Kirk DOES implement a philosophy that permeates the program. That is true. He wants the team to be fundamentally sound and he wants the guys to truly know and understand the game. He doesn't believe in "shortcuts" ... he believes that people have to put in the work if they're going to refine their craft. A great distillation of his intention is that he wants his guys to be tough, smart, and physical.
Apart from "imposing" a philosophy ... you do realize that Kirk is renown for putting enormous trust in letting his assistant coaches "coach?" He's very much a delegator ... and his assistants have tremendous freedom as it relates them accomplishing their tasks at hand. Go back and read pretty much any article where Norm Parker gets a chance to talk about working with Kirk. He supplied great descriptions as it relates to the freedom that Kirk gave his coaches.
Kirk has plenty of foibles ... but throwing players or support staff under the bus is not one of them. If you're aware of Kirk's approach - every year everyone in the program is asked to be highly reflective ... about changes that might improve themselves, the program, etc. That sounds more like the sort of ingredient that you expect from a learning and adaptive organizational structure.
Please refrain from the age-old argumentative strategy of flinging feces until something sticks. Try to frame a consistent and cogent argument.
As for the "that's football" rebuttal ... consider weather prediction. Tons of people complain about the faultiness of weather prediction. They just assume that those doing it are dumb-shits and they just don't trust the results. However, the truth of the matter is that turbulent flows play a significant role in such predictions. The problem is that turbulent flows are truly chaotic. For folks who possess some quantitative literacy, there is the realization that chaotic phenomena is highly sensitive to the conditions of the system. To a modeler, it's not only sensitive to such conditions ... it's also sensitive to the uncertainties of your model. Consequently, any predictive ability is only valid over very short periods of time in the future. The point here being that the fault in weather prediction isn't (necessarily) with the predictors ... but it's just the nature of the beast that is weather prediction.
Similarly, when you're considering a football game - you're essentially considering a non-cooperative dynamical game (in a game-theory sense) ... just like weather prediction, we can try to tease out some "predictive" determinations. However, the problem is imbued with so much uncertainty (injuries, mental state of the players, both-teams possessing imperfect information about the other, etc) - that there are a combinatorially large number of possible outcomes. Some days, your team might play a perfect game ... but the other team played even better! That's still a loss! Fans like to blame coaches, blame players, blame schemes, etc ... but because the us-against-them nature of fandom, fans rarely give the opponents their due.
That's football ...