Let's Put it to a Poll

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Let's Put it to a Poll

    So, the Dr. Gill thread has gone off track.  I'll take partial responsibility for that.

    In some of the posts there has been back and forth disagreement as to which factor is more important:  Coaching or Talent.

    Some background from the other thread:

    TrueChamp has made a comment like this (this is verbatim, so I can't be accused of altering his post): "Coaching is the most important apsect of all organized sports."

    Wozzy added: "the loss of coaches overall has been the most major obstacle in the way of another Patriot Super Bowl victory."

    On the other hand, I've said: "The biggest obstacle in the way of the next championship has been insufficient talent on the field"

    So, here's the Poll (thanks BDC for taking away the Poll Feature):

    Which statement most accurately reflects your viewpoint?

    1.  Coaching is more important than Talent

        Let's call this the Bear Bryant theory, of whom Bum Phillips said "Bryant can take his'n and beat your'n, and then he can turn around and take your'n and beat his'n."

    2.  Talent is more important than Coaching

       Let's call this theory "It's the Jimmys and Joes, not the Xs and Os".

    You must choose options 1 or 2 for your vote to be tallied.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from NOISE. Show NOISE's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    Hate to screw up your poll, but ya need a bit of both! 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to NOISE's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hate to screw up your poll, but ya need a bit of both! 

    [/QUOTE]


    That's obviously true.

    The operative word is "more".

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    How is the team built? Is it centered around a superstar? Is it heavy on D? Is it a ball control O? Is it high octane O? Football is the one sport where coaching is at least as important as the talent and depending on the structure of the teams 53 man roster sometimes more important.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    By far, talent.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll


    Coincidence that catfish starts this poll and babe who has been quiet lately is on it supporting his anti BB the GM agenda within a half hour? I think not.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    I'm sorry, but this can't be answered to final and complete satisfaction...you need a mix of both which depends on the relative talents of both...but, you can try to get a definitive answer...good luck

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bungalow-Bill. Show Bungalow-Bill's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    Well, I've read here for years that Pete Carroll is a joke of a coach in the NFL so...

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Coincidence that catfish starts this poll and babe who has been quiet lately is on it supporting his anti BB the GM agenda within a half hour? I think not.

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, it was closer to an hour and you seem to have a problem with halves and wholes as you always choose the one closest to your agenda, no matter how wrong it is.

    I just woke up from a nap and saw your irrelevant post.  Coincidence?  Not when the majority of a posters post are of that nature.  It can't be helped.

    To the OP's question.  Talent is what matters.  The best a coach can do is motivate and teach in order to get maximum performance from a player or players.

    Instilling confidence in a player with these tools, helps, but the problem exists where the maximum performance potential lies within a player or players.

    Maximizing 2 players with differing talent levels is going to get differing results.

    You can polish a rock all you want.  That won't make it a diamond.  It makes it a shiny rock.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    I'd have to say an outstanding coach is going to beat a more talented team within reason. A great head coach will be better for your program in the long run, for the simple fact a great coach will develop talent and they will have a system in place where lesser talented players look better in their scheme. A great coach will eliminate their opponent's best player and level that playing field - they will make the other team play a style they are not comfortable with...and further level that playing field.

    This is what Belichick does evey single week...he levels the playing field (and then some). The sad part is if he had more talent to work with we'd be winning championships, rather than bragging about winning the AFC east evey year.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    Owner

    GM

    Headcoach

    Coaches

    Players

    Sht rolls down hill, great coaches and personel people find talent, not the other way around. A great talent can go to a bad organization and his career can end in a flash.  Randy Moss can play for the Raiders and do nothing, the following year go to the Pats and blow up.  A talent that needs to be nurtured can go to a great organization and they'll get the best out of them. 

    Everybody in the NFL is talented or else they wouldn't be there, over 1000 guys put their names into the draft every year, a small % make it.  The difference between winning and losing isn't a 10th off a forty time, winning a Super Bowl isn't easy despite BB and his amazing collection of coaches from 2000-2004 making it seem so.

    This isn't basketball where one player can alter everything about your team, this is football.  Great coaches can pull great performances out of marginal players, great talent with no direction is just that... a team with potential.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    Coaching by far outweighs talent, Always has and always will. Otherwise the Redskins would be looking at their eighth superbowl in the last decade. The Eagles would have won the others.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from neinmd. Show neinmd's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    First, you have to have a base of at least NFL-average talent. In this era of free agency, the talent spread has narrowed.

    Then, with the same level of talent, leadership plays a huge role. This is not just true of football. Creativity is probably the biggest attribute of effective leadership, followed by an ability to create a winning team culture, ability to evaluate/reward/position talent to enhance the overall team, tough-minded decisiveness, and empathy.

