Doesn't fall far from the tree

Bill Belichick is considered one of the best minds in football, and he has a large coaching tree. However, how much success do each of the branches of his tree enjoy? Recently, Romeo Crennel and Eric Mangini haven't lived up to expectations and Chuck Weis is on the brink of getting fired. That got me wondering how the rest have done.

I would be remiss in talking about the Bill Belichick tree without mentioning that the entire Bill Belichick tree is actually part of what is now the Bill Parcells coaching forest.

Belichick Assistants Who Became Head Coaches:
Romeo Crennel: Cleveland Browns (24-40)
Eric Mangini: NY Jets, Cleveland Browns (24-33)
Josh McDaniels: Denver Broncos (6-3)
Jim Schwartz: Detroit Lions (1-8)

Al Groh: NY Jets (9-7), Virginia (59-51)
Nick Saban: Mich St, LSU, Alabama (111-48-1), Miami Dolphins (15-17)

Kirk Ferentz: Iowa (79-53)
Pat Hill: Fresno St. (92-61)
Charlie Weis: Notre Dame (35-25)

I don't know about you, but I'm not impressed by the NFL records of any of the coaches. In fact, they're all bad. College records on the other hand are good for most, exceptional for one.

I guess this begs the question: How much can a coach influence his assistants? Can you judge the teacher by the success or failure of his student?

I don't think you can, but it does tell you one thing: Bill Belichick's success in New England is most definitely NOT a product of having good assistants.

-----------

I've read a couple of articles that use statistics to defend the 4th down and 2 decision.

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/zeus-computer-program-supports-belichicks-fourth-down-bid/

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/belichicks-4th-down-decision-vs-colts.html

The articles are short and really interesting. There are actually more and more statistically based arguments for coaches to ignore "conventional wisdom" and go for it on 4th down much more often. Often, the field position gained by punting is not worth being able to get one more shot at a first down.

I wish one day there would be a coach who was bold enough to not punt unless it was absolutely necessary so we can see if it really results in more wins.

The only rebuttal I have is this: By going for it on 4th down, how many more points a game does that equate to? 2? How many more wins a season does that equate to? Half a win? 1? Can you blame a coach for looking out for his own job security for one more win over the course of one or two seasons?

"Conventional wisdom" is not so because it is completely logical. It is so because norms of culture have deemed it that way. Another tenet of conventional wisdom says that you don't jeopardize a high paying job you worked the better part of your life to get for what seems to be a small payoff. I agree with that.