Blame the Coaches?

[NYSandman]

I find it interesting how when a team sucks, it seems like the Coach is the first to get fired and called into account.

I find this absurd and stupid. You have a team, in any sport, with a group of people who go out and actually play. Their physical abilities allow them to catch, throw, kick, hit, shoot, or whatever.

Now, if a team is doing very bad, that tells me that the physical skill or desire isn't there.

I'll site two examples from my home town.

The Nicks: Okay, yes, Isiah was dirt, and I couldn't stand him. But, can he honestly be totally blamed for this disgrace? You have a team of statistically great players who are getting raped on the court. Yes, Isiah gave them instruction. Yes, he wrote strategy. But, come on? Fire the whole damn team. Isiah was an idiot, but to totally blame him is not fair.

The Mets: They are choking. Their bullpen is an abortion, and losing 1-0 or 2-0 is totally insane with the hitters they have. Now, Willie Randolph is getting blamed. He doesn't pitch or hit. He doesn't catch. He doesn't field.

They say he's not passionate. Listen. These guys are getting paid an insane amount of money to produce, and they're not doing it. Randolph gives instruction, but HE'S NOT PLAYING.

Why is he getting all the heat?

Earl Heilman sucks. He sucks like a leech stuck to Dracula's ass. He should be doing my damned laundry. And yet, the poor coach gets blamed and possibly fired.

This is, IMO, total bullshit, and I've seen it time and time again.

And good for Willie for playing the race card in one of his statements. They're trying to screw him unfairly, so I totally understand why he'd go there to defend himself.

Thoughts?

 

[justinsayne]

The reason they fire the coach is simply because it is easier, and cheaper, when the team sucks it's easier to just blame the one guy who is suppose to be leading the team to victory, than to replace a bunch of the players on the team, and it's cheaper to get get rid of one guy and go out and find a new coach in most cases, the players on the team useally are making more money than their coach and many of them have it in their contracts that they are guaranteed to make a certain percentage of what they signed for, so if they were to be released the team would still have to pay up a pretty good chunk of money, I'm sure there is more than just what I stated to it, but I think those are two of the main reasons why the team usually fires the coach after a piss poor season as opposed to getting rid of crappy over payed players

 

[klunderbunker]

This is very true. Teams often fall apart because of the team not responding to the coach and his methods. Take the Knicks for example. There is no one thing that's going to fix that team. They're a train wreck. Supposedly their biggest problem was the feud between Marbury and THomas. NOw Thomas is gone. Is Marbury going to suddenly safve the Knicks and take them deep into the playoffs? Of course not. He's older now and nowhere near what he used to be. Teams like this or the Mets are in need of an overhaul, not a quick fix. The Mets were so far ahead in the East and managed to lose it. That's not something you can just get rid of and out of your mind overnight. Was it Randolph's fault? Maybe, but there's no way it can be placed on his shoulders, nor on any other manager or coach.

 

[HBK-aholic]

This is something happening in Rugby League lately. 3 coaches parted with their clubs in around 2 weeks. I don't think the coach is the one who should get all of the blame.

Part of it should go to them, as their job is to get the team working together, buying players that can help out and overall doing what's best for the club. If a coach can't see that they shouldn't be the head coach. However not everything is their fault. If you give a top coach a team of players who have little ability in the sport then how can you expect the coach to suddenly transform them into stars? Also, things such as budget have to be taken into account. The coach can't buy any better players if there is no money.