Draft Countdown Forums

Draft Countdown Forums (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/index.php)
-   Pro Football (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   Coaching or Talent? (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7636)

Modano 04-24-2007 02:42 AM

Coaching or Talent?
 
Which is the most important thing in football? Having a talented team, or having a good coach?
I'm writing this, thinking about Marty Schottenheimer's situation last year. He had amazing talent, his team dominated the regular season, but in the playoffs they lost like every year during the Scottenhimer's reign. But was this time is fault? If Marlon McCree wouldn't made that stupid play, the Chargers could have won the Super Bowl, and now we could talk about Marty, the great HC who finally won a super bowl.
And again, Sean Payton was the coach of the year. But what would have the Saints done without Drew Brees?
Bill Bellichick was considered a mediocre coach before the coming of Brady. Is Tony Dungy the reason why the Colts have been so successfull or is Manning? Last year, Dungy's defense sucked for all year long, it was is offense - which, imo, lives and dies with Peyton - that carry the team to a 12-4 record.
Bears defense has been so good because of Rivera or because they had the right players in almost every position? Should we expect a down season for them because Rivera is gone, or they will still be amazing because of Harris, Ogunleye, Brown, Anderson, Urlacher, Vasher and so on?
The Cowboys under Parcells weren't able to win a playoff game. But if Romo hasn't fumble that snap who knows how many other games the Cowboys could have won?
So do you think that great success is more determined by coaching or overall talent of the team? Could a great coach win without great talent around?
Coaches (like QBs) always take the blame for losing, but they're not the ones who play on the field, and the ones who can ruin an entire season with one bonehead play.

yourfavestoner 04-24-2007 03:21 AM

You hit the nail on the head. Give me talent. Every time.

Another example is the Baltimore Ravens. Look at how they've cycled through defensive coordinators, yet still remained an elite unit.

BigDawg819 04-24-2007 03:26 AM

You can't teach talent but you can always find a coach so give me talent as well.

awfullyquiet 04-24-2007 04:32 AM

good strategy beats mediocre talent ten to one.

see denver and the path to glory starring... Terrell Davis, Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson, Clinton Portis, Reuben Droughns and Tatum Bell ...

or the other flick, Bill Belichick and the case of the torn hoodie and the piecemeal gameplan

thule 04-24-2007 04:35 AM

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.

Caddy 04-24-2007 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thule (Post 336415)
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.

Tom Brady is quite the talent.

JoeMontainya 04-24-2007 07:32 AM

I was on the best division 3 baseball team in Ohio acouple years ago. We went 24-2 durring the regular season on talent alone. When we went to the tournament and got to the final 6 teams, coaching took over and we got beat by Coldwater.

Jay 04-24-2007 08:20 AM

I don't think it is ever one or the other, but always a little bit of both. You clearly have to have guys that are good enough to be playing the game, but I am of the belief that if you give Bill Belichick a guy that is really smart, understands the game, learns easy and has great natural instincts, that he can coach him up to have him play above his ability (or improve to that level). I think other great coaches can do that too.

There's never an exact formula. There are going to be games that are won based on pure talent alone, but most of the time, games are going to be one with a great game plan and perfect execution. Whether the execution is delivered based off the fact that Ladanian Tomlinson is a freak of nature and rushed for 230 yards and four TD's or the fact that Fred Taylor and Maurice Jones Drew rushed the ball 25+ times each for over 400 yards combined and dominated the time of possession and kept Indianapolis off the field, thus limiting their offensive capabilities, remains to be seen.

I don't think talent is ever the issue, it's execution. We've seen guys come in the league with all the talent in the world and not be able to put it on the field because they don't know how to play. Last year, Chad Jackson was a perfect example. The guy is clearly a very, very gifted player, very fast, can easily become the Patriots #1 very fast. But he didn't learn the playbook, and you can't get by in the NFL running in a straight line down the field every play.

So like I said, it's pretty much a combination of both, with both relying heavily on the other...

