The Question

[MOJO11]

Which is better:

 

GREAT Coaching with POOR talent..........or.........POOR Coaching with GREAT talent

 

Or are they Equal?

[BatmanDB]

Which is better:

 

GREAT Coaching with POOR talent..........or.........POOR Coaching with GREAT talent

 

Or are they Equal?

 

It's kind of like the chicken or the egg deal.It depends on who they are playing I guess.Maybe they get lucky and run up against a poor team that has no talent and a coach that ask his players what to do.

[MOJO11]

It's kind of like the chicken or the egg deal.It depends on who they are playing I guess.Maybe they get lucky and run up against a poor team that has no talent and a coach that ask his players what to do.

 

 

I agree with the chicken or Egg analysis....I have noticed alot of teams discussing this very thing. The coach isn't any good or the team is too young. I guess that I would go with the coaching and no talent.....the reason is you can always build for the future but "you can't fix stupid". So in the long run I would think that Coaching would be the better option.

[Rob_M]

I will take GREAT talent every time. In the end, PLAYERS make PLAYS.

[matback]

you can not win consistently without a little of both. If you put 11 Mortimas nerds on the field and the other team has a talent but no coaching they will still beat the nerds, but if you put 11 with a little talent and great coaching then you can probably beat raw talent with coaching

[STARSNBARS]

Eye'm fer tha best players eye can recroot and jest hand 'em ovur two GQ, Coach Ellis, Coach Gaylor and tha rest...... /blush.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":blush:" border="0" alt="blush.gif" />

[MOJO11]

you can not win consistently without a little of both. If you put 11 Mortimas nerds on the field and the other team has a talent but no coaching they will still beat the nerds, but if you put 11 with a little talent and great coaching then you can probably beat raw talent with coaching

 

 

 

Great Observation! I will agree with that

[OldSchoolCharger]

I will vote for "Coaching". In our region, there is a school that has had a history of very average tallent that has consistantly been very competitive because they were coached up and played with great effort on every play. I have also seen a couple of schools that have had superior tallent that played below their abilities most of the time and have not been successful. (Names withheld to keep from upsetting anyone!)

[cam6]

Which is better:

 

GREAT Coaching with POOR talent..........or.........POOR Coaching with GREAT talent

 

Or are they Equal?

 

It all depends on your measurement for success. If you only care about wins then you would always want the talent because that would get you plenty of wins before you crossed paths with comparable talent and better coaches. If you measure success by how high school football rewards players and coaches then i think you take better coaches. It is very rewarding to help undertalented teams go beyond their potential for success and for the players to realize success that most had always told them they would never reach. On the Flip side is most disappointing to see a team with great potential underachieve because of leadership or coaching because those young men never got to realize their potental they only heard others talk about what they could and should have done.

Just my views as a one who spent lots of time on a sidline.

[ELA]

It all depends on your measurement for success. If you only care about wins then you would always want the talent because that would get you plenty of wins before you crossed paths with comparable talent and better coaches. If you measure success by how high school football rewards players and coaches then i think you take better coaches. It is very rewarding to help undertalented teams go beyond their potential for success and for the players to realize success that most had always told them they would never reach. On the Flip side is most disappointing to see a team with great potential underachieve because of leadership or coaching because those young men never got to realize their potental they only heard others talk about what they could and should have done.

Just my views as a one who spent lots of time on a sidline.

 

 

Bottom line it takes both... Coaching involves teaching not only football's X's and O's but also individual and team discipline. Coaching involves organizational skills and a certain amount of political or social skills. It helps when you have a staff of good coaches helping the head coach!

 

An old coach once said: "If you don't have talent, all the coaching in the world won't turn a skinny nag of a horse into a thoroughbred!

 

It takes both to be successful!

[jabbo]

Cam6 nailed the question. I suspect most people, including talented players, would rather be on a well-coached team rather than a poorly coached one even if the team had a bad season. There are folks though that would prefer a 15-0 season based mainly on the talents of a few players that wind up in prison or under a bridge a few years after they graduate. Like Cam6 said, it depends on how one defines success.

[pattonboysdad]

beside's just good coaching and good talent...you also have to have players that are humble enough to accept coaching...coachable...teachable and are willing to learn

 

there are alot of great players out their that never make it because in their mind they already know everything

 

give me average coaching...average talent...who are hungry to learn and to do what they are told and will out work everyone else...and you will win alot of high school football games

 

a great attitude will go along way