Talent vs. Coaching - A Silly Argument.

[RedStickHusky]

Talent improves during the course of a season as a result of coaching (and experience). The more techniques the players learn, the more reps they get in practice, the more scheme options they create for the coaches. Trying to fix blame on one or the other is divisive and is mostly an exercise in patting yourself on the back. Improved play late in the season isn't a case of the coaches suddenly figuring things out it's a case of the team (players and coaching) getting closer to where they want to be.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

Talent improves during the course of a season as a result of coaching (and experience). The more techniques the players learn, the more reps they get in practice, the more scheme options they create for the coaches. Trying to fix blame on one or the other is divisive and is mostly an exercise in patting yourself on the back. Improved play late in the season isn't a case of the coaches suddenly figuring things out it's a case of the team (players and coaching) getting closer to where they want to be.

Begins with being physically fit. After the Tulane game last year, Diaco mentioned how shocked he was at their level of fitness, called them fat and weak. Cant develop if your physically unable to do so.

 

[Palatine]

Talent improves during the course of a season as a result of coaching (and experience). The more techniques the players learn, the more reps they get in practice, the more scheme options they create for the coaches. Trying to fix blame on one or the other is divisive and is mostly an exercise in patting yourself on the back. Improved play late in the season isn't a case of the coaches suddenly figuring things out it's a case of the team (players and coaching) getting closer to where they want to be.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But player development is not exclusive of talent. Talent makes a huge difference. There is an old expression in coaching that "Johnnies and Joe's beat Xs and Os

As I said on the 241 thread, "Our players looked bigger and stronger and faster than ECU. It was exactly the opposite of Cinny. I think this is a much more talented team than many on the BY give it credit for. Nice to see them play like it."

I think we're improving because the coaches are improving. There was no confusion on the sideline and the plays came to the huddle on time. This allowed the offense to play with less stress and more tempo. They were comfortable and they played that way.

 

[RedStickHusky]

Thanks for the Johnnies and Joe's aphorism, never heard that one before and it reflects such deep knowledge.
The argument, as it has presented itself here, is that either we were devoid of players - the bare cupboard argument, or that we've always had players that could compete with better schemes and play calling. What bothers me about the argument is that 1) it ignores what is probably about 90% of coaching - working with players to turn potential talent into actual talent; 2) it overestimates the talent gap in a league like the American; and 3) it draws an unnecessary line between players and coaches so you can blame one and exonorate the other for poor performance.
Players and coaches is a partnership, I want to root for the team not pick sides within it.
We went through four solid years of not doing enough to develop our talent. What is most encouraging to me now is how much more talented we looked against ECU than we did vs. Nova. That is in season development and reflects real coaching.

 

[spsct]

Thanks for the Johnnies and Joe's aphorism, never heard that one before and it reflects such deep knowledge.
The argument, as it has presented itself here, is that either we were devoid of players - the bare cupboard argument, or that we've always had players that could compete with better schemes and play calling. What bothers me about the argument is that 1) it ignores what is probably about 90% of coaching - working with players to turn potential talent into actual talent; 2) it overestimates the talent gap in a league like the American; and 3) it draws an unnecessary line between players and coaches so you can blame one and exonorate the other for poor performance.
Players and coaches is a partnership, I want to root for the team not pick sides within it.
We went through four solid years of not doing enough to develop our talent. What is most encouraging to me now is how much more talented we looked against ECU than we did vs. Nova. That is in season development and reflects real coaching.

Damn you and your levelheadedness...

 

[HomeKing93]

I used to think talent vs. coaching was the argument but experience, as you noted, is part of the discussion as well. We have inexperienced players and coaches this year.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Thanks for the Johnnies and Joe's aphorism, never heard that one before and it reflects such deep knowledge.
The argument, as it has presented itself here, is that either we were devoid of players - the bare cupboard argument, or that we've always had players that could compete with better schemes and play calling. What bothers me about the argument is that 1) it ignores what is probably about 90% of coaching - working with players to turn potential talent into actual talent; 2) it overestimates the talent gap in a league like the American; and 3) it draws an unnecessary line between players and coaches so you can blame one and exonorate the other for poor performance.
Players and coaches is a partnership, I want to root for the team not pick sides within it.
We went through four solid years of not doing enough to develop our talent. What is most encouraging to me now is how much more talented we looked against ECU than we did vs. Nova. That is in season development and reflects real coaching.

I don't think "talent" is 90% coaching. Coaching can make players better, but there is innate God-given ability as well, and that plays a very big role. What I think great coaches can do, is find players who have that ability but who may be under the radar, or who received coaching that wasn't sufficient to show what they can do. Jim Calhoun was superb at this. Great players make more plays. Preparation and coaching is a huge part for the average college offensive lineman. It really isn't for say Barry Sanders....he just had it. None of that was coaching, it was all him.

