The X Factor

[RMJK]

Every year you look at teams and say wow this team is stacked with talent and see predictions that they are SB bound. Some Examples are Detroit, Chicago,The Eagles (with Vick), The Giants, Dallas, Pittsburgh etc

Why do these teams fails when they are loaded with talent and teams with lesser talent eg., Indy, Cinci make the playoffs and overachieve.

Any thoughts ?

[RMJK]

I suspect a team loses key games and gets demoralized. I think teams get up for certain games and don't have enough for other games.

In our case we got up for NE in the first game, got up Indy, got demoralized by losses to 49ers and Houston. Didn't get up for Miami at home and the season was lost.

[buzzershot18]

going to school in philly ive seen a ton of the eagles this year... 2 things come to mind why the stunk... and one of them is not michael vick's TOs because they still couldve won a ton of games with that.

1) they dont give the ball to their best player. Lesean McCoy. Simple as that. He only gets 15 16 carries a game when he should get 30 rushing attempts and a few catches, but Andy Reid was too pass happy for that. Falls on the COACHING.

2) Team chemistry. They have a ton of good players and talent on both sides of the ball, but for some reason they just cannot play well together. Chemistry is the only thing I can think of to explain that. Their roster has a ton talent compared to the Jets, but they just gave up too many big plays defensively to stay in games and I don't understand it.

[BamaJets]

Many teams have the talent to win it all each season, but I put a lot of stock into chemistry, true leadership in the locker room and confidence.

[RMJK]

Originally Posted by buzzershot18

going to school in philly ive seen a ton of the eagles this year... 2 things come to mind why the stunk... and one of them is not michael vick's TOs because they still couldve won a ton of games with that.

1) they dont give the ball to their best player. Lesean McCoy. Simple as that. He only gets 15 16 carries a game when he should get 30 rushing attempts and a few catches, but Andy Reid was too pass happy for that. Falls on the COACHING.

2) Team chemistry. They have a ton of good players and talent on both sides of the ball, but for some reason they just cannot play well together. Chemistry is the only thing I can think of to explain that. Their roster has a ton talent compared to the Jets, but they just gave up too many big plays defensively to stay in games and I don't understand it.

Philly has been a huge disappointment. They seem to get up for the Giants but this year is different. Vick has lost a step and has taken took many hits.
Chemisty is a good answer. The team don't buy into the coaching and only give 80%.

[RMJK]

Nice answer.

[RMJK]

BamaJets - Nice answerNice answer. [/QUOTE]

I screwed up the quote thing

[10PennyToColes87]

Originally Posted by RMJK

BamaJets - Nice answerNice answer.

I screwed up the quote thing

Please go away.

[ASG0531]

Originally Posted by RMJK

Philly has been a huge disappointment. They seem to get up for the Giants but this year is different. Vick has lost a step and has taken took many hits.
Chemisty is a good answer. The team don't buy into the coaching and only give 80%.

Coaching matters. Belichick gets **** upon around here but it takes skill to bring together 53 millionaires as a unit.

[buzzershot18]

Coaches are the X factor. They are the ones that put the right personnel on the field and make the players look good.
This of course is unless you are Peyton Manning who continues to make his teammates and coaches and everyone is the Broncos organization look good by running a well-oiled machine year after year.

[Yankeejet22]

please insert the "little bit of luck" guy here:

[Yankeejet22]

[RMJK]

Originally Posted by buzzershot18

Coaches are the X factor. They are the ones that put the right personnel on the field and make the players look good.
This of course is unless you are Peyton Manning who continues to make his teammates and coaches and everyone is the Broncos organization look good by running a well-oiled machine year after year.

Coaches need players that are coachable though. I get the impression with some players that they are slow to pick up any changes that new coordinators might bring.

[RMJK]

Originally Posted by 10PennyToColes87

Please go away.

WTF

[buzzershot18]

Originally Posted by RMJK

Coaches need players that are coachable though. I get the impression with some players that they are slow to pick up any changes that new coordinators might bring.

This is true too, so I guess you also need a good FOOTBALL MINDED (listening Jets??) GM to get the right players in there willing to buy in to the coaching.

[RMJK]

Originally Posted by buzzershot18

This is true too, so I guess you also new a good FOOTBALL MINDED (listening Jets??) GM to get the right players in there willing to buy in to the coaching.

a GM is huge in bringing in coachable players that are hungry for making it.

[rhyan66]

I think the answer is twofold:

1 – People tend to limit the term “Star” to players who play as the skilled positions. Rarely do you hear about the guys who line up down in the trenches and, as a result, their contributions are put to the back burner. Talking about Vick, Shaddy, Deshawn and Asmoghua are much more sexy then any of their linemen. Which leads me to my second point…

2 – I think there are two types of coaches:

The first are those who say this is my system and I find the players who make it work. They tend to do well when they are closely aligned with the front office and can find the players who fit the bill - provided they are available when needed. They coach a scheme. My gut tells me this is Rex.

The second are adapters. They access their teams and opponents personnel and literally coach game to game. These teams always seem to have a rotation of players who are the difference makers. (Bardy, Dillon, Welker, Moss, Branch, Gronk, Hernandez, Wilfork, Seymour, Vinateri) They have a system and players, but the true “coaching” is found in optimizing the two when compared against the opponent.

[joiseyjet]

Turnovers & injuries.

[RMJK]

Originally Posted by rhyan66

I think the answer is twofold:

1 – People tend to limit the term “Star” to players who play as the skilled positions. Rarely do you hear about the guys who line up down in the trenches and, as a result, their contributions are put to the back burner. Talking about Vick, Shaddy, Deshawn and Asmoghua are much more sexy then any of their linemen. Which leads me to my second point…

2 – I think there are two types of coaches:

The first are those who say this is my system and I find the players who make it work. They tend to do well when they are closely aligned with the front office and can find the players who fit the bill - provided they are available when needed. They coach a scheme. My gut tells me this is Rex.

The second are adapters. They access their teams and opponents personnel and literally coach game to game. These teams always seem to have a rotation of players who are the difference makers. (Bardy, Dillon, Welker, Moss, Branch, Gronk, Hernandez, Wilfork, Seymour, Vinateri) They have a system and players, but the true “coaching” is found in optimizing the two when compared against the opponent.

I like coaches who adapt to the game situation. Rex did a good job on NE a few years back when we beat them in the playoffs. By sticking with Sanchez though shows me he is not adapting. Tough year.

I think getting a football GM who brings in excellent coaches and coachable players is what we want here.

[Darook]

I think Tate Stevens deserved to win for all the right reasons. Brittney has zero personality and Demi Lovato is an idiot.