More important? Larrys and Joes or Coaching

[CCRed]

Crosby….new coach, and well, a lot of missing SETX posters. 

[CardinalBacker]

4 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

Because truly, it's a combination. I'll take a balance of both leaning a bit towards talented athletes.

I agree… like 53-47 athletes over coaching. 

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

I agree… like 53-47 athletes over coaching. 

Fair enough 

[A BUC 77]

Great coaches attract and motivate great athletes.  There are certain instances where great athletes make so so coaches look good, but it’s usually in smaller schools. Medium to large schools that are successful have great coaches.

[SmashMouth]

17 minutes ago, A BUC 77 said:

Great coaches attract and motivate great athletes.  There are certain instances where great athletes make so so coaches look good, but it’s usually in smaller schools. Medium to large schools that are successful have great coaches.

So you’re saying they’re equally important?

[dj]

13 hours ago, Steven Avery said:

This, you have to have talent, its not strictly Xs and Os.  I have seen coaches destroy talent by running the wrong system. IE had spread personnel but brought in the triple option because that's what he likes.

A good coach looks at what he has, uses the best system to utilize that talent and then it comes down to how does he relate to them, how does he motivate them, how does he adjust when they study your film and take away what you want to do. A lot of the deeper rounds of playoffs comes down to who can adjust the best when your game plan gets thrown out the window. 

 

Absolutely correct!! I'm truly glad someone sees the bigger picture.its exactly what's happening to w.o. and not to throw shade at the coaching staff.but, they're a lil delusional on how they're supposed to be getting better.no matter the yr.they have never given up this many points week end and week out. Something that really hadn't happened in over 35 yrs.he says they're getting better.i don't see how.

[EAGLEFOREVER]

Who teaches the players how to block, how to defend the pass, what they are supposed to do in different situations, who inspires them? Oh , that’s right they’re born with that knowledge.

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, EAGLEFOREVER said:

Who teaches the players how to block, how to defend the pass, what they are supposed to do in different situations, who inspires them? Oh , that’s right they’re born with that knowledge.

100% correct. But as good of a coach as one may be, you are limited with your success based on the tools in the tool belt. You can't build a house with a hammer but no nails.

[BEARCPA]

55% talent

35% coaching

10% school/community buy-in

[oldschool2]

Players + Coaching + Competition level = Success

Any 2 of the 3 can lead to a great year.  Maybe not a state championship year, but good year.  Just having 1 of the 3 isn't enough.  It takes good players.. and it takes preparation/strategy. But that wouldn't be enough in a juggernaut district/region/classification.  It happens every two years... Same relative coaching staff, a lot of the same players, but reclassification may turn zeros into heroes or vice versa. 

Just like I've seen good coaches have mediocre years because of lost talent or even graduation.  Or injuries... And not that great of coaches can have pretty good years if they have a lot of talent or are in a weaker level of competition.

It's crazy to think that there aren't a lot of variables.  But I will never be convinced that all it takes is great coaching.  MOST coaches are practicing stuff that is designed to be successful.  And MOST coaches are taking stuff from coaches/teams that are successful.

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, BEARCPA said:

55% talent

35% coaching

10% school/community buy-in

Not bad...  I'd lean more like 50/40/10, when you consider that coaching isn't just scheming and adjusting-it's putting the program in place and developing the talent.  But I like what you"re saying. 

[Cougtalk]

A good Coach cannot make unathletic bad players good. But a bad coach can make their athletes bad football players. 

 

A good coach is sufficient for success with nearly any student body. 

A bad coach will kill talent. 

60% Coaching, 35% Kids, 5% other factors. Other factors can be much bigger if there is a major event. Example when Liberty Hill lost their coach they had a different level of commitment to that program and were incredible because of it. They had the other pieces as well but that other factor had huge implications. 

I do think these can shift. 

[SmashMouth]

7 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Not bad...  I'd lean more like 50/40/10, when you consider that coaching isn't just scheming and adjusting-it's putting the program in place and developing the talent.  But I like what you"re saying. 

Cmon CB, you know it's more like 48/40/12... A blind man can see it. 

[A BUC 77]

12 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

So you’re saying they’re equally important?

They are both obviously important.  Equally?  I think in more ways than one, it starts with a good coach. 

[TheOutsider]

"Can't win the Kentucky Derby with a mule." CT

[Reagan]

8 minutes ago, TheOutsider said:

"Can't win the Kentucky Derby with a mule." CT

You never ask a mule to compete in the Kentucky Darby. SMH!

[SmashMouth]

25 minutes ago, Reagan said:

You never ask a mule to compete in the Kentucky Darby. SMH!

But what if that mule identifies as a horse? Lol. Hell, it works for men in women's sports! 

Sorry, I couldn't resist...

[Reagan]

39 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

But what if that mule identifies as a horse? Lol. Hell, it works for men in women's sports! 

Sorry, I couldn't resist...

That made me laugh!!  Good one!  🤣🤣

[prepballfan]

On 10/22/2023 at 10:43 PM, TradenupBH said:

I watched a couple years back like 4th or 5th round Timpson play. Lower level school, they a kid that was unbelievable. That’s all they needed was that one kid. Lower level just needs a few dudes, gets more complicated the higher you go

In 2016 Shelbyville had a RB named Octavian Burrell (RIP) who singlehandedly carried the Dragons to the quarterfinals were lost to Lovelady on the last play of the game 14-7. Without him they wouldn't have made the playoffs. Kid was a stick of dynamite. 

[BEARCPA]

6 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Not bad...  I'd lean more like 50/40/10, when you consider that coaching isn't just scheming and adjusting-it's putting the program in place and developing the talent.  But I like what you"re saying. 

Yeah 50/40/10 is probably more accurate now that I think about it, especially taking into account the playoffs when talent tends to be more equal. Thats when coaching prowess or lack thereof is most impactful.

[thaferrett]

16 hours ago, BEARCPA said:

55% talent

35% coaching

10% school/community buy-in

agree

[DP#1FAN]

On 10/22/2023 at 10:42 PM, pine curtain said:

here is two examples

WOS

PNG

 

Coaching, no one can argue this if they have football knowledge.

[SmashMouth]

2 hours ago, DP#1FAN said:

Coaching, no one can argue this if they have football knowledge.

Give PNG some less talented athletes, and let's see how they do. It's a combination.

[JaspD55]

It's a puzzle, where all the right pieces have to fit, especially for deep playoff runs. IMO when a team is in an area with talent, and having to compete with other schools that are loaded with athletes, like here in SETX, Coaching starts to matter a bit more, on your % scale some have used.  

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, JaspD55 said:

It's a puzzle, where all the right pieces have to fit, especially for deep playoff runs. IMO when a team is in an area with talent, and having to compete with other schools that are loaded with athletes, like here in SETX, Coaching starts to matter a bit more, on your % scale some have used.  

I think that’s agreeable.