Recruiting v Coaching

If I had to pick one for the college game, I would go with talent because the talent gap is so large between the top tier teams and the bottom half of division one. In the pros I would take coaching, but both are neccessary to accomplish what we want, a national championship.

 
Is it better to have unproven talent or great coaching...Discuss
Click to expand...
I guess if I had to choose I would Choose Talent. Take Texas they have plenty of talent. You might be the Best Coach in the world, but If your team consists of midgets and overweight pansies you can't win a game.

 
If I had to pick one for the college game, I would go with talent because the talent gap is so large between the top tier teams and the bottom half of division one. In the pros I would take coaching, but both are neccessary to accomplish what we want, a national championship.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree. There were many teams coached by Tom Osborne where it was pure coaching and not talent. They weren't the fastest, they weren't the top rated, but they won. There were plenty of years Nebraska had no business winning 9 games and yet it was done every season undere Osborne.

Obviously, Tom is gone as is his loyal and easily thrown under the bus assistant Frank. The game hasn't changed that much from 2001 when everyone thought Nebraska was the c**k of the walk before Colorado. I think consistent, thoughtful and prepared coaching will take out talented teams more often than most people think.

I use as my example the list of qb's between Steve Taylor and Tommie Frazier...

 
name one year under Tom that at least three guy werent taken in the NFL draft please. If you make statements like that, prepare to back it up.

 
If I had to pick one for the college game, I would go with talent because the talent gap is so large between the top tier teams and the bottom half of division one. In the pros I would take coaching, but both are neccessary to accomplish what we want, a national championship.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree. There were many teams coached by Tom Osborne where it was pure coaching and not talent. They weren't the fastest, they weren't the top rated, but they won. There were plenty of years Nebraska had no business winning 9 games and yet it was done every season undere Osborne.

Obviously, Tom is gone as is his loyal and easily thrown under the bus assistant Frank. The game hasn't changed that much from 2001 when everyone thought Nebraska was the c**k of the walk before Colorado. I think consistent, thoughtful and prepared coaching will take out talented teams more often than most people think.

I use as my example the list of qb's between Steve Taylor and Tommie Frazier...
Click to expand...
I don't know about Tom having no talent. There are MANY players in the NFL now that have come from the teams of the mid nintey's. There were some mighty talented players on those teams.

 
I think I'll have to agree with This Old Club on this one. BTW when he said between Taylor and Frazier, this didn't include much of the 90's as TF was starting in 1992. However, we kind of played a KState schedule back in a lot of those years TO was winning 9 games when he shouldn't have. The Big 8 was not very good for quite a few years in there. OU was either on probation or coming off probation. Sal hadn't quite died yet in CU lighting McCartney's fire. KState was miserable as was Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State, etc.

I have seen coaches turn things around particulary in a high school setting. The talent really didn't change from year to year, but the new coach sure changed a lot of things. I remember taking a football coaching class at NU (lol, not because I wanted to coach but because I had that kind of time). At the time I was somewhat disappointed because TO had usually taught this class. However, our teached was from Papillion. Before he started coaching there, they were pretty bad for the most part. In 10 seasons, he had won one or two Class A championships and was near the top each year. This was accomplished through coaching.

I'm sure we've all seen high school football teams in different areas of the state that went from horrible to respectable just from a coaching change. Sometimes you get a big jump up in talent, but at the high school level it just doesn't happen as often unless you're coaching at a private school. In college football, give me a great coach. The talent will eventually follow!

 
I think consistent, thoughtful and prepared coaching will take out talented teams more often than most people think.

Then why couldn't TO beat the Florida schools until he started recruiting more talented players? I hear what you're saying about coaching but his best teams were also really talented.

82-83 had maybe the best QB,RB,WR combo to ever play for the same team in College Football history.94,95 were loaded with future NFL talent and IMO the best College player ever. 97 had 9 of it's Defensive starters go to the NFL.(A few reserves also plus a couple of dudes on Offense)

 
[Then why couldn't TO beat the Florida schools until he started recruiting more talented players? I hear what you're saying about coaching but his best teams were also really talented. 82-83 had maybe the best QB,RB,WR combo to ever play for the same team in College Football history.94,95 were loaded with future NFL talent and IMO the best College player ever. 97 had 9 of it's Defensive starters go to the NFL.(A few reserves also plus a couple of dudes on Offense)
Click to expand...
I think most of you are missing my point. I'm not talking about teams like 93-99, they were the fruits of an age of NU football I'm afraid we'll never see again.

I'm not going to get in to the semantics of how many guys were drafted in said year, but let's look at it like this, in 1985 the starting qb was Travis Turner. Not your biggest playmakers at a key position to run a multiple offense. They then go to McCarthorn Clayton, faster but the same results and finally rely on Steve Taylor to lead the team for the next 3 years

There were plenty of times in the 70's it was the same way.

All I'm saying is that there were plenty of years Nebraska was an average football team and their coaching is what made them great. Last season, I think is a perfect example of not coaching to strengths of the talent they had. I'm somewhat optimistic, but if Callahan continues to not adjust his gameplan and the defense decides to lay down, this "We will not surrender to the Oklahoma's and Texas's of the world" experiment is doomed.

 
I see what you are saying Old Cub. But I ask you who did those teams in the late 80's ever beat? Like Junior said the Big 8 was pretty weak in those days. TO was always a good coach but I think once he got better players in he became a "Great" Coach.

 
Did the coaching change in those years that you are talking about Old Cub or the Players that took it to a different level? IMO I think that you must have a coaching staff in place that has a solid system and then they need to recruit players that fit that system. There are many elements that are required to win a MNC - coaches/ players/ luck and a system. look at the Okla/USC game last year - equal talent on both sides of the ball but i think Norm C made the difference in his game plan with the month he had to work with whereas Stoops and co. dropped the ball on breaking down the USC O & D. I guess what I'm trying to say is that i will take the coaching - they have the ability to stay at the school longer than the atheletes.

:cheers

 
If I had to pick one for the college game, I would go with talent because the talent gap is so large between the top tier teams and the bottom half of division one. In the pros I would take coaching, but both are neccessary to accomplish what we want, a national championship.
Click to expand...
The talent isn't that far apart anymore with the scholarship rules. Sure there is some but anyone can about beat anyone now adays in division 1. Thats whey we have to play maine.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top