Talent versus Coaching

Okay so i was reading about Rich Rod and his exploits already for his class of 2010 at Michigan....

And i wanted to get peoples feedback on a comparison regarding ISU....

Was the level of play based on talent or coaching?

Reason i ask is looking at Michigans roster its a whos who of highly ranked coveted players and last year they looked as bad as any michigan team in history.

I think of the Bill Callahan Nebraska teams......guy could recruit some serious players out there, but, when it came down to flat out coaching and developing as well as game planning they stunk.

So i ask, is it coaching can be inferior if the talent level is high?

And can the talent level be lower and the product better if the coaching is better?

Now - take those two questions and which is it in terms of:
ISU redzone offense, ranked as poorly as our defense 108th? Can herman's offense system help this production?
ISU's defense, regardless of who came in or left, can it be worse? Is Wally's boys staged to improve on what had to be a long long year?

To me, both of these aspects of the game can be directly attributed to schemes and play calling, regardless of athletes, if the schemes are that bad, can the players really out execute terrible schemes and did they take the hit for someone else's shortcomings????

I think the answer is both. You can win with poor talent and a good coach and you can lose with good talent and a poor coach. What you can't do is win with a poor coach and poor talent.

I really don't see ISU putting up as poor as numbers as we did last year, so while our record may not be a lot better as long as the stats improve, I'll know we're moving in the right direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KMAC_ATTACK

Now - take those two questions and which is it in terms of:
ISU redzone offense, ranked as poorly as our defense 108th? Can herman's offense system help this production?

---

Maybe--but a veteran, talented offensive line will help even more. :yes:

No doubt about it. Wait bad quote. But yes, absolutely. Everyone always talks about athleticism, which helps. However, football (or any sport) isn't just about being physical. As they say in sports, a lot of it is mental. If you aren't going to just run over the opponent, if you can recognize what they're doing and exploit it, you don't have to be as big and strong as them. You just have to get open, find weaknesses in the defense, and deliver the ball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pulse

However, football (or any sport) isn't just about being physical.

---

It mostly is. Bill Snyder pulled up K-State, and beat the big boys with superior talent (like Pete Carroll and USC) only with a physical, 3-and-out defense.

I agree with that pulse. I've always felt coaching is more important in football than basketball, mainly because a coaches decision is involved on every play of the game (so each coach and his coordinators are constantly trying to outsmart the other staff). Each play is also heavily dependent on many players being well disciplined regarding technique and execution developed during practice. In basketball it often comes down to your guy being a better athlete than the guy guarding him, not that talent isn't also important in football, just less so imo. I've always thought football is 70% coaching and 30% talent, while basketball is the same in reverse.

Talent isn't everything. But poor talent gets great coaches nowhere.

Marv Levy, considered by most a a pretty good, pretty successful coach, put it this way. When asked what makes a good coach, he answered: "54 great players".

We have suffered from the worst of both at ISU. However, in the past two years I have to look back on it and say the coaching was pretty bad. Our talent was not the best, and it was pretty young, but it was better than 2-10. Best thing we can do is put that behind us and move on.

Probably a poor analogy..........but; if you could take 11 "cloned" thoroughbred race horses...........give them to 11 different, professional trainers......race them 6 months later.......... I could guarantee one thing for sure.......you would not have a photo-finish. There are good trainers, and not so good trainers. There are good jockeys, and not so good jockeys.

Our 2-10 record last year was due to bad coaching, not talent deficiencies. It was a rather favorable schedule. The same thing will apply this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsag

Probably a poor analogy..........but; if you could take 11 "cloned" thoroughbred race horses...........give them to 11 different, professional trainers......race them 6 months later.......... I could guarantee one thing for sure.......you would not have a photo-finish. There are good trainers, and not so good trainers. There are good jockeys, and not so good jockeys.

---

I agree with this premise, its not a one off analogy but it is true nonetheless. The thing about football though is it is getting to the point that talent and or coaching is almost 2ndary really.

You can certainly do plenty of coaching out of season, in spring, between games and at the half. There is also a certain amount of in game coaching & play calling as well. But if the team has their head stuck up their wazzzzoo it won’t matter. As far as that goes, as bad as Chiz did indeed do at times he doesn’t have the market cornered on bad decision-making. I get the sense many Clone fans are trying to spin away their fortunes on GC’s miss adventures, but many a good coach has made many a head scratching decision including KF as you know.

It can’t all be laid at the feet of talent either as the best team loses on a regular basis. I can’t place a percentage on it, but the days of a team like OU, NU, FSU etc showing up and rolling everyone is looooong gone. Furthermore teams like Tenn, Michigan, FSU, Miami et al who continually EVERY year without exception still have better talent than the masses should never struggle to 7-5 or even sub .500 records but they do.

No it is more than talent as well. Lou Holtz whom many dislike has a saying I agree with……….”every week you have a different team” So you can’t count on the ISU team that played team A being the same team that even shows up for team B, let alone team F!!

Effort, attitude and chemistry are the most important things in my mind. When Iowa was having their weekly off the field debacles throughout 2006 and 2007 it showed on the field as much as it did in the police blotter. They had some major chemistry and effort issues and you could see it the way they played. It wasn’t just off the field it showed up in the locker room and in practice as well. Hindsight and the NFL drafts showed those teams still had some talent but they sucked all the same.

No way you can convince me Tenn or Michigan or any of those elite level schools ever have sub .500 talent but it happens all the same.

With that said however ISU will be better coached this year I do agree. I think if anything GC gave up the ship late last year and was overwhelmed. I also think ISU has better than average QB talent and WR talent and at least average to a little better RB talent. On the O-line I think they’ll be “OK”. But ISU has rarely ever had a dominating O-line and new schemes will still cause them problems no matter how good the coaching is.

Defensively though if I’m not mistaken even the coaches, have readily suggested they are talent poor. They can scheme, they can execute, but they will still be very limited athletically. I think you will see a more disciplined, and determined team, but many of us thought the same about GC.

You never really know do you???

Chad

If you don't have talent you had better be a heck of a teacher and motivator, even then the big boys will win about 90% of the time or more. With the talent we have been getting for the last 10 years and probably at least the next 5 we will never win a Big 12 title game.

Ask any football coach anywhere and I am positive he will say he's only as good as his talent. Now can a coach screw up that talent? Absolutely. But you have to have it in order to have a prayer.

Iowa State doesn't currently have good coaching or talent and until they do they will fail to compete in the Big 12 and will stay in the cellar. They will not finish .500 or better this season. I don't know why anyone would expect that based on their recent history. They need to fire Pollard if they want any taste of success anytime soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PurplePride319

Iowa State doesn't currently have good coaching or talent and until they do they will fail to compete in the Big 12 and will stay in the cellar. They will not finish .500 or better this season. I don't know why anyone would expect that based on their recent history. They need to fire Pollard if they want any taste of success anytime soon.

---

Guess that was a cheery assessment.