on the Pro Football Reference AV metric, are sobering:

16.7% didn’t play for the team that drafted them
37% were considered useless. They either didn’t play much or didn’t make the team.
15.3% were considered poor. Had limited playing time and didn’t do well in the time they had.
10.5% were considered average. These are mediocre players that had starts or significant contributions over 2-3 years.
12.3% were considered good.

https://www.dailynorseman.com/2022/4/26 ... -very-high

[Pckfn23]

We in Green Bay (at least some of us) remember Vince Lombardi and Fritz Schumer. They made a difference. And so a lot of people assume that coaches are important to a team's success. It can be true, it was true - then. But these were the exceptions, once in a century exceptions. Lately we have had a whole series of defensive coordinators with basically the same result, a D in the 5-15 range relative to the rest of the league. It does not seem to matter. When there are good players, the D is good, when there are not so good players the team does not over-achieve - with the exception of Fritz.

And who determines whether the players are good? Mainly the GM.

This looks only at our defensive exploits over the last decade or so. A very small sample size to determine that coaches really don't matter.

GMs acquire the talent, coaches develop the talent, ie... determine if they are any good or not.

[APB]

your supposing that all players start at the same level, which is rarely the case, and Gary was no more RAW then other players at his position, Gary was held back because Gute just spent 120 mil. on 2 edge rushers, we see lower floor edge rushers start and contribute every season at the pro level, I wish people would quit spouting defenses for Gary

only 1.6 % of college eligible football players make a NFL roster, when ya look into this further it shows just how much better NFL coaching is then coaches players have in college and how much higher the floor is in the NFL then college football, imho coaching is the main reason why.

By wludford@wludford Apr 26, 2022, 8:53pm CDT

Five years ago I did a piece detailing how most draft picks are busts, based on a study of 1996-2016 draft picks. The results, which are based on the Pro Football Reference AV metric, are sobering:

16.7% didn’t play for the team that drafted them
37% were considered useless. They either didn’t play much or didn’t make the team.
15.3% were considered poor. Had limited playing time and didn’t do well in the time they had.
10.5% were considered average. These are mediocre players that had starts or significant contributions over 2-3 years.
12.3% were considered good.

I'm a little confused with where you're going with this post.

You start out chiding others for making excuses for Gary and then follow it up with how difficult it is to even make an NFL roster. You follow up further with an analysis of all draft picks and their success ratios.

What's the point you're making...?

I'm not sure what Gary's usage in year one or his R1 pedigree has to do with an all-players draft success analysis. My bet is those statistics reflect a great deal differently for strictly R1 selections.

[Yoop]

your supposing that all players start at the same level, which is rarely the case, and Gary was no more RAW then other players at his position, Gary was held back because Gute just spent 120 mil. on 2 edge rushers, we see lower floor edge rushers start and contribute every season at the pro level, I wish people would quit spouting defenses for Gary

only 1.6 % of college eligible football players make a NFL roster, when ya look into this further it shows just how much better NFL coaching is then coaches players have in college and how much higher the floor is in the NFL then college football, imho coaching is the main reason why.

By wludford@wludford Apr 26, 2022, 8:53pm CDT

Five years ago I did a piece detailing how most draft picks are busts, based on a study of 1996-2016 draft picks. The results, which are based on the Pro Football Reference AV metric, are sobering:

16.7% didn’t play for the team that drafted them
37% were considered useless. They either didn’t play much or didn’t make the team.
15.3% were considered poor. Had limited playing time and didn’t do well in the time they had.
10.5% were considered average. These are mediocre players that had starts or significant contributions over 2-3 years.
12.3% were considered good.

I'm a little confused with where you're going with this post.

You start out chiding others for making excuses for Gary and then follow it up with how difficult it is to even make an NFL roster. You follow up further with an analysis of all draft picks and their success ratios.

What's the point you're making...?

I'm not sure what Gary's usage in year one or his R1 pedigree has to do with an all-players draft success analysis. My bet is those statistics reflect a great deal differently for strictly R1 selections.

