I am sick and tired of all these ESPN talking heads repeatedly discussing the importance of coaching in professional sports. There is this myth out there that organizations win via players and coaching. And that gameplanning and coaching is a huge factor in a teams success.

Facts: Bill Belichick was 36-44 in Cleveland and 5-13 with Bledsoe before Brady came along. Brady came along and won 4 Super Bowls with him. The only factor in this equation is Brady, who is arguably the greatest QB of all time.

I can go coach by coach proving how they are meaningless (and it will eventually get to that) but to speed things forward is there not a more obvious example than this year's 10-1 Dallas Cowboys?

Jason Garrett was 46-44 as the head coach of the Cowboys playing with Tony Romo and a bunch of scrub QBs. He was almost fired "LITERALLY" every season but managed to keep his job via a calmer Jerry Jones.

All of a sudden the Cowboys, however, hit it big with two unbelievable draft choices: Dak Prescott and Ezekiel Elliott.

What did Garrett do as a coach differently? I would argue next to nothing. He now has a legitimate game changing QB and a future Hall of Fame RB to go with an All Pro WR, Hall of Fame TE, top slot weapon, and the best offensive line in the game.

So due to two great draft selections he's transformed himself into a lame duck coach into a potential Super Bowl Champion.

I can go down the line if I receive pushback of how supposed great coaches had under 40% reconds without Hall of Fame players.

The point is coaching is the most overrated aspect of professional sports. Anybody that tells you Belichick is a genius for winning Super Bowls isn't paying attention. He tripped into a 6th round legend and has been riding it ever since. Had that not occurred he's not a household name and likely a defensive coordinator or secondary coach on a mediocre defense.

No.

Thanks for the detailed response. Makes sense, when I have this argument nobody opposing me ever has anything constructive
to say with stats backed up.

I don't know anything about hand-egg but in football the coach is very important.

Inb4 BAIDS

I dont know anything about football but this is almost for sure not true

Mike McCarthy

Jerry Sloan

Whole thing fell apart without him, just like what will happen in SA if they don't make an inspired hire (like BRAD was).

See Manchester United

Why did your name get changed?

Yep, they are a good example of my point

Greg Popovich

Belichick is probably the worst example you could have come up with.

Coaching in the NFL is probably pretty important it's just that there are about 3-5 non ******s coaching which is a great equalizer.

Pretty much everything points towards coaching meaning diddly poo in pro soccer

the only thing you're arguing here is better players are more valuable than better coaching which everyone gets, that's why the best players are paid more than the best coaches. Coaches definitely get too much credit/blame but they definitely also matter. We've all seen teams spiral downwards hard because of a bad coach.

Coaching is very important. If there were no coaches then who would take over the role of not reporting sexual assaults?

36-44 in Cleveland = 100 wins zero losses with any other franchise.

Generally I dig wat you're say. US Men's National Soccer team is an example. If the crybaby players cannot motivate themselves for pride of country and profession, **** em. Bring in some new face with a new spin on pregame pep-talks. It's virtually meaningless. You line up here, mark this opposing player. Turn your head constantly, so you know exactly where he is. Like a robot. Opinions all provided.. the future pre-decided

The San Antonio Spurs were not a moribund franchise when Popovich took over. What he did was step into a great (potential) situation that turned into a great situation. Bob Hill was the head coach of the Spurs for three seasons. This is what he did.

1994/95: 62-20, lost in conference finals

1995/96: 59-23, lost in conference semifinals

1996/97: 3-15, was fired.

Sean Elliott and David Robinson didn't play in the first 18 games of 96/97 so he was essentially playing without two All Stars and his two best players. The Spurs finished 20-62 that year (Popovich coached) and got the top pick. Selected Tim Duncan, got Elliott and Robinson healthy and went 56-26.

Popovich fired Hill after 18 games and then tanked the season praying he could hit it big with a top draft pick. In came Duncan. If it wasn't for extreme luck (Elliott/Robinson injuries causing the terrible start) Popovich wouldn't have fired Hill and they wouldn't have been in position to get Duncan.

Everyone buys into this narrative that a guy like Popovich runs his team a certain way and because of that culture he wins. And that he transformed the Spurs. A team that won 59/62 games under Hill. It is not the case. He's won in the past because of above average talent and Duncan.

Same with Belichick. Same with Phil Jackson.

Check out Mike Shanahan, a guy who is considered a great coach and potential Hall of Fame coach.

138-86, 2 Super Bowls, 61.6% win percentage with the Broncos and John Elway

24-40, no playoff wins, 37.5% win percentage in Washington

People like to say that coaches get better with age (as in people argue Belichick was a raw coach in Cleveland and got more experience in NE). Did Shanahan regress as a coach as he got older?

oh, look at me - I'm a contrarian!

you guys are too cute

Your mom is too cute

ty bud, she does look great for 68yr old

Pics of mom or GTFO

What about bad coaching?

somebody euthanize this thread

coaching doesnt matter as long as you have an all time great coach

Bellichik-Brady example proves the contrary. Probably the worst possible contemporary example for your argument.

Who gets in the HOF is a function of who wins, not who was good. People are results oriented. Women like winners not losers.

Dak Prescott is not that good.