Norm Chow Debuts Tonight!

[doe-sun]

Norm Chow is the offensive coordinator for the tennessee titans, after 32 years of being an assistant coach at the college level.
Despite numerous success, and despite coaching players that have gone on to successful nfl careers, such as Steve Young, he was never given a head coaching job.
Then the nfl came a knockin' and offered him double his college salary to do his same job but at the professional level. So he's getting $900K a year and a hell of a lot more respect.
Let's hope he does't live up to the hype, but instead, he SURPASSES IT!

[VV o n g B a]

well he lost his first game even tho it was close. next time norm, u'll get it.

[yoMAMA]

pre season doesn't count.

what's important is no one gets injured.

[Faithless]

Well, considering that the Titans scored 17 is not bad in pre-season game 1.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/boxscores/2005/08/12/1870_boxscore.html

Over 200 yards in passing. 80 something yards in rushing.

You could also argue, "How come the defense didn't do it's part?"

[Faithless]

The Titans are 2-7 at this point, losing to the Browns (3-5) by 14-20.

Their offense seems to be inconsistent, scoring in the 20's on some days (with a 34 point game in there), scoring in 10's on others (or worse).

What's wrong with their offense?

If my review of their offensive stats are correct -- not one 100-yard rushing game -- although Chris Brown has picked it up in the last two games, being in the mid 90's.

The passing yardage has been okay, garnering 200+ in most games, but not a lot of TD's there. But McNair's game ratings have been weak, with only one 100+ day.

[deez nuts]

What's wrong with their offense?

If my review of their offensive stats are correct -- not one 100-yard rushing game -- although Chris Brown has picked it up in the last two games, being in the mid 90's.

The passing yardage has been okay, garnering 200+ in most games, but not a lot of TD's there. But McNair's game ratings have been weak, with only one 100+ day.

brown is too fragile and prone to fumbles to be a work horse back. that's why they bought in travis henry. but, henry was suspended for 4 games and working his way back.

their top receiver drew bennett is out with injuries and they also lost mason to the ravens. the top receiver right now is their tight end kinney and kinney is no antonio gates.

[lethal]

Chow has been receiving excellent reviews from guys like Len Pasquerelli of ESPN. The talent level in Tennessee is lacking, though. They're just not that good and no amount of coaching, scheming, and play calling is going to make them way better than they really are.

[yoMAMA]

brown is too fragile and prone to fumbles to be a work horse back. that's why they bought in travis henry. but, henry was suspended for 4 games and working his way back.

their top receiver drew bennett is out with injuries and they also lost mason to the ravens. the top receiver right now is their tight end kinney and kinney is no antonio gates.


they need to get eddie george back.

:wink:

[haplesshobo]

The talent level in Tennessee is lacking, though. They're just not that good and no amount of coaching, scheming, and play calling is going to make them way better than they really are.

Try telling that to NE Patriots, notwithstanding this year, who have been able to overcome injuries and jettisoning pro bowl caliber players to win several championships. Football might be the only sport where coaching can have an impact on the game.

McNair's been injured, but when hasn't he been hurt the last few years? I haven't been following Tenessee, but maybe Chow's offensive schemes simply don't translate well in the NFL. There's no shame in that, as we've seen hall of fame college coaches like steve supprier fail to make the transition in the NFL.

[lethal]

No doubt coaching has an impact, but lack of talent is lack of talent. The Patriots always had talent with Tom Brady at QB and Corey Dillon at RB. Their injuries were on defense. Regardless, you can't discount this year. As they're showing, lack of talent has hurt them. Losing Rodney Harrison and Tedy Brushi has hurt them a lot.

