So, what really defines talent?

[IrishAZ]

This is one of those questions that's always made me curious.

 

Often times you'll hear statements like "Coaching doesn't matter in college...it's all about talent".

 

Or "team x is more talented than team y"...etc.

 

So, what defines talent that's not related to coaching? Speed endurance and strength can be trained, technique can be coached, size is just...well...size.

 

Instinct, then? Or is "talent" just the cap on the level of physical performance one can be trained?

 

What do y'all think?

 

IRISH!

[AR Husker Fan]

Good question. There is no "right" answer - I think most folks speak of talent when considering the physical attributes of size, speed, strength and quickness. However, while those speak to a person's current status, it is also understood that it can refer to their ability to further develop those attributes. For example, a tackle that is 6"6 and 275 lbs, has quick feet, etc., is one that coaches can "project" to be heavier with weight training.

 

"Instinct" is a talent, but given that it isn't really objective or measurable, and that to some extent it relies on coaching, I don't consider it a "talent" in the regular sense. While some guys seem to have a nose for the ball, or a higher understanding of the game, that can be the result of how well they take to coaching as much as it is an in-born trait.

[Benard]

You got have good coaching or talent isn't much. You might win some games but you aren't going to win championships.

[IrishAZ]

Yeah, that is a tough question to answer. It's one I've been pondering for a while (along with why the double wing isn't used more often..but that's a whole 'nother thread in the making ).

 

I mean, for a long distance runner, "talent" can refer to the physical characteristics of the person - lung capacity, the ability to absorb oxygen, slow twitch muscle mass, etc.

 

For a football player, however, it's far more difficult because there are so many physical and mental characteristics that are involved - and these change depending on position and play style.

 

Of course, asking this question is sort of a means to an end - I've been hearing the phrases "talent gap", "talent level", "we need more talent", etc. a bit too much from commentators, coaches, fans, etc. The frequency with which it's used and the fact that it's so hard to define makes it suspect, I think.

 

There is something called "talent" - we know it when we see it. But my contention is this: using talent as an excuse or as a comparison is fallacious. Good teams are good because they are disciplined and prepared - and that's something the coaches are directly responsible for.

 

I've always believed one of the reasons NU was so dominant for so long was their conditioning program. They took guys and just worked them into the absolute best condition possible to the point where they just physically dominated any opponent they encountered (not to take anything away from Osbourn et al, of course - brilliant coaches in their own right).

 

Perhaps that's the defintion that's needed - nearness to peak physical condition.

 

Next year, if Calahan is really as good as he's supposed to be, I would expect the Huskers to win and win well. If the offense can't be installed in 2 years, then it's too complicated for college and the coach needs to adapt. If he has to wait for recruits to win, then it's the "talent" excuse.

 

In the NFL, they might be able to plan for 2-4 years out with draftees, trades, player development, etc. But he's got these kids for only 4 years and at best 20 hours a week for practice. I'm hoping he takes the philosphy Meyer, Hawkins, Petrino and (hopefully) Weis do - design the scheme around the players and not try to fit round pegs into square holes.

 

As for talent, luckily, the weight room is open all year long.

 

IRISH!

[Pedro Guerrero]

You got have good coaching or talent isn't much. You might win some games but you aren't going to win championships.

I would have to say the title Miami won in 2001 had more to do with talent then coaching.

[DaveH]

I agree with you both. As far as the weight room topic goes, I think one big reason for the Husker's problems over the last 5-6 years is a drop off in the weight room. As a matter of fact, that's why the highly touted Curt Dukes left. He wanted to bust ass in the weight room and he was let down with the attitude that was prevelent there. No one seemed to care anymore. Has that been turned around with the new strength and conditioning staff? I guess we will see

[IrishAZ]

I think the '01 win by Miami had more to do with creative pharmaceutical use...but that's just me hating on the 'Caines, so I can be safely ignored there.

 

IRISH!

[DaveH]

I think the '01 win by Miami had more to do with creative pharmaceutical use...but that's just me hating on the 'Caines, so I can be safely ignored there.

 

IRISH!

hahaha. I believe most Husker fans can go with you on that one.

[HuskerBob]

This is one of those questions that's always made me curious.

 

Often times you'll hear statements like "Coaching doesn't matter in college...it's all about talent".

 

Or "team x is more talented than team y"...etc.

 

So, what defines talent that's not related to coaching? Speed endurance and strength can be trained, technique can be coached, size is just...well...size.

 

Instinct, then? Or is "talent" just the cap on the level of physical performance one can be trained?

 

What do y'all think?

 

IRISH!

This is a gud discussion. talent to me is height and speed and overall athletic abiility.

 

and I like your "caines" reference. nice!

[IrishAZ]

Yeah...Miami ain't my favorite, as you can tell

 

It's funny to say, but I saw that Rose Bowl as being more Good vs. Evil than just a football game - I consider NU to be my second team (I bleed Blue and Gold, but ya gotta respect NU's fans and tradition) and I nearly cried when that one ended.

 

I've never cheered harder for a team that wasn't Notre Dame to win in my life. It sucked so much when they lost that one

 

I posted this question on an ND board, and got an interesting response - one poster said "Just remember, all things being equal. A good big man will beat a good little man."

 

I thought that was an interesting idea. How important do you think size is in the game?

 

I mean, tall receivers (6'4" +) are hard to defend, but why aren't there any 7'0" receivers? And big linemen (250+ lbs) are the norm, but there aren't many 350+ guys running around.

 

So, if you could build a team with one phenotype for every position, what would you look for?

 

IRISH!