Defensive Minded Head Coaches/ Tomlin

[DesertSteel]

There are 13 (Now 12) defensive-minded Head Coaches in the NFL:

Belicheat (hot seat)
Ryans (1st year)
Gannon (1st year)
McDermott (?)
Eberflus (hot seat)
Allen (hot seat)
Staley (fired)
Bowles (hot seat)
Tomlin (should be hot)
Carroll
Vrabel (hot seat)
Rivera (hot seat)
Saleh (hot seat)

Out of these 13, there are 2 teams that MIGHT make the playoffs - the Texans and the Bills. All of the top teams have an offensive-minded Head Coach. I hope the Steelers' next hire is an offensive guy.

[SteeleReign]

There are 13 (Now 12) defensive-minded Head Coaches in the NFL:

Belicheat (hot seat)
Ryans (1st year)
Gannon (1st year)
McDermott (?)
Eberflus (hot seat)
Allen (hot seat)
Staley (fired)
Bowles (hot seat)
Tomlin (should be hot)
Carroll
Vrabel (hot seat)
Rivera (hot seat)
Saleh (hot seat)

Out of these 13, there are 2 teams that MIGHT make the playoffs - the Texans and the Bills. All of the top teams have an offensive-minded Head Coach. I hope the Steelers' next hire is an offensive guy.

Interesting. The league knows offense sells, so if your team doesn't get with the times, you'll be left behind.

We're falling behind the pack.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[DesertSteel]

It not only sells, it wins.

[Edman]

If Tomlin is a Defensive Coach, that would mean that he is actually good at something, and he really isn't. No coaching tree in the NFL after 17 years.

I think Mike Tomlin is a good motivator, not a good coach. Offensive or Defensive, the Steelers need a coach.

It not only sells, it wins.

Then why didn't the Steelers win with the Killer B's?

[86WARD]

If Tomlin is a Defensive Coach, that would mean that he is actually good at something, and he really isn't. No coaching tree in the NFL after 17 years.

I think Mike Tomlin is a good motivator, not a good coach. Offensive or Defensive, the Steelers need a coach.



Then why didn't the Steelers win with the Killer B's?

How many coaches have an actual good coaching tree…meaning 2+ good head coaches? Bill Walsh, Mike Holmgren, Andy Reid, Bill Parcells, Marty Schottenheimer. After that, what is there?

The problem with the “tree in Pittsburgh” is that Tomlin doesn’t hire young coaches (and perhaps that’s why they are behind the times). He likes his veteran coaches with experience…but there’s a slew of players that played in Pittsburgh that are coaches on teams…why shouldn’t that count?

The whole “tree thing” is overrated. Look at Belichicks tree…Nick Saban, Josh McDaniels (x2), Bill O’Brien, Matt Patricia…that’s hot garbage. You can’t even count Vrabel under Belichick (unless you count him as a player) because he spent his time coaching under O’Brien.

[SteeleReign]

How many coaches have an actual good coaching tree…meaning 2+ good head coaches? Bill Walsh, Mike Holmgren, Andy Reid, Bill Parcells, Marty Schottenheimer. After that, what is there?

The problem with the “tree in Pittsburgh” is that Tomlin doesn’t hire young coaches (and perhaps that’s why they are behind the times). He likes his veteran coaches with experience…but there’s a slew of players that played in Pittsburgh that are coaches on teams…why shouldn’t that count?

The whole “tree thing” is overrated. Look at Belichicks tree…Nick Saban, Josh McDaniels (x2), Bill O’Brien, Matt Patricia…that’s hot garbage. You can’t even count Vrabel under Belichick (unless you count him as a player) because he spent his time coaching under O’Brien.

To me, the issue is that other teams aren't calling to hire Tomlin's coordinators . Whether or not they turn out to be good head coaches, the fact that they're in demand indicates they were very good coordinators.

The NFL is full of fantastic coordinators that failed as a HC, and went back to their specialty. To me, those guys should count as branches on the proverbial "coaching tree."

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[tube517]

How many coaches have an actual good coaching tree…meaning 2+ good head coaches? Bill Walsh, Mike Holmgren, Andy Reid, Bill Parcells, Marty Schottenheimer. After that, what is there?

