Coaching vs. Stars: Today's NFL Dragon

[Abishai100]

In the early days of the NFL, we remembered names like Lombardi, Landry, Bradshaw, and Unitas.

Then, in the future era, we saw the greatness of Joe Montana, Steve Young, and Brett Favre (I know I'm leaning towards the TV-friendly QBs right now, but pardon the highlights).

In the next era, we saw the titan Tom Brady win simply too many Super Bowls (and arguably on his own).

Now, we see a new crop of talent --- i.e., Cowboys tandem of Prescott and Elliott, Falcons' Matt Ryan, Chiefs' Alex Smith, Raiders' Derek Carr, etc., etc.

The NFL is arguably more team-oriented now, so stand-out QBs need a dynamic and reliable team working around them.

This is why TV coverage of NFL games represent a new age focus on coaching, so how will this contribute to free-agency 'degradation' of sports spiritedness?

====

FAVRE: In the old days, Lombardi and Landry wouldn't have stood for all this steroids/free-agency insanity!
BRADY: True, but we have some mentionable 'generals' out there now (Belichick, Andy Reid, Jason Garrett).
FAVRE: Do you think the athleticism-oriented stars now (e.g., Prescott) are interested in 'coaching'?
BRADY: I think they're sensitive about team-oriented play, which is generally good for TV.
FAVRE: Everyone likes Sunday NFL TV, but no one likes stars who disrespect their coaches...
BRADY: Yes, the Deion Sanders era of NFL-TV is pretty much over...
FAVRE: I miss the days of Fran Tarkenton and even Randall Cunningham!
BRADY: Maybe new-age QBs like Alex Smith (Chiefs) can add some fanfare fuel to Fantasy Football...
FAVRE: The legacy of team-oriented coaches (i.e., Dick Vermeil) makes free-agency feel less...'fascist.'
BRADY: For that 'optimism' to float, there needs to be continued chemistry between coaches and stars.
FAVRE: Let's hope the NFL cheerleaders continue to be gorgeous then!
BRADY: It's all about intelligence...

====

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

In the early days of the NFL, we remembered names like Lombardi, Landry, Bradshaw, and Unitas.

Then, in the future era, we saw the greatness of Joe Montana, Steve Young, and Brett Favre (I know I'm leaning towards the TV-friendly QBs right now, but pardon the highlights).

In the next era, we saw the titan Tom Brady win simply too many Super Bowls (and arguably on his own).

Now, we see a new crop of talent --- i.e., Cowboys tandem of Prescott and Elliott, Falcons' Matt Ryan, Chiefs' Alex Smith, Raiders' Derek Carr, etc., etc.

The NFL is arguably more team-oriented now, so stand-out QBs need a dynamic and reliable team working around them.

This is why TV coverage of NFL games represent a new age focus on coaching, so how will this contribute to free-agency 'degradation' of sports spiritedness?

====

FAVRE: In the old days, Lombardi and Landry wouldn't have stood for all this steroids/free-agency insanity!
BRADY: True, but we have some mentionable 'generals' out there now (Belichick, Andy Reid, Jason Garrett).
FAVRE: Do you think the athleticism-oriented stars now (e.g., Prescott) are interested in 'coaching'?
BRADY: I think they're sensitive about team-oriented play, which is generally good for TV.
FAVRE: Everyone likes Sunday NFL TV, but no one likes stars who disrespect their coaches...
BRADY: Yes, the Deion Sanders era of NFL-TV is pretty much over...
FAVRE: I miss the days of Fran Tarkenton and even Randall Cunningham!
BRADY: Maybe new-age QBs like Alex Smith (Chiefs) can add some fanfare fuel to Fantasy Football...
FAVRE: The legacy of team-oriented coaches (i.e., Dick Vermeil) makes free-agency feel less...'fascist.'
BRADY: For that 'optimism' to float, there needs to be continued chemistry between coaches and stars.
FAVRE: Let's hope the NFL cheerleaders continue to be gorgeous then!
BRADY: It's all about intelligence...

====

View attachment 134601