I got side tracked concerning Gary, Gary and Alexander are the two players that possibly fall into the 1% group of players less dependent on coaching to succeed that Gutekunst has drafted.

as this article points out the best players come out of round 1, but even round one produces few talented players, my point is that most player require NFL coaching to even have a chance to make and keep a roster spot at the NFL level

[TheSkeptic]

We in Green Bay (at least some of us) remember Vince Lombardi and Fritz Schumer. They made a difference. And so a lot of people assume that coaches are important to a team's success. It can be true, it was true - then. But these were the exceptions, once in a century exceptions. Lately we have had a whole series of defensive coordinators with basically the same result, a D in the 5-15 range relative to the rest of the league. It does not seem to matter. When there are good players, the D is good, when there are not so good players the team does not over-achieve - with the exception of Fritz.

And who determines whether the players are good? Mainly the GM.

This looks only at our defensive exploits over the last decade or so. A very small sample size to determine that coaches really don't matter.

GMs acquire the talent, coaches develop the talent, ie... determine if they are any good or not.

Well what is a HC or a DC? He 2nd or 3rd level boss. A manager. How many managers are so exceptional that it would be very obvious if he/she were replaced by an average manager at the same level? How many can you name? Jeff Bezos. Elon Musk. Michael Dell. Steve Jobs. But there are 500 companies in the Fortune 500 and in my lifetime maybe 1000 more big companies that went belly up but would have been successful with those 4. Aside from those 4, if you took 1500 names and put them into a hat and assigned them randomly to those 1500 companies, how many would have produced a truly exceptional company like Apple, Amazon, Dell or Telsa. My guess is maybe 10, including whichever companies were lucky enough to pick those 4 names out of the hat.

At a personal level, how many companies have you worked for that had a manager at any level that was truly exceptional. For myself, I had maybe 100 bosses at 1-3 levels above me in my career. How many were exceptional? Only 1, my company's top sergeant in Vietnam.

In football, Lombardi, Belichick, Landry, maybe Andy Reid. Again, if you put the names of every HC in the league over the last 50 years and let every team pick from the hat in their era, how many would be exceptionally better than they would have been with any other coach? My bet is only the 4 teams lucky enough to have picked those 4 names out of the hat. For every other other team in every other era, it would not matter very much which name they picked.

With rare exceptions, managers don't matter. This applies in business and it applies in football.

Hence, unless a HC is named Lombardi, Belichick, Landry, Reid then he doesn't matter. There are literally hundreds of other coaches who would produce roughly the same results. Any reasonably competent HC can pick good position coaches and choose which players to recommend that the GM keep.

It is the players that make or break a team, who determine whether the record is 2-15 or 15-2. The players matter.

Of course it is the GM who manages the scouts who find the players and the GM who resigns those that should be retained. The GM matters.

[Pckfn23]

We in Green Bay (at least some of us) remember Vince Lombardi and Fritz Schumer. They made a difference. And so a lot of people assume that coaches are important to a team's success. It can be true, it was true - then. But these were the exceptions, once in a century exceptions. Lately we have had a whole series of defensive coordinators with basically the same result, a D in the 5-15 range relative to the rest of the league. It does not seem to matter. When there are good players, the D is good, when there are not so good players the team does not over-achieve - with the exception of Fritz.

And who determines whether the players are good? Mainly the GM.

This looks only at our defensive exploits over the last decade or so. A very small sample size to determine that coaches really don't matter.

GMs acquire the talent, coaches develop the talent, ie... determine if they are any good or not.

Well what is a HC or a DC? He 2nd or 3rd level boss. A manager. How many managers are so exceptional that it would be very obvious if he/she were replaced by an average manager at the same level? How many can you name? Jeff Bezos. Elon Musk. Michael Dell. Steve Jobs. But there are 500 companies in the Fortune 500 and in my lifetime maybe 1000 more big companies that went belly up but would have been successful with those 4. Aside from those 4, if you took 1500 names and put them into a hat and assigned them randomly to those 1500 companies, how many would have produced a truly exceptional company like Apple, Amazon, Dell or Telsa. My guess is maybe 10, including whichever companies were lucky enough to pick those 4 names out of the hat.

At a personal level, how many companies have you worked for that had a manager at any level that was truly exceptional. For myself, I had maybe 100 bosses at 1-3 levels above me in my career. How many were exceptional? Only 1, my company's top sergeant in Vietnam.