The problem with the “tree in Pittsburgh” is that Tomlin doesn’t hire young coaches (and perhaps that’s why they are behind the times). He likes his veteran coaches with experience…but there’s a slew of players that played in Pittsburgh that are coaches on teams…why shouldn’t that count?

The whole “tree thing” is overrated. Look at Belichicks tree…Nick Saban, Josh McDaniels (x2), Bill O’Brien, Matt Patricia…that’s hot garbage. You can’t even count Vrabel under Belichick (unless you count him as a player) because he spent his time coaching under O’Brien.

Don't forget Romeo Crennel and Charlie Weiss

[DesertSteel]

If Tomlin is a Defensive Coach, that would mean that he is actually good at something, and he really isn't. No coaching tree in the NFL after 17 years.

I think Mike Tomlin is a good motivator, not a good coach. Offensive or Defensive, the Steelers need a coach.



Then why didn't the Steelers win with the Killer B's?

Yeah he's historically one of the worst coaches in NFL history! According to your posts.

How's Belicheat's coaching tree? Busts!

[Mojouw]

Googly moogly. The coaching tree discussion? Again?

You guys that love this realize if you take it back far enough, there are like two coaching trees in the entire league right?

Basically Paul Brown and Sid Gillman. Like 3 generations down and that basically accounts for almost anyone who’s anyone in NFL coaching.

Does that have any usefulness or relevance to anything?

[Mojouw]

Many of those coaches (not all) are in situations where the lack of a plan or effective option at QB puts them in a dire situation.

[SteeleReign]

Googly moogly. The coaching tree discussion? Again?

You guys that love this realize if you take it back far enough, there are like two coaching trees in the entire league right?

Basically Paul Brown and Sid Gillman. Like 3 generations down and that basically accounts for almost anyone who’s anyone in NFL coaching.

Does that have any usefulness or relevance to anything?

Good coordinators are in demand from other teams. Whether they pan out as a head coach or not is irrelevant.

If Tomlin, or any head coach, hires a relative unknown and that noob becomes a top assistant, to me, that is a branch on the tree (use whatever analogy you want). Regardless of whether he goes on to become a successful HC.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[DesertSteel]

Many of those coaches (not all) are in situations where the lack of a plan or effective option at QB puts them in a dire situation.

I’d argue that if you look at teams playing backup quarterbacks with offensive head coaches, they are succeeding compared to the same situation with defensive head coaches.

[Mojouw]

I’d argue that if you look at teams playing backup quarterbacks with offensive head coaches, they are succeeding compared to the same situation with defensive head coaches.

I’d agree.

Bengals benefit on offense from Taylor.

BUT….I’d argue that Lou A has been a wizard cobbling the defense together.

If he leaves, the Bengals are gonna struggle.

[DesertSteel]

I’d agree.

Bengals benefit on offense from Taylor.

BUT….I’d argue that Lou A has been a wizard cobbling the defense together.

If he leaves, the Bengals are gonna struggle.

A good example would be Joe Flacco last year with a D coach vs this year with an O coach.

[Mojouw]

A good example would be Joe Flacco last year with a D coach vs this year with an O coach.

Interesting.

There’s something there. I think you can have a defensive HC but you’ve got to install a top notch h OC.

If you have an offensive HC you need a good Dc.

[pczach]

IMO, one of the biggest differences between having an offensive minded head coach compared to a defensive minded head coach is that the offense is run unfiltered. You are getting the full capability of the offense with no restrictions from the head coach instructing you to run this many times, play it safe here, don't go up tempo right now, run the ball in this situation, etc.. The offensive coach is going to run the offense exactly how he sees fit, and will be able to make adjustments in style and scheme immediately to respond to what defenses are doing. The other thing is that it is already understood that the head coach has a good offense in place and knows how to run the offense because he has done it before successfully or he wouldn't be a head coach.

