- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Chavis ability to develop players
Posted on 1/25/13 at 8:09 am to GeauxLSU4
Posted on 1/25/13 at 8:09 am to GeauxLSU4
quote:
So the fact that he has been successful his whole career is just based on getting good players? Les has good players on offense and look how that's gone lately. You're an idiot
Lot of argument. I'll try to address them all by responding to this kid's post (even though he called me an ijit
) I think Chavis is a wonderful DC. He runs a style of defense that emphasizes agility over power. It's very much the opposite, in that respect, of what Bama does, and I think it's superior because it is more flexible in attacking the wide variety of offenses being run in college football. It's also a style that really suits the kind of athletes we have in Louisiana.
But that's not what this argument is about. It's about talent development. My contention is that there is an insignificant difference in talent development between, for example, Ole Miss and LSU. They are going to lift weights at both programs and, contrary to what some on here think, they're not going to be taught any better at LSU to "not take bad 'angels'"
I hope Chavis stays here a while because he's a very good DC (BTW, I'll still be of that opinion if the Dline gets pushed around next year, as it might). I also think RN should choose his university without regard to talent development. But, hey, maybe that just makes me an ijit.
0
Posted on 1/25/13 at 8:10 am to Surv1vor1st
I see what you are saying, but to discredit Chavis' ability to develop players is foolish.
Sure, a player of Nkemdiche's caliber will have to really have a nit-wit for a coach to not refine his skills enough to make the NFL jump in a few years, but going to a big program, where he could be surrounded by more talent would expedite the process.
Sure, a player of Nkemdiche's caliber will have to really have a nit-wit for a coach to not refine his skills enough to make the NFL jump in a few years, but going to a big program, where he could be surrounded by more talent would expedite the process.
Posted on 1/25/13 at 8:16 am to gotygers
quote:
Don't assume he will go in the first round whereever he goes!
Apparently you've never watched the NFL draft.
Posted on 1/25/13 at 8:17 am to brewhan davey
I think Chavis is great! He's been a proven asset to this program. I'm not trying to discrdedit his ability to develop players. But, the fact is that LSU does not take a bunch of average highschool players and just rely on Chavis to turn them into NFL-ready players. Player development is twofold. And the most important part is talent and not coaching.
Posted on 1/25/13 at 8:18 am to gotygers
quote:
Constantly taking three star athletes and having them become 1st round draft choices clearly its Chavis
About one third of the first round draft choices were three star athletes. Off the top of my head, the only one I can name was Mo (I'm sure there were others I just can't think of them). And Mo was simply underrated. The guy was an unbelievable athlete. No one "developed" that. Mo could have gone to Southern and still had a great NFL career. The reason Bama and LSU have been dominating college football is because we're getting the best talent. Year after year we both have top five recruiting classes (in reality, not according to the services). Sure we develop talent, so does everyone. But that just maintains the gap that was created on national signing day.
Posted on 1/25/13 at 8:23 am to Surv1vor1st
quote:
Player development is twofold. And the most important part is talent and not coaching.
This is where we disagree. I realize you haven't completely ruled out coaching in the equation, but if the most important factor in player development is the players' own abilities, then by that logic, Tulane could sign 25 of the top 100 players in the country and churn most of them out into NFL prospects. Not sure if I buy that.
Posted on 1/25/13 at 8:28 am to brewhan davey
quote:
But that's not what this argument is about. It's about talent development. My contention is that there is an insignificant difference in talent development between, for example, Ole Miss and LSU. They are going to lift weights at both programs and, contrary to what some on here think, they're not going to be taught any better at LSU to "not take bad 'angels'
Exactly. Talent matters. Plus NFL coaches think they can correct any flaws in technique or developement anyway.
quote:
I see what you are saying, but to discredit Chavis' ability to develop players is foolish.
It's not discrediting it, he does a great job, but so do a lot of other coaches. Talent is still the most important factor. One thing Chavis may be better at is evaluating the talent. 3* and 5* are just rankings, not facts. So maybe Chavis just spots them early. We did offer and get a committment from Tre White a year ago when he was a 4*, now he is a 5*.
Posted on 1/25/13 at 8:33 am to brewhan davey
quote:
by that logic, Tulane could sign 25 of the top 100 players in the country and churn most of them out into NFL prospects. Not sure if I buy that.
Why not? If any school had 25 of the top 100 players, they would dominate.
By your logic, LSU could sign nothing but guys outside the top 300 and crank out NFL players.
Posted on 1/25/13 at 8:37 am to brewhan davey
Yes sir, if Tulane signed 25 top 100 guys, the number of players going to the next level would not be much different than if those same 25 signed with LSU.
Posted on 1/25/13 at 8:41 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
About one third of the first round draft choices were three star athletes. Off the top of my head, the only one I can name was Mo (I'm sure there were others I just can't think of them). And Mo was simply underrated.
