DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Coaching versus Talent

Well, lets everyone come clean and take your side on the issue.

Years ago I went after practically (went against) everyone on the board. I stated that this board, and football people in Cleveland, believe that talent trumps coaching when building a team.

I still believe that.

I had it out with Toad over the issue. He, like others, went after me, yet never defended his position. Never really defended his position.

You guys wont deal with it. You don’t want to come out and state your case.

Magical talent still needs to be coached up, put in an intelligent football environment. It needs either a winner as a coach, or to be surrounded with a lot more magical talent in order to be successful.

Magical talent that isn’t hitting on all cylinders is a dime a dozen.

Winning coaches are rare. They are real. They last.

Did talent trump coaching with the Lombardi Packers? Walsh’s 49’s? Landry’s Cowboys? Shula’s Dolphins? Parcell’s Giants? Gibb’s Redskins? Bellichick’s Patriots?

Good coaching created most of the “talent” on those teams. Those teams, those players were “coached up”. Plain and simple.

If Aaron Rodgers played for the Brown’s recent coaches rather than McCarthy would he be the same gamechanging, franchise player? Tom Brady? I say, no way! Brady absolutely needs Bellichick. BB really coached this guy up. McCarthy is the most perfect fit for Rodgers I could imagine.

Lombardi’s Packers were horrible. No real personnel changes, but worst to first. Walsh’s situation was worse than Lombardi’s. 2 years, worse to first – the ultimate example of coach em up you will ever find. I say that Walsh DEVELOPED the best receiver and best quarterback in NFL History. He was responsible for developing them. I’ll bet they’d be the first ones to agree with that. They didn’t just show up to training camp as the guys who will go down in the top 5 players in history. They both had major weaknesses. I watched it happen. I know what I saw. (Key word is “had”).

A coach is a winner or he isn’t. The eye test is immediate. If Jim Harbaugh doesn’t have a franchise quarterback - - - he makes one.

“Talent” are guys who were “coached up” by someone gifted – a gifted teacher. IMO that’s how it works. I’ll concede, sometimes it’s the player coaching himself up, but I think that’s rare.

The board, and I believe many guys from Ohio, Penn, Ill, Mich, etc… believe that you win with magical talent and coaching is overrated (I suspect a few guys from Michigan have jumped that bandwagon). Guys from the West Coast believe coaches develop the talent. Mix good player development coaching with gifted athletes and then “magic” happens.

Coaching versus Talent

My position is that coaching is vastly underrated. It creates the real talent. It makes the difference between winning and losing.

A coach is a winner or he's not.

Unless you have a generational coach (Walsh, Belichick, etc.), take talent every time and it's not close.

I'm not sure its that black and white, Talent gets you to the NFL, but being coachable, and having a coach that can get the best out of players and knows how to identify talents, correct gaps, and gameplan to maximize the talent is paramount. We currently don't have that, in fact, I think we've actually regressed with this staff. Shanahan was a coach that knew how to maximize what he'd been given, The staff we have now are clueless it seems. Coaching can also make marginal guys into great players within their system by having them focus on specific things. Thats why I think Pettine isn't HC material, he don't seem to have that mental makeup to lead and be able to be that guy. Some it comes natural to and others have to toil years to finally know what works...our problem is, we don't hire anyone established and we aren't patient enough to see if they will figure it out.. So if we clean house this year, I really hope we get someone established, then you can rule coaching out and begin looking at personnel.

Thanks

But, I'd like to hear you defend that position.

Specifically

Maybe at some point. That was just my gut reaction. If I have time (and I feel like doing it), I will research this and give a more detailed answer.

Yea, my point is that it clearly is black and white. At least to me.

It doesn't have to be grey.

I do agree with most of what you're saying.

I don't think he meant generational coach, but probably a good coach. Holding it to a 'once in a generational coach' can do his argument disservice. I'd much rather have the Ravens 2001 team and Brian Billick as my coach. That said I think Brian was a good coach in general and should be exempt from the argument.

As far as the best example of 'talent, but no coaching' is Cincy. They're an extremely talented team in the regular season, but once December creeps up they fold like a house of cards.

I disagree.
Strongly, and with the loudest of voices I can muster.

