17 replies to this topic

[pgcd3]

I'll start by saying I do trust Lurie with the coaching hire. Looking for leadership and a guy who knows who he wants on his staff are critical. But I want to pose the question is getting an innovator all that important?

Is Tom Coughlin an innovator? Are the Steelers innovators? To me it comes down to drafting well, having a good QB, winning the turnover battle, and having a very good X's and O's coaching staff that lead well.  Innovation is way down on the list. In fact are any of the SB winners innovators? IMO they are just very good football teams that execute well. Sure a coach that keeps teams off balance with playcalling is important but I don't really consider that innovative just good. I don't want another coach that's always trying to prove he's smarter than everyone else, just prove your team is better.

Thoughts?

[stang8118]

Without innovators we would still be playing the same style of football from the 30's and 40's. Not all that exciting if you ask me...

[Bear Grylls]

According to Webster's Dictionary an innovator is - someone who introduces something new.

And I think that's the truth.

[FanSinceWayBack]

Innovation is a double edged sword. You have to not only have a brilliant idea, but you have to bring it to life and see that it works.


You can win all the games you want with just solid coaching, game planning, and execution.

Innovation keeps the game new, therefor giving the innovator the upper hand because its something the NFL (or what ever is in discussion) hasnt seen before. Cant game plan for something thats not been presented.

[BeaSteezy]

FanSinceWayBack, on 04 January 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

Innovation is a double edged sword. You have to not only have a brilliant idea, but you have to bring it to life and see that it works.


You can win all the games you want with just solid coaching, game planning, and execution.

Innovation keeps the game new, therefor giving the innovator the upper hand because its something the NFL (or what ever is in discussion) hasnt seen before. Cant game plan for something thats not been presented.

/thread

Good drafts and coaching is what wins games.

[pgcd3]

Good discussion. Innovation is good for the game but innovators aren't really the guys who necessarily win the championships

[time2rock]

pgcd3, on 03 January 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:

I'll start by saying I do trust Lurie with the coaching hire. Looking for leadership and a guy who knows who he wants on his staff are critical. But I want to pose the question is getting an innovator all that important?

Is Tom Coughlin an innovator? Are the Steelers innovators? To me it comes down to drafting well, having a good QB, winning the turnover battle, and having a very good X's and O's coaching staff that lead well.  Innovation is way down on the list. In fact are any of the SB winners innovators? IMO they are just very good football teams that execute well. Sure a coach that keeps teams off balance with playcalling is important but I don't really consider that innovative just good. I don't want another coach that's always trying to prove he's smarter than everyone else, just prove your team is better.

Thoughts?

Definitely agree with those.  The first is what has me most concerned about the immediate future - I'm not buying the Roseman was only responsible for the 2012 draft crap Lurie was spewing.  I remember all the 'pounding his chest' type of comments Howie was making following the picks of Watkins, Graham, etc. - no way he wasn't involved in those picks.

[pgcd3]

Agreed off topic but for years they've been touting the aggressiveness of Howie and now they say he's responsible for one draft. Revisionist history

[time2rock]

pgcd3, on 04 January 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

Agreed off topic but for years they've been touting the aggressiveness of Howie and now they say he's responsible for one draft. Revisionist history

Yeah, sorry for going off topic (there are plenty of other threads in which to bash Howie).  

I think you are spot on ... being innovative is a nice quality to have, but is not going to make the difference between being championship-caliber or not.  I think the other things you have listed (first and foremost, the need to have a quality QB, drafting well, assembling a good coaching staff that can instill the fundamentals and teach the X's and O's, winning the TO battle, etc.) and having the ability to have all your players buy into your vision and play hard for you all the time - those are all much more important.

[HaroldTheSecond]

I'll take a proven champion over an "innovator" any day of the week - and no pun intended (?), twice on Sundays.

[jonnyeagles12]

pgcd3, on 04 January 2013 - 06:44 AM, said:

Good discussion. Innovation is good for the game but innovators aren't really the guys who necessarily win the championships

Very true. Innovators actually quite often help introduce new methods which can help the league and other coaches not necessarily them selves.

[RastaPasta]

It's more important to be an executer.

[igglesphan]

I'd like to see basic blocking and tackling before gimmicks.

