USA Today came out with its annual head coach rankings this past week, and Chargers' head coach Mike McCoy came in at 23rd.
Of course, much shouldn't be placed on these rankings ... But as offseason fodder goes, we'll give it a quick glance.
The article points to McCoy being an "enigma" because of the many injuries the team has sustained since McCoy arrived in San Diego in 2013.
From USA Today:
"You can’t coach health, so it’s hard to put the Chargers’ recent struggles all on McCoy. He’s produced consistently productive offenses during his three-year tenure in San Diego. And his offense, which is built around quick timing throws, suits Philip Rivers perfectly. The 2016 season — assuming the Chargers finally stay healthy — should give us a better idea of just how good McCoy really is."
My take: While health has absolutely been an issue, other teams around the league have been hit with as many injuries over the years and have found ways to win. Yes, health counts, but it's not the only reason the Chargers have slumped, and even McCoy would agree that it's not a valid excuse on its own. The article could have also weighed game management, critical third (and fourth) down situations, a lack of run game on the offense and more -- and conversely, could have pointed out how McCoy's players never give up on the head coach, even when a victory or winning season seemed out of reach.
The article ranked Jack Del Rio (Raiders) 24th, while Gary Kubiak (Broncos) placed 14th and Andy Reid (Chiefs) had the best ranking of the AFC West coaches, at No. 10.
Mike Mularkey of the Titans notched the worst rating -- "Mularkey may have a track record as an NFL head coach, but it’s not very good. His teams have won four of the last 25 games he’s coached. In his four seasons running a team, he’s never produced an offense ranking higher than 25th — not very good for an offensive-minded coach" -- and (shocker) Bill Belichick the best:
"Belichick is the greatest coach in NFL history. It’s not even debatable at this point. Other coaches have had bigger impacts on the game thanks to innovative schemes. But that’s what separates Belichick from the rest of the pack: There is no Belichick system. His defenses have employed a number of different schemes throughout his reign. What started out as pure 3-4 defense favoring zone coverage behind well designed blitzes has morphed into a 3-4/4-3 hybrid front with the secondary locked in man coverage. Belichick isn’t tied to any one scheme. Schemes grow old and get replaced by the next big thing. The game is constantly evolving, and, somehow, Belichick always seems to be ahead of the evolutionary curve."
Can't argue there.