Staff upgrades?

[NCSteeler]

I see a big problem with the staff on offense being the lack of outside hires along with, on both offense and defense, the only coach I recall another team has attempted to hire away in recent years was Munchak. So you get internal promotions of coaches on a staff that the rest of the league apparently does not regard to be brimming over with talent that other teams want to hire away.

I do not think it is coincidental the defense has improved since the outside coaching hires of Austin and Dunbar on defense.

But self-criticism will not get you very far if a staff has been inside the same system for a long time.

No doubt this is a solid criticizim . I think on offense they are content purculating the same retreads until Ben retires.
Tomlin has yet to develop one NFL hire. I like him but that may be a real problem.

The Steelers act like they are cheap. They never seem to have the same staff as other teams.

I'd say starrett gets a pass. If he gets let go this year you'll know some here were very right and if he gets let go next season well probably know he just wasn't very good, does that make sense. Idk

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

[Craic]

Just because a person can do/has done something does not mean that they can teach/coach someone else how to do something.

SUMMATION:
Maybe it’s a simple as the fact that Sarrett can’t teach/can’t coach very well... and, it has nothing to do with whether or not he played in the NFL.

I have a theory that the better natural player you are in a sport, the worse you'll be when it comes to coaching. Why? Because those who depend more on talent than skill, or those whose talent allows them to pick up skills easily can't make the transition to teaching those skills to others. It's too innate. It's the blue-collar players, the ones who have to spend the extra time on the jugs machine and extra reps running routes that make better receiver coaches. The ones who have to focus on footwork and arm strength and accuracy that make the better QB coaches. So on and so forth.

I think that's why Hines Ward may become a very good receivers coach. He wasn't all that talented. What he was, however, was one of the hardest workers in football, always paying attention, always taking notes, and always working to improve his skills. By comparison, I'm not sure how good Troy P. would be as a coach. He played with so much intuition and natural understanding that it would be difficult (I would think) for that to transition to teaching others.

[pczach]

I have a theory that the better natural player you are in a sport, the worse you'll be when it comes to coaching. Why? Because those who depend more on talent than skill, or those whose talent allows them to pick up skills easily can't make the transition to teaching those skills to others. It's too innate. It's the blue-collar players, the ones who have to spend the extra time on the jugs machine and extra reps running routes that make better receiver coaches. The ones who have to focus on footwork and arm strength and accuracy that make the better QB coaches. So on and so forth.

I think that's why Hines Ward may become a very good receivers coach. He wasn't all that talented. What he was, however, was one of the hardest workers in football, always paying attention, always taking notes, and always working to improve his skills. By comparison, I'm not sure how good Troy P. would be as a coach. He played with so much intuition and natural understanding that it would be difficult (I would think) for that to transition to teaching others.

I understand your premise. I think there is truth in it.

However, it's not always true. I believe some of the greatest players ever would have been amazing coaches because they could see the game in ways that others didn't. There are many, many great players that optimized their skills by working on their craft to a degree that many others don't.

Sure, there are players that are just so physically gifted that they are just capable of what others are not, but I don't care how physically gifted you are....a player needs to work on his game and know the details and the mental grind of football to be great. Running back would be the greatest exception to that, because the position relies so much on physical talent and pure ability.

I'd say that most truly great players don't want to coach because they made so much money playing that they have no desire to coach. They just don't want to do the grind of the NFL without the glory of playing.

In the end, I think what you say has merit. I just think that while many great players wouldn't be able to teach, there are also many great players that would be terrific coaches but choose not to coach for a number of reasons.

[tube517]

I have a theory that the better natural player you are in a sport, the worse you'll be when it comes to coaching. Why? Because those who depend more on talent than skill, or those whose talent allows them to pick up skills easily can't make the transition to teaching those skills to others. It's too innate. It's the blue-collar players, the ones who have to spend the extra time on the jugs machine and extra reps running routes that make better receiver coaches. The ones who have to focus on footwork and arm strength and accuracy that make the better QB coaches. So on and so forth.

I think that's why Hines Ward may become a very good receivers coach. He wasn't all that talented. What he was, however, was one of the hardest workers in football, always paying attention, always taking notes, and always working to improve his skills. By comparison, I'm not sure how good Troy P. would be as a coach. He played with so much intuition and natural understanding that it would be difficult (I would think) for that to transition to teaching others.

Your theory is a good one.

Example:
Mean Joe was not really a great DL coach (Dolphins)

Tony Dungy became a successful Head coach with 2 teams (Tampa Bay and Indy)

Off the top of my head - Lawrence Timmons (Can't see him coaching) - Larry Foote (5 years experience as LB coach with 2 teams)

[teegre]

I agree with Craic, in that the HOF type could get by on pure unmatched talent. There’s nothing wrong with that: they are unicorns.

I recall a story about a young CB asking Deion Sanders about getting INTs, and Deion told him, “Get that ball... it’s YOURS.” Deion wasn’t being cocky or coy, because that was all that Deion really had to do in order to be great.

I also agree with pczach, in that a guy like Peyton could indeed explain the nuances of his trade. But, most of those guys don’t want the stress of coaching.

Take for instance the greatest MLB hitter ever: Tony Gwynn. All that he did was talk baseball. After games, he’d locate the opposing team’s best hitter, and ask for advice/exchange hitting tips. In turn, he went into coaching... because, he loved talking about/teaching others about hitting.

That said, the story goes that Tony was telling a young player how to watch the rotation of the ball, and that the way the threads moved would tell you what kind of pitch it was. The player just stared and replied, “I just... uh... try to find the ball.” The point: even as well versed and committed as Tony was, his eyeballs could do things that (almost) no one else on Earth could do. And, one cannot teach others how to possess mutant eyeballs.

[Buckinnuts]

make Wofley the o line coach

[teegre]

OFF-TOPIC... but, speaking of Tony Gwynn (here’s an ESPN story... which I love):

Greg Maddux was discussing how changing speeds and having control are far more important than velocity, because no hitter can tell the exact speed of a pitch. Well, except one…

“You just can’t do it,” Maddux said. “Sometimes hitters can pick up differences in spin. They can identify pitches if there are different release points or if a curveball starts with an upward hump as it leaves the pitcher’s hand. But if a pitcher can change speeds, every hitter is helpless, limited by human vision.

“Except for that (expletive) Tony Gwynn.”

[86WARD]

make Wofley the o line coach

That may not be a terrible idea...