In football, Lombardi, Belichick, Landry, maybe Andy Reid. Again, if you put the names of every HC in the league over the last 50 years and let every team pick from the hat in their era, how many would be exceptionally better than they would have been with any other coach? My bet is only the 4 teams lucky enough to have picked those 4 names out of the hat. For every other other team in every other era, it would not matter very much which name they picked.

With rare exceptions, managers don't matter. This applies in business and it applies in football.

Hence, unless a HC is named Lombardi, Belichick, Landry, Reid then he doesn't matter. There are literally hundreds of other coaches who would produce roughly the same results. Any reasonably competent HC can pick good position coaches and choose which players to recommend that the GM keep.

It is the players that make or break a team, who determine whether the record is 2-15 or 15-2. The players matter.

Of course it is the GM who manages the scouts who find the players and the GM who resigns those that should be retained. The GM matters.

I see, you are equating coaches to business managers. I think that is a huge misrepresentation and mistake.

Players and coaches matter.

[Yoop]

Well what is a HC or a DC?

you can't lump coaches in with managers, coaches foremost are teachers, they turn the best college has to offer into NFL pro players a level far superior to any college program.

and there success revolves around to many variables to just lump them by over all team ability, over 80% of draft picks don't last till there 2nd contract and thats a conservative estimate.

why your on this coaches don't matter kick is confusing Skeptic, it's like saying the only good coaches are those that won a SB

[Scott4Pack]

Skeptic, I don’t know what bad experience you had with coaches. But Coaches have a huge impact, for better or for worse.

One example in Packer lore was Ray Rhodes. He was an amazing DC with the Eagles. But when the Pack hired him as HC, he hardly knew which way was up. Both good and bad impact for him.

Mike Holmgren was a superb HC. It could be argued that he MADE Brett Favre and not the other way around. He knew precisely how to use his players, at least in GB. (Less in Seattle.)

Tom Landry, a contemporary of Lombardi, was a stellar HC who created a culture in Dallas. Their Staubach years owe him credit for all of their success. Same for Don Shula. Chuck Noll. Marty Schottenheimer with the Browns. Andy Reid turned around the Chiefs and it wasn’t simply about a QB. I could go on. And there are plenty of examples of HCs with bad impact too, for sure.

But you can’t sit here and tell me that HCs don’t play an important part of team success. It just isn’t true.

[CWIMM]

True, but I also think Love's ability (and willingness) to run away from pressure will add a different dynamic than what we've seen from Rodgers of late. That will force defenses to be accountable and, perhaps, offset some of that pressure on the OLine.

There's no doubt Love is more mobile than Rodgers has been over the past few years. While that will help the offensive line as well I don't think it completely makes up for Rodgers' ability to perfectly set up protection as long as Love isn't up to that task.

Multiple Eagles players have gone public in saying this simply wasn't true. Yes, they were playing with a lead but they insist they hadn't gone "prevent" or "soft" on Love. Love simply beat their rush and coverages with good, timely reads and targeted throws. Darius Slay has been particularly complimentary of Love and his performance:

"As a defense, when A-Rod goes out, we feel great,” Slay said on Monday. “That’s one of the greatest quarterbacks ever, so if he goes out, we got to go out here and really get active. The D-line gets a little hungrier because they know with a young buck coming in, they can get after the quarterback since A-Rod makes a lot of checks and communication at the line of scrimmage, that’s hard to sack. So, young buck (Love) comes in and actually does a very, very solid job. Green Bay got a bright, bright future, like a bright one because buddy was slinging it.

“I ain’t going to lie, he low-key looked like A-Rod, like he’s been learning a lot,” Slay continued. “It should be a blessing for him to be behind a GOAT and learning like that at a high level, and he’s a talented kid as well. He’s a first-round draft pick, so he has a lot of talent. He just has to wait his time, just how A-Rod waited his time for Brett Favre. His time is going to come, and you can see the gun-slinging mentality he had just like him (Rodgers). With the quick release and the flick, picking the back leg up, he’s copy and pasting him (Rodgers) for sure, and that’s a great player to be copy and pasting from.”

https://theeagleswire.usatoday.com/2022 ... onfidence/

According to Pro Football Focus the Eagles blitzed Rodgers on 42.1% of his dropbacks in that game while doing it only once with Love on nine dropbacks (11.1%). They pressured Love twice on his dropbacks resulting in an incompletion on both of them.