Coaches are Game Day Field Generals.
They are strategists.
They are tacticians.

But first and foremost, they are TEACHERS.

These highly skilled athletes are still young, untempered raw materials when the enter the NFL. Yes, they have the bodies and the moves, but adapting to the pro game from what they did in Pee-Wee, Jr. Hi, HS and College is another order of magnitude higher. The game is faster, so their previous physical advantages are now neutralized. The other players are bigger and better than they ever faced before. The playbook is more sophisticated. The level of competition is 2-3X higher.

ALL THESE AREAS are impacted by the quality of education they receive in their first 3 years as a pro. It's why we still see NFL Films clips of WR coaches teaching guys how to sit down and make tight cuts on midrange downfield routes in every training camp. It's why we still see OLine coaches in the classroom, espousing the aspects of angle and leverage- and how they differ in detail from a pass-protect 7-yard drop play to a zone blocking technique on a designed cutback run play. It's why we still see QB coaches doing stop-film analysis of D formations and pre-snap movements in clips featuring Drew Brees, Aaron Rogers and Tom Brady.

All the talent in the world cannot make up for a well-taught, well-trained squad of men who are all on the same page.

The timing, coordination, discipline and execution required to pull off even ONE successful NFL play falls upon the ability of the staff to train the players in how to execute their respective roles.

Talent will always be necessary to win games... but scheme, training and instilled discipline can win championships. Players don't instill that in themselves at team headquarters- their teachers (coaches) do.

Coaching is so much more than calling plays on Game Day, or setting the roster at the end of training camp. It sets the playing standard, it establishes the practice protocol, it sets the team culture, it calls out guys who are underperforming, it runs the classroom, it mentors technique to ALL individual players....

...and it can make an UDFA a perennial Pro Bowl candidate.


______________________________


And let's be completely honest here: no 'generational coach' was born that way. Bill Walsh is now regarded as a 'Generational Coach' because of his legacy... but let's remember this:

He was a coach who GOT COACHED for many years before he made his name with SF:

Walsh studied under Paul Brown for years before he became "The West Coast Walsh."
Belichick studied under Parcells... and started out as a errand boy for the Browns.


Students became teachers. Those teachers became heralded coaches. Those coaches went on to win multiple championships, and to cement their places in Canton.

But each and every player OR coach who has ever found his bust in Canton...
...was TAUGHT by someone.

Coaches over players... and it isn't even close.


.02

I think it's a combination of both. Good coaches DO make a big difference ... but I think it's less about coaching up in the skills department. - although that is important too - and more about recognizing strengths of players/units and maxing their abilities, and minimizing their weaknesses.

You gotta have the horses though, that's the other side of it. If the Pats don't win the lottery with Tom Brady there's a good chance Belichick isn't nearly as revered as he is (plus he's awesome at cheating).

Oh and Bill Walsh? He coveted a QB who could run his offence, the 49ers drafted Montana and the rest is history.

You need both. Period.

One can help cover the deficiencies of the other, but when you have both you've actually got something sustainable.

Well, in America, we love the underdog. Underdog tends to be better coaches with less talent. I love the movie the Replacements btw! Funny thing about the movie was the NFL starters attitude toward the coach, which I think represents part of the problem today.

I think coaching gets the max from each player and adapts gamelans to the base skill set of what he has. The best coach getting the most out of his team may often not be enough - college football may be a good indicator of this. think of underperforming talent and I think of Detroit year over year.

that being said, I think coaching has shifted over the decades from strong coaches to more 'modern' styles. Do you think many of the coaches you listed would be successful in the NFL today?

Now you have players trumping coaches and GM / Owners dictating coaching decisions. Shoot, if what I read on Tannehill's mentality and clashes with the coaching is true..wow. What power does a coach have any more? Coaches, in my opinion, continue to lose power. Media - salaries - draft picks - all dictate what he can and cannot do...

That being said, I'd hire the best coach and give him full control. When you think of dynasty's in any sport, you tend to know the Coach first- as you listed above. Coaching is leadership - teaching - mentoring - inspiring - discipline and team first - and all at the same time. IMHO you take that way and the best talent just become chaotic and self-focused.

Not sure I totally answered your question but I love the question!

