It depends upon the sphere of application here. An engineer would concentrate upon the qualities of execution and develop methods of dissecting each and every aspect of inclusion.
This would quickly include speed of player, ability for change in direction, strength in short torque situations, explosiveness, starting speed from a zero point vantage, and ability to sustain energy levels and still retain explosive ability.
Each of us fans do our own tabulations to such demonstrators in players. These do affect direct applications on the carpet.
Then you have a coaching advantage. Teams respond to the direction given them from a coaching perspective.
This specific aspect can be bypassed by players and even be successful to a degree, as in football, the whole progression is dependent upon their own actions on the carpet under the lights.
Given their own direction, a group of players, people, or gang on the block will always digress and revert to a chaotic interaction 100 percent of the time. The time necessary to bind individual tendencies are subservient to the settling of personalities.
This defeats team considerations to a large degree. Team success here become rudderless and limited by an opponent being prey to a singular and random strength that this team can use.
When attempting to observe and give credence to aspects of both coaching influences and player talents it all occurs in the context of a game setting.
Even here, it all boils down to whether a team is successfully competitive and if not sustained over a period of time by winning, then it boils down to team successes or failures in a win and loss view.
That not withstanding, the current NFL is all about a yearly accosting of records and the potential to change everything within the time frame of from one to three seasons.
So the objectivity of individual influences of either players or coaching staffs are limited to view beyond scores weekly and overall yearly wins accumulated.
Without areas of concentrated observation and some relationship drawn and tracked, fans are then reduced to administering scores to the responsible members in this picture and grading coaching potential strictly upon team achievements.
This is for better or worse. The clamor by the fan becomes lateral in his pursuits and he demands change when that yearly total doesn't meet his level of personal demands.
More and more, with the social aggressiveness involved in the expected role of a fan today, this becomes a clamor for team dominance and the asking for head felling intensely by that team's supporters if failure has to be endured for even a single season.
Coaching has a focused role, that has to be reflected in a mode of interaction for their respective players and now, perceptions by the media and fans as well.
The degree of interactions has been expanded into a constant bombardment by the media and observers as well.
The immediate function of the coaching staff is first to cultivate a team-supportive climate that continually addresses the extremes of dynamics and sacrifice demanded for participation in the NFL.
If the culmination of all combined coaching directives does not accumulate a successfully rewarding level of reference for the player, that player loses focus and personal reward adequate to sustain a focus of technique and aggressive personal receptiveness to sustain his role in NFL games.
A coach thus has to support a player-directed motivation and leadership, yet retain the line of disjointed discipline required to keep it continually motivating, and not lose the respect of the team in the process.
These attributes are reflective in association, but a picture of wins and losses don't address the particulars of style, schemes, techniques required, and an overriding influence of individual team history and successes.
Certain things can be observed in this progressions of coaches, such as Washington settling in upon a physically demanding set of veterans and stocked both sides of the ball.
To this group were added a crunch-delivering set of running backs and this ball of function was wrapped in a strictly baseline diet coach of Joe Gibbs.
Mike Ditka got a no nonsense team of huge and aggressive players and then set a top-notch running back to control flows of the opponent's game.
Jimmy Johnson sold his neighbor's wife, the city's cash flow, and his own owner down the stream to get a whole group of top notched and top end producers backed by an offensive line completely capable of mauling every defense they approached.
New England's head coach, Belichick, set up a transitional team that accumulated talent by first acquiring older and thus cheaper veterans that were tied into a system, and then starting to accumulate increasing amounts of draft choices to build a dynamic and replenishing group of inserts as the older parts wore out.
Those all were the fan and media observable view of the actual rewards of function, but not the workings themselves.
The player is dependent upon the amount of work that he receives during the course of a single season. This then is accumulative as long as his body shape remains at the optimum side of function.
As time accumulates in a particular player, technique, and sustainability of that technique is as important as the aspect of top end dynamics of that talent by the player.
This reverts back to the role and function of the coach, who imparts that onto the player.