Chavis has been at LSU since 2009. We've had 3 defensive players taken in the first round: Peterson a 5* top 20 recruit, Brockers was a 4* and Claiborne a 3*.
Of this year's guys. Montgomery, Mingo and Minter were all 4*'s. So were Ried and Simon and Mathieu. Logan was a 3*
LINK
Posted on 1/25/13 at 8:57 am to Penrod
quote:
Mo was simply underrated. The guy was an unbelievable athlete. No one "developed" that.
That's stupid. Coach Cooper is one of the best secondary coaches out there and develops players to their potential. Yes Mo was a great athlete, but far from polished. You don't just stick athletes out on the field and they win. Look at Texas now. A team full of athletes with no development. Somebody has to teach CBs when to look for the ball, when to break, what a route tree is, how to play zone, how to use their hands to disrupt a route, how to attack the ball at its highest point and things like that.
The better examples are players like Brandon Taylor, Perry Riley, Minter, Brockers, Kelvin Sheppard and Tharold Simon. Kids that Chavis, the position coaches and Moffit got the most out of.
Posted on 1/25/13 at 9:04 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
By your logic, LSU could sign nothing but guys outside the top 300 and crank out NFL players.
Not necessarily. I'm not entirely giving the coaching staff credit, as I've conceded that players themselves are definitely a factor, but I really think more of it falls upon the coaching staff to develop a player's skill set and get him to the NFL.
Look at our inability to develop QBs over the past few years (post 2007). Many people blame JJ's misgivings simply on his own abilities; I honestly think he had the tools to be a good QB, however, he was not giving adequate coaching and he was the subject of constant ridicule. The same goes for JL, and even Mett (who has more natural ability than both of them).
Posted on 1/25/13 at 9:11 am to Surv1vor1st
quote:
The point that he is making is that J.Clowney,for example, would be in the same point in his development wheter he was at Ole Miss....Alabama....LSU.....or wherever. If the kid has the skillset and physical tools, his development in college will be fractions different from one SEC program to the next.
The. What happened to shep? Why do people constantly bitch about top offensive recruits and how they aren't being "developed properly"?
And please don't pretend any recruit we've gotten came in a good as clowney. RN is not as good as clowney and won't have close to the amount of success of he goes to ole miss.
Posted on 1/25/13 at 10:04 am to brewhan davey
quote:
Look at our inability to develop QBs over the past few years (post 2007). Many people blame JJ's misgivings simply on his own abilities; I honestly think he had the tools to be a good QB, however, he was not giving adequate coaching
QB is a little different because it is a more complicated position. But there are examples of coaches than have had good and bad QBs.
Take Texas for example. Same coach and OC had Applewhite, Simms, Young, McCoy and Gilbert. Why did VY and McCoy do so much better?
Look at it this way. Do all the players LSU sign come from top HS like WM, Curtis etc? Clearly some HS have better coaching, facilities, training etc. But I'm sure we've signed players, highly ranked players even that came from lesser HS programs.
Posted on 1/25/13 at 10:13 am to Suntiger
quote:
You don't just stick athletes out on the field and they win. Look at Texas now. A team full of athletes with no development. Somebody has to teach CBs when to look for the ball, when to break, what a route tree is, how to play zone, how to use their hands to disrupt a route, how to attack the ball at its highest point and things like that
The 2 are not mutually exclusive. Of course you can't just roll out athletes and have them play. But part of the problem with this debate is you are seeing things in absolutes. Texas may be under achieving relative to the talent and resoruces, but they still won 8 or 9 games in a top BCS conference and will have several players drafted. So its not as if they are getting no development at all. They may be in bad schemes, bad play calling stuff like that, but that is different from developement. If all that's worng with a kid is he takes bad angles or doesn't know where he is supposed to be in a zone, the NFL can fix that. Besides they are going to teach him a more complex D anyway. You can't coach 6'2" 205 with 4.5 speed. That's just natural.
I'd argue part of UT's problem is they are doing a poor job of evaluating. That's where I think LSU's staff (and obviously Bama's) are really out doing people. Mack has been very lazy in recruiting. Where LSU uses the summer camps to evaluate, Texas really hasn't, I've heard they rely more on tape, than those one on one type of evaluations.
Posted on 1/25/13 at 10:21 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Take Texas for example. Same coach and OC had Applewhite, Simms, Young, McCoy and Gilbert. Why did VY and McCoy do so much better?
From that sample group, I would say that due to the ability of Young and McCoy to make plays with their feet, they were able to thrive with the same coaches.
Posted on 1/25/13 at 10:24 am to km
you know so little. Have you heard of Patrick Willis (49'ers), Michael Oher (Ravens) or Mike Wallace (Steelers)? Or No. 10 who plays for the Giants? Going to Ole Miss really hurt those guys, didn't it?
Hotty Toddy!
Hotty Toddy!
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News