Confirmation that Jim Harbaugh = Massengill

[samwize77]

And Hans.....did Harbs see the benefit of Kap in the lineup over Smith? Or...maybe...and I'm not saying this is true....but did he see what was happening in D.C. with RG3 and in Seattle with Wilson......and say..."hey, wait a second, we've got a guy here thats just like that!...lets give him a shot"....was it a case of Harbs insight, or a case of its a copy cat league..or a case of Smiths shoulder injury (I think thats the injury he had) and then they schemed to Kaps strengths? Either way.....putting Kap in wasn't a trailblazing scenario....and scheming to his strengths is only the smart thing to do....it had to be obvious to them that it was working in Seattle and DC. I'm just still in the camp that, as compared to Pete and what he had to deal with when he took over, and to what Harbs took over, it is Pete that should be labeled as a great coach...and not Harbs....yet.

 

[samwize77]

Not to harp too much on the subject...but if Harbs had been hired as the Hawks coach instead of Pete...do you think he'd be where Pete is at now? We'll never know right? But IMHO I would have to think not. And in those years...from then to now.....can you imagine the douchiness that Harbs would have shown trying to rebuild from a Mora/Ruskell team.....lol......oh boy.......lol.......

 

[Scottemojo]

I'm not sure Scottie, just how much of that is Harb. Certainly he oversees all. But it remains to be seen if any of the schemes are actually his. Is the genius in coming up with these ideas or approving them. Both have their merits for sure. Do I give credit to Gus B for our defense?..no...I think that belongs all to Pete. Do I give credit for our O to Bevel and Cable...yes...IMHO I think they are more responsible for its success than Pete. Other than the fact Pete does take the responsibility and oversees its execution. Its something of a fine line taking the responsibility for the x's and o's and the credit for coming up with them. If Harbs drew it up and the coordinators make sure its executed properly then my hats off to him...if not.....then its more the creativeness of his coordinators than his on genius. This goes for all staffs of course. But an example of what I'm talking about would be the Bears. Was it Ditkas Defensive schemes that made that team so bad or was it Buddy Ryans?.... I'm not a true hater of Harbs really.....I recognize the fact, and it is a fact.....that the niners have turned around because of him. But if I try to balance out what he really has done himself to improve that team...and his obvious douchery....do I consider him a great coach?...not a chance...yet.

He was running those same heavy sets at Stanford. In fact, I would say when you add his college resume to his pro resume, there is no way you can say isn't a great coach. Unless you are a deluded Seattle Homer, anyway. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[samwize77]

Point conceded Scottie.....with the caveat that Harbs went 29-21 in his years there, and it wasn't until the emergence of Luck that his fortunes changed. Was he responsible for Mr Luck? and the turnaround at Stanford? Quite possibly. He has definitely showed signs of turning programs around no doubt. I guess it just boils down to I'm just not convinced yet. Theres no doubt hes a good coach.......just not a great coach.

 

[RichNhansom]

Not to harp too much on the subject...but if Harbs had been hired as the Hawks coach instead of Pete...do you think he'd be where Pete is at now? We'll never know right? But IMHO I would have to think not. And in those years...from then to now.....can you imagine the douchiness that Harbs would have shown trying to rebuild from a Mora/Ruskell team.....lol......oh boy.......lol.......

You bring up some great points but for the most part Harbs gets credit for those. Deservingly? Maybe, maybe not.

To me this is a flawed question because there are way to many facets of what a coach really is. Prepping players and in game execution are at the forefront but there is alot more that goes into it than just having immediate success. Take Tomlinson for example. He won a super bowl his first year but look at the Steeler's now. They are nowhere near the power house that Tomlin took over. Is he a great coach? He has a trophy but he did take over a super bowl caliber team when he got there so the question is still out there.

I like your last post about where would the Seahawks be if Harbaugh came here instead of Pete. Do you think he would have taken that crew to the superbowl? How about would he have won 7 games, the division and beat the defending world champs? Would he have made our team significantly better each year? Or would he implode worse than Mora and lose the team? Those questions are still unanswered.

Pete is more to Seattle than Harbaugh is to the Niners also. There Harbaugh is the coach and that's it. Pete is in charge of all operations here. He is directly involved and deserves credit for building this team from the ground up and getting them game ready and executing in games, all of which he has done a ridiculously good job at.

If you were to project the long term future between Pete and John, it seems pretty easy to believe Pete has a much better shot at success because you have seen him with no talent and create a team where Harbaugh walked into a playoff caliber team in desperate need of coaching and gave the team what it needed. Sure he made some changes but for the most part that team was intact. In fact all but two starters were already there from the previous year while Pete and John made 284 transactions before their first NFL snap. What each has don has been a polar opposite of the other in that regard.

