SSVol
Neeerrrrrddd!
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2012
- Messages
- 8,366
- Likes
- 33,249
Don't overthink it. The buck stops with the head coach. He is the guy ultimately responsible for every aspect of the team's performance, even though the fault for poor performance could be a plethora things he has no direct control of. Either way, "responsible" also means it is his job to ensure that it gets fixed.It kind of depends on what was meant by "his responsibility". Is passing game performance and WR expectations under his purview? Absolutely? Is he "responsible" for the drop in WR room productions, as in he was a direct cause/fault? That's another thing.
The sad thing is that the illustration of the point is indicative that what he meant by "responsible" is that he CAUSED the lack of production. How else would the point be equivalent to having set the forest fire?
That's a pretty sad assumption to put forth while claiming to support the coaches, imho.
The coach is responsible for the production in the same way that the forest manager your your is responsible for the forest. If something or someone causes a fire, they respond by removing that which caused the fire. You don't generally put them in cuffs over what someone else did.
There are so many possible reasons for the lack of productivity in the WR room that it takes a mighty jump to claim "Well, it's coach X's fault."
Disclaimer: Responsibility does not always mean "fault". But again, to liken the definition to setting a forest fire, the intent of the vocabulary is pretty clear.
Clearly the offense wasn't up to Heupel standards and he would be the first guy to admit that. I do not believe that the poor state of the passing game was due to him forgetting how to coach ball, nor do I think it was due to negligence on his part, it's just that a few things didn't work out as planned. It happens. The measure of the man will be what he does about it.