Given our disappointing record on the field over the last three or four years, I don't blame some of you for being skeptical over our chances for success this season, but we have learned a thing or two about running a football team over the last 36 months.
Having spent some time with Charlie, Marcel, and Scott recently, I'm quietly very optimistic about 2007 and even more optimistic for 2008.
But I'm curious what our more knowledgable fans think of my hypothesis that football is the most coaching-dependent professional sport. Meaning that a great player or two can make an average coach look brilliant in Basketball (think Michael Jordan, or Shaquille O'Neil) - but to win in football you have to have a great head coach, think Bill Parcells or Wally Buono.
I am a believer that coaching can make or break a championship calibre team in any sport. Example, What did Michael Jordan OR Shaq win BEFORE Phil Jackson? Nothing. Both had chances but both won nothing.
Coaches get the players to buy into a system and make each player go to war with the guy next to them... something that didn't happen with the 2006 Ticats.
Football teams are very dependent on their coaching staff due to the amount of game prep that goes into each week, and the amount of weight placed on each game... more than other sports? Probably, because of the amount of decisions a head coach has to make that will effect the outcome of a game. Much more than Basketball or Hockey.
A 'good' coach is a good judge of character for the first thing, then they surround themselves with the best available coaches that fit in with their own idea of football.
The thing you'll notice about Wally Buono aside from success is he mostly gets players who are charcter guys.Or he keeps the ones that are and moves others who are maybe past their prime to create competition and to keep motivating them.
What do I know ?
Well ,coaches make a huge difference in Football for sure!
Players have to buy in to what they are doing ,that is what makes it difficult for as a example a Canadian coach to have success with American players who don't exactly respect us for our football prowess.
You mention a few star players can change a Basketball team ,I'd have to say that a great Quarter back (young D.Mac)and a great Middle linebacker (B.Zambiasi)can sure change a well coached football team as well! :cowboy:
Many will look at this question as the old "chicken and egg" thing. And, in some cases, it's probably 'six of one and half-dozen' of the other.
But, outstanding coaches will make a diference over a period of time. If a coach is successful for a period of years, when leading teams with a changing cast every year, it MUST be the coach that is making the difference.
Now, if my theory is correct, we shouldn't expect to deify Taaffe this year, but it's in his hands to show he can deserve the the accolades of "Good Coach".
Coaching does make a difference, a big difference. A good coach gets the most out of the talent they have. They set up schemes to match their players strengths while hiding their weaknesses. There is a reason why some coaches i.e. Don Mathews, Scotty Bowman, Bill Parcells, Tony LaRussa have been generally successful throughout their entire careers.
It is also critical that they are in sync with their general manager so that the players acquired fit the system they are trying to implement.
That being said, you still need talent to win. I believe it was legendary college coach Clarence "Big House" Gaines, when asked what was the key to his success, replied "personnel".
Great Coach can make Avg Player Great..
a Great Player can make avg. Coach Look Great.
so it can work both ways.
Their is nothing more us Hamilton Fans
Want then winning Football.
it not only Picks up the Football fan in Hamilton.
But also The city of Hamilton as Well
I am Worried about our Defensive Coordinator not having any CFL Experience at all
Mr O'neal Looks to have a Great Back Ground.
But looks can be Deceiving
This not Collage The NFL or NFLE
This is the CFL
The rules and Game are very Different
Did we not try to use OC a few Years ago
with no Experience and look how that turn out. His name was Jamie Baressi
Now the WR coach in BC
Where he should started out
Not as OC right out of gate.
Where doing the same thing with MR O'Neil.
I just hope the Gamble pays off.
Cause Right I am Worried..
I think there is less room for creativity during the play in football that there is in hockey or basketball, although the CFL brand lends itself to more of a creative style than does the NFL.
What does that mean? It means that talent isn't as important in football.
More than any other sport, you have to be a well oiled machine that executes as a unit. Some of that is chemistry, but a lot of it is coaching and implementing systems, game plans and adjustments.
Last year we were stacked with talent. It had to be coaching that let us down.
IMHO - football is the sport (of ones i've followed closely) where coaching means the most - it's not just a matter of finding talent and throwing it out on the field. Strategy, formations, adjustments, play-book/calling - the whole chess match aspect to the sport, is often vastly under-rated and under-apprectiated by some fans. And the coaching aspect to talent - selecting who makes the roster and how they are deployed, means more in football too, since there are so many players on the field at one time compared to some other major team sports - like hockey, basketball or baseball (where a number of the guys on the field are standing around doing little while the pitching / batter duel in going on). Canadian football - with 12 men on the field and the huge playing surface is, IMO, potentially the most complex and diverse sport going. However, IMO again - CFL football over the past good number of years has often seemed to de-evolve to a very homogenous, predictable style of game with some very standard thinking from a group of often recycled coaches/thinkers - same old limited play-books and formations seem to take away the chess match element of the game. Here's hoping Charlie Taafe and the new staff can show some real coaching smarts, innovation and diversity/variety - both in their on field strategies and in their roster selections.
of particular note is the thoughts on Spergon Wynn(less) and his success in BC's system that has failed to materialize anywhere else, and the Sask system that helped the 2nd and even 3rd guys have success (heres hoping Charlie and Mike can do the same thing in Hamilton with Maas and Butler)
I'm not sure if football coaching is more important than other sports. I do think, though, that certain positions, like the qb, coaching is huge. You can't ask a guy, for example who shows lots of ability but maybe a bit slow in making decisions, to run a complicated offense with lots of reads and such.
Also important is the culture of the organization, any sport, from the top on down. I think players and everyone feeds off of this culture or the culture as it is perceived by the players and coaches.
In football, players can be very talented, but unless the coach motivates those players to perform consistently at a high level, and puts them in the right place to make plays, the talents of those players will go unused.
Case in point: last year, Corey Holmes was completely misused by the Marshall regime. He should have been fed the ball regularly on offence, but was instead wasted. As our “kick return specialist,” Holmes was made to run back kicks with zero blocking. And after Holmes was gang-tackled, I never saw Marshall go up to him and say anything to him to boost his spirits or to convince him to play harder.
Having the talent is painfully obvious but cant imagine anyone thinking good coaching isnt that important. Anyone who's watched TC football for the last 10 years or so are eyewitnesses to the importance of both at the same time.
98-2001 Good coaching, good talent level added up to a GC and winning records.
2002-03 No money, no talent but with essentially the same coaching staff added up to disaster.
2004-06 Amateur-hour coaching but appreciable talent added up to huge dissapointments.
I don't agree with this at all, you need players. Coaches are like poker players, a good poker player has no 'tells' and can spot another players 'tells', similar to how a good coach keeps his team from becoming predictable and finds things that gives away what the other team is doing, but at the end of the day he still needs good hands to win.
a good coach knows how to get the most out of his players - if they have all-star talent, they will play like all-stars with a good coach, but may play just 'good' under poor coaching. Good coaches use the strengths of their players and cover for their weaknesses. They put players in a position to succeed.
Baseball might be the one exception. Just about every play, move and nuance of the game is micro managed. It's the only game where the coach is called a "Manager", and he wears the same unifrm as the players! It seems all team sports require that elusive chemistry or "same page" mentality, and I think thats where a coach can be most beneficial in creating wins.