    There is a reason some coaches win a lot and others don't. Nick Saban wins a lot. Pete Carroll has won at both college and professional level. So has Jimmy Johnson. Bear Bryant routinely beat more talented teams. Ditto Red Auerbach. IMO, Bill Parcells was another such leader. Not every one of these guys had all the attributes of great leadership but they had enough of them to become consistent winners.

    So, of the two choices, I would pick coaching ahead of sheer talent. If I had the job of a GM of any professional sports team (possible exception of basketball), I would pick the coach first and worry about the players second. 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from OnlyDaTruth. Show OnlyDaTruth's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

     

    So, the Dr. Gill thread has gone off track.  I'll take partial responsibility for that.

    In some of the posts there has been back and forth disagreement as to which factor is more important:  Coaching or Talent.

    Some background from the other thread:

    TrueChamp has made a comment like this (this is verbatim, so I can't be accused of altering his post): "Coaching is the most important apsect of all organized sports."

    Wozzy added: "the loss of coaches overall has been the most major obstacle in the way of another Patriot Super Bowl victory."

    On the other hand, I've said: "The biggest obstacle in the way of the next championship has been insufficient talent on the field"

    So, here's the Poll (thanks BDC for taking away the Poll Feature):

    Which statement most accurately reflects your viewpoint?

    1.  Coaching is more important than Talent

        Let's call this the Bear Bryant theory, of whom Bum Phillips said "Bryant can take his'n and beat your'n, and then he can turn around and take your'n and beat his'n."

    2.  Talent is more important than Coaching

       Let's call this theory "It's the Jimmys and Joes, not the Xs and Os".

    You must choose options 1 or 2 for your vote to be tallied.

     



    I would say they're both equally important.  Unfortunately, some folks see things as being only black or white; probably because it simplifies arguments/discussions.  

     

    Right now, the Patriots lack a bit of both. IMO, They're 4-6 good players away from having a very, very good team.  Brady has maybe 2 years of good play left, imo.  His performance in the playoffs have been less than stellar (as has the performance of all 3 phases of the game and coaching).

    I keep saying this, but there isn't much time left.  This team will be a very different team when Brady is gone or when his performance becomes "mortal". 

    As to which aspect is "more important". At times coaching is more important, at times the players are more important. The game is hardly static.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to neinmd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    First, you have to have a base of at least NFL-average talent. In this era of free agency, the talent spread has narrowed.

    Then, with the same level of talent, leadership plays a huge role. This is not just true of football. Creativity is probably the biggest attribute of effective leadership, followed by an ability to create a winning team culture, ability to evaluate/reward/position talent to enhance the overall team, tough-minded decisiveness, and empathy.

    There is a reason some coaches win a lot and others don't. Nick Saban wins a lot. Pete Carroll has won at both college and professional level. So has Jimmy Johnson. Bear Bryant routinely beat more talented teams. Ditto Red Auerbach. IMO, Bill Parcells was another such leader. Not every one of these guys had all the attributes of great leadership but they had enough of them to become consistent winners.

    So, of the two choices, I would pick coaching ahead of sheer talent. If I had the job of a GM of any professional sports team (possible exception of basketball), I would pick the coach first and worry about the players second. 

    [/QUOTE]


    None sense!  How did the Pats D go from dominate to dreadful?  Or their O go from first in all major categories to pitiful in the rz and converting first downs.  Why are they so much better with Gronk/Talib than without?  Did McD suddenly forget how to coach, or did bb?

    Talent or lack of it.

    That's how.  Or else we wouldn't need no Revis or Brown or Gronk or Brady or Wilfork.

    Sorry, just getting by with marginal talent , no matter how well coached, doesn't cut it and it certainly doesn't win SB's.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    Thankfully, we have both.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    It is hard to find a team without a good coach that has won it all.

    It is hard to find a team without good talent that has won it all.

    Saying you need both is not necessarily a dodge.

    In fact I offer you this: that in the current NFL what you need most is to be HEALTHY once you make the playoffs.

    Personally I put coach ahead of talent but you cant win it all without good coaching and you cant win it all without good talent. But what you MUST have IF you get into the playoffs is a HEALTHIER team than your oppenents. If that aspect is essentially equal then it becomes a matter of matchups and whether a coach can overcome some inherent mismatches - or use them to their fullest - to win. So that again is some of both. Can a coaching staff game plan to or away from mismatches. ANd is the talent in some particular aspect all but unaccountable by the opponent.

    Do humans need foor and water more than oxygen? Well, we will die faster without oxygen. But with food and water we will still die even if days later. Sometimes the question is not really key. If I am right about health that implies that a deeper team has a good chance of will beating a team built on a small core if that small core is not altogether healthy.