There is also so much more detail that goes into the offensive scheme without the approval of someone else. In many cases, the head coach is working directly with his offensive players. They will know exactly what their assignments are and every nuance of the system because he is the one feeding it to them with the help of an OC that is fluent in the same offense. There seem to be less conflicts because the offensive head coach selects people specifically to fit his scheme and run it. The organization hired him and allowed him to bring in his staff. If a defensive coach is running things, he may still be allowed to hire any offensive coach he approves of, but defense is his specialty. He may bring in an offensive mind, yet not get the entire offensive staff that the OC would want to run his system. Also, he is still under the direction of the head coach when it comes to risk assessment, run/pass preferences, down and distance preferences, and personnel. The OC is usually limited in some way by the constraints of the defensive minded head coach.

This may sound a little strange to some, but most offensive head coaches are willing to delegate power to the DC and let him run his defense as he sees fit, with fewer demands from the head coach.

In general, defensive coaches tend to want to control the offenses more because they believe in complimentary football, and they usually wish to run an offense that they think helps the defense by protecting them with time of possession, they hate turnovers and avoid them at all costs, and that they truly believe that a punt isn't a bad thing sometimes. It's just a different way of thinking on the defensive side of the ball. The priority is always to try to put the defense in a good spot. I think that's where the modern game has changed so much that defensive minded head coaches get caught playing like it's still like it was 15 years ago....and it's not.

Just my opinion.

[DesertSteel]

Good insight @pczach

[Mojouw]

IMO, one of the biggest differences between having an offensive minded head coach compared to a defensive minded head coach is that the offense is run unfiltered. You are getting the full capability of the offense with no restrictions from the head coach instructing you to run this many times, play it safe here, don't go up tempo right now, run the ball in this situation, etc.. The offensive coach is going to run the offense exactly how he sees fit, and will be able to make adjustments in style and scheme immediately to respond to what defenses are doing. The other thing is that it is already understood that the head coach has a good offense in place and knows how to run the offense because he has done it before successfully or he wouldn't be a head coach.

There is also so much more detail that goes into the offensive scheme without the approval of someone else. In many cases, the head coach is working directly with his offensive players. They will know exactly what their assignments are and every nuance of the system because he is the one feeding it to them with the help of an OC that is fluent in the same offense. There seem to be less conflicts because the offensive head coach selects people specifically to fit his scheme and run it. The organization hired him and allowed him to bring in his staff. If a defensive coach is running things, he may still be allowed to hire any offensive coach he approves of, but defense is his specialty. He may bring in an offensive mind, yet not get the entire offensive staff that the OC would want to run his system. Also, he is still under the direction of the head coach when it comes to risk assessment, run/pass preferences, down and distance preferences, and personnel. The OC is usually limited in some way by the constraints of the defensive minded head coach.

This may sound a little strange to some, but most offensive head coaches are willing to delegate power to the DC and let him run his defense as he sees fit, with fewer demands from the head coach.

In general, defensive coaches tend to want to control the offenses more because they believe in complimentary football, and they usually wish to run an offense that they think helps the defense by protecting them with time of possession, they hate turnovers and avoid them at all costs, and that they truly believe that a punt isn't a bad thing sometimes. It's just a different way of thinking on the defensive side of the ball. The priority is always to try to put the defense in a good spot. I think that's where the modern game has changed so much that defensive minded head coaches get caught playing like it's still like it was 15 years ago....and it's not.

Just my opinion.

I would tend to agree with this.

Interesting that I can think of several defensive minded coaches that have played “riskier” offensive schemes.

Tomlin with Ben and Arians.
Carrol at points with Wilson
Billy B with Brady and Moss. And Brady, Gronk, and the murder TE.
Staley before he got fired.
I think Saleh was going to with Rodgers.


I wonder if what it comes down to is trust. Gotta trust your OC or DC (depending on which side of the ball your HC is oriented on) can handle their business.

For the Steelers, I feel that Tomlin has largely stayed out of either side of the ball during games when he trusted the coordinator. He lost faith in Butler. And he lost faith in Canada.

The past 10 years of offensive innovation and rise in complexity have had an impact on defense as well. Defenses are smarter, more fluid, and better able to respond to a bunch of crap at once.

What I mean is your offense better bring some advanced stuff to the table to gain an advantage. Canada was just so laughable at that. Once defenses realized all his motions didn’t actually mean anything, it was all over but the crying.

