Has anyone pondered this term and the concern that it should bring to a fan of a team that has one? One would think that a players coach would equate to players playing a hard for a guy, willing to run through a brick wall for the guy because they believe that his plan will work no matter what.
Unfortunately, in most recent history, "a player's coach" has equated to a negative output on the field. Now let me explain. I'll have to use other teams in this illustration so bear with me. Philadelphia Eagles coaches, Buddy ryan and Ray Rhodes, considered player's coaches. Couldn't win the big game and had limited success. Bill Parcell's, not a player's coach, commands respect, players buy into the system and ultimately have success. Our beloved Joe Gibbs the same way.
It seems as though a player's coach is one who lets the players dictate gameplan or strategy. Sometimes, this is not a good thing. I bring this up because I have read in many places that this George Edwards guy is a "player's coach". Now I didn't see the game on Saturday, but I have read that LB's and Safety's were out of position and overrunning plays. I'm worried that now there is a "player's coach" running the defense, the discipline that is needed to run the D won't be there. These LB's are to agressive and need to stay at home and they will get burnt repeatedly on playfakes and misdirections. This compounded with the fact they CAN'T TACKLE makes for another offseason of blame and anguish for us skins fan's. At this point, I think 7-9 is a stretch. Why? Late in a game with the lead, what will a team do against us? RUN!! What can't we do now that there is NO RB? RUN!! Michael Wilbon said in the post that Trung Candidate looked scared at times.
I'm sorry to rant, but I'm fed up with Snyder. Our team has been subpar since Gibbs left (10 years ago) and there seems to be no end in sight.