Talent vs. Coaching - A Silly Argument.

[Nostical]

Take a chill pill friend. Coaches coach and players play.

Thank you for that wisdom! Of course both sides of the football equation are needed to win. My point is too many here have dismissed the fact that we have the requisite talent on our team to succeed. I believe differently. I believe these players can win if they're put in better position to do so by our coaches. Poor play calling in the red zone and late play communication were bigger contributors to failure in several of our losses than the execution by our players.

And yet there seems to be an unwillngness by some on this board to acknowledge we have the talent to win. Look at this representative comment directed my way.

It's great you believe the players are good enough. You can believe whatever you want. That particular belief is contrary to all evidence.

Contrary to all evidence? My point is simple. We have the talent to win. It's up to the coaches to give them the best chance of doing so. I certainly have faith that the coaches are getting better but please, whether you're a fan, pundit or mom, don't discount the talent of this team. It has winning players. And I'm convinced that with our (improved) coaching, that's exactly what we'll do.

 

[junglehusky]

Two players. One is a senior who has been starting for a year, with two seasons of playing experience under his belt. The other is a sophomore with much less playing experience. Let's say they're equal talent. If the coaches quote-unquote put them in a position to win, which player do you think will make the play 8-9 times out of 10 and which one maybe 5-6 times?

Talent, experience, depth, they may be different attributes of a team but they all impact the outcome similarly. Whatever you want to call it, it's been lacking on this team and is finally starting to turn around. Building the culture etc. But I think it's clear we're still between the 100-200 level, to use BD's analogy. "Putting the players in a position to win" is 8 words but what it really entails is building the program up to the 300-400 level, which takes repetition, practices, increasing game experience, gradual expansion of the playbook, growth and leadership, and most significantly, time. Oh, and recruiting.

 

[RedStickHusky]

My point is simple. We have the talent to win. It's up to the coaches to give them the best chance of doing so. I certainly have faith that the coaches are getting better but please, whether you're a fan, pundit or mom, don't discount the talent of this team. It has winning players. And I'm convinced that with our (improved) coaching, that's exactly what we'll do.

Nostical, you obviously take this question somewhat personally and I really don't want to antagonize but your take is so bizarre to me that I'm gonna take one more shot it. For starters, I think maybe there is a disconnect in the way that some of us define and use the word 'talent' on this board. Some of us, you for example, seem to infer that talent is a fixed measure of the innate natural ability of a player and that team talent is the sum of the talent of the players on the roster. The alternative view to that is that recruits show up capable of performing at 60-70% of their potential. Given that view, the talent level of the team changes, even without roster changes, as players improve on physical, mental and technical attributes through the season. Calling plays on Saturday is a drop in the bucket of a coaching staff's responsibilities relative to progressing the players towards realizing their potential talent level. In that sense, I'd agree with some of what you say - if the talent is undeveloped -- that falls on the staff and all aspects of the program fall on the Head Coach. As far as play calling goes... in XBOX you can dial up a new playbook and start running different plays immediately. In real life unfortunately, you have to install an offense in practice and you have to practice it until you have confidence in it. You have to believe that the players are capable of executing the plays you call -- all of this takes time. If you think the play calling was better against ECU than it has been for much of the season, I'd agree with you but I wouldn't attribute it to the coaches finally making the right choices, I'd attribute it to the work the players and coaches are doing in practice. Look at the short yardage situations for example and the more creative approaches to the fullback position. The idea to play Mariner or Rutherford at fullback isn't something that occurs during the game with a 'hey let's try it'. We were so bad at short yardage early in the year that fake field goal was a go-to play. The staff took that on as a problem and developed the talent to run better short yardage options. I guess my bottom line on where our opinions diverge is that I don't think it's a slam on the players to say that we've been under-talented nor do I think that the label "under-talented" represents any kind of ceiling. Talent is what shows up on Saturday and is a result of the work you put in, natural ability may provide a head start but only very rarely, if ever, is it going to be enough.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Nostical, you obviously take this question somewhat personally and I really don't want to antagonize but your take is so bizarre to me that I'm gonna take one more shot it. For starters, I think maybe there is a disconnect in the way that some of us define and use the word 'talent' on this board. Some of us, you for example, seem to infer that talent is a fixed measure of the innate natural ability of a player and that team talent is the sum of the talent of the players on the roster. The alternative view to that is that recruits show up capable of performing at 60-70% of their potential. Given that view, the talent level of the team changes, even without roster changes, as players improve on physical, mental and technical attributes through the season. Calling plays on Saturday is a drop in the bucket of a coaching staff's responsibilities relative to progressing the players towards realizing their potential talent level. In that sense, I'd agree with some of what you say - if the talent is undeveloped -- that falls on the staff and all aspects of the program fall on the Head Coach. As far as play calling goes... in XBOX you can dial up a new playbook and start running different plays immediately. In real life unfortunately, you have to install an offense in practice and you have to practice it until you have confidence in it. You have to believe that the players are capable of executing the plays you call -- all of this takes time. If you think the play calling was better against ECU than it has been for much of the season, I'd agree with you but I wouldn't attribute it to the coaches finally making the right choices, I'd attribute it to the work the players and coaches are doing in practice. Look at the short yardage situations for example and the more creative approaches to the fullback position. The idea to play Mariner or Rutherford at fullback isn't something that occurs during the game with a 'hey let's try it'. We were so bad at short yardage early in the year that fake field goal was a go-to play. The staff took that on as a problem and developed the talent to run better short yardage options. I guess my bottom line on where our opinions diverge is that I don't think it's a slam on the players to say that we've been under-talented nor do I think that the label "under-talented" represents any kind of ceiling. Talent is what shows up on Saturday and is a result of the work you put in, natural ability may provide a head start but only very rarely, if ever, is it going to be enough.