We have already seen how Pete handles the adversity of losing and lacking talent. We have also seen how he handles building a team. We have seen him reposition talent to suit their skills and coach them up. We have also seen his team is ready on game day. We have even seen him make second half adjustments that completely took over games. about the only thing left to see is can he replace lost talent when needed but even that you can extrapolate from the way he has built this team. If Pete has a downside we haven't seen it yet and based on how he started and where the team is at right now, I'm not sure he has one.

For the most part Harbaugh in comparison hasn't even really been tested yet. Do you think he could make Tarvaris Jackson a good QB? Me Neither. We still need to see how Jimmy reacts to adversity before we can crown him as a top level coach.

 

[sc85sis]

So far Jim has succeeded at every place he's been a head coach. The only question I have is whether he can sustain that; he's never stayed more than a few years at any of those previous jobs because he deservedly moved up the career ladder. We won't know until/unless he stays in San Francisco for several more years. He might be brilliant at it, his team could crash and burn or they may simply follow a more typical up and down pattern.

Pete has mentioned more than once that it's harder to maintain success than reach it. Overall he did pretty well with that at USC, though the team had degraded in overall quality the last 2-3 years he was there. Some of that is due to the Reggie Bush circus hanging over the team (and being used by other schools in negative recruiting). Some was due to coaching attrition in the assistant ranks. And some was...who knows? John McKay won four national championships at USC and still had years when the team sucked. That's football.

Any way, I do think Harbaugh is a good coach, in spite of his off-putting personality. We'll have to wait and see how both he and Pete fare in the longer term.

 

[HansGruber]

I'm not sure Scottie, just how much of that is Harb. Certainly he oversees all. But it remains to be seen if any of the schemes are actually his. Is the genius in coming up with these ideas or approving them. Both have their merits for sure. Do I give credit to Gus B for our defense?..no...I think that belongs all to Pete. Do I give credit for our O to Bevel and Cable...yes...IMHO I think they are more responsible for its success than Pete. Other than the fact Pete does take the responsibility and oversees its execution. Its something of a fine line taking the responsibility for the x's and o's and the credit for coming up with them. If Harbs drew it up and the coordinators make sure its executed properly then my hats off to him...if not.....then its more the creativeness of his coordinators than his on genius. This goes for all staffs of course. But an example of what I'm talking about would be the Bears. Was it Ditkas Defensive schemes that made that team so bad or was it Buddy Ryans?.... I'm not a true hater of Harbs really.....I recognize the fact, and it is a fact.....that the niners have turned around because of him. But if I try to balance out what he really has done himself to improve that team...and his obvious douchery....do I consider him a great coach?...not a chance...yet.

Buddy Ryan obviously but both Harbaugh and Carroll have enjoyed immense success with multiple teams. At the very least, you have to give the head coach credit for hiring awesome staff. So I don't think it's so black and white. I've never considered Ditka a great coach because he sucked without Buddy Ryan. The 85 Bears were the one hit of Ditka's career.

Carroll and Harbaugh have both developed winning programs with multiple different coaching staff. They're both great coaches. Ditka was never at that level.

 

[samwize77]

Well gentlemen, I guess is comes down to what your definition of what "great" means. Hell, by my definition I shouldn't put Pete into that category yet...but forgive me my homerism if I do.

Theres probably hundreds of coaches out there right now turning programs around...on the high school, college and pro levels......do we call each of them a "great" coach at their level?

Pete has proved..or at least is on the verge of proving...that a successful college coach can transition into the pros and have success there also.....and Harbs is also on the same road. BUT Harbs obviously had a much easier task with the personnel he had to work with. Hence, he actually has gone further than Pete in a shorter amount of time. They both are a rarity in their successes so far.

Time will tell us more here. And if Harbs and the Niners continue their winning ways (I'm almost ready to throw up alittle writing that) then I'll give credit where credit is due, and elevate him from a "good" coach to a "great" one.

But, of course..Pete is a GREAT coach now.....lol...and Harbs is still a douche

 

[Scottemojo]

Well gentlemen, I guess is comes down to what your definition of what "great" means. Hell, by my definition I shouldn't put Pete into that category yet...but forgive me my homerism if I do.

Theres probably hundreds of coaches out there right now turning programs around...on the high school, college and pro levels......do we call each of them a "great" coach at their level?

Pete has proved..or at least is on the verge of proving...that a successful college coach can transition into the pros and have success there also.....and Harbs is also on the same road. BUT Harbs obviously had a much easier task with the personnel he had to work with. Hence, he actually has gone further than Pete in a shorter amount of time. They both are a rarity in their successes so far.

Time will tell us more here. And if Harbs and the Niners continue their winning ways (I'm almost ready to throw up alittle writing that) then I'll give credit where credit is due, and elevate him from a "good" coach to a "great" one.