I'll give credit to Diaco for figuring out that Newsome has "it" and Johnson really doesn't. It's that extra something that isn't coached up or affected by coaching. That being said, most FBS players can be coached up to be better, and more consistent and we are seeing that in the OL and elsewhere.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The Idaho potato guy has it right on the money. If you let the body drive the mind, and the body is not fit - you are incapable of success.

There are times when the body will drive the mind, and you gotta fight to make that minimum, and keep it positive if it's happening.

Gotta strive to let the mind drive the body - and that takes you as far as the body is capable.

 

[huskymedic]

There is an old expression in coaching that "Johnnies and Joe's beat Xs and Os

See, that's the damn problem... we need the Jimmies instead of the Johnnies.

 

[tduconn]

I don't think "talent" is 90% coaching. Coaching can make players better, but there is innate God-given ability as well, and that plays a very big role. What I think great coaches can do, is find players who have that ability but who may be under the radar, or who received coaching that wasn't sufficient to show what they can do. Jim Calhoun was superb at this. Great players make more plays. Preparation and coaching is a huge part for the average college offensive lineman. It really isn't for say Barry Sanders....he just had it. None of that was coaching, it was all him.

I'll give credit to Diaco for figuring out that Newsome has "it" and Johnson really doesn't. It's that extra something that isn't coached up or affected by coaching. That being said, most FBS players can be coached up to be better, and more consistent and we are seeing that in the OL and elsewhere.

Most of our recruits are "under the radar" relative to other recruits that it seems a lot of the established and successful program wants......whether its a P-5 or G-5 label.

That being said, I agree with Husky Hawk that there is an innate God given ability as well, and not every ones talents peak at the same level.....no matter who the coach is, and the coaches talents.

Everyone on the team has talents, but MAYBE most not able to peak at levels of players on P-5 teams. Maybe that is why UConn's classes are rated so low by talking heads......and MAYBE that is why at times they look so over classed by teams with winning records.

Its not a knock on the team, no one is suggesting they don't want to win, or don't try to win. Possibly their gifted ability isn't as high as others.

I have some talent.....but wouldn't make the "practice squad" at UConn.

 

[RedStickHusky]

I don't think "talent" is 90% coaching. Coaching can make players better, but there is innate God-given ability as well, and that plays a very big role. What I think great coaches can do, is find players who have that ability but who may be under the radar, or who received coaching that wasn't sufficient to show what they can do. Jim Calhoun was superb at this. Great players make more plays. Preparation and coaching is a huge part for the average college offensive lineman. It really isn't for say Barry Sanders....he just had it. None of that was coaching, it was all him.

I'll give credit to Diaco for figuring out that Newsome has "it" and Johnson really doesn't. It's that extra something that isn't coached up or affected by coaching. That being said, most FBS players can be coached up to be better, and more consistent and we are seeing that in the OL and elsewhere.

I didn't say talent is 90% coaching, I said 90% of coaching is turning raw talent into actual productive on the field talent. Go recruit a top 40-50 class and let them coach themselves for four years and see how that works out. The difference between Newsome and Johnson wasn't nearly as pronounced last year when AK had trouble not putting the ball on the ground. Did Newsome simply discover his 'it' or has he responded better to coaching?

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

It is a silly debate, but this board has a weird tendency to blame the coaches and absolve the players.

When we play like crap, it's bad coaching.

When we win and play well, the coaches got out of their own way and let the players do what they do.

It's really strange.

 

[Nostical]

This isn't that complex. We have some very good players, talented players, that were being constrained by poor coaching schemes and play calls. Once the coaching improved the talented players could finally excel. Everyone gains experience with repetition and game action but that's not what propelled us Friday night. Our talent was better because our coaches improved their play selection and defensive schemes. Put our same talent on the field and run the same tired play calls and soft defensive schemes and be late with play communication and we likely lose. Plain and simple.

 

[RedStickHusky]

This isn't that complex. We have some very good players, talented players, that were being constrained by poor coaching schemes and play calls. Once the coaching improved the talented players could finally excel. Everyone gains experience with repetition and game action but that's not what propelled us Friday night. Our talent was better because our coaches improved their play selection and defensive schemes. Put our same talent on the field and run the same tired play calls and soft defensive schemes and be late with play communication and we likely lose. Plain and simple.

Nosty you're one of my favorite posters here but this is what I'd expect to hear from some player's Mom. The truth is the exact opposite, play calling is constrained by what the players can execute -- as they get better we have more options.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

It is a silly debate, but this board has a weird tendency to blame the coaches and absolve the players.

When we play like crap, it's bad coaching.

When we win and play well, the coaches got out of their own way and let the players do what they do.

It's really strange.