I have not looked at the numbers vs Shanny last year - but we are over 20 pts a game this year through 4 games. That includes the opener against the NFL's best defense in terms of points allowed (and of the 13 pt average they have allowed, 6 came on a pick 6 by the Jets offense). I just looked - at the end of last year the Browns averaged 18 pts a game.

So where and how does Shanny get this carte blanche label as being a genius from? My recollection was when teams got tape and made adjustments - we went from being a good offense to barely being able to do anything. . . . but Shanny coached his players up and after 4 games you think the offense is regressed and Flip is to blame?

I don't see it and I don't get it. Defense? Oh I would have agreed with you - Offense and giving Shanny that much credit? Not so much. I disagree. I know Mack went down - but in your scenario - Shanny being the great coach, surely one player should NOT have made that much difference?

I'd agree with this. I think coaches (Teachers as Clem said) are vital - but they need the raw goods (talent) to make a difference with. You can't take Greg Little and make him into a probowler no matter who is coaching him. You can't take Bademosi and make him shut down corner ..... You can help any player play better and to their potential, you can put good players into a situation where they shine and that's what the Browns have seemed to lack forever. I'm as disappointed with the team as anyone this year - but I'll wait another couple game before passing judgement.

Shanny is getting a lot of love right now for what he's done with Atlanta. But I agree, here he is vastly overrated.

I'm sure Matt Ryan and Julio Jones have nothing to do with it at all..

They were also on the team last year and didn't do so well.

Matt Ryan, last year threw for 4700 yards, 28 TDs, and 14 INTs. Julio Jones had 1600 yards and 104 receptions.

They were not a part of the problem.

Where Shanahan has helped the Falcons is the running game (they were near the bottom of the league last year).

Coaching will and will always be EVERYTHING!

Good coaching is always tantamount to simple talent.

JMHO.

i think your right.

I'm taking the side of the coach.. Understanding the levels involved and how each level provides a mass knowledge of how to work.teach ..instill values and knowledge.

Level's of coaches / coaching / abilities to be.

Most athletes become interested in sports at a young age.. Becoming a athlete at a young age means meeting an adult (coach ) outside of your parents that you are allowed to listen to and take in values and lessons that may not be necessarily values or goals set by a non family member.

This early stage is critical to have the ability as a coach to earn the respect of the young athlete to gain trusts and understandings ofthem..in order to get them to follow and take serious your beliefs..

What you expect from your young athlete and having the special gift to get that across to them is how they will grow to be an athlete...These young influences on them will show as they mature into the next level of the sport involved..

As the athlete matures into the various levels of play... there must be the coach who can carry them from step one into step two... This level begins to show what kind of learning desire the athlete has for the sport.. This is where the testing for the athlete begins..

This is the level where a coach has to be able to find the talent and begin transforming the athlete into a position to succeed in the sport ... Making them confident and believe in themselves to step up into another level.

By now by good coaching and understanding between coach and player.. the player should now have been taught his position and the importance of the players position in relationship to the concept of how the team sport works.. At this level the Coach has one of the best moments to instill his values and get the Athlete to respect what the Coach wants from him/her.

Having the ability to coach an athlete not just to get the best physical play out of them..but the mental side also.. Athletes at this level still look up to and respect the Coaches words.

Okay Coach.. You've shown the athlete his skill and how to capitalize on his physical abilities... Who have earned his / her respect and your words are gospel.. because they respect and believe in you..

Now the hard part Coach...Time to send them away to the College level...Help them with being afraid... to make that choice of school to give them the guidance on how to stay focused and be the best person you can be... But most importantly to let them know what you taught them is why they are where they are and not to stop believing.

Im in Collage coach...It's a whole different world from the pee wee football through high school... I'm away from home and from my comfort level... Sure hope the new coach understands me and I him... Growing into a man of my own... I'm bigger faster got great game..Coach keep me level headed... I want to be the best... I want to play in the NFL

NFL Head Coach... Deals with Im a man..this is my job.. money money money...Money ! Swagger im' the best.. you can't teach me nothing coach... I was born with this man...

Hey coach.. I think Josh Gordon needed a strong stance HC that should have inserted a pair of football cleats... side up when inserted into his dumb
ass ..Bigger attitudes harder to get respect from these men then the Collage level players...