Re: Chow, I'm only going by what guys like ESPN NFL writer Len Pasquarelli (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2216406) are writing:

• "I sure hope Steve McNair hangs around a little longer. He isn't the same guy he once was, no doubt, and taking the kind of hits that he's [absorbing] has to be getting old. But I really believe that, in a year or so, the Titans offense is going to be pretty good. You can see that [coordinator] Norm Chow knows what he's doing. Just look at the stuff they're doing with the tight ends. But they need more talent and they need for some of their young guys to get some experience."

and (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2209018)

Tennessee's poor record (2-6), aside, offensive coordinator Norm Chow is tough to prepare for. He should have been in the NFL a long time ago. Chow said he would get the ball more to the tight ends, and he is. Give him another year, with all those young wide receivers getting a season under their belts, and that offense could be very good. ...

You said yourself that you haven't been following Tennessee this year. Listen to the guys who have watched them.

[haplesshobo]

No doubt coaching has an impact, but lack of talent is lack of talent. The Patriots always had talent with Tom Brady at QB and Corey Dillon at RB. Their injuries were on defense. Regardless, you can't discount this year. As they're showing, lack of talent has hurt them. Losing Rodney Harrison and Tedy Brushi has hurt them a lot.

Well, when the Patriots were winning, I don't think they were considered the most talented team out there. Corey Dillon wasn't with NE the first two times they won the Super Bowl and yet NE was able to win their first two SB without an elite running back. And, Brady didn't come into the NFL with a lot of hype about his talent as he wasn't selected until the fifth or sixth round in the draft. He was the backup quaterback untill their starting ProBowl QB got injured during the season when they won the SB, and he had to step in. Indeed, if you look at the Patriots, they've had to jettison pro bowl players and yet they were still able win. The greatness of the Patriots has been that they've been able to lose all those players, and yet somehow substitute somebody into their schemes and still succeed. On a individual level, their talent level wasn't as great as St. Louis Rams, but they were able to win as a team. And, coaching has a large part to do with that, with finding the right system for the players you have. People in the NFL have so much respect for the NE coaching staff that they expected NE to still succeed despite all the injuries, since they were able to overcome similar injuries or having to cut pro bowl players.

I admit that I don't know much about the Titans situation, but I disagree with the statement that the right football coach can't make a difference and make a team better, even one with limited talent.

[lethal]

I admit that I don't know much about the Titans situation, but I disagree with the statement that the right football coach can't make a difference and make a team better, even one with limited talent.

And I said:no amount of coaching, scheming, and play calling is going to make them way better than they really are.

Note that I never even made the assertion that you are disagreeing with. I said that coaching could not make a team play *significantly* better than their talent level, not that coaching could not make any difference.

I know you said you were thinking about becoming a lawyer (http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=24909). One of the first things you have to do is learn to read for little nuances. As a lawyer, if you misread or misinterpret your opponent's argument and reasoning, you're not going to do so well in the courtroom.

[haplesshobo]

Okay, but we need to clarify the statement 'way better' as that term is vague and obviously means different things to different people. To me, that means where the coaching staff could be the difference maker, and a team wins a game which it would have otherwise lost if decided by talent alone.

And, I'd argue the 2001 NE Patriots were an example of that where they were coached up by the staff to Super Bowl Champions. Before that game, they were 16 point underdogs to the St. Louis Rams when the betting started after upsetting the Steelers. Indeed, before that Super Bowl, the aforementioned Len Pasquerrli was calling the St. Louis Rams one of the most complete teams in recent history on offense and defense, whose only weakness was in special teams. In comparison to the Rams, he described the Pats as:

"The Patriots are the consummate blue-collar team, a collection of modestly talented veterans, many of whom were plucked off the NFL last spring by Billichick and by personel director Scott Piloli. As such, they will be elevated to sweetheart status by all those who cheer underdogs."

In their past eight games, the Rams had been averaging 35 points per game but were limited to 17 points in their loss. Much of that was widely credited to Billichick for his game plan. Instead of going after Warner with blitzes, Billichick's gameplan was to clip Marshall Faulk and thus disrupt the rhythm of the St. Louis Rams. Billichick recognized that Faulk was the key to the offense, not Warner.

