Talent or Coaching

[Pedro Guerrero]

With the current state of the Husker Nation there seems to be a couple different views on what is the key ingredient on getting us back to the promise land. Some say with better coaching this team could be 8-0. Others say we just need more talent and the players not the coaching are the problem. Which is it or is it both? So far these coaches haven’t really shown me anything other then the fact that they can recruit and every once in awhile put together a good game plan. But I also know enough about football to realize that we don’t and haven’t had the talent to compete for any form of Championship (Conference or National) in some time.

 

If it is coaching and not talent that wins in college football, why did TO always lose 2-3 games a year? Except for the years that he had his most talented teams. (82-83 defensive players don’t count) Why did his teams always seem to lose to the likes of OU, Miami, Florida St, or Washington, Colorado and Georgia Tech. Was it because those teams had better coaches? I would say that is crap. Those teams had more talent then we did. It wasn’t until he changed the way he recruited and the type of talent he brought in was he able to defeat the higher ranked teams. He had a couple games when he defeated OU but for the most part he laid an egg. Were there cases when TO was out-coached when he had more talent then the other team? Sure the 96 Big 12 game vs. Texas and ISU in 92 are a couple that come to mind. Also why did we get it handed to us by Miami, Colorado, Texas, and KSU in 01 and 03? Was it better all around coaching by the other teams? I found that hard to believe. Snyder and Barnett were probably better head coaches then what we had, but other then that I would say it wasn’t. (Except Bohl) In those games only a few Huskers actually looked like they deserved to be on the field. Is it any surprise that they also happened to be the most talented on the NU roster? (Crouch, Groce, and D. Williams) On a national level why did Penn State blow the last couple of years? They had the same coaches. They start to recruit more talent and look at them this year. Or why couldn’t Lou Holtz match what he did at Notre Dame at South Carolina? Was it because his coaching wasn’t as good or was it because he couldn’t get the talent that he could in South Bend?

 

There are also times when we won with less talent and better coaching. The OSU game in 03 is one instance. The defensive game plan had them totally baffled. Some would say the Fiesta Bowl against Florida is another. (I wouldn’t though) I think the Mizzou game in 04 is another example of coaching winning the game for us. (This would fall under equal talent on both teams) Look at Notre Dame and compare Wilngham with Weis and what he is doing with the same players. I think this is a case of better coaching winning football games. Also the Big 12 Championship in 03 with Snyder and Stoops is another perfect example of coaching winning a game for their team.

 

USC since 2002 has probably been the best team in football. They also seem to have the best recruiting classes every year also. Are they the best because Pete Carroll is the best coach or is it because they have the best players?

 

I’ll take the best players. But that’s just me.

[NU fan in Denver]

Coaching.

 

You can take exceptional coaching with marginal talent and be a good team. It is all about getting the most out of your players.

[Utah_Husker]

You start to win because you have good coaches (ala Weis). You turn into a machine when that good coaching and wins attract superior talent (TO, Carroll). This coaching staff had a good recruiting year, but I don't think they will be able to sustain it if they don't start showing some results.

[formerfan]

Great post

 

But we will disagree with your last statement, slightly. You need both. Bad coaches can make good teams look bad, good coaches develop players and make them better. Great talent can (at times) make bad coaches look good (get lucky), and bad talent can make good coaches look bad.

[IndyHusker]

both kinda defeats the purpose of taking the poll doesnt it????? that being said i made both not an option and went with coaching, coaches are where it all starts.

[rawhide]

IMO BC installed his offensive plan to assist getting the athletes that make the schemes viable. The longer the transition the more hesitant the recruits are of buying into the changes that could be instituted. A good pro style qb doesn't want to try to learn the option, he wants to showcase his talents at the D1 level to make it to the pros for the bucks. Who can blame them. That is why the abrupt change. BC is trying to adapt the players to his system as a stopgap until such time that recruiting has filled the ranks with players that will be successful in his system. It's his team to run we just cheer them on.

 

By the way, IMO a combo of the two is best. IMO what we will have eventually.

 

 

GBR GBR GBR

[Hunter94]

well said rawhide

 

 

hunter

[Pedro Guerrero]

But we will disagree with your last statement, slightly.

I put players just to choose between the two. I voted for both though.

