You can hire the best coaches, take the entire Bama staff from them per se...with no talent, they will all look like goobers....carry on you jackals
Talent makes a coach
- Thread starter cocean
- Start date
I actually think it is talent development that makes a successful coach. Muschamp recruited talented players, he couldn't develop them into football players. Alabama is dominant because they do both.
My own opinion is that its like scissors. It takes both blades to cut the paper.
This is laughable, please explain why talent can’t be developed in the SEC. What makes it different?
At Florida, Muschamp had a team loaded with NFL level talent (that got drafted) and that team lost 8 games including one to Ga So. Talent means nothing without a coach.
If you want talent, you better learn how to use the talent you have first.
Never said that. You can develop talent, but you will be a Kentucky, Missouri, Ole Miss, or us....develop all you want while the big boys that find ways to get talent wins championships. I'm saying we need to find a way to bring talent to USC, because that is the only way you will ever make it to the top. Don't say it cant be done either.
Muschamp consistently recruited in top 25. We didn't see a top 25 product on the field. Not even close.
Coaching does matter.
You can take all the talent in the world and a terrible coach will screw it up. Muschamp. The Coach is key. Muschsmp can take Bama (like Florida) and run it to the ground.
We will never make it to the top level in the SEC without coaches who are able to develop the talent we already have.
It starts and ends with coaching. All the talent in the world will not matter. Look at UF and Muschamp. Highly recruited players. We owe it to the players to get the best coaches.
I look at USC. Have we hired the best coaches? We have a hundred years of mediocrity with a few years of decent to good football. It’s a system that has been in place for too long. There are folks that benefit in ensuring the continuity of what we have been doing. Many defend the system. Unfortunately, the players are not developed and many don’t get the chance they deserve. So much talent and so little to show for it.
Thank goodness for the transfer portal. It gives the players a modicum of power. It will also puts the coaches on notice. Develop these players. Coaches are paid millions, the players almost nothing in comparison.
Last edited:
"He can take his'n and beat your'n and take your'n and beat his'n." -Bum Phillips
"He can take hisn and beat yourn, or take yourn, and beat hisn." Bum Phillips on Bear Bryant."
I'll let the Phillips and Bryant families know you disagree. I think they probably have a little more football knowledge than all us "jackals."
Agreed, both are important. Yet, it may be easier to coach up 5-star Alabama recruits than 3-star South Carolina recruits. If you want to win consistently in the SEC, you need coaching and talent as you suggested.
But it generally takes about 4 years. 😁
Watch out for that deceptive sophomore season. 😲
I disagree completely. Look to our rivals to the north. They have turned out several low grade recruits in to nfl players. Hunter renfrow would meet that criteria. They still have not replaced him.
Secondly even 5 stars have to be developed. Developing talent is equally important as recruiting if not more so. To say otherwise is just not understand how all this works.
Taters have developed some 2 Stars into Goodplayers, Renfro is an example.
But make no mistake about it. Taters have loaded up on 5 Star and 4 Star talent
You don't Rank the Best Class or top 5 in Recruiting every year without loading up on 5 and 4 Star players.
Trevor Lawrence 5 Star, Bresee 5 Star,
Do you really think those 5 stars just come in and never get better or develop new skills? Even elite talent Develop over their college career. They are both equally as important. Period.
Not to mention they did not always get that talent so they had to develop what they had. The whole team is not 5 stars. Your wrong just admit it.
Conor Shaw was a 3 star. Guess he didn’t develop. I’m not saying a team of three stars is going to win championships, but a coaching staff has to be able to develop players plane and simple. Talent WILL NOT get you there alone.
Last edited:
People kill me, talent is important but heart and fight is what wins. Look at NFL teams like the Browns, Detroit, or Jags they are full of 5 star talent and a mixture of everything and they still can barely have 1 decent year out of 10. Coaches are made by who they put around them, what they are able to do with what they have. Muschamp isn't a bad coach, he just hired a bunch of great recruiters and no one knew how to mold them or develop them. Look at Saban he continues to bring coaches in that got fired and they thrive in his system because he has a staff full of recruiters who can develop talent. CSB is building a program the same way, it might take us a little longer to see the results because our coaches names aren't Saban, or Herman, but once they see the progress they will recruiter great players and talent and be able to develop their skill to win championships.
True 5 Stars need less coaching than your 2 to 3 star Players.
Clowney, Trever Lawrence
Some 5 or 4 Star players can do well on just their talent alone.
I am not saying the 4 or 5 Star players can't benefit from coaching. Clowney benefited from Brad Lawing's Coaching
4 or 5 Stars just don't need as much coaching as 2 or 3 Star players do.