People have forgotten how improbable 2001 was if we were looking only at talent. The Patriots lost their starting Pro Bowl QB for much of the season to injury, Terry Glen, their best reciever, only played 4 games due to drug suspension and holdout, they lost players to free agency, etc... To me, the 2001 NE Patriots are a case where coaching did play a signifigant role, where Billichick made that team signifigantly better than what you expected from talent alone.

[lethal]

Okay, but we need to clarify the statement 'way better' as that term is vague and obviously means different things to different people. To me, that means where the coaching staff could be the difference maker, and a team wins a game which it would have otherwise lost if decided by talent alone.

And, I'd argue the 2001 NE Patriots were an example of that where they were coached up by the staff to Super Bowl Champions. Before that game, they were 16 point underdogs to the St. Louis Rams when the betting started after upsetting the Steelers. Indeed, before that Super Bowl, the aforementioned Len Pasquerrli was calling the St. Louis Rams one of the most complete teams in recent history on offense and defense, whose only weakness was in special teams. In comparison to the Rams, he described the Pats as:

"The Patriots are the consummate blue-collar team, a collection of modestly talented veterans, many of whom were plucked off the NFL last spring by Billichick and by personel director Scott Piloli. As such, they will be elevated to sweetheart status by all those who cheer underdogs."

In their past eight games, the Rams had been averaging 35 points per game but were limited to 17 points in their loss. Much of that was widely credited to Billichick for his game plan. Instead of going after Warner with blitzes, Billichick's gameplan was to clip Marshall Faulk and thus disrupt the rhythm of the St. Louis Rams. Billichick recognized that Faulk was the key to the offense, not Warner.

People have forgotten how improbable 2001 was if we were looking only at talent. The Patriots lost their starting Pro Bowl QB for much of the season to injury, Terry Glen, their best reciever, only played 4 games due to drug suspension and holdout, they lost players to free agency, etc... To me, the 2001 NE Patriots are a case where coaching did play a signifigant role, where Billichick made that team signifigantly better than what you expected from talent alone.

Let's note the flaws in your argument in 2 ways here and also explode the Patriots 2001 myth of an undertalented team.

1) You've changed the dynamics of the argument. Talent shows itself over the course of a full season. In any given game, either team can win, regardless of how good the other team may be. Just this past week, the Minnesota Vikings beat the NY Giants even though the Giants thoroughly dominated the game. Manning threw a ton on interceptions, but the Vikings didn't score one single offensive TD (kick return, punt return, and int return). Last year, the Dolphins, one of the absolute worst teams in the league beat the Patriots in Week 15, wreching the Pats chances at playoff home field.

You're arguing about the 2001 SB, not the 2001 Patriots in that example, which is different than saying the 2001 Patriots were undertalented, but we'll address that argument later.

2) Look at the 3 bad teams that changed coaches over the offseason, Dolphins, 49ers, and Browns. By all accounts, the new coaches have been great, but the talent levels remain low. This year is better than last for each of them (with the exception of the Niners). Look at their records: 3-6, 3-6, and 2-7. Marginal upgrades. Coaching has made some impact, but it didn't turn stone into gold.

3) The 2001 Patriots had 3 Pro Bowlers, Tom Brady, Troy Brown, and Lawyer Milloy. Brady is headed toward the Hall of Fame. You can't say he didn't have talent in 2001, but he had talent in 2003, 2004, and this year. Brown followed up his 101 carch season with a 97 catch season. He's talent. Milloy was a 4 time Pro Bowler. Talent. Also on that team were Bryan Cox, Ty Law, Willie McGinest, and Richard Seymour. Talent. Antowain Smith ran for over 1000 yards, which he also did in 1998 for Buffalo and he had 982 yards for NE in 2002. Talent. Don't forget Adam Vinatieri. The myth of the 2001 Patriots not being talented is just wrong. The Rams were better on paper, but when Mike Martz is your head coach, that can get thrown out the window. And again, in individual games, anything can happen. The true talent level of a team is shown over the course of a season. Heck, the Pats themselves were fortunate to win the game against the Raiders (tuck rule).