Not sure I have a great answer.
-
Where's the fuckin power box, Carol? -
I think it’s a great question but most likely extremely difficult for fans to answer. As you know, in professional sports no matter which one, the difference in a head bosses abilities can be very subtle in game with all the quick moves that need to be made. I remember in horse racing that the subtleties that trainers displayed were not easy for most fans to see, but they were difference makers and made losers into winners. Some of the moves they made, were the difference between good and great.
My guess would be that in the NFL, if the players and coaches were polled, us fans would see some surprises in their answers. But I’m sure it wouldn’t be a surprise to those within.Comment -
I used to think Lafleur (GBay) was up there. Then I watch the game and think that I might take Peyton Manning over Lafleur.
Campbell (DET) is up there. The aggression USUALLY works. When it fails, it looks bad.Where's the fuckin power box, Carol?Comment -
I remember in horse racing that the subtleties that trainers displayed were not easy for most fans to see, but they were difference makers and made losers into winners. Some of the moves they made, were the difference between good and great.
Salud, str. You know I'm a great admirer of great coaches/trainers etc. This is something I've studied.
I sometimes think that people measure "great coach" on # of trophies. Sure, that's good. But I'm talking maximizing potential:
*John Wooden had the luxury of coaching TWO generational centers as well as many other great players (most of which were paid for). Would a competent coach have had a similar record?
*Red Auerbach used to rib Phil Jackson about selecting some good positions. Phil (surely) had the good fortune to coach good teams.
...Can a GREAT coach adjust to flip a result from Loss to Win?
I know that Belichick's name is bit tarnished right now. But he merits some mention for his tactics in big-games:
(1990) His DBs pounded on Andre Reed. Giants beat a more talented team.
(2001) Looked a lot like 1990. Put the pressure on the best Ram players. I re-watched the game and felt like the Rams never deviated from their game-plan. Similar result: team w/ better skill-position players lost.
(2018) Rams had talent. Hard to believe they could look that bad. Some of that was Belichick's preparation. Low-scoring game, Beli could have been MVP of the game.
Where's the fuckin power box, Carol?Comment -
Yeah Chucky. One thing that is a must in most cases is being able to see it from the inside, or, from the ground up. By that I mean, I can watch tv or go to the races and witness something great. But was it because of any human action. Or set of actions that helped create what happened ?Originally posted by ChuckyTheGoat
I saw this first hand over the years at the Track. But other than the rider, we can see nothing else when it comes to the horses running.
We only see the game played, not all that went into that game. Greatness is out there. No question about it. I just don't think people like me who watch games from afar can properly judge IT.
You can bet that those that were around daily do know.
A quick case in point. Secretariat was great. We all know that. But who knows how great his groom Eddie Sweat was? I do. I was there in 73 at Pimlico as a groom learning the game and talked to him in the evenings at dusk the week of the race. He was as good a groom as I ever saw. Was he the reason Secretariat was as great as he was? I don't know, but I'm sure he had something to do with it.Comment -
Good stuff, str. I view a horse as a creature of habit. If he was getting the right treatment pre-race, his performance shows up on race-day.Where's the fuckin power box, Carol?Comment