NFL HC' have to be a no nonsense guy that you respect and get respected back... be hard and listen... Finding a balance isn't easy... That's when having very talented players being a Coaches guy.. It helps with the structure..

We've seen great talent let go because the HC couldn't deal with them.. Knock him on his ass Coach and let him know whose boss..

Listening to jim O'neils pressure he wants to work with and communicate with the players... Wants to build a bond... It may work or he may just have to put his foot down and say okays boys.. Im the coach...this is what I want you to do.. It's a 50/50 but eventually the coaches win.

It takes both, but if I had to tip the scales a bit, I'd take talent. I don't think Chuck Noll was the greatest X,s and O's guy out there. He had talent.

Joe Gibbs was mentioned earlier. Which Joe Gibbs are we talking about? The first time he coached the Skins and won 3 Superbowls or the Joe Gibbs who coached the Skins a second time and had a 30-34 record? And what was the reason he wasn't as good the second go? Pretty simple, the talent on the team wasn't as good as the first time.

What I would consider our best X's and O's coach Butchy took one of the least talented teams I have ever seen to the playoffs. That should tip the scales a bit in the coaches favor. Still think it takes both and a good sound stable organization helps just a little too.

I'm thinking you want to beat your chest a little here and are seemingly looking for an argument.

We'll, I believe that few coaches can take a talent lacking team and make a SB winner out of it.

You have coaches like Chuck Noll that couldn't win without adding a bunch of talent. Once he had it, he did very well winning 4 superbowls and lots of winning seasons.

Injuries play a big role as well.

I just don't think you can make a statement that a GREAT Coach can take garbage and turn it into gold.

the players say they dont like the calls and the coaches say the players need to execute.

While I certainly agree with you about a coach winning the SB with garbage talent, I believe there's a little more to the story.

I mean wouldn't you agree that a coaching staff has to have a great ability to develop young talent? Wouldn't you say a coaching staff has to have the ability to adjust their scheme to fit the talent? Wouldn't you say a good coaching staff has have the ability to make great game plans and make adjustments during the game, on the fly?

It's my contention that if you have a great coaching staff, they can get more out of their talent than other coaches. What I'm saying is I believe a great coach can get more wins with the same team by developing his players and putting them in the best position to win.

You certainly can't be a winning coach when you're devoid of talent. But as we're currently seeing in Atlanta, some coaches can certainly get better production out of the same basic team.

This bothers me. I don't think the players truly respect O'Neil. His calls are questionable.

I think because the majority of our defense are veterans, they know when a coach is clueless, I think this is the case, and I don't think its going to end well... Oneil coming out and basically calling out the players by saying this is an execution league might have sealed his fate...you don't have that kind of swag to get away with that...Now if a Jauron, cowher, lebeau or similar says it, then you better take it seriously and shape up or be shipped out, but a guy Like pettine or Oneil who haven't amounted to squat as a HC or DC, then you're going to have issues. I think the players should follow blindly and do their jobs, that way it can't be said they were doing anything other than they were supposed to. But in this league, players run the asylum, if you have a bunch of unhappy players on one side of the ball, the coach doesn't have a chance.

Talent.

I believe in the old saying: "Great players make great coaches."

Certainly exceptions. Applies more to reputation and legacy perhaps, of both the and the player(s).

We suffer from Hyperhypeitis. We drink the koolaid and are not evaluating all the hype clearly. Without clarity in continuity, we don't know what we need clearly, then we don't know exactly what we have and whether it meets our needs. But record aside, this season is providing answers; keep collecting talent.

I can agree that good coaches develop talent. No question about it.

I remember what Bum Phillips said about Don Shula ... "He can take his'n and beat your'n; and he can your'n and beat his'n.".

So there's that.

But given that Don Shula's are few and far between, I'm tempted to think that talent trumps coaching. But then I remember hearing NFL pundits say things like: "Hold up your thumb and forefinger and hold them a half inch apart. That's the difference in talent between the best team in the league and the worst.". (I personally believe that statement should be amended to include the proviso "the talent of the teams, not counting QB".)

Then I read things factoids like Bill Belichick is a .500 coach when his starting QB isn't Tom Brady.

