Shaftception
Registered User
- Apr 6, 2011
- 4,096
- 1,660
TLDR Tomlin bad, please excuse the long post.
That always stuck out to me too, and when comparing to say Belichick who the other poster mentioned for his lack of relative successful coaching tree compared to his reputation, at least his assistants are actually considered for head coaching positions because of their success under him, when was the last time anyone was considered a hot coaching commodity under Tomlin? That you could credit to his influence? Is there any?
The other aspect of Tomlin's career that bugs me is most of the elite coaches in the league have a certain meaningful aspect of the game they are considered masters at that contributes to their success. What exactly is Tomlin's?
When the media talks about the elite coaches, they always focus on said mastery of whatever aspect of the game they excel at. Belichick's a defensive genius, Reid's a QB guru, McVay's x's and o's and general modern offensive schemes, Payton and Shanahan (at least when he was the coordinator for that Falcons SB team) for offensive play calling, etc.
But when it comes time for the media to praise Tomlin, what do they always refer to? His record. No singular defining trait of expertise they can point to, just his career winning record. This I believe is what Bradshaw was hinting at when he got backlash for the cheerleader comment. He doesn't have anything that stands out about him that you could point to for his winning record. But there must be one or else he wouldn't have said record, right? So when it's time for the booth to drum up talking points for Steelers games, they default to things like motivation, or players loving to play for him, etc. They won't try to connect the dots about his early career success largely coming with an already intact team he didn't have much hand in shaping, and especially the stability at QB he's had his entire head coaching career.
That relative inability to highlight a defining, meaningful aspect of the game he's a supposed expert at to explain his career success is one of the biggest arguments for his detractors. Like McCarthy with the Packers and Rodgers, the only conclusion is...
I've felt similar but for a different reason. His career reputation is entirely reliant on his career winning record and early playoff success. The smart play I'd argue would be to go out with his public positive reputation intact before having the opportunity to expose it for the fraud his detractors believe it is by potentially failing in a second coaching gig. If he "retired" in order to avoid the upcoming rebuild (since Art doesn't "fire" coaches), he could ride into the proverbial sunset much like Cowher did despite his last year being poor as well, and his late career failures would largely be forgotten by the time his HoF candidacy period came around, easily coasting into Canton (even though he'll likely do so regardless due to his significance as a poc SB winning coach, like Dungy before him). But he's probably too proud to consider otherwise, judging by the response he had to the Notre Dame rumors. And he's likely too young still to not give it another go elsewhere if the opportunity was offered.
Many here like to compare Tomlin to Bylsma, and it's for that reason I'd argue my above point. Once Byslma was given the opportunity to prove his success wasn't a product of superstar talent carrying him, he quickly crashed and burned in Buffalo (and Team USA...), and his league reputation has never recovered.
I considered the same potential worry this past summer about Fleury going to Chicago. His HoF worthiness was never truly all that strong leaguewide until his success in Vegas, capped off with a Vezina. Prior to that he'd largely had quite average career stats outside the win column. He was never considered among the elite goalies prior to then. If he falters in the remaining years of his career, it might shed doubt on his post-Pens career resurgence as a potential product of the Vegas system in front of him, compared to say his whatever your feelings on the matter either earned or unearned reputation as a playoff choke in the post 09 Cup years of his tenure here.
Tomlin may yet prove his coaching reputation is earned if he succeeds elsewhere after his Steelers tenure ends whenever that may be, but I for one wouldn't exactly bet on it, and if I were him I wouldn't either. Join the talking heads on the major networks, get paid a boat load of dough, and enjoy your retirement and eventual trip to Canton.
That always stuck out to me too, and when comparing to say Belichick who the other poster mentioned for his lack of relative successful coaching tree compared to his reputation, at least his assistants are actually considered for head coaching positions because of their success under him, when was the last time anyone was considered a hot coaching commodity under Tomlin? That you could credit to his influence? Is there any?
The other aspect of Tomlin's career that bugs me is most of the elite coaches in the league have a certain meaningful aspect of the game they are considered masters at that contributes to their success. What exactly is Tomlin's?
When the media talks about the elite coaches, they always focus on said mastery of whatever aspect of the game they excel at. Belichick's a defensive genius, Reid's a QB guru, McVay's x's and o's and general modern offensive schemes, Payton and Shanahan (at least when he was the coordinator for that Falcons SB team) for offensive play calling, etc.
But when it comes time for the media to praise Tomlin, what do they always refer to? His record. No singular defining trait of expertise they can point to, just his career winning record. This I believe is what Bradshaw was hinting at when he got backlash for the cheerleader comment. He doesn't have anything that stands out about him that you could point to for his winning record. But there must be one or else he wouldn't have said record, right? So when it's time for the booth to drum up talking points for Steelers games, they default to things like motivation, or players loving to play for him, etc. They won't try to connect the dots about his early career success largely coming with an already intact team he didn't have much hand in shaping, and especially the stability at QB he's had his entire head coaching career.
That relative inability to highlight a defining, meaningful aspect of the game he's a supposed expert at to explain his career success is one of the biggest arguments for his detractors. Like McCarthy with the Packers and Rodgers, the only conclusion is...
I've felt similar but for a different reason. His career reputation is entirely reliant on his career winning record and early playoff success. The smart play I'd argue would be to go out with his public positive reputation intact before having the opportunity to expose it for the fraud his detractors believe it is by potentially failing in a second coaching gig. If he "retired" in order to avoid the upcoming rebuild (since Art doesn't "fire" coaches), he could ride into the proverbial sunset much like Cowher did despite his last year being poor as well, and his late career failures would largely be forgotten by the time his HoF candidacy period came around, easily coasting into Canton (even though he'll likely do so regardless due to his significance as a poc SB winning coach, like Dungy before him). But he's probably too proud to consider otherwise, judging by the response he had to the Notre Dame rumors. And he's likely too young still to not give it another go elsewhere if the opportunity was offered.
Many here like to compare Tomlin to Bylsma, and it's for that reason I'd argue my above point. Once Byslma was given the opportunity to prove his success wasn't a product of superstar talent carrying him, he quickly crashed and burned in Buffalo (and Team USA...), and his league reputation has never recovered.
I considered the same potential worry this past summer about Fleury going to Chicago. His HoF worthiness was never truly all that strong leaguewide until his success in Vegas, capped off with a Vezina. Prior to that he'd largely had quite average career stats outside the win column. He was never considered among the elite goalies prior to then. If he falters in the remaining years of his career, it might shed doubt on his post-Pens career resurgence as a potential product of the Vegas system in front of him, compared to say his whatever your feelings on the matter either earned or unearned reputation as a playoff choke in the post 09 Cup years of his tenure here.
Tomlin may yet prove his coaching reputation is earned if he succeeds elsewhere after his Steelers tenure ends whenever that may be, but I for one wouldn't exactly bet on it, and if I were him I wouldn't either. Join the talking heads on the major networks, get paid a boat load of dough, and enjoy your retirement and eventual trip to Canton.
