Are Coaching and Talent Mutually Exclusive?
by Tom Rathkamp
 ou’ve probably
read something in this column before about the effects – or non-effects
- of "coaching" in the professional ranks. Every once in a
while, I’ve smattered editorial snippets about what I think is littering
American sports broadcasting and fanhood: The overrating of coaching in
relation to the success or failure of a team. Why an entire column on the
subject? In short, I present to you the 2000 Green Bay Packers.
As you know, the Packers fired Ray Rhodes after just one season at the
helm. The verdict was split as to whether or not the firing was justified.
General Manager Ron Wolf cited an obvious lack of discipline in a team
that previously was military like under Mike Holmgren. Right or wrong,
Wolf saw an 8-8 team that was too careless and fancy free for his tastes.
In 2000, the Packers have stumbled, fumbled, mis-tackled, and flat out
embarrassed themselves into a 2-4 start under Mike Sherman. It’s clear
as glass that the talent level on this team has been in a steady decline
since their Super Bowl triumph. Yet the rumblings have already begun about
whether Sherman will or should make it to a second season as head coach.
For as long as I can remember, fans and media alike have pondered the
justification of a coach’s firing or hiring. Coaches have always been
the goats and this era in sports is no different. What does seem different
nowadays is the naïve perception that coaching is always the
"difference maker" in the success or failure of a team. I used
to hear my mother utter the phrase: "The coach can’t go out
there and play for them … it’s the players." A left-handed
attempt at defending coaches, indeed. But there’s a lot of truth in her
statement (my bias notwithstanding).
Here in Wisconsin, I could count on fifty hands the number of times
fans were calling for Ray Rhodes’ head on a platter, all the while I
tried to tell those within earshot that it was the lack of talent that
rendered this team’s combustion. Well, this year’s version of the
"green and gold" is still declining, but with a different coach.
Don’t you think it’s time for the fans to call for the proverbial
heads of Bret Favre, or Antonio Freeman, or the cast of untalented,
under-achieving slugs that permeate this roster?
I agree with Wolf that the Packers under Rhodes were just too
undisciplined and flighty for his coaching tenure to continue. That doesn’t
mean that his coaching (or perceived lackthereof) was the sole reason for
the Packers dismal 1999 campaign. My guess is that, after this season,
fans and writers will finally cite the lack of talent on the Packers as
the main reason for the dip. To them, I’ll just say: Duh !!!
Thus far, I’ve concentrated on the Packers as partial proof that
coaching is not the "catch all" on a team that lacks fundamental
talent to begin with. Conversely, what about coaches that get all the
credit on teams that have an obvious advantage in the talent department
(as in Phil Jackson and Joe Torre) or coaches that were slated to be
lifesavers for under-achieving franchises (as in Davey Johnson or Mike
Dunleavy)?
Do I think Phil Jackson is a great coach? Absolutely. But give him the
job with the LA Clippers or Atlanta Hawks and I bet he doesn’t bring
home the gold. How about Torre? A good manager and a great guy who
communicates well with his players. But what did he do in previous stints
as a manager with far inferior talent pools? As Casey Stengel would say: "You
could look it up."
Davey Johnson’s Dodgers continued to lack offensive consistency and
defensive stability. Hence, no division crown nor wild card this season.
We already know the futility of Dunleavy as the Milwaukee Bucks coach a
few years back. Now suddenly he’s this really good coach on a Blazer
team loaded with talent. Uh huh.
Several readers will disagree with me, especially Bulls fans. I’ll
probably hear the same tired old phrase that has been applied to both
Jackson and Dunleavy, and that is that they work well with good talent.
Give me a break. Just ask the year 2000 pink slip recipients in major
league baseball, which include Johnson, Terry Francona (Phillies), Gene
Lamont (Pirates), Jack McKeon (Reds), Buck Showalter (Diamondbacks), and
most recently, Jim Fregosi (Blue Jays). See how they would work
with superior talent.
Do I believe that Phil Jackson was a key difference in the Lakers going
from a near championship team to a championship team? Once again,
absolutely. But don’t forget that he had Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe
Bryant. In Chicago, he had Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen. I don’t
seek to totally dismiss Jackson’s accomplishments, but his success in
relation to other coaches has to come with an asterisk, and that asterisk
is superior talent.
The next time you blame a baseball team’s failure totally on a
manager, take a peek at his team’s on-base percentage or the
strikeout-walk ratio of his pitchers. If you want to castigate a football
coach for not motivating his players enough (I love that one), look at his
offensive line’s futility in protecting their QB or the defense’s
failure to stop the run. Before you scream for the ax to fall on a
basketball coach’s head, look deep into why they gave up 105 points a
game. Chances are, you’ll discover NO good individual defenders on the
team.
If nothing else, analyzing a player’s performance will challenge your
psyche more and make it more difficult to blame the guy standing on the
sidelines. Take it from me. Opting for the "former" is more fun
too!
Any comments, criticisms, or condemnations on this sports column or
previous ones? Feel free to email me at
andydan@milwpc.com
Read Last Week's Column
|