JK17 04-24-2007 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awfullyquiet (Post 336412)
good strategy beats mediocre talent ten to one.

see denver and the path to glory starring... Terrell Davis, Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson, Clinton Portis, Reuben Droughns and Tatum Bell ...

or the other flick, Bill Belichick and the case of the torn hoodie and the piecemeal gameplan

Davis and Portis were/are both great running backs, and Bell and Anderson aren't that shabby themselves. But you're not mentioning one of the most talented lines in NFL history with those guys. That was the main reason for most of the success was the talent up front.

I'll take talent every time. Look what happens when coaches like Gibbs or Shell come back to coach untalented teams. No matter how great the scheme or discipline of a team, if they just don't have the talent they won't get it done. I think coaches get way to much credit and blame for a team's shortcomings. It's hard to win without a good coach, but it's impossible to win without good talent.

bsaza2358 04-24-2007 09:37 AM

I think talent needs to be molded, developed, and maintained. It's a chicken or egg argument. I don't think 11 members of this forum could compete in the NFL, even under Vince Lombardi and Bill Walsh because the natural ability just isn't there. However, I think a great coach armed with the right system and the right talent can beat a better team by outcoaching them. Last season, the 49ers and Packers were not very talented teams, but they each won some games based on coaching. In the NFL, the talent is spread around. But, the disparity isn't so great that on any given day, a well-coached team with a and well-executed game plan couldn't take out any other team.

JK17 04-24-2007 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9 (Post 336638)
mentioning brady alone as evidence that talent is more important on the patriots seems to me to be a bit silly. this is a team that was starting troy brown at cb, that has consistently never had a great wide receiver and that won it's first super bowl with antowain smith at running back.

but yeah, i forgot it's NFLDC... most of you don't know that anyone exists on that team besides brady.

Yeah although I took the side of talent, Brady would seem to me to be a perfect example of why coaching is more important. For all the "talent" Brady has, he was a sixth round draft choice and a backup QB. It's hard to say who made whose career, Bellichek or Brady.

That team still had a pretty good defense though when they won all those championships, but if you're gonna cite Brady it should be for the coaching argument.

JK17 04-24-2007 10:09 AM

Another thing I'd be curious about is what this is based on, one season or building a franchise?

If it's for one season I would take the talent like I said.

But if you're building a franchise I'd much rather start with the dominant coach. You can build the talent around him, but it's very hard for talent to build a great coach.

PACKmanN 04-24-2007 10:32 AM

Give me coaching over anything. Look at Gallery and Williams. They have all the talent but without coaching look where they are now. Without soild coaching your talent isnt going to do anything.

BTW there should be a poll in this thread.

bigbluedefense 04-24-2007 10:45 AM

At the end of the day, players make plays. Its that simple.

But there does need to be an equilibrium. What a great coach does, is motivate his team to perform at its optimum level, utilize its player talents to the best of his abilities, and provide of a system of success that can be duplicated and succeed at different teams/times.


The most overrated aspect of coaching is SB victories. Some of the best coaches didn't win one. Some horrible coaches did win one.

Bellichick was an average coach before Brady. And to say he had no talent is bs, he had plenty of talent on that Patriot team.

To me, a great coach is a guy who can do what I said above. Vince Lombardi said it best.

"Coaches who can outline plays on a black board are a dime a dozen. The ones who win get inside their player and motivate."


As much as I love Xs and Os, this is true. Its the guys who can motivate and get the most out of their guys....those are the real coaches out there. Theres more to coaching than calling plays. What about player development? Player utilization? Etc..

iowatreat54 04-24-2007 10:58 AM

coaching...New York Knicks...enough said.

The Unseen 04-24-2007 11:08 AM

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

bsaza2358 04-24-2007 11:10 AM

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.

bigbluedefense 04-24-2007 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9 (Post 336747)
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.

yourfavestoner 04-24-2007 11:19 AM

I always have to throw it out, too...

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

Bengals1690 04-24-2007 11:20 AM

Coaching, 100% percent of the time.

asmitty45 04-24-2007 11:20 AM

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.

bigbluedefense 04-24-2007 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yourfavestoner (Post 336791)
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.

bsaza2358 04-24-2007 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yourfavestoner (Post 336791)
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.

The Unseen 04-24-2007 11:24 AM

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.

bsaza2358 04-24-2007 11:30 AM

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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.