[HANC]

Great post

 

But we will disagree with your last statement, slightly. You need both. Bad coaches can make good teams look bad, good coaches develop players and make them better. Great talent can (at times) make bad coaches look good (get lucky), and bad talent can make good coaches look bad.

I don't always agree with what you post, but this time you have hit the nail.

 

As I have mentioned before, I coach fb for a profession... In the last 10 yrs., we have posted very good records with "above average" athletes, and the local fans thought I was a very good coach.....

 

In the past three yrs., we have posted below .500 records with "marginal athletes", and now I am an idiot !!

 

I feel as if I am a better coach now with a losing record, than I was back when I first started and was winning.

 

This leads me to believe that the Talent Level is the most important aspect in winning..

 

(Then again, maybe the "above average" athletes just made a bad coach look good in my case )

 

At the Div I level, all athletes can play and all coaches can coach or neither would be where they are.... But I still think that RECRUITING and having the talented players makes a huge difference.

[IndyHusker]

rawhide Posted on Nov 1 2005, 05:27 PM

  IMO BC installed his offensive plan to assist getting the athletes that make the schemes viable. The longer the transition the more hesitant the recruits are of buying into the changes that could be instituted. A good pro style qb doesn't want to try to learn the option, he wants to showcase his talents at the D1 level to make it to the pros for the bucks. Who can blame them. That is why the abrupt change. BC is trying to adapt the players to his system as a stopgap until such time that recruiting has filled the ranks with players that will be successful in his system. It's his team to run we just cheer them on.

 

By the way, IMO a combo of the two is best. IMO what we will have eventually.

 

 

GBR GBR GBR 

 

everyone seems to miss the point that rushing was the strong suit of the past teams, im not saying to still run the option, but the fact is that the best players on the team were the backs, so they should get the bulk of the work. as far as the line not being able to block now, possibly might be a change in the blocking scheme, plus we usually have no fullback now to help iso the linebackers. IMO a drastic change in offense at basicly every position is why the offense is struggling.

[rawhide]

No argument from me Indy there was drastic changes made.

 

GBR

[HSKRNOKC]

Something that stands out to me . Watching the games this year the back usually never picks up the blitz. This is crucial to buy the QB the time that he needs to pick up the hot read. IMO this would help ZT drastically.

[huskernumerouno]

IMO BC installed his offensive plan to assist getting the athletes that make the schemes viable. The longer the transition the more hesitant the recruits are of buying into the changes that could be instituted. A good pro style qb doesn't want to try to learn the option, he wants to showcase his talents at the D1 level to make it to the pros for the bucks. Who can blame them. That is why the abrupt change. BC is trying to adapt the players to his system as a stopgap until such time that recruiting has filled the ranks with players that will be successful in his system. It's his team to run we just cheer them on.

 

By the way, IMO a combo of the two is best. IMO what we will have eventually.

 

 

GBR GBR GBR

like it or not, BC is our coach and he was hired to achieve certain goals. With that said he needs some time to recruit the players best suited for his system. He should also try to teach the players he has to be the best that they can be. It is like the question. Which came first, the chiken or the egg.

 

As fans all we can do is support our team and let them know how much we respect a 100% effort. I see more positives than negatives at this point. If we are no better after BC has had the chance to get his type of players and I would say that he is not a good coach.

 

I do not think that he did a good job last year playing to our strenghths but I believe he may have learned something also.

 

Answer to the poll:

1)Great coaching with Great or Good players will almost always win

2)Good coaches with Great or Good players will almost always have the chance to win

3)Bad coaches with Great or Good players will win some and lose some and no one will know what caused either one.

4)Bad coaches with Bad players, nuff said.

5)Great players will not win on talent alone, they need the guidence to lead them and the trust that their leader knows where he wants to go.

6) Great coaches will not win on great teaching ability alone, you can take your Vega to the race track and do all the tinkering you want to, but you will almost always lose to the guy with the vett unless he blows his engine.

 

 

GO HUSKERS!!!!!!!

[Steve]

You really need talent and coaching. You can have the best athletes on the field and still lose the game. Tom Osborne was able to take some great athletes, coach them in a option based offense that was extremely difficult to defend against, and developed what was quite possibly the best college football program in the history of NCAA football.

[kramer]

As usual it's both, but a lot more players than the coach.