Coaching comparison

When Mike Tomlin was hired as the head coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers after one season as the Vikings defensive coordinator, there were a lot of Viking fans moaning that the team should have fired Brad Childress, kept Tomlin and named him as the new head coach.

At the time, that seemed like irrational venting from a fan base fresh off a disheartening first season under Childress. Tomlin seemed like a solid enough guy and the Vikings defence had outperformed the offence Childress was responsible for by a wide margin in 2006. But ... that defence was also considered one-dimensional and easy to throw on. Back then, it seemed to me Tomlin still had much to prove. It wasn't a slam dunk in my mind that he'd be an upgrade over Chilly.

But now that Tomlin has led the Steelers to records of 10-6 and 12-4 and two divisional titles while Childress just posted his first winning record in three seasons with the Vikings, maybe those irrational fans weren’t being so irrational two years ago.

Before I go on, one thing that's important to remember here is Tomlin walked into a pretty good situation in Pittsburgh. He inherited a strong defence, an All-Pro caliber quarterback, a solid running game and pass catchers – like Hines Ward and Heath MIller – who were above average at their respective positions.

As for Childress, all he inherited was an improving defence. Tomlin had a much better team to work with in his first season than Childress did.

One area where I will give Tomlin his props though is when he became the Steelers head coach, he didn't change the Steelers defensive philosophy and he didn't replace coordinator Dick LeBeau.

Some might say this was a no-brainer – the Steelers had a pretty good defence before Tomlin arrived. But Tomlin is a defensive coach. And he was supposed to be a Tampa Two disciple who was used to running a 4-3 defence. The Steelers, meanwhile, have been a 3-4 defence for quite some time and LeBeau’s style is to attack quarterbacks with a variety of blitzes that make use of the fast, athletic linebackers he has.

Some coaches – particularly ones who have just spent a relatively successful year as a defensive coordinator in the NFL – would still have tried to put their own stamp on their new team's defence. They would have tried to do it their way – the way they were taught to do it and the way they were used to doing it.

Tomlin's way was the Tampa Two scheme.

But Tomlin didn't do that. He recognized LeBeau was a great coach and he recognized a 3-4 blitzing type of defence was the right fit for the personnel the Steelers had. He didn’t try to fit round pegs into square holes and turn the Steelers into a Tampa Two defence.

The Steelers defence has thrived because of it. There's been no adjustment period for the players. There's been no getting used to a new coach or new schemes or new roles and responsibilities. There's been no need to change the players the Steelers look for in the draft. The Steelers have just kept on doing what they've done very well under LeBeau. Tomlin didn't mess with a good thing. I give him full marks for being smart enough to recognize this.

Which brings me back to Brad Childress. It's clear to most of us now that the man inherited a bad offensive team in 2006. Changes needed to be made – mostly in the personnel the Vikings had but also in the kind of offence the team ran.

But as the talent on the offensive side of the ball gradually improves and yet the unit still often resembles a train wreck, I wonder if Childress is trying to pound square pegs into round holes. Is he running the wrong kind of offence with the talent he has just because it's the only system he knows? And is he capable of recognizing what works and what doesn't work and adjusting and changing even if it doesn't jibe with his offensive world view?

Mike Tomlin had no problem trying something different on defence. His team has prospered as a result.

Vikings fans are still waiting for Childress to try something different. And they're still waiting for his kick ass offence to prosper.