[KzEaglefan86]

Isn't Bill Walsh credited with creating the WCO, probably the greatest and most successful innovation in football history?  It worked out well for him.  Having said that, I really don't think there's room for any drastic new scheme that no one's thought of yet in today's NFL.  Sure there will be tweaks and gimmicks, like the wildcat, but I don't think we'll see something revolutionary from anyone.

[AceofSpades]

pgcd3, on 03 January 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:

I'll start by saying I do trust Lurie with the coaching hire. Looking for leadership and a guy who knows who he wants on his staff are critical. But I want to pose the question is getting an innovator all that important?

Is Tom Coughlin an innovator? Are the Steelers innovators? To me it comes down to drafting well, having a good QB, winning the turnover battle, and having a very good X's and O's coaching staff that lead well.  Innovation is way down on the list. In fact are any of the SB winners innovators? IMO they are just very good football teams that execute well. Sure a coach that keeps teams off balance with playcalling is important but I don't really consider that innovative just good. I don't want another coach that's always trying to prove he's smarter than everyone else, just prove your team is better.

Thoughts?

To answer the original question, being innovative isn't all that important to me. Stick to the fundamentals of football. Trying reinvent the wheel or trying to innovative, original, and creative with a scheme can only take you so far. Then you start to get into the realms of gimmick, gadgets, and stuff like that. There's a way to be innovative with schemes and it still be basic in nature or driven by fundamentals. I'm not worried about a coach trying to create this new offensive scheme. All I care about is if the guy can coach, adjust to his personnel, adjust to in game situations, and do what's necessary to bring home wins week in and week out.

[Vee]

pgcd3, on 03 January 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:

I'll start by saying I do trust Lurie with the coaching hire. Looking for leadership and a guy who knows who he wants on his staff are critical. But I want to pose the question is getting an innovator all that important?

Is Tom Coughlin an innovator? Are the Steelers innovators? To me it comes down to drafting well, having a good QB, winning the turnover battle, and having a very good X's and O's coaching staff that lead well.  Innovation is way down on the list. In fact are any of the SB winners innovators? IMO they are just very good football teams that execute well. Sure a coach that keeps teams off balance with playcalling is important but I don't really consider that innovative just good. I don't want another coach that's always trying to prove he's smarter than everyone else, just prove your team is better.

Thoughts?

What about the Pats and St Louis Rams?

Innovation doesn't guarantee success, but it should provide an advantage for a couple of years.

While I don't think anyone believes we NEED an innovator, it might be nice.

I'd like to see a list of NFL innovators who failed.  That would be more interesting.  Perhaps the guy that invented the Run n Shoot?

AceofSpades, on 04 January 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

To answer the original question, being innovative isn't all that important to me. Stick to the fundamentals of football. Trying reinvent the wheel or trying to innovative, original, and creative with a scheme can only take you so far.

Playing the same style of football only gets you so far as well.

[CountBlah]

stang8118, on 03 January 2013 - 10:20 PM, said:

Without innovators we would still be playing the same style of football from the 30's and 40's. Not all that exciting if you ask me...

Yes, but I believe the point was, you don't have to be THE innovator,  you can win superbowls by improving upon what others have concocted.

[Vee]

CountBlah, on 04 January 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

Yes, but I believe the point was, you don't have to be THE innovator,  you can win superbowls by improving upon what others have concocted.

It seems you don't have to be the innovator, but then again, you could.  The numbers will support either argument.

The innovator sure gets the advantage over 2-3 years while the others are figuring it out, right?

Over the years we've seen the following innovators:
Bill Walsh with the 49ers. (West Coast Offense)
Buddy Ryan with the Bears? (46)
Jimmy Johnson's Cowboys (speed kills)
Mike Martz's Rams (spread offense)
Shanahan's Broncos (remember they had to outlaw chop blocking linemen because of them!)
Monte Kiffin's Buccaneers (Cover2 creator)
Bill Belichick's Patriots (whatever it is that he continues to do, except when playing the Giants in a Super Bowl)

Not a bad list.  Oh sure the Skins, Giants, Ravens, Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis and New Orleans have all won, but where do those teams go in your argument?  

I mean, Favre and Manning kind of blazed their own way, right?
You can probably say that the Skins, Giants and Pittsburgh won the "old style way" while New Orleans stole the best ideas from a Saint Louis and Tampa Bay, right?

I think you might be underestimating what the innovator brings...