Coach this: Professional athletes require little guidance during games

Herman Edwards sucks.\nI mean it. It's not my bias toward the man for leaving the New York Jets to pursue more lucrative opportunities in Missouri. That can't be the case, considering Gang Green is improving without Edwards.\nBut here is Kansas City's head coach, leaving a sinking ship for riches elsewhere, only to find that the Jets' ship had emergency life preservers to keep their 2006 season afloat.\nMy point? Coaches can be pretty irrelevant in sports.\nAside from strategy or play-calling, I don't see coaches as valuable assets during the games. I'm not saying that an offensive playbook, practice drills in the morning skate, conditioning drills done on the hard court and the rehearsed hit-and-runs aren't important. Preparation is the coach's responsibility, and the benefits are seen on game days.\nBut what effect do coaches really have on the game as it unfolds? Not much. That's why coaching contracts seem pretty outrageous at times.\nLet's return to my ridiculed subject: Edwards signed a four-year, $12 million contract after running away from New York, where his record was 39-41. Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith, who has a 25-18 record with the Monsters of the Midway, earns a league-low $1.4 million a year.\nIs Edwards improving the team? Last year, the Chiefs finished 10-6 without a playoff berth and this year have a 7-5 record.\nWhat role do coaches play during the game? For hockey, they change the lines and offer suggestions and adjustments. But it's up to the players to make those adjustments and perform when called upon.\nI see the same problems with coaches in the NBA. In the end, despite what potent motivation a coach might provide, the Kobe Bryants, LeBron Jameses and Shaquille O'Neals will decide how the game turns out.\nTake Miami. Stan Van Gundy led the Heat to the Eastern Conference Finals in 2004-05 season but fell a couple of points short of the NBA Finals. Did the presence of next season's coach, Pat Riley, really make any tangible changes to the team's game? Despite how Riley prepared Wade and Co., each individual game was taken care of by Wade and Co.\nFor me, baseball requires the most strategy out of any sport -- and I see managers growing in importance. The in-game details of baseball are vastly more complex than any other sport. Decisions on shifting the outfield and infield defenses, ordering steals, calling pick-off attempts or relaying the bunt signal rattle the brains of baseball's managers more than coaches in other professional sports. Even still, it's the performances of the players on the field that decide the outcome.\nOne exception is the job Joe Girardi did for the Florida Marlins in 2006. He was handed raw athletes and molded them into a competitive team. This situation rarely presents itself because no other sport allows for such a discrepancy in talent and salaries. \nCollege coaches garner much more responsibility -- they are the face of the program. But in professional sports, coaches and managers assume much of the responsibility for games they don't have much control over (again, aside from preparation). \nIs preparation and focus enough for a team? If the talent's there, a little kick in the ass might be all it needs. \nMaybe Matt Foley, the motivational speaker played by Chris Farley on "Saturday Night Live," should grab a seat in the New York Yankees dugout. Would A-Rod play better if he got an earful of enthusiasm from a man "35 years old, thrice divorced who lives in a van down by the river"? He sure as hell isn't getting it from Joe Torre.\nCoaches can provide motivation when needed, direction when desperately needed and even a shoulder to cry on. So don't let signings like Herman Edwards' make you believe that coaches really manufacture that much in-game significance.\nBecause in Edwards' case, he just sucks.