For a period of time, individual players were allowed to play around with such directions on their own, but increasingly it is necessary to share the work, stress, and toil of individual development and successes to progress a team directed sense of accountability and trust.
Here again, is where the coaching staff starts to be directive as to levels of accumulated successes. The goal levels thus become higher and the ability to reintegrate them in a team setting improves as well.
This isn't yet a complete systems analysis of what affects the aspect as concentrated as play on carpet.
This is where the owner/GM enters the picture. With the multi-millions and even billions of dollars that enter the cash flow picture, sustainability, bottom line expenses, and maximum organizational safeguards are employed in addition to direct relationships of wins and losses.
The gate returns and outward cash flows inward become the business bottom line of these very organizations.
This is the nature of the beast at the professional levels of a sport, as it all is glued together by a team's ability to pay for what is put onto the field. Gate returns governs the ownership selection of coaches and thus, team character and play.
Some of a large group of owners are more than content to judge relative successes with the bottom line market value of their teams in their local and adjust expectations accordingly.
Even here, although, not all coaches see themselves limited by cash flow once their team walks onto the field. Some of these very coaches are able to direct all within their own realm and integrate player talents into their own schemes and systems of play.
When one takes a progressive ownership group, and watches where it moves and gives it's support, a variety of tendencies are at work here also. Uniformity is often the exception in these areas.
Some of the owners of franchises chose a dominant leader and relinquish all functional team controls over to them and sustainability reverts to gate revenues. Then there are figures dominate all player acquisitions and then expect those given the tasks to win with what they are given.
Next, you have sustainability of organizations, that are enhanced with an accumulation of time and interaction among coaching staffs themselves. The longer a group of good coaches are together, the stronger the transition periods of time reflect discipline and quality of play on the field.
In today's pattern of merry-go-rounds of coaching shifts to opponent teams and a chance to move up...there is a depletion to sustainable coaching staffs. This becomes a further problem for the owners/GM's of organizations.
Even with good talent, a continual shift and change in top team direction and discipline is diminished with this type of constant change.
A team such as Philadelphia has been riding a combination of a group of long standing coaching staff, not allowing cap to be a limiting feature as to base talent on the team, and using the draft to continually accumulate choices and result in a general rise in team talent as well.
Here, Dallas has accumulated both with a picture of bringing it to the field on the season that is started. At present, resources have all been directed to a stable team now, that in addition has a very broad base of youth from which to again grow and maintain.
Player strengths only have dominance as it plugs back into a team directed strength and ability to attack specific aspects of an opponent. Here again, coaching directs this.
It then becomes necessary, for the coaching staff to in addition to sustainable features and ability to develop and maintain individual talents and strengths, but to meet the demands of a continually more educated and copycat league within the NFL itself.
A game-time generalship is thus needed with input by all parts of that coaching staff to maintain an adaptive element during game time itself.
Here is were accumulated knowledge with an older and in place staff and full knowledge of the metrics of their interactions during 'the show' become dominant.
This discernible element can have as much application in a game as ability to maintain optimum potential in both scheme and players.
These elements thus are subjective to owner perspectives and such variables as bottom line wins and losses, which can cause a clamor strictly reflective of change. No, what we have is a flow chart all interrelated...from owner, to coaches, and then to the player.
Jerry Jones, Wade Phillips, and Tony Romo are all part of a functioning franchise as well as NFL team. Each has a role in the function. Jerry Jones has the role of providing the environment of stability and the ability to maximize at each point in the process of selection.
Wade Phillips has to ensure that technique of each player is developed and integrated into a successful scheme of team play that during game conditions is adaptive to changes on that field and maximizes both scheme and player strengths.
The players have to maintain a sense of team directed and successful interaction as well as individual accountability to do all he is tasked with. They are all inter-related come game time.
The failure of any one of those participating groups affects team product. For this group of participants in this year's Dallas Cowboys, I feel there is a fine level of commitment and determination by all involved. Direction has been established at all three levels of observation...now, we shall see how it all comes to view come GAME DAY!
CCBoy is a CP Staff Writer/Analyst...you can read more of his work at cowboyspride.net