I don't put a lot of stock into players praising Love, I want him to succeed on the field before getting confident about his ability as a starter.

Butkus is a position coach. I was talking about head coaches and DC's. A position coach can have a very definite impact on how the players perform. It is his job to teach technique. I will admit though that the HC and DC generally choose the position coaches and to the extent that they make good or bad choices greatly affects the team - within a few years. But HC's and OC's and DC's are focused on schemes and play calling and this is what I think is over-rated.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that position coaches are important for the development of players. I'm convinced you completely underestimate the importance of the head coach and the coordinators though.

We in Green Bay (at least some of us) remember Vince Lombardi and Fritz Schumer. They made a difference. And so a lot of people assume that coaches are important to a team's success. It can be true, it was true - then. But these were the exceptions, once in a century exceptions. Lately we have had a whole series of defensive coordinators with basically the same result, a D in the 5-15 range relative to the rest of the league. It does not seem to matter. When there are good players, the D is good, when there are not so good players the team does not over-achieve - with the exception of Fritz.

In my opinion neither Pettine nor Barry presenting an upgrade over Capers is the main reason the defense hasn't improved. They should have enough talent to perform at a higher level though.

It is the players that make or break a team, who determine whether the record is 2-15 or 15-2. The players matter.

It's true the players are the most important factor for a team's success. But, coaching definitely matters as well.

[Scott4Pack]

True, but I also think Love's ability (and willingness) to run away from pressure will add a different dynamic than what we've seen from Rodgers of late. That will force defenses to be accountable and, perhaps, offset some of that pressure on the OLine.

There's no doubt Love is more mobile than Rodgers has been over the past few years. While that will help the offensive line as well I don't think it completely makes up for Rodgers' ability to perfectly set up protection as long as Love isn't up to that task.

I feel that Rodgers still sets up the OLine pretty well, especially for a guy his age. Lol. That said, I actually think Rodgers has a little less of a feel for the blindside pressure. There were plays over the past couple of seasons that seemed like Jerry Tagge! Maybe he just had injuries he was dealing with. Even so, he used to have maybe the best pocket presence of any QB. More lately, he’s just been really good.
:-)

[CWIMM]

I feel that Rodgers still sets up the OLine pretty well, especially for a guy his age. Lol. That said, I actually think Rodgers has a little less of a feel for the blindside pressure. There were plays over the past couple of seasons that seemed like Jerry Tagge! Maybe he just had injuries he was dealing with. Even so, he used to have maybe the best pocket presence of any QB. More lately, he’s just been really good.
:-)

I believe Rodgers' awareness in the pocket is still elite. He's just not mobile enough anymore to get away from pressure at times though.

[TheSkeptic]

Skeptic, I don’t know what bad experience you had with coaches. But Coaches have a huge impact, for better or for worse.

One example in Packer lore was Ray Rhodes. He was an amazing DC with the Eagles. But when the Pack hired him as HC, he hardly knew which way was up. Both good and bad impact for him.

Mike Holmgren was a superb HC. It could be argued that he MADE Brett Favre and not the other way around. He knew precisely how to use his players, at least in GB. (Less in Seattle.)

Tom Landry, a contemporary of Lombardi, was a stellar HC who created a culture in Dallas. Their Staubach years owe him credit for all of their success. Same for Don Shula. Chuck Noll. Marty Schottenheimer with the Browns. Andy Reid turned around the Chiefs and it wasn’t simply about a QB. I could go on. And there are plenty of examples of HCs with bad impact too, for sure.

But you can’t sit here and tell me that HCs don’t play an important part of team success. It just isn’t true.