But, of course..Pete is a GREAT coach now.....lol...and Harbs is still a douche

parsing words between what good and great mean is pointless. A coach can either outwit the opposition while inspiring his players to maximize their talent or he can't. He can have them prepared or he can't. Harbs does all 3 from what I can see.

 

[RichNhansom]

Well gentlemen, I guess is comes down to what your definition of what "great" means. Hell, by my definition I shouldn't put Pete into that category yet...but forgive me my homerism if I do.

Theres probably hundreds of coaches out there right now turning programs around...on the high school, college and pro levels......do we call each of them a "great" coach at their level?

Pete has proved..or at least is on the verge of proving...that a successful college coach can transition into the pros and have success there also.....and Harbs is also on the same road. BUT Harbs obviously had a much easier task with the personnel he had to work with. Hence, he actually has gone further than Pete in a shorter amount of time. They both are a rarity in their successes so far.

Time will tell us more here. And if Harbs and the Niners continue their winning ways (I'm almost ready to throw up alittle writing that) then I'll give credit where credit is due, and elevate him from a "good" coach to a "great" one.

But, of course..Pete is a GREAT coach now.....lol...and Harbs is still a douche

parsing words between what good and great mean is pointless. A coach can either outwit the opposition while inspiring his players to maximize their talent or he can't. He can have them prepared or he can't. Harbs does all 3 from what I can see.

But where does he stand at developing talent? Great job with the QB's but Jenkins and last years entire draft class are a huge question mark.

 

[rlkats]

I agree on most points except the fact that the entire draft class being a huge question manr most of them did not even need to start. Jenkins was a fail last year, but the RB Lames has not been a disapointment at all. There have been evidence of player development. Just look at Smith he was according to all draft analysts a HUGE reach but with the correct teaching he came along. Then theres Miller, He was defence. Now he is a FB. Yes Pete has shown this also. I think that it shows more because of the good drafting and more need at certain positions. Lets see how he develops players now that his roster is nice and talented.

 

[samwize77]

Of course the definition of what good and great might imply in this discussion IS very relevant. Forgetting what traits a coach must posses to make this distinction....I'll just give you an example of what I'm speaking about. Lombardi.....Shula.....Laundry....Knoll......Walsh....in my book these guys are "great" coaches. Each in his own way brought his team(s) to greatness. They didn't achieve it in the same ways either. Each had his own set of talents that consistently brought a winning tradition to their organizations. They certainly stand out right? Then theres coaches like Coughlin, Belichek, and Tomlin......these guys are good coaches on their way to greatness (if not already there in some eyes).........again...each of these coaches have their own way of coaching. Then theres all the good coaches.......guys that have done very well but certainly haven't separated themselves from the pack yet..and theres to many of these to list here.
So, to me, to just label a coach great, just because he has had some success doesn't cut it....this I would think goes for almost all occupations. I've had success in the engineering field but I doubt that my colleagues would consider me great though......lol.......thats all I'm saying.
Now, in our own little .net ecosystem.....you Scottie, have achieved greatness...you, Kip, English and a few others (yes, that includes you Les ........ when you folks post... people...including me..take notice because your posts stand out above the others. For many reasons!......lol.....
We probably just should agree to differ on this.......
.....but we probably should/can agree that Harbs is still a douche!! (just to stay on-topic with the OP

......oh.....and Pete is a GREAT coach (as I show my true Homerism/Hypocritical colors)

 

[samwize77]

BTW Scottie...I've always enjoyed your avatars....is there a new one in the pipeline?

 

[HansGruber]

Sam, chill with the ellipses bro. LOL

As to greatness, anyone who can instantly turn teams into championship contenders at multiple levels (college then pros) is great in my mind. How many can you think of? Before Harbaugh and Carroll that list would have been 3 or less.

 

[samwize77]

Sam, chill with the ellipses bro. LOL

As to greatness, anyone who can instantly turn teams into championship contenders at multiple levels (college then pros) is great in my mind. How many can you think of? Before Harbaugh and Carroll that list would have been 3 or less.

......but ......how...will...I...ever..get my...point......across? (Imagine Captain Kirks halting voice) lol

Okay, I guess my idea of greatness is maybe to literal. But I can now be assured that Harbs is, at the least, a GREAT douche also. Will there ever be a Douche HOF? If there is, he's certainly a first ballot inductee.

 

[Disp]

Point conceded Scottie.....with the caveat that Harbs went 29-21 in his years there, and it wasn't until the emergence of Luck that his fortunes changed. Was he responsible for Mr Luck? and the turnaround at Stanford? Quite possibly. He has definitely showed signs of turning programs around no doubt. I guess it just boils down to I'm just not convinced yet. Theres no doubt hes a good coach.......just not a great coach.