Personally I think Nos talks to players and their parents a lot and accepts their point of view as reality. Also think there's a group of guys here that like to score points with said group.

Bottom line for me (without using the word "talent"). . . . . . . . .I don't think the players nor the coaches were good enough football players or coaches to field a competitive team last year. This year is an improvement in both areas, but we still have a long way to go.

 

[RedStickHusky]

What's really encouraging to me is that we are starting to see specific results where issues are addressed and we move on to the next. Building blocks being assembled. Still, the nature of a rebuild in a competitive environment is that better opponents will find and exploit your weaknesses. That may look like back sliding but sometimes it's just a matchup that you're not ready for.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

The Diaco theme coming in here was Rise up. Together... and its happening, all involved.

 

[Nostical]

Look guys, I'm not that hard headed. I recognize the interconnect of players and coaches. I also get that coaches identify player potential, develop and maximize talent to try and assure the greatest impact on team success via practice and conditioning. Then coaches try to match a game plan to the strengths of the current squad--measured against the weaknesses of the opponent. I get all that.
I guess where we differ is in who I place the greatest responsibility on for this team's success. Not some team--some year, but this team, this year. Given our current roster and our current coaches it is my opinion that we had a greater chance of winning with our current players as long as the nuts and bolts of coaching (play calling, time management, etc.) improved. We had less of a chance to win if our coaches did not wake up to their deficiencies and we merely switched our roster around. In other words, the "talent" of our players was not holding us back. It was more the coaches failing to use that talent in the most appropriate ways. Now, with both areas improving I am encouraged about the future. We will see the proof on Saturday.
With that I will close the book on the subject. I appreciate the give and take.

 

[J187Money]

Look guys, I'm not that hard headed. I recognize the interconnect of players and coaches. I also get that coaches identify player potential, develop and maximize talent to try and assure the greatest impact on team success via practice and conditioning. Then coaches try to match a game plan to the strengths of the current squad--measured against the weaknesses of the opponent. I get all that. I guess where we differ is in who I place the greatest responsibility on for this team's success. Not some team--some year, but this team, this year. Given our current roster and our current coaches it is my opinion that we had a greater chance of winning with our current players as long as the nuts and bolts of coaching (play calling, time management, etc.) improved. We had less of a chance to win if our coaches did not wake up to their deficiencies and we merely switched our roster around. In other words, the "talent" of our players was not holding us back. It was more the coaches failing to use that talent in the most appropriate ways. Now, with both areas improving I am encouraged about the future. We will see the proof on Saturday. With that I will close the book on the subject. I appreciate the give and take.

But if you hung out with the coaches and realized (just to make something up) that it took certain talented players 100 times to pick up a concept you might have the opposite opinion.

The cupboard isn't bare and yet teams like Cincy are obviously more talented. The coaches are also inexperienced. At the end of the day the record is the record.