DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Coaching versus Talent

Why do i get the feeling if we had Von Miller and Dumerville that this staff would have them dropping 20 yards down field in coverage?

ps. Those of you who just responded "its both" need to step up. That's weak.

No, it isn't.... it's Truth.

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

Really?? Then why is so much energy spent on here saying "that guy sucks" or "wish we had THAT guy" or "we could have drafted WHO?". Why is the NFL Draft sooooo looked forward to around here as the source of what's going to fix us?

Why do folks look to replace one player with another?

Actually, the very fact that we can go back and forth on the topic between Coaching vs Talent supports exactly my point that it takes both.

Not even Bill Belichick can get to the Super Bowl with nothing but scrubs.

Has anyone made a case for Talent?

I've read through this. Nothing has stood out as something I should come back to.

ps. Those of you who just responded "its both" need to step up. That's weak.

I had asked that people would refrain from the obvious response - - "It requires both."

I had to quit reading after seeing that. You can't limit the criteria when asking a question about what makes a team good. Sheesh!!!!

It's odd that you, of all people, say that.

To me it seems easy when I watch it.

Actually, the very fact that we can go back and forth on the topic between Coaching vs Talent supports exactly my point that it takes both.

Not even Bill Belichick can get to the Super Bowl with nothing but scrubs.

That Patriots team was stacked on defense. Bruschi, Law, Milloy, Vrabel, McGinest, Seymour, and Phifer were all very good players. Some of them Hall of Famers (or very close).

Every coach needs talent .... but every talent needs to be coached in order to reach his maximum potential.

Yet Bruschi, Law, Milloy, and McGinest were long term veterans. Their defense improved under Belichick though.

Vrabel was considered an underachiever in Pittsburgh. He had less than 40 tackles in 4 years in Pittsburgh, and while he did have 7 sacks, it never looked like he was going to be much in the NFL. Phifer was 33, and thought to be on the downside of his career. Seymour was a rookie.

They had guys who fit what Belichick wanted to do. They brought in guys who fit .... even guys with major question marks, who became real contributors for them. Vrabel is really the biggest example of this on defense.

No, it isn't.... it's Truth.