Talent Vs Coaching | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Talent Vs Coaching

Eh, even Shula needed talent.

When he had multiple Hall of Famers on both sides of the ball he won Super Bowls and had a perfect season. As the talent diminished, so did his results.

When he only had Dan Marino, he won a lot in the regular season, but didn’t get nearly as far in the postseason. He also finished at .500 or below five times in his last ten seasons.
 
Anyone remember Jakeem Grant before he could run a route. He didn't learn that overnight.

No look at Jesse Davis I don't think you could coach him enough to block sunlight!

Its good coaching that gets the most out of talent .
 
Like Bum Phillips said about Don Shula " He can take his'n and beat your'n or he can take your'n and beat his'n"
 
Barry Switzer was a great coach. In fact, that was the first and best litmus test question my friends immediately used for newcomers to the sports betting scene. It was absolutely uncanny. When we asked about Barry Switzer and received the standard reply about lousy coach winning with Jimmy Johnson's players, we adopted a little shared grin because we knew that guy had no chance in that town. He was going to watch every game and subjectively grind himself out with one conventional wisdom gaffe after another.

But if we got the rare positive response, then we immediately took notice. I am still friends and colleagues with some of those guys today. I'll never forget when my friend Paul and I asked a newcomer named Larry about Switzer at the Frontier sportsbook. Larry rattled off everything relevant, including Switzer's bowl record against excellent coaches like Paterno, Bowden and Osborne, along with the fact that Switzer won the Super Bowl with a team that had just been dethroned as Super Bowl champ. It was an unheard of feat. Only George Halas had managed it, before Switzer. Now Belichick has joined them. In fact, Belichick can do it for the third time if he wins this Super Bowl. But overall it is a horrendous situational scenario yet Barry Switzer did a remarkable job overcoming it in 1995.

The Patriot team cannot be used as good example for anything. Once Belichick departs I'm sure we won't see many -- if any -- forthcoming examples of a team winning the title just one season after being dethroned. Sometimes there will be an entire decade without a playoff victory for that lot, let alone a title.

That guy Larry Mathews was incredibly sharp. I may have mentioned him previously but I'm not sure of that. Unfortunately he bragged about his winnings too much. We kept warning him to shut up. Eventually Larry was found dead in the desert, spring 2004.

I don't think Switzer is a lousy coach I just don't think he's a guy who can take a mediocre team and turn them around like a Bill Parcells or Don Shula. As the core of the team exited their prime the teams record began to diminish down 2 wins from his 2nd year to his 3rd and than down 4 wins from his 3rd year to his 4th year. He couldn't overcome his diminishing talent with great coaching because he simply wasn't a great coach.
 
Were definitely not more talented than Indy. Marlon Mack, TY Hilton and Ebron are way better than our playmakers, Colts Oline is better than ours and Luck is light years better than any QB we’ve had in the last decade. The only area we have the advantage is probably secondary honestly
 
Were definitely not more talented than Indy. Marlon Mack, TY Hilton and Ebron are way better than our playmakers, Colts Oline is better than ours and Luck is light years better than any QB we’ve had in the last decade. The only area we have the advantage is probably secondary honestly

I meant arguably more talent than Indy on Defense (not Offense).
 
Under coaching is also how hard your players will play for you. One of the biggest knocks I think on Gase is that he lost at least some of the locker room - we lost by at least 15 points on 5 separate occasions - that is one of the highest number in the League last year if not the highest. The team just did not respond to him in those games and in some others. Kenny Smith - NBA on TNT - recently was saying that if a team plays hard, they can win 45 games on that alone. While I think 45 is a little high, there is something to be said for how hard a team plays. Of course, getting guys with the right mentality - self-motivated/professional - goes a long way. Patriots look for this in their players. Talent means little if you don't want to use it or your coach does not know how to use it correctly.
 
the main problems w dolphins is Coaching and GM. we haven't had good coach since J.Johnson.
 
Were definitely not more talented than Indy. Marlon Mack, TY Hilton and Ebron are way better than our playmakers, Colts Oline is better than ours and Luck is light years better than any QB we’ve had in the last decade. The only area we have the advantage is probably secondary honestly

Funny, considering how the game went this season. Didn't seem like they were "wwwaaay" better than us, at all. Also, wasn't that Tannehills first game back with a clearly busted arm?

But keep sucking on the lilly poppy!
 
I think you've missed the talent at QB on this analysis. It ain't Belichick or McDaniel throwing him the ball.
But be honest on that team Hogan is their deep threat which is only about 20-30yds max and that he is usually wide open somehow
its not because of speed or agility either...boggles my mind
 
You can't teach hand-eye coordination. Without talent, you're sunk. I'd say it's at least 70% Talent / 30% Coaching
 
Eh, even Shula needed talent.

When he had multiple Hall of Famers on both sides of the ball he won Super Bowls and had a perfect season. As the talent diminished, so did his results.

When he only had Dan Marino, he won a lot in the regular season, but didn’t get nearly as far in the postseason. He also finished at .500 or below five times in his last ten seasons.

Yup. No one is saying this is either/or. Teams need talent AND coaching. That said, swap the Pats coaching staff with Gase and his staff. Gase wouldn't be an AFC champ, but there's a good chance BB would be close to it. And that's with no change in talent.

I know, I've said this too much . . . what good teams DON'T have is bottom decile players. That's coaching - either in player selection, good on field coaching, or both.

But, it is no coincidence most consistently good teams have a top HC AND top QB. Thus, the argument over whether BB or Brady is mostly responsible for the Pat's success. OTOH, I don't want to over-emphasize the QB. Important, yes, but Rodgers can't carry a diminished talent team.
 
Similar topic on sports radio. The question was whether Bellichick made Brady or the other way around. One fan pointed out that Bellichick was under .500 with Cleveland and that the only year Brady was out due to injury the Patriots missed the playoffs. So, yes talent counts. Not saying Bellichick never wins a super bowl without Brady, but hard to imagine the same success.
 
Back
Top Bottom