So I come to these conclusions:

1. A competent coach is good enough to win with, as long as he doesn't get cute and screw things up.

2. Most talent on NFL teams is close to equal, assuming you have someone choosing talent in the draft and FA with good football sense.

3. Its all about the QB.

Joe Banner ‏@JoeBanner13 12m12 minutes ago
Joe Banner Retweeted NFL Strategy
This is another example of how important coaching is. Those that say it's talent & execution miss the bigger point Joe Banner added,

NFL Strategy @FootballNFLS
Harbaugh & GRoman turned ASmith into a good QB, Kaep into a good QB, now Tyrod T (Roman) into a gd QB. But at least Kaep's "comfortable" now

I don't see why it has to be one or the other.

Certainly I would pick a great team with a mediocre coach/coaching staff to win against a mediocre team with great coaching. That is missing a lot of points though:

- It's one thing to say that you'd take a great team over a great coach. Well duh. What about for the effort/money spent? Many teams are not spending all or even nearly all they can on players (i.e. some teams, like the Browns, have consistently been well below the cap year after year.) This implies that it's more the cash flow and owner's budget than the salary cap that is limiting spending. So would you rather have a $3 million/year wide receiver and an $8 million/year coach, or the other way around? Is it even close?

Heck you can apply this same reasoning to non-coaches as well. How much does a top of the line trainer, sports scientist, strength coach, etc. cost and how much value do they give to a team?

- There's really no reason to have to 'choose' one or the other. In fact, great coaching tends to lead to better players, as players develop better with good coaching, want to stay in/go to places with a winning culture and stability, etc.

- NFL is set up for parity, it doesn't always show up in the standings but all NFL teams have good players. It's the nature of the salary cap era and the draft order where the worst teams draft first every round. Those picks are plainly more valuable than picks later in the rounds, so it's hard for a team to become drastically better than other teams, and even when that happens it usually doesn't last for long (San Francisco has already declined significantly, Seattle lost some players as they had to pay their core guys, etc.)

To add to this, NFL games are often close. Let's say half of all NFL games are decided by 1 or 2 key plays. That seems about right based on watching games around the league. Now take a perfectly average 8-8 team and say they won 4 such very close games and lost 4 very close games. You either win a game or you lose it, there's really no inbetween, and the difference is often razor thin. I think Belichick coaching such a team would probably win at least 10 games. Pat Shurmur coaching the same team would be lucky to win 6. Then the effects of winning and good coaching compound over time.

I'm not trying to go after the guys who maintain that success is driven by good talent. I simply want them to convince me. Give me some specifics.

When I used the word "versus" I did it for a reason. Its because the board has taken a side (in the past), yet never really convinced anybody why. And, I believe those guys have got it all wrong.

Don't want to diss on anybody, but saying "I think its both" doesn't really mean anything. Of course its both. The argument I tried to lay out is that NFL talent and Championship teams are driven by talented, hard working, teachers.

IMO Ohio has produced the best football coaches in the world -- I don't think its debatable. The best. The evidence is overwhelming. In lieu of that, I don't understand how some of the fans can be so naïve.

How many Super Bowls does Bill Belichick have if Mo Lewis doesn't kill Drew Bledsoe?

Yes they are but without talent on the field, you are not a championship team. You might be good, you might be Northwestern or Stanford or Duke... you might have a good regular season and make some noise... but without the talent of an Ohio State or Alabama, you are NOT a championship team. And the same applies in the NFL.

I would maintain that the Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan's, etc... that exists today would be the CRAP Alabama's, CRAP Ohio State's, and CRAP Michigan's that they were the minute before Saban, Meyer, and Harbaugh arrived on those campuses.

JMHO

Do we win 4 Super Bowls if Brady comes here?

Probably at least one, if not more. Those defenses won a majority of those Super Bowls, let us not forget.

Saban, Meyer, and other college coaches move up the ranks to elite programs because they know they can get elite talent... and it takes elite talent to win championships....

Meyer could still be at Utah winning 11 games a year and doing real well. He needed better talent to compete for national championships and he knew that. Same reason Saban left Michigan State for the SEC, he knew he could get better talent.

As Coach Sam says, "You never saw a jockey carry a horse over the finish line."