Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Coaching or Talent?

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

  • #31
    Good catch on the Steelers. My bad. No offense to the Pitt fans. The point about coaching is very true, but it's also a case of the teams making solid hires in the first place. Shanahan has 2 rings and a consistent playoff track record. Cowher was consistently good for his career. Andy Reid went 5-11, then 11-5, then won 5 of the next 6 division titles. Belicheck has been amazingly consistent, even with some roster and coaching turnover. If you find the right coaches and give them the ability to hire the right staff, the results will come.



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

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by bsaza2358 View Post
      Good catch on the Steelers. My bad. No offense to the Pitt fans. The point about coaching is very true, but it's also a case of the teams making solid hires in the first place. Shanahan has 2 rings and a consistent playoff track record. Cowher was consistently good for his career. Andy Reid went 5-11, then 11-5, then won 5 of the next 6 division titles. Belicheck has been amazingly consistent, even with some roster and coaching turnover. If you find the right coaches and give them the ability to hire the right staff, the results will come.
      This is also where age can be a factor.

      If you want coaching continuity, you need to hire a coach when he's relatively "young" per se. You can't hire a guy in his late 50s/early 60s and expect coaching continuity because coaching production falls off with age as well.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by JK17 View Post
        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.
        GMs have been underrated for quite some time now. Shopping for groceries is half the battle.

        Comment


        • #34
          With the salary cap, scouting and drafting are really the only way to have a sustained competitive advantage in the NFL. GM's are finally getting their due for that reason.



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

          Comment


          • #35
            As a Patriots fan, most of the Pats best players were not elite talents coming out of college or when they arrived in NE from other teams. We have seen guys like Tom Brady, Asante Samuel, and Mike Vrabel become great players in NE despite being overlooked by scouts and/or previous NFL teams. Granted you cannot win with a low talent level, but I think coaching is more important.

            Comment


            • #36
              The Pats are great at identifying the skills that a player needs to succeed for them, then they deploy that player in such a way that they meet with success. Success builds confidence and trust, then they can teach the players more skills and develop them. Mike Vrabel had limited skills coming out of school, but he was smart and quick. Belichek and Crennel slowly built his skill set until he became a complete player.



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

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by thule View Post
                Bill Belichick has one three superbowls with subpar talent at some positions. I don't think anyone would argue with me saying he had the most talent in the NFL. I would choose coach.
                I think that is a vast overstatement. There is a portrayal that New England doesn't have anyone other than Brady. They've always had a bevy of very good players on both sides of the ball. They grade out as at least above average at most positions. Especially in the trenches, at Linebacker, in the secondary. They never had the glitz and glamor at the skill positions, true, but they always had multiple elite players at their respective positions. The '05 season is testimony of my point; their elite defensive players were injured, and because of that their defense was horrible. When his elite players were knocked out, and the defense was yielding big numbers to such Quarterbacks as Matt Schaub, Gus Frerrote, and Aaron Brooks, this 'Belichick is a genius' mystique should have disappeared. It should have never arisen in the first place, because of how mediocre the Browns were under him. He couldn't overcome sub-par talent then, either.
                Last edited by Shiver; 04-24-2007, 01:54 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  The Pats players were, for the most part, picked or signed to fit the scheme, not the other way around. That's why you sometimes see Pats players leave and not do as well in other defenses. Ty Law, even though he was injured, has never had the same degree of success.



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

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by bsaza2358 View Post
                    The Pats players were, for the most part, picked or signed to fit the scheme, not the other way around. That's why you sometimes see Pats players leave and not do as well in other defenses. Ty Law, even though he was injured, has never had the same degree of success.
                    Ty Law was coming off an injury, at age 33. Same with Lawyer Milloy, he too was getting up there in age. I wouldn't expect them to have the same kind of success, as in their prime. They usually only get rid of a player, just before his age catches up with him. So that isn't a great barometer of how players do, outside of New England.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Yea Shiver is right, the Pats have always had very good all-around talent. They have been thin at a few positions but if you look at the roster it is loaded with talent on both sides of the ball. There has been a large amount of talent on the Pats since they won it all in 2001, but the coaching, evaluation of talent, and drafting is what put the team over the top.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        That is a fair point. Asante Samuel could be the first major Pats defender to leave with productive years left. He'd be an interesting test case.



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

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by bsaza2358 View Post
                          That is a fair point. Asante Samuel could be the first major Pats defender to leave with productive years left. He'd be an interesting test case.
                          Deion Branch and Givens left too as fairly highly touted offensive players. They were productive in the Pats systemized offense but the jury is still out on how they will preform outside of NE. I'm not sure if you guys are only talking about defense though, which would make them fairly irrelevant.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by thule View Post
                            Bill Belichick has one three superbowls with subpar talent at some positions. I don't think anyone would argue with me saying he had the most talent in the NFL. I would choose coach.
                            Hit the nail on the head


                            Follow me on Twitter! http://twitter.com/#!/aMo_Captain

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by JK17 View Post
                              Deion Branch and Givens left too as fairly highly touted offensive players. They were productive in the Pats systemized offense but the jury is still out on how they will preform outside of NE. I'm not sure if you guys are only talking about defense though, which would make them fairly irrelevant.
                              I was referring more to the defense. The Pats are built to stop the opponent first, then take advantage on offense second. That is why Brady never had a true elite WR corps. Givens and Patten have been busts. Branch was injured/suspended, but I think he will be productive.



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

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by bsaza2358 View Post
                                I was referring more to the defense. The Pats are built to stop the opponent first, then take advantage on offense second. That is why Brady never had a true elite WR corps. Givens and Patten have been busts. Branch was injured/suspended, but I think he will be productive.
                                Alright, then yeah those two I mentioned don't have much relevance at all to the topic haha

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information