Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!

What exactly does the head coach do?

G

Grid

All Pro
Seriously? I mean.. we had a defensive genius for a head coach, but our DC ran the defense and it sucked. Pendry and Palmer ran the offense and it sucked. Our strength was our special teams which was ran by Marciano...

I know people will disagree with that ST comment but thats not the point.. the point is that our "head coach" seemed more like a figurehead than someone who actually DID anything. Is that fairly common with head coaches? if so.. why are we bothering to debate about who the best choice is? Shouldnt we be looking at who is available to be our OC and DC, and just pick the guy who looks best on TV for our HC?:tv:
 
Grid said:
Seriously? I mean.. we had a defensive genius for a head coach, but our DC ran the defense and it sucked. Pendry and Palmer ran the offense and it sucked. Our strength was our special teams which was ran by Marciano...

I know people will disagree with that ST comment but thats not the point.. the point is that our "head coach" seemed more like a figurehead than someone who actually DID anything. Is that fairly common with head coaches? if so.. why are we bothering to debate about who the best choice is? Shouldnt we be looking at who is available to be our OC and DC, and just pick the guy who looks best on TV for our HC?:tv:
Click to expand...

well, our special teams kind of sucked at the most important spot. the kicking game. we missed so many crucial kicks this year, and the punting seemed much worse than last year.

the only good part about special teams was the KR, and that can be attributed to MAthis more than any coach (the old cliche, you cant teach speed)
 
See, and I fear that this could possibly happen to Kubiak, Linehan, or any other coordinator that we want to hire as a HC. It's important to know who they are bringing in for coordinators as well.
 
Yeah, I am guilty on the Mariciano front. if you say that Joe M. did a better job in relation to most of the other Texans coaches then I listen. In terms of the overall league he is a decent enough to keep around, but I don't see him as truly special.

As for the head coach, it really becomes an administative and motivational position more than a hands on teaching job. The headcaoch gets the "joy" of organizing everything, constantly talking to the media, and taking blame for pretty much anything that goes wrong.
 
I think it depends on the head coach. Some delegate responsibilities to coordinators, some like to be the play caller.
 
tulexan said:
I think it depends on the head coach. Some delegate responsibilities to coordinators, some like to be the play caller.
Click to expand...

BINGO! I agree with this take 100%. :ok:

Each HC has a different style of running his team. Some are very hands on, even calling plays (ie. Billichick this year calling offense). Some are very oriented towards scheming for each game, doing crazy things like planning against opponents weaknesses, and even changing gameplans between games. Strange concept in the Capers era, but hopefully we soon have a HC that can grasp these things.
 
if thats the case though.. then what is the point of getting a guy like Kubiak?

I mean you cite his success with Plummer.. his dominant running game.. his Oline.. the zone blocking.. all of that.. but if we make him HC, he wont be in charge of all of that anymore.. so even though you are hiring him based on what he has done, you cant really expect him to bring that same success to the team in the head coaching position can you?

makes me think that a guy like Herm Edwards or Chucky is a better decision..and then make sure they you get some very talented coordinators to back him up. Basicly..someone whos main forte is motivation and game planning.
 
Grid said:
if thats the case though.. then what is the point of getting a guy like Kubiak?
Click to expand...

BINGO! I agree with this take 100%.

If Kubiak is taking credit for Shanahans hands on approach then that makes me wonder about his skills.
 
Grid said:
if thats the case though.. then what is the point of getting a guy like Kubiak?

I mean you cite his success with Plummer.. his dominant running game.. his Oline.. the zone blocking.. all of that.. but if we make him HC, he wont be in charge of all of that anymore.. so even though you are hiring him based on what he has done, you cant really expect him to bring that same success to the team in the head coaching position can you?

makes me think that a guy like Herm Edwards or Chucky is a better decision..and then make sure they you get some very talented coordinators to back him up. Basicly..someone whos main forte is motivation and game planning.
Click to expand...

Your argument has merit, but also is the reason you often see some many retreads. Management often thinks that a person who has a handle on the administrative aspects of the job with good connections in the coaching profession to get good assistants is the more favorable choice. In the interview process, coaches will be asked about their ability to get quality assistants and often this is one of those reason we don't see why one guy gets the job over another.

Anytime someone hires an assistant who has not been a headcoach is projecting (or edcuated guessing) as to the ability of the assistant to be organized and perform as a leader of men.
 
Just working in a coach's system can make a someone a good coach. They have experience in a successful system and generally run a similar one of their own when they are the coach. Look how many good coaches have come out of Parcell's team. Bellicheck, Weis, Carroll, and a bunch more. Also look at all of the coaches that have come out of Bill Walsh's system. Shanahan, Holmgren, Gruden, Mariucci, and many more coordinators including Kubiak. Coordinators are becoming so valuable to teams that Nick Saban has coordinators and then under study's to the coordinators in case they are hired by another team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top