You are right, I had a very bad experience with a HS coach as a sophomore. I was a farm kid and had not finished growing or found my coordination and I joined a HS team anyway. There was no reason to bully me publicly but that coach did and I suspect that most coaches are jerks and bullies and grossly incompetent. I never participated in any team sport after that. At 35 I moved into a condo complex where most of the men played tennis. A year later I was beating them all and most of them were 10 years younger than I was with 10 years of coaching and experience. A year after that I played against a professional tennis player (no, not Jimmy Connors, a guy from Wilbraham MA) and I held my own, took him to a break point once. 4 years ago. at age 71, I was in a league with 20 somethings, mostly foreigners who grew up with tennis. And I never took a coaching lesson in my life - I just watched John McEnroe and Connors and did what they did. Athletic ability can be refined but it cannot be taught. Instincts can be refined but they cannot be taught. And 90% of the time it is the athlete who refines his skills through self teaching, watching film of the best in their sport and practice practice practice. If anything coaches ruin more players than they help, either by bullying or by teaching technique that does not match the athlete's native athletic ability.

It is the same thing in business, government and the military. With rare exceptions, the higher they are the more they depend on intimidation rather than competence.

[APB]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say your experience, [mention]TheSkeptic[/mention], is the outlier and not the norm, and that the resentment you have for your long ago HS coach has skewed your value perception of coaches across the board. But that's me...

[Scott4Pack]

Skeptic, I don’t know what bad experience you had with coaches. But Coaches have a huge impact, for better or for worse.

One example in Packer lore was Ray Rhodes. He was an amazing DC with the Eagles. But when the Pack hired him as HC, he hardly knew which way was up. Both good and bad impact for him.

Mike Holmgren was a superb HC. It could be argued that he MADE Brett Favre and not the other way around. He knew precisely how to use his players, at least in GB. (Less in Seattle.)

Tom Landry, a contemporary of Lombardi, was a stellar HC who created a culture in Dallas. Their Staubach years owe him credit for all of their success. Same for Don Shula. Chuck Noll. Marty Schottenheimer with the Browns. Andy Reid turned around the Chiefs and it wasn’t simply about a QB. I could go on. And there are plenty of examples of HCs with bad impact too, for sure.

But you can’t sit here and tell me that HCs don’t play an important part of team success. It just isn’t true.

You are right, I had a very bad experience with a HS coach as a sophomore. I was a farm kid and had not finished growing or found my coordination and I joined a HS team anyway. There was no reason to bully me publicly but that coach did and I suspect that most coaches are jerks and bullies and grossly incompetent. I never participated in any team sport after that. At 35 I moved into a condo complex where most of the men played tennis. A year later I was beating them all and most of them were 10 years younger than I was with 10 years of coaching and experience. A year after that I played against a professional tennis player (no, not Jimmy Connors, a guy from Wilbraham MA) and I held my own, took him to a break point once. 4 years ago. at age 71, I was in a league with 20 somethings, mostly foreigners who grew up with tennis. And I never took a coaching lesson in my life - I just watched John McEnroe and Connors and did what they did. Athletic ability can be refined but it cannot be taught. Instincts can be refined but they cannot be taught. And 90% of the time it is the athlete who refines his skills through self teaching, watching film of the best in their sport and practice practice practice. If anything coaches ruin more players than they help, either by bullying or by teaching technique that does not match the athlete's native athletic ability.

It is the same thing in business, government and the military. With rare exceptions, the higher they are the more they depend on intimidation rather than competence.

I appreciate you sharing some of your experiences! Thanks!

Sometimes, depending upon team circumstances, coaches need to only do minor tweaks and then get the heck out of the way and play the role of encourager. But that isn’t most teams. (I won’t speak to individual sports, such as tennis, golf, etc.) On most teams, the staff does more than speak to physical abilities or refinement of talents. Good coaches set expectations. Bad coaches might not even know what expectations are or should be, let alone know how to communicate them or establish them.

Unfortunately, in the NFL, too many coaches think they can give a rah-rah session and their team will be equipped to win. (Gruden might be one example. Hahaha) MLF, I think, is one of those guys who knows how to guide the culture and set the expectations. He is disciplined and communicates pretty well. Does he work to refine individual talents? Not so much maybe. Does he teach a scheme and expect players to play within that scheme? Definitely. Guys like him do coach and have impact. But there just aren’t enough of them.

Another coach I’ll mention who was very good, was Barry Alvarez. They guy lifted the Badger football program to heights that it’s probably never seen before or since. He was organized, worked a plan, set expectations, and rewarded the guys who met those expectations.