Doesn't the exact same thing apply to Carroll? He had a losing record in his first 2 1/2 seasons as the Seahawks head coach before Wilson developed and took control in the second half of last season. If the Hawks hadn't drafted Wilson how would last season and the future look? Granted, Flynn is getting glowing reviews at Raiders camp such as:

According to Vic Tafur of The San Francisco Chronicle, two straight downfield throws from Flynn that were described as “wounded ducks” were the highlights of the day. Barely any throws were completed downfield and several passes were batted down at the line of scrimmage.

In your opinion where would the Seahawks and Carroll be right now if Flynn or Tarvaris Jackson were the starter heading into the season and Wilson was drafted by another team?

 

[Trenchbroom]

Doesn't the exact same thing apply to Carroll? He had a losing record in his first 2 1/2 seasons as the Seahawks head coach before Wilson developed and took control in the second half of last season.

The difference to me is that Pete rebuilt our team from scratch, and turned us into a competitor in record time. Schneider obviously helped, but ultimately Pete has the final say in things.

Sure we were 7-9 two years in a row before Wilson but go and ask a non-biased Bills or Browns fan which coach is better. I bet they would say the coach that envisions the recipe, helps buy the groceries AND cooks the meal is the one to have (I miss Bill Parcells sometimes).

 

[NinerLifer]

Despite everything that has been posted in this thread, what does it matter?

The guy just flat out is a great coach that obviously knows how to win.

I'd rather have Harbaugh with all of his antics, than have a coach that ends up sitting on the couch with the rest of his teams fans deep in the post season.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Doesn't the exact same thing apply to Carroll? He had a losing record in his first 2 1/2 seasons as the Seahawks head coach before Wilson developed and took control in the second half of last season. If the Hawks hadn't drafted Wilson how would last season and the future look?

Well, we declined in talent every year following our Super Bowl, and a confirmed very high-end coach in Mike Holmgren finished 4-12 his final year here. (One of only five coaches to ever take two different teams to the Super Bowl. None have won with two teams.) Carroll had to blow up our roster and start from scratch. We had a total of 284 roster transactions in his first year here. 284. I can't find if that's a record for an NFL team or not, but I'm guessing it is.

Also, we had a losing record for one week in 2013, that's hardly Carroll having a losing record for half of the season. We never went below .500 after our opening-week loss to the Cardinals.

I would say that Carroll has definitely proven more in the NFL than Harbaugh has despite him not reaching the Super Bowl yet. Harbaugh came to a team loaded with talented players, and 49ers fans really downplay what an advantage that is. It kind of reminds me of a roommate I used to have, his parents paid for 100% of everything including spare spending cash after high school while he went to college, and when he graduated, he had about $15,000 leftover money and no debt/expenses of any kind, and as a graduation present, they bought him a brand-new car to boot. Starting adult life after school with $15k cash, a brand-new car, and no debt of any kind is a pretty nice starting position to have, especially since you never had to work a job at all throughout college, so you could focus on school. In this metaphor, Carroll came to the Seahawks and started with a falling-down house that needed to be bulldozed, and a budget to buy a new one that would take five years, but he managed to create a contending team in 3 years/drafts.

It remains to be seen which coach can go farther with a very talented overall roster, because we've only now reached that, but Carroll has damned sure proven a lot more than Harbaugh about being an overall head coach. Harbaugh hasn't had to play world-builder. Now, it's not Harbaugh's fault that he walked into a very cushy gig (for previously being a perennial losing team, that is) in terms of this discussion; but considering the major differences in these two situations, and all the talent Carroll and Schneider have found OUTSIDE the top couple of draft rounds, you can see why most of us roll our eyes whenever someone says Harbaugh's a better coach than Carroll. The list of things Harbaugh has had to do thus far is considerably smaller than the list of things Carroll has had to do, and as of now, has done extremely well. Nobody knows how Harbaugh would have done if he had been hired by the Seahawks when Carroll was. Maybe the same, maybe even better, maybe worse; but it's hard to imagine a better rise to prominence from being a talentless joke of a team like we were in Holmgren's final year and Mora's only year.

So, all of that being said, don't be annoyed if most of us consider Carroll to be the better coach.

 

[NinerLifer]

According to most of you guys on here, you have the most talented roster than you guys have had in like ever. Does that mean that if Pete doesn't coach your team into the SB that you will be calling for his head the next off-season? You guys claim that Harbs inherited a great team that just needed a good coach to take it somewhere, which might very well be true as I am not arguing that. But after all this re-building that you give PC credit for, if he doesn't take you guys to the SB this year...what does it matter?

No matter what a coach does during the off-season or even during the duration of a season, none of it matters unless you have something to show for all of it in the end of that season. Of course there are different opinions on what is good enough to be qualified as "something", but I think we can all agree that achieving more than the rest of your conference is deffinately "something" that every team shoots for.

Anything less than that is just a Brownie Button in comparison.