4 or 5 star players won't need as much coaching to develop. 4 or 5 star players have a better Football IQ and higher Athleticism than 2 or 3 star players
Clowney didn’t benefit from Brad’s coaching, because he admitted he never listened to any of his coaches....Brad included.
Go back and read some of his pre draft reviews, several evaluators mentioned that he looked like he’d never been coached a day in his life. What set him apart was his off the charts athleticism.
Clowney was one of, if not the laziest guy on the team. He’d always been successful because he could “out athlete” everyone he played against. As good as he was here, it’s scary to think how good he could’ve been if he’d listened and applied himself.
Eventually, you hit a point where you have to wonder if a high 3* who listens and works his butt off can be as beneficial or better than a lazy 4 or 5* who doesn’t put in the effort.
I compare Clowney to a guy like JJ Watt, who was a walkon TE at Wisconsin who switched to DE. Off the charts work ethic, he’s not as athletically gifted as Clowney, but if I was a NFL GM with the choice of the two I’d pick Watt.
Really? Did he look "all world" against OSU and LSU the last time they played them? Maybe he's just "all world" at stealing offensive signals.
I’ve coached at the sub-varsity level for a long time. My opinion is that it takes 3 things to build a winning program.
1. You have to have players. I spent a lot of time getting to know the kids in my school, and encouraging those who I thought could be players to come try out. I may not have always have the best talent in the conference, but we always had plenty of talent to win.
2. You have to build a winning culture. For me, that simply meant that players were expected to know their jobs and to play with maximum effort.
3. You have to have systems (offensively and defensively) that are easy enough to learn and effective enough to win with.
I know there’s a lot more to winning in the SEC than there is in my tiny little corner of the world, but the staples are the same...you don’t win without having enough talent to win, and you don’t win just because you have talent.
1. You have to have players. I spent a lot of time getting to know the kids in my school, and encouraging those who I thought could be players to come try out. I may not have always have the best talent in the conference, but we always had plenty of talent to win.
2. You have to build a winning culture. For me, that simply meant that players were expected to know their jobs and to play with maximum effort.
3. You have to have systems (offensively and defensively) that are easy enough to learn and effective enough to win with.
I know there’s a lot more to winning in the SEC than there is in my tiny little corner of the world, but the staples are the same...you don’t win without having enough talent to win, and you don’t win just because you have talent.
Bama gets the best talent no question. But, their talent walking in the door isn't that much better than the rest of the SEC. Saban doesn't spend that much time developing player talent. The majority of his time is spent developing coaching talent.
Have you seen the talent on that staff? I don't mean the coaches. I mean the QC/QAs, GAs and Analysts. Here's just the currently listed analysts;
Dean Altobelli
Gordon Steele
Nick Perry
Javier Arenas
Michael Stoops
Major Applewhite AJ Milwee
Johnathan Galante
Alex Mortensen
Patrick Reilly
Charlie Strong
Bert Biffani
Shiloh Keo
Look how many of those guys were HCs or Coordinators previously. There is a long list of people fighting for even those positions. Saban can observe their work habits and how they relate to players and other staff. He spends his time teaching these guys his methods and molding how he wants the program developed. It's really a probationary period.
Then, once a position spot or coordinator opens up he has the next occupant already on staff. Already trained to how he wants them to work. No wasted motion.
Saban is playing chess while all other coaches are playing checkers.
Swinney is doing the same thing. If someone in that staff leaves even if it’s venables I’ll bet you 3-1 odds it’s a promotion form inside.
Some of our best players have been those that didn't come in with lofty credentials but that had a strong desire to get better and had the coaches around them to mold them into great players. Talent only goes so far in any conference. You can't coach heart.
Guys. Please as other thread said this poster is probably the biggest troll of all.
Some real world standards:
Clemson, Ohio State...great coaches, great players.
Iowa, Northwestern...very good coaching, good players
Stanford...Very good coaching...good, extremely coachable players.
Perrenial poor programs like a New Mexico State....average coaches and less talented players.
Bottom line....talent is critical to extremely high level results. Coaching is critical to any good to great level of accomplishment. Coaching can improve poor talent, but only marginally.
Clemson, Ohio State...great coaches, great players.
Iowa, Northwestern...very good coaching, good players
Stanford...Very good coaching...good, extremely coachable players.
Perrenial poor programs like a New Mexico State....average coaches and less talented players.
Bottom line....talent is critical to extremely high level results. Coaching is critical to any good to great level of accomplishment. Coaching can improve poor talent, but only marginally.