[Mojouw]

Interesting article posted at the Athletic paywall. Named 8 “hot names from NFL” for head coaches. 5 were defense. 1 college. 2 offensive.

[hawaiiansteeler]

IMO, one of the biggest differences between having an offensive minded head coach compared to a defensive minded head coach is that the offense is run unfiltered. You are getting the full capability of the offense with no restrictions from the head coach instructing you to run this many times, play it safe here, don't go up tempo right now, run the ball in this situation, etc.. The offensive coach is going to run the offense exactly how he sees fit, and will be able to make adjustments in style and scheme immediately to respond to what defenses are doing. The other thing is that it is already understood that the head coach has a good offense in place and knows how to run the offense because he has done it before successfully or he wouldn't be a head coach.

There is also so much more detail that goes into the offensive scheme without the approval of someone else. In many cases, the head coach is working directly with his offensive players. They will know exactly what their assignments are and every nuance of the system because he is the one feeding it to them with the help of an OC that is fluent in the same offense. There seem to be less conflicts because the offensive head coach selects people specifically to fit his scheme and run it. The organization hired him and allowed him to bring in his staff. If a defensive coach is running things, he may still be allowed to hire any offensive coach he approves of, but defense is his specialty. He may bring in an offensive mind, yet not get the entire offensive staff that the OC would want to run his system. Also, he is still under the direction of the head coach when it comes to risk assessment, run/pass preferences, down and distance preferences, and personnel. The OC is usually limited in some way by the constraints of the defensive minded head coach.

This may sound a little strange to some, but most offensive head coaches are willing to delegate power to the DC and let him run his defense as he sees fit, with fewer demands from the head coach.

In general, defensive coaches tend to want to control the offenses more because they believe in complimentary football, and they usually wish to run an offense that they think helps the defense by protecting them with time of possession, they hate turnovers and avoid them at all costs, and that they truly believe that a punt isn't a bad thing sometimes. It's just a different way of thinking on the defensive side of the ball. The priority is always to try to put the defense in a good spot. I think that's where the modern game has changed so much that defensive minded head coaches get caught playing like it's still like it was 15 years ago....and it's not.

Just my opinion.

$$$ post

[El Kabong]

IMO, one of the biggest differences between having an offensive minded head coach compared to a defensive minded head coach is that the offense is run unfiltered. You are getting the full capability of the offense with no restrictions from the head coach instructing you to run this many times, play it safe here, don't go up tempo right now, run the ball in this situation, etc.. The offensive coach is going to run the offense exactly how he sees fit, and will be able to make adjustments in style and scheme immediately to respond to what defenses are doing. The other thing is that it is already understood that the head coach has a good offense in place and knows how to run the offense because he has done it before successfully or he wouldn't be a head coach.

There is also so much more detail that goes into the offensive scheme without the approval of someone else. In many cases, the head coach is working directly with his offensive players. They will know exactly what their assignments are and every nuance of the system because he is the one feeding it to them with the help of an OC that is fluent in the same offense. There seem to be less conflicts because the offensive head coach selects people specifically to fit his scheme and run it. The organization hired him and allowed him to bring in his staff. If a defensive coach is running things, he may still be allowed to hire any offensive coach he approves of, but defense is his specialty. He may bring in an offensive mind, yet not get the entire offensive staff that the OC would want to run his system. Also, he is still under the direction of the head coach when it comes to risk assessment, run/pass preferences, down and distance preferences, and personnel. The OC is usually limited in some way by the constraints of the defensive minded head coach.

This may sound a little strange to some, but most offensive head coaches are willing to delegate power to the DC and let him run his defense as he sees fit, with fewer demands from the head coach.

In general, defensive coaches tend to want to control the offenses more because they believe in complimentary football, and they usually wish to run an offense that they think helps the defense by protecting them with time of possession, they hate turnovers and avoid them at all costs, and that they truly believe that a punt isn't a bad thing sometimes. It's just a different way of thinking on the defensive side of the ball. The priority is always to try to put the defense in a good spot. I think that's where the modern game has changed so much that defensive minded head coaches get caught playing like it's still like it was 15 years ago....and it's not.

Just my opinion.

Interesting.