Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Coaching or Talent?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Talent. Coaching moves things along, but you can't do anything without the right talent.

    by BoneKrusher
    <DG> how metal unseen
    <TheUnseen> Drunken Canadian Bastard: There's an APS for that

    Comment


    • #17
      Just because there were only 3 pro bowlers does not mean there wasn't talent. Brady was throwing to Brown and a bunch of nobodies (Jermaine Wiggins is the only other one I can think of right now). The defense with McGinnest, Bruschi, Ted Johnson, Law, and Milloy was pretty good. They also had Richard Seymour.

      Actually looking it up, the #2 WR was David Patten. There were no RB's of note other than Antoine Smith, who is poop. The defense also featured Roman Pfeifer, Terrell Buckley, an aging Bryan Cox, and some guy named Bobby Hamilton, who put up 7 sacks. Vrabel was also on the team, but his impact was minimal.



      I am "America's Poster"... http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/for...9&postcount=25

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by njx9
        what talent during their first super bowl run, exactly? in 2001 they had 3 whole pro bowl players (milloy, brown and brady). ty law was a stud cornerback.

        they had 2 receivers over 15 catches (including te's). bruschi was 3 years from making his first pro bowl. richard seymour was still a rookie (and was not the same player he would become shortly thereafter). bryan cox was well past his prime.

        i'm certainly willing to be proven wrong (and there are numerous arguments either way), but to simply say the pats had a ton of talent in '01 as if there's no argument is extraordinarily lazy.
        Well, alot of times talent doesn't get recognized until after the fact. Just because these guys didnt get PB recognition, doesn't warrant them not being PB worthy.

        You have to look at that team in context to the teams around them.

        That AFC for the most part, was a mediocre AFC. While the Pats didn't have the most talent in the world neither did the rest of the AFC. The Steelers were considered the best team in the AFC that year, and they had Kordell Stewart at QB.

        What was impressive was how they won the SB. Some will say it was the players, some will say it was Bellichick, some will say it was Martz.

        My statement was incorrect when refferring to the 01 team. But if you look at the other 2 SB teams, I think Bellichick had plenty of talent in its developed stages. Vrabel to this day is extremely underrated, Willy is a HOFer, Bruschi is a great ILB, Teddy Washington/Wilfork, Seymour, Law, Milloy/Harrison...there was lots of talent on that defense.


        I think whats more impressive is what Weis and Brady were able to do with that offense. Bellichick drew up great schemes with great players, Weis managed the game beautifully with average to below average talent on offense outside of Brady.


        Whats lost in these Patriot teams is how integral Weis was to their SB victories. Its like they had 2 HCs. One on defense, and one on offense.

        Comment


        • #19
          I always have to throw it out, too...

          Bill Belichick's record in New England before Tom Brady was 5-13.

          Comment


          • #20
            Coaching, 100% percent of the time.


            Originally posted by mythbusta
            i love my pedestal. thats why im the mythbusta.
            who dey?

            Comment


            • #21
              You cant coach talent, but it does need to be honed. Still if i had a choice id rather have raw 100% talent than a player who isnt nearly as talented but is coached up.

              fenikz

              "Pride comes before the fall" - Mark Dantonio

              35-21

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by yourfavestoner View Post
                I always have to throw it out, too...

                Bill Belichick's record in New England before Tom Brady was 5-13.
                Don't forget his tenior in Cleveland.

                Thats why before we give Bellichick the annoiting oil, I have to see what he's made of outside of NE. If he wants to be known as the best, prove it without Brady. Let's see what youre really made of.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by yourfavestoner View Post
                  I always have to throw it out, too...

                  Bill Belichick's record in New England before Tom Brady was 5-13.
                  He came in to take over a team that had been coached by Pete Carroll. The talent level was abysmal. Yes, they had Bledsoe, McGinest, Law, Milloy, Brown, and Bruschi, but not much else. The first season under Bellichick was an adjusting year as they switched over to the 3-4 and installed the WCO. Most coaches don't come in and take losing teams and turn them into instant winners. It takes at least a year under the salary cap rules to really turn a bad team around.



                  I am "America's Poster"... http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/for...9&postcount=25

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Besides, you can't just point at ONE example and say "it's (this)." New England's 01 victory was by-and-large an exception.

                    by BoneKrusher
                    <DG> how metal unseen
                    <TheUnseen> Drunken Canadian Bastard: There's an APS for that

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      New England was not the best team in the league that season, but they executed well on both sides of the ball and special teams. They were a perfect storm team. They got insanely lucky with the tuck rule, then they rode that emotion into Pittsburgh for the AFC title. The New England brain trust then outcoached Martz in the Super Bowl and kept it close. They managed the clock perfectly for Brady to get them down the field for the game winner.



                      I am "America's Poster"... http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/for...9&postcount=25

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I think New England is the best case of the blend of talent and coaching in recent memory. In the salary cap era, you cannot build the star teams like the old school 49ers, Cowboys, Redskins, Bills, etc. Coaching is much more significant now than it was then because of talent scarcity between the cap and the expansion.



                        I am "America's Poster"... http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/for...9&postcount=25

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by bsaza2358 View Post
                          I think New England is the best case of the blend of talent and coaching in recent memory. In the salary cap era, you cannot build the star teams like the old school 49ers, Cowboys, Redskins, Bills, etc. Coaching is much more significant now than it was then because of talent scarcity between the cap and the expansion.
                          You can also make an argument that having a franchise qb is more important now than ever, because of parity.

                          Also having a GM who can constantly replenish talent with great drafting.

                          Its hard to point at one single factor in this topic. I think a good front office, solid coaching, and talent all play a huge role in sustaining success over a long period of time.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I think that the teams that recognized this earlier have had more sustained success in the salary cap era than others. The Eagles, Broncos, Colts, and Patriots have done the best job over the last 6-7 years.



                            I am "America's Poster"... http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/for...9&postcount=25

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by bsaza2358 View Post
                              I think that the teams that recognized this earlier have had more sustained success in the salary cap era than others. The Eagles, Broncos, Colts, and Patriots have done the best job over the last 6-7 years.
                              No question.

                              You can make an argument for the Steelers too.

                              One thing that stands out to me with all those teams is that they are very stable at HC. They don't fire coaches, or change schemes readily. Theyve all kept the same scheme/coaches and have constantly replenished talent in those schemes to keep up at a competitve rate year in and year out.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by bigbluedefense View Post
                                No question.

                                You can make an argument for the Steelers too.

                                One thing that stands out to me with all those teams is that they are very stable at HC. They don't fire coaches, or change schemes readily. Theyve all kept the same scheme/coaches and have constantly replenished talent in those schemes to keep up at a competitve rate year in and year out.

                                Then maybe even more important than Coaching ability and skill, is coaching continuity. Being able to have the same coach teach the talent the same plays, skills, schemes helps both the coaching develop as well as the talent. It's probably a blend of both you need to be contnually sucessful, but then if thats the case, maybe the General Managers and Team Presidents have a lot more to do with success than coaching or talent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information