Here's a comparison of why some coaches win, and why others never seem to: Bad coach: Has "his guy" that has a blank check to perform, or not perform, and almost never have his job at stake. A bad coach will not try new players, or give anyone but his anointed ones an opportunity. When asked why he continues to play an under performing player, he'll give the same canned answer: "I still feel that [player] gives us the best chance to win." Good coach: He may have "his guy" but that player is only the coach's guy if he delivers. It won't matter to a good coach if the player was the 1st overall pick and the new face of the franchise; it won't matter if he is a future Hall of Famer. Either win, or ride the pine. Loyalty and trust go both ways. Bad coach: Has one way of doing things. His philosophy is rigid and does not change with what he has available. He tries to fit square pegs into round holes, forcing players to play outside of their strengths Good coach: Has a philosophy and style of game planning, but also knows his team. He will change and adapt so that his players are playing to their full potential. For example, if he prefers to run a 3-4 defense, but his team is better equipped to play 4-3, he will play 4-3, at least until he can get the right personnel to play 3-4 effectively. Bad coach: Plays not to lose. It's not always a good thing to be super aggressive, but a bad coach will not take risks even if the risk could be the difference between victory and defeat. A bad coach only wants to play enough to get ahead and hopefully slow down the opponents. He takes his foot off the gas too early, plays prevent defense, and tries to run the clock out even when there is a lot of time left and the score is close. Good coach: Plays to win. He plays all 60 minutes with the urgency of a team trying to make a comeback Super Bowl win. If he is up by any score that could be overtaken, he doesn't try to sit on the clock; he tries to score and put the game away. He doesn't try to hold off the opponent; he tries to beat them. Bad coach: Relies on stars. A few big name players, in his mind, should suffice to at least make the playoffs. If one of those stars goes down, the entire team collapses. The talent on the team is the difference between this coach going 9-7 and 3-13 Good coach: Can put together a respectable season even without big play stars. He doesn't draft or trade for talent; he finds it or he makes it. His team works together as a unit. If one of his stars goes down, he'll find a replacement who can hold the team together. The talent on the team is the difference between this coach going 15-1 and 10-6. Bowles shows that he has no aggression in play, has no eye for developing players, and doesn't adapt to get the most out of his team. This was the same problem with Rex, and the same problem with Mangini. Herm Edwards showed at least a bit of talent in developing young players, but he was too ball-less and conservative to ever win it all. Until we can break this cycle, we're going nowhere.
We do need better everything. But it will all be for naught if we don't start with the coach. We have enough talent on the team to be competitive; we have no excuse for being 4-10, especially since this same exact team was 9-5 at this point last year. No amount of talent can overcome bad coaching.