    AM I making sense?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from m. a. pat. Show m. a. pat's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    At the professional level, I'd go with talent. Chuck Noll is considered one of the five greatest coaches in NFL history and a hall of famer.

    Coaching record with the Steelers:

    1969 - 1971: 12 - 30

    1972 - 1979: 88 - 27 (with 4 SB titles)

    1980 - 1991: 93 - 91

    In 1969 he choose Mean Joe Green with Pittsburgh's 1st round pick and followed that with Terry Bradshaw in 1970. Their '74 draft was highlighted by Lynn Swann, John Stallworth, Jack Lambert and Mike Webster and is considered one of the best in NFL history.

    Either talent wins in the NFL or Noll went from being a poor coach to a great coach to an average one during his career.

     

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to m. a. pat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    At the professional level, I'd go with talent. Chuck Noll is considered one of the five greatest coaches in NFL history and a hall of famer.

    Coaching record with the Steelers:

    1969 - 1971: 12 - 30

    1972 - 1979: 88 - 27 (with 4 SB titles)

    1980 - 1991: 93 - 91

    In 1969 he choose Mean Joe Green with Pittsburgh's 1st round pick and followed that with Terry Bradshaw in 1970. Their '74 draft was highlighted by Lynn Swann, John Stallworth, Jack Lambert and Mike Webster and is considered one of the best in NFL history.

    Either talent wins in the NFL or Noll went from being a poor coach to a great coach to an average one during his career.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You bring up a very good example. But I also think it reflects you need both talent and a good coach. But being a good coach sometimes means bringing out the best in players. It sometimes means very good game planning (game planning more so in the last 30 years where as before it was more about just being great at what you did.. inovation was more about the oofense and defense you created BEFORE the season and so it was who you were trying to be). But it sometimes means not getting in the way of the talent. Last year Shiano got in the way of some players like Revis... for example.

    So great example illustrating you have to have talent. But where do you find a team - like the Steelers - who were good for more than ONE year who did not have a very good coach?

    ANd what team wins it all without being as or more healthy than their playoff opponents?

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to NOISE's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hate to screw up your poll, but ya need a bit of both! 

    [/QUOTE]

         Amen! Both are needed. While a great coach like BB can do more with less, he still needs a certain amount of talent to work with, in order to be successful. But...if you held my feet to the fire, I'd take talent as more important than coaching every time. Talent alone can bring a certain amount of success. The better coaches are those who can get the most out of their talent...and design schemes which best suit their player's abilities.

            

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from m. a. pat. Show m. a. pat's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to m. a. pat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    At the professional level, I'd go with talent. Chuck Noll is considered one of the five greatest coaches in NFL history and a hall of famer.

    Coaching record with the Steelers:

    1969 - 1971: 12 - 30

    1972 - 1979: 88 - 27 (with 4 SB titles)

    1980 - 1991: 93 - 91

    In 1969 he choose Mean Joe Green with Pittsburgh's 1st round pick and followed that with Terry Bradshaw in 1970. Their '74 draft was highlighted by Lynn Swann, John Stallworth, Jack Lambert and Mike Webster and is considered one of the best in NFL history.

    Either talent wins in the NFL or Noll went from being a poor coach to a great coach to an average one during his career.

     

     



    You bring up a very good example. But I also think it reflects you need both talent and a good coach. But being a good coach sometimes means bringing out the best in players. It sometimes means very good game planning (game planning more so in the last 30 years where as before it was more about just being great at what you did.. inovation was more about the oofense and defense you created BEFORE the season and so it was who you were trying to be). But it sometimes means not getting in the way of the talent. Last year Shiano got in the way of some players like Revis... for example.

    So great example illustrating you have to have talent. But where do you find a team - like the Steelers - who were good for more than ONE year who did not have a very good coach?

    ANd what team wins it all without being as or more healthy than their playoff opponents?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    The Catfish asked to pick either coaching or talent. I think talent is more important at the professional level where we're talking about upper echelon athletes. I've seen numerous less talented high school and college teams win championships due to coaching. I can't say I've seen a lot of this at the professional level.

    I agree you need both coaching and talent but think talent is the overriding factor in the NFL. Going back to the Steeler's example, I don't think Noll's coaching skills declined in the 80's. Other teams caught up to the Steelers in terms of talent.

    I don't think BB's coaching skills have eroded since 2004 either. He's a great coach who can get the Pats 11 - 13 wins during the regular season by getting out of bed in the morning. His coaching hasn't been able to get the Pats past the more talented teams when they met in the playoffs in recent years.

    Injuries hurt the Pats this past year and are always a factor because a team is replacing more talented players with backups. Even BB's coaching could not overcome the losses of Wilfork, Kelly, Mayo and Talib on the defensive side of the ball because less talented players took their spots.