This isn't that complex. We have some very good players, talented players, that were being constrained by poor coaching schemes and play calls. Once the coaching improved the talented players could finally excel. Everyone gains experience with repetition and game action but that's not what propelled us Friday night. Our talent was better because our coaches improved their play selection and defensive schemes. Put our same talent on the field and run the same tired play calls and soft defensive schemes and be late with play communication and we likely lose. Plain and simple.

Like clockwork.

 

[Palatine]

Nosty you're one of my favorite posters here but this is what I'd expect to hear from some player's Mom. The truth is the exact opposite, play calling is constrained by what the players can execute -- as they get better we have more options.

If you can't get the play to the huddle on time (the coaches fault) it doesn't matter what play you call. Clearing up the confusion on the sideline made a huge difference on Friday night.

 

[Nostical]

Nosty..this is what I'd expect to hear from some player's Mom. The truth is the exact opposite, play calling is constrained by what the players can execute -- as they get better we have more options.

Sorry Seoul but I can't agree here --and I'm not even a mom. Tell Nick Williams if it was his lack of talent or the coaches' lack of insight. Was Geremy Davis less talented or was he neglected in the offense.
Send our receivers on better routes, provide better protection schemes for the QB and the talent that is already there performs better.

 

[Carl Spackler]

LOLOLOL.

I never met a receiver worth a damn, that didn't think the offense revolved around them, and demanded the ball on every down.

 

[Nostical]

Don't laugh so hard. Our guys didn't demand it like prima-donnas. Our coaches didn't make them part of the offense as much as they should have.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Don't laugh so hard. Our guys didn't demand it like prima-donnas. Our coaches didn't make them part of the offense as much as they should have.

Take a chill pill friend. Seriously. Nobody is claiming that we've had re-incarnations of BIll Walsh or Vince Lombardi on the sidelines leading our offense to glory in the past decade. Verducci is a first time offiensive coordinator. We've changed OC's I think 6 or 7 times, since 2007-2008. We've gone through fundamental shifts in offensive philosophy through coaching changes and had serious recruiting problems to overcome for years. I was once accused of being a parent of a player too, because I thought Zach Frazer was actually a decent QB, that was getting shafted by the coaching staff - EDSALL's coaching staff. Edsall has an issue with coaching and developing QB's, that didn't change in Maryland, and Orlovsky was lucky he played prior to Edsall's Big East years, which is where his record shows that he went into a shell with his offensive philosophy.

Coaches coach and players play. They both make up the team. The team that makes the least amount of mistakes wins the game, in any game.

Guess what - only the coaches and players in the film rooms and meeting rooms know who's actually at fault for any specific mistakes, and you're not in the rooms. Players don't make game plans, they execute them.

Accountability and teamwork is the fabric that builds a team and is established by everyone recognizing their own mistakes and improving on them. That's what this team is doing, and in Harvey Keitel's words - let's not go sucking each others ddd----ks yet, because we had one good game - we're only 4-5 and have a lot to improve on - both coaches and players - even the TE's.

Say whatever you want, but the reality that the USAF Husky in Asia points out, is that when blame starts going at one side or the other, that's divisive to a team, and this program is looking like a team that is developing again. For at least one week, late in a season.

Don't drink the poison.

 

[UConnDan97]

It is a silly debate, but this board has a weird tendency to blame the coaches and absolve the players.

When we play like crap, it's bad coaching.

When we win and play well, the coaches got out of their own way and let the players do what they do.

It's really strange.

There's nothing strange about it. It happens all the time, even at the highest levels of administration.

Ask why Maryland fired Friedgen or why Nebraska fired Solich. There was a perception that based on the players they were recruiting that 9-3 wasn't good enough. Of course, I think that both institutions learned their lessons the hard way about such assumptions.

However, you can still put me in the group of Boneyarders that believes that we have a sufficient talent level across the board to win more games than we lose with our schedule. And I also happen to think that we have the right coaches in place to help demonstrate that. Both the coaches and the players have grown...

 

[Duncan Idaho]

Sorry Seoul but I can't agree here --and I'm not even a mom. Tell Nick Williams if it was his lack of talent or the coaches' lack of insight. Was Geremy Davis less talented or was he neglected in the offense.
Send our receivers on better routes, provide better protection schemes for the QB and the talent that is already there performs better.

Last year was about this year. And they did do that about the middle of the year. Sacks and TFL were noticeably down in the second half of the year.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Ask why Maryland fired Friedgen or why Nebraska fired Solich. There was a perception that based on the players they were recruiting that 9-3 wasn't good enough.

Because it's easier to fire a coach rather than an entire football team?

 

[RedStickHusky]

Sorry Seoul but I can't agree here --and I'm not even a mom.

No worries Nosty - I've got a feeling we're not going to be so worried about blame around here in the future...

 

[UConnDan97]

Because it's easier to fire a coach rather than an entire football team?

No. Because two separate institutions thought that they were above being "9-3". Now, both of those institutions would kill to be 9-3...