CS Part 1: Most Coaches are Best the First Two Years of a New Role/Team

Working on a short series of posts about coaching and the intricacies that make it so hard, and yet so interesting to follow. Where leadership success comes from and how it can rise and fall. Lastly the trap of falling for the early riser coach versus the long-term builder.

My Background: While a member of sports teams as captain and coach, most of my experience is related to the business world where I've both had ton of managers/leaders as well as led large teams of managers and individual contributors.

Always open to others insights and feedback!

Part 1: The First Two Years
I am of the firm belief that the first 2 years of any coach/leader to a new team are generally the best and below is why. Only the greatest coaches achieve the highest heights time and again and rebuild and adapt across the years (Wooden, Belichick, Saban).

To start, there is a multitude of leaders/coaches that range from great to horrible. There is also a spectrum of situations that range from great to horrible for coaches to arrive in. Sometimes going from poor/mediocre (Fisher) to good+ (McVay) can be a quick and huge turnaround. Sometimes a great coach (Harbaugh - Stanford) will be succeeded by an heir (David Shaw) that holds the line well for a while but slowly the team gets worse.

My goal for this topic is to make the case that for most coaches, most of the time, the first two years are the best. The primary reason is that they inherit the tribal knowledge and capabilities of the former regime along with the bringing their own focus and teachings. This makes for a more rounded team. Only horrible coaches ruin an existing good/great team quickly.

After 2 years, there is usually enough turnover, forgetting of the old ways, and culture change that it rests 100% on the current coach from there.

Who is that leader? Are they driven to build and grow? Do they just want to implement their system and hold the line? Are they open to new ways? New direct reports to come in and install new things?

Relevant Ex.1
Under Gregg Williams, the rams were an extremely aggressive and attacking defense that was tough as nails. They were also sloppy and were exposed by better teams like the saints. When Wade came in, he had a better, though singular philosophy, and the rams were better coached in the fundamentals. At first they were still tough and aggressive, but they became more finesse (Donald aside) as time went on. They started to lose what they learned from Gregg Willams and became softer over time. More prevent and look for turnovers. Peters is epitome of soft and strike for turnovers.

Enter Staley, who brought a ton more dynamics to the rams. Hey made them unpredictable and malleable to the offense being faced. They struggled early in the season but got better throughout until the GB game. Every game they built on their capabilities and were a better second half team.

Now is Staley truly the best DC (now HC) in the game after one season? He inherited a lot of good players and helped raise their game through teaching. All signs of a very good coach. What things would have been lost after another season or two? Would he have been able to reload all the lost FAs after this year and do it again? Greatness is not just #1 ranking in one season, it's sustained and continued success over many seasons.
Was his scheme getting figured out? Green Bay seemed to know how to attack the Rams. I can't tell how much was the Rams beat-up and pooped lines. We won't know how much he could sustain and reload with another season.

Now he has the Chargers who have a good defense already. What will he do there? 3-5 years down the road is when we will know just how good Staley is. I have another topic on the demands of head coaches. More to come on that.


Ex 2. Matt Lafleur.
He took over for a stale and mediocre McCarthy. Immediate improvement. Innovative approach and made them more dynamic. 2 years in they look unstoppable. How will it be next year? How about in 4 years? Can he continue to reload and innovate? Can he move past the Aaron Rodgers era when he finally hangs up the cleats?

Ex 3. Sean McVay
Quick turnaround as he is clearly lightyears better than Fisher. Winning season every season. 3 Playoffs and 3-2 in playoff games. Where does it go from here? I'm confident that next season McVay will put a good and competent product on the field next year. He is too focused and detailed to allow for a terrible team to be out there. Chances are high that the defense won't be as good because of FA and no Staley. The offense is likely to be at least as good unless there is terrible QB play (not a Goff topic just some change).

What I like best about Sean is that he has shown in 4 years that he consistently has a good and prepared product. He is willing to make changes and go with unproven coaches and players.

Can Sean Mcvay be great? Still a lot to cover there so I will leave it for another coaching topic. He is past the 2 year mark and is succeeding so a definite keeper in my book.

I have a ton of examples of coaches showing their best work in the first 2 years at different levels but wanted to keep it relevant to this audience.

Questions for the group:
- Does the 2 years seem right to you? Should it be 3?
- Mike Martz is an interesting case study. For those that follow closely, do you feel like he had his best years his first 2 then plateaued? There are a ton of dynamics in what it takes to be a great HC and sustain it. I'll have a whole other topic on that and I want to know if it's worth examining his success and failures at it.
- Does it matter what attempt it is? Pete Carroll and Bill Belicheck had horrible first HC jobs. Were they just not ready? Horrible situations around them?