Coaches vs Talent

[Klaaxctuu]

Often, we hear about "great coaches". I wonder how Vince or Tom would have done with some of the teams I saw this year. I would propose that without the talent, some great coaches would not be known as "great". What do you think?

 

[TRTx]

You can't coach genetics. There will never be a coach that can take a kid who is 5'4" 110lbs, and make them 6'4" 235lbs. It's impossible. There's a fortunate group of people who are born more gifted physically and athletically. With that being said -- a "great coach" understands that. A great coach has the ability to recognize the limitations of his athletes and formulate his game plans and offense/defense to complement the strengths his athletes do have, and minimize/hide their weaknesses.

There's plenty of examples of head coaches who have taken jobs nobody wants and completely changed the culture and had great success. There's obviously going to always be a ceiling as to what you can accomplish, but if a coach walks into a program that has 3 wins in the last decade and is able to get 2 wins in a season -- that's a good benchmark for success. Great coaches don't have to be undefeated or win championships to be great - they just need to recognize their weaknesses and limitations and find a way to work with what they're given. Can they lead, can they get everyone to buy in, are they making an impact? Can't just define a great coach by W/L -- there's a lot of different markers for it.

 

[SixManNewb]

Great coaches maximize what they have to work with. Like TRTx said, you can't judge that by W-L alone. There are plenty of coaches who have won a lot of games who aren't great coaches....they just had a lot more talent to work with than their opponents. Likewise, there are a lot of great coaches who have never won a championship bc they don't have the talent. Sadly, we're a society who only looks at winning percentage and stats to determine how good someone is without looking deeper into the how and why.

 

[51eleven]

Often, we hear about "great coaches". I wonder how Vince or Tom would have done with some of the teams I saw this year. I would propose that without the talent, some great coaches would not be known as "great". What do you think?

Is Vicne Coach Vance Jones? Tom, Tom Landry?

 

[True Shot]

Jimmys and Joes are more important than x's and o's.

 

[B6MF]

I'll be the first to say I'm very biased on this topic. Being a small guy myself I understand how genetics/talent definitely gives an advantage, however I'd argue coaching and development is just as important. Great coaching strategy and hardwork goes a long way in bridging the talent gap.
In my personal experience I think more coaches/schools/programs need to put more emphasis on developing the younger players like those in Jr High. When talent, hardwork, and great coaching combines it's definitely hard to beat. For example one of the most athletic six man teams I ever saw play was 2010 Calvert team, and they were beat by a RS with less athleticism and talent.

 

[SimplyPut]

Jimmys and Joes are more important than x's and o's.

I just seen that Gordon and Benjamin are playing for State in Basketball. I think that validates your point. Coaching is absolutely critical but not as much so as available talent.