re: Which is most important--good coaching or talented football players?

quote:

---

Can't teach size and speed


Neither of which is of much use without coaching on how to use those attributes.

---

Comments like this are an amazing example of the problem of thinking everything is in absolute balck and white terms. Just because some one loses more games and gets fired does not mean he literally did no coaching or is bad at base level coaching like teaching technique, conditioning and training, basic schemes etc. There is a lot to being a head coach, but in college, what's more important, recruiting or game planing? Obviously both have importance, but the best game plan, the most organized practice will not do you much good with out talented players.

If coaching is the end all, why did Bill Belichick get fired in Cleveland? Think he wins 3 SB's if Aaron Brooks was his QB?

quote:

---

Obviously both have importance, but the best game plan, the most organized practice will not do you much good with out talented players.

---

How does Boise beat UGA and Oklahoma?

They were in an absolutely different universe talent-wise than those teams. I think you are discounting coaching too much.

i'd take the souffle guy... even Emeril can only do so much with that

the souffle guy can probably make something tasty IMO

quote:

---

Comments like this are an amazing example of the problem of thinking everything is in absolute balck and white terms. Just because some one loses more games and gets fired does not mean he literally did no coaching or is bad at base level coaching like teaching technique, conditioning and training, basic schemes etc. There is a lot to being a head coach, but in college, what's more important, recruiting or game planing? Obviously both have importance, but the best game plan, the most organized practice will not do you much good with out talented players. If coaching is the end all, why did Bill Belichick get fired in Cleveland? Think he wins 3 SB's if Aaron Brooks was his QB?

---

I think we are in agreement and my point is exactly your point as well. Great athletes in a complex game like football are not going to be successful over the long haul of several seasons without good coaching when they are competing against similarly talented teams or even slightly less talented, but better coached teams. But even great coaches can't make silk purses out of a sows' ears. They have to work with talent to be successful in the win/loss arena. Those coaches regarded as great are successful both because they are good at coaching and have good athletes. But they tend to be good coaches (technically, game planning, etc.) and good at personnel selection and management.

In the sense of being able to recruit their own personnel, college coaches may have some advantage on controlling their circumstances in comparison to NFL coaches. Typically the NFL coach has less control over team personnel, has to deal with the limitations through the draft and trade system, which in part is why Bellichik might not have been as successful at Cleveland, and why Saban was a bomb at Miami. Put those coaches with great personnel and you get a great result. But a poor coach with great personnel will eventually get exposed. Put a great coach with mediocre personnel/program , and he typically will demonstrate capacity to be great and often will be able to move up to a better program, with better personnel/athletes (or the opportunity to recruit them).

quote:

---

quote:

How does Boise beat UGA and Oklahoma?

They were in an absolutely different universe talent-wise than those teams.


No they weren't

---

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

The talent gap is grossly overstated across the college football spectrum in Division 1.

Hell look at these past weekends of ULM vs. Arkansas and Auburn.

I don't care how well coached you are and how poorly coached the other team is...if the talent disparity was that great...it wouldn't matter who was coaching the kids on the sidelines for Arkansas and Auburn.

The only "universe" gap is in H.S. football with huge powers playing schools that just want to field a team.

Every time you move up a level in football the talent gets more similar by process of cutting the wheat from the chaff. If you're playing FBS football compared to Div III, II or FCS...you're more similar than dissimilar.

quote:

---

How does Boise beat UGA and Oklahoma?

They were in an absolutely different universe talent-wise than those teams

---

This is of course wrong and extreme hyperbole. The difference in talent betweeen Boise and those other teams is not as extreme as you are making it out and as Soph said, you can't look at anecedotes.

yeah and even when talent isn't close to being equal, sometimes guys just have great/shitty games

Michigan-Appy State or USC-Stanford 2007 happen

LSU in 2007 lost to fricking Kentucky

quote:

---

But for how long? One season/series does not a career make.

---

Well I'm not saying I am a better long term coaching option than Phil Jackson but as long as I have Lebron, Wade, Bosh etc.. and he has whatever scrubs are on the Wizards my team will be better.

quote:

---

Boise controlled that game with relative ease

---

still one game.