     

     

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So, the Dr. Gill thread has gone off track.  I'll take partial responsibility for that.

    In some of the posts there has been back and forth disagreement as to which factor is more important:  Coaching or Talent.

    Some background from the other thread:

    TrueChamp has made a comment like this (this is verbatim, so I can't be accused of altering his post): "Coaching is the most important apsect of all organized sports."

    Wozzy added: "the loss of coaches overall has been the most major obstacle in the way of another Patriot Super Bowl victory."

    On the other hand, I've said: "The biggest obstacle in the way of the next championship has been insufficient talent on the field"

    So, here's the Poll (thanks BDC for taking away the Poll Feature):

    Which statement most accurately reflects your viewpoint?

    1.  Coaching is more important than Talent

        Let's call this the Bear Bryant theory, of whom Bum Phillips said "Bryant can take his'n and beat your'n, and then he can turn around and take your'n and beat his'n."

    2.  Talent is more important than Coaching

       Let's call this theory "It's the Jimmys and Joes, not the Xs and Os".

    You must choose options 1 or 2 for your vote to be tallied.

    [/QUOTE]


    Number One by a 60/40 margin

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    hard to win without both, 

    and as I disagree with some here, it hasn't been the lack of talent.

    it h that we haven't won another SB

    Bb has tournedos over a team and kept it in the olayoffs, something no one else has done

    It has been injuries and sometimes not playing or coaching well. One thing I have never seen mentioned here, is that we lost a chance at " winning the SB" the year after the 18-1 season when we lost TB, yes we went 11-5 but is anyone telling me we couldn't have won a SB with TB?

    And how many here think without a healthy Gronk and Hern, we lost chances? And last year was just ridiculous

    if injuries can mean that BB didn't have enuf talent , well then ok.But lest us not forget that an all pro cb and all pro slot receiver each dropped a ball that with out question each cost a SB win

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    You need Both to win Championships

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Let's Put it to a Poll

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Owner

    GM

    Headcoach

    Coaches

    Players

    Sht rolls down hill, great coaches and personel people find talent, not the other way around. A great talent can go to a bad organization and his career can end in a flash.  Randy Moss can play for the Raiders and do nothing, the following year go to the Pats and blow up.  A talent that needs to be nurtured can go to a great organization and they'll get the best out of them. 

    Everybody in the NFL is talented or else they wouldn't be there, over 1000 guys put their names into the draft every year, a small % make it.  The difference between winning and losing isn't a 10th off a forty time, winning a Super Bowl isn't easy despite BB and his amazing collection of coaches from 2000-2004 making it seem so.

    This isn't basketball where one player can alter everything about your team, this is football.  Great coaches can pull great performances out of marginal players, great talent with no direction is just that... a team with potential.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm goin' with this ^. 

    Small example...Couple years back, I had Gabe Carimi as the OT that the Pats shoulda drafted as their #1 OT.  Some people had Nate Solder...still others had that Boston College OT that went to The Colts.  Carimi got drafted by the Bears...and this was for the '11-'12 year, the season when Chicago had ZERO starting caliber O-Linemen, the QB & Offense started the year on some sorta record sack pace.  I followed Carimi ALL through this (he was manning the right side)...even the graphs and sack counts and from where...and Carimi SOLIDIFIED that Right side on a hopeless Chicago O-Line...Sacks up middle, Sacks on weakside, etc..  He WAS their pathetic OLine...needless to say, several games in- He gets injured.  Chicago rushes him back after only a few weeks and the guy either got injured, or just gimped it the resta the way...His play the next year was NOT the same.

    Just small examples....and there's a million. 

    Starts with Owner & GM then Coach, then Coaching...then talent.  On up...QB and D leader on down.  Get the accolades and have the bigger power to make bigger team and game swinging changes, then ya have more Both positive AND negative...Accountability.

    Alot of teams do their best to simply FIELD blue-chippers who've slid in the draft and/or field a team with older veteran 10X All-Pros...the 1st being The Bengals, the 2nd exemplified by The Raiders.  These teams STILL 90% of the time svck.

    Good talent on a bad franchise?  ...You could easily have a mediocre talent in just 1-2 short years.

    ...2 thoughts:

    1.  We lost the SBs and recent playoffs...like winning them, On Coaching and their gameplans and singular game designs and lack of in-game adjustments.  Just the opposite when we won those SBs.

    2.  For many years...I was VERY sick of being 8-12 mil under the cap and NE being 1 WR, 1 CB, 1 Pass-rusher, or 1 RB...short of a SB and/or a further playoff birth <Reche Caldwell, Ellis Hobbs, TBC, Lawrence Maroney/Kevin Faulk>...shouldn't be your #1 guys=That's Owner stuff and FA stuff, when your depth at those very key standout threat spots is THAT bad.

     

Share