More important? Larrys and Joes or Coaching

[AHUDDLESTON]

I know that most of the time when a team loses, the fans usually blame the coach.  I have no problem with that.  That's what we get paid for. However, Did Belichick all of a sudden forget how to coach?   Closer to home.  An area coach, who I KNOW is a heck of a coach had a stretch where his teams were 35 - 15 and each team played multiple rounds in the playoffs. They all had District MVP's on them and D1 Players.  He did not forget how to coach.  The other years the record has been 14 - 43.  I will always believe that both are vital to long term success, but I lean on the side of having  the Larry's and Joe's. I say 75 - 25.

[AggiesAreWe]

Que @Reagan

[89Falcon]

Until coaches can block, tackle and score TDs, it is the players that are most important. 

[longball24]

When you are 3 rounds deep or deeper talent is fairly even. Then it is all coaching.

[AggiesAreWe]

5 minutes ago, 89Falcon said:

Until coaches can block, tackle and score TDs, it is the players that are most important. 

I agree.

[89Falcon]

5 minutes ago, longball24 said:

When you are 3 rounds deep or deeper talent is fairly even. Then it is all coaching.

3 rounds deep (especially in the lower classifications) frequently involves health of the team which is still “players”. As referenced in the initial post, Belechik did not forget how to coach. Many examples of great high school coaches that have great runs and then fall off when the talent dries up.

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

Just now, 89Falcon said:

3 rounds deep (especially in the lower classifications) frequently involves health of the team which is still “players”. As referenced in the initial post, Belechik did not forget how to coach. Many examples of great high school coaches that have great runs and then fall off when the talent dries up.

Very true. 

[OlDawg]

47 minutes ago, 89Falcon said:

Until coaches can block, tackle and score TDs, it is the players that are most important. 

Wouldn’t go that far. The Larry’s & Joe’s aren’t much good if they’re in the wrong place, or wrong position.

They also can’t make their own in game adjustments.

If straight up & optimized—yes—Larry’s & Joe’s. But, like combat of a different sort, nothing is ever totally optimized.

Just thoughts of an old man. Pay me no heed.

[Reagan]

1 hour ago, AggiesAreWe said:

Que @Reagan

Thanks for thinking about me!   😏😁

[pine curtain]

here is two examples

WOS

PNG

 

[TradenupBH]

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

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

1 hour ago, OlDawg said:

Wouldn’t go that far. The Larry’s & Joe’s aren’t much good if they’re in the wrong place, or wrong position.

They also can’t make their own in game adjustments.

If straight up & optimized—yes—Larry’s & Joe’s. But, like combat of a different sort, nothing is ever totally optimized.

Just thoughts of an old man. Pay me no heed.

I get what you're saying 😎

[Vini vidi]

Jimmys and joes. The coaching comes in the off season prep work weight room/program buy in and getting the kids to play hard all the time. Easier to out athlete at the lower classifications than the higher ones.

[Dirty_but_Dazzling]

10 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

3 rounds deep (especially in the lower classifications) frequently involves health of the team which is still “players”. As referenced in the initial post, Belechik did not forget how to coach. Many examples of great high school coaches that have great runs and then fall off when the talent dries up.

again I bring up the Lord of the Rings. since he arrived the talent seems to only improve. Hence having varsity teams that are majority underclassmen  winning consistently at a  high level. 

[CardinalBacker]

I think it's a lot closer to 50-50 than most people from schools with a lot of talent believe.  Quite often those athletes are a product of a preparation in a system that goes back 6 or more years.  When you start naming great athletes that came from your program, ask yourself "how successful would they have been if they'd played for a crappy program?"  

 

I use WOS as an example.  The Mustang faithful always go back to it being the athletes, not coaching that made them great.  All they need to do is hire one of CT's old assistants and there WILL be a return to glory, right?  How many WOS kids are in the NFL right now?  How many are playing D1 ball?  Being a part of that program helped to make good athletes have great high school careers.  

But it's a mixture... the best coaching in the world won't help a bunch of unathletic kids get to the State Championship.... but top notch coaching can help a bunch of good players have a GREAT season/career.  

[Austin1985]

Since everyone is running the same scheme(spread o and some variation of nickle on defense) it's the kids in the program and coming up.  I watched N. Crowley against Trinity and while I'm partial to the I-formation and running down hill, NC countered with speed all over the field and an athletic QB.  Gotta have the talent to execute

[longball24]

If coaching is not as important as Larrys and Joes why pay the high salaries that are being paid All across the state. I agree Larrys and Joes are important but they can’t win State championships without high caliber coaches. 

[Mr. Thornton Melon]

Great coaching recognizes the talent their players may or may not have then adjust their system around those players to put them in the best position to win.

One example is BISD having lots of talent but without a proper coach the y can't produce wins. Another is Crosby being consistent winners until their coaches left and they hit rock bottom.  One Crosby coach goes to Chapel Hill and makes them winners instantly. There is too many examples of this to list

[Steven Avery]

14 hours ago, longball24 said:

When you are 3 rounds deep or deeper talent is fairly even. Then it is all coaching.

Bingo 

[Steven Avery]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Thornton Melon said:

Great coaching recognizes the talent their players may or may not have then adjust their system around those players to put them in the best position to win

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. 

 

[bullets13]

It's certainly a mixture.  Great players can only overcome so much poor coaching, but in the same breadth, great coaching can only elevate marginal players so far.  The players are the most important part, because you'll never win without them, but the coaches will play an important role.  

[Mr. Thornton Melon]

Another example of the difference coaching makes is Sulphur Springs. They were 0-10 the year before Faircloth takes over. He got them winning last year and they are at a 7-1 record so far this year. I doubt they just happened to get more athletic the same year he arrived. 

[Reagan]

2 hours ago, Mr. Thornton Melon said:

Great coaching recognizes the talent their players may or may not have then adjust their system around those players to put them in the best position to win.

One example is BISD having lots of talent but without a proper coach the y can't produce wins. Another is Crosby being consistent winners until their coaches left and they hit rock bottom.  One Crosby coach goes to Chapel Hill and makes them winners instantly. There is too many examples of this to list

I have seen both Beaumont schools play.  I thought they have enough talent, with the right coach to at least make it respectable.  

[Reagan]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Thornton Melon said:

Another example of the difference coaching makes is Sulphur Springs. They were 0-10 the year before Faircloth takes over. He got them winning last year and they are at a 7-1 record so far this year. I doubt they just happened to get more athletic the same year he arrived. 

Some would have you believe that the talent just showed up when did.  Just like some tried to  tell me that’s what happen at Carthage.  No titles before Surratt and how many after?  

[SmashMouth]

7 hours ago, longball24 said:

If coaching is not as important as Larrys and Joes why pay the high salaries that are being paid All across the state. I agree Larrys and Joes are important but they can’t win State championships without high caliber coaches. 

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