![[semoball.com]](http://semoball.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
Login | Register |
- Home
- High Schools
- Advance
- Bell City
- Bernie
- Bloomfield
- Campbell
- Cape Central
- Caruthersville
- Chaffee
- Charleston
- Clarkton
- Clearwater
- Cooter
- Delta
- Delta C-7
- Dexter
- Doniphan
- Eagle Ridge
- East Carter County
- East Prairie
- Ellington
- Gideon
- Greenville
- Hayti
- Holcomb
- Jackson
- Kelly
- Kennett
- Leopold
- Malden
- Marquand
- Meadow Heights
- Naylor
- Neelyville
- New Madrid Co. Central
- New Salem
- North Pemiscot
- Notre Dame
- Oak Ridge
- Oran
- Perryville
- Poplar Bluff
- Portageville
- Puxico
- Richland
- Risco
- Saxony Lutheran
- Scott City
- Scott County Central
- Senath-Hornersville
- Sikeston
- Southland
- South Pemiscot
- St. Vincent
- Twin Rivers
- Van Buren
- Westwood Baptist
- Woodland
- Zalma
- College
- Pro
- Forums
- Submit
- Contests
- Photos
- Webcasts
- Text Alerts
Post reply
Read replies (14)
© 2013 semoball.com
Coaching vs. Talent which one prevails?
Replies
IMO Coaching I can only speak for SG but we are not always the most gifted but our coaches get the most out of there players!
Coaching look at how navy wins games
coaching. you can out coach talent.... if that makes sense.
Coaching. Look at Sikeston, that talent has been there since dawn of time.
Its not an "either-or" situation. It takes both to have a successful program.
That's a question I think is real hard to quantify. I agree with Preach, it takes both. It really comes down to the individual kid. A kid may come in with TONS of talent, but it takes a little bit of coaching to mold him into a great player, while at the same time, a kid with a little talent can be coached with TONS of time and effort into a great player. At the same time, you need a COACH with the talent, experience, heart, and education (being coached himself) to mold a team into a successful unit.
Coaching by far. For years since Coach McKay retired Portageville had the talent, but the coaching wasn't great. The coaching wasn't bad, but it wasn't great. This season, minus the last game against New Madrid, Portageville has made a complete 180 with its football program. Why you might ask? Coaching. These are the same athletes that played on a 2-8 team that got blown out almost every game last season. Now they are 7-1. The coach was able to get the players to believe in the system, and it has paid off immensely this season for the bulldogs.
You can also look at the college and professional levels as well. The reason why Alabama has been a great team for the past 5 season is because of the coaching. The reason why KState has returned to prominence is because of the coaching. If you look at the top 10 in college football almost all of them have excellent coaches.
In the pros look at New Orleans. Their head coach is suspended for the season, and a contender for the 1 seed in the NFC last season is now the bottom dweller of the NFC South. Go through and look at every team that has ever won the Super Bowl. Every single coach that has hoisted that trophy is in my opinion a good coach.
In some sports talent can overcome coaching, but in football that is not the case.
I agree, coaching has more of an advantage than talent but you have to have some sort of talent in order to win. You can put any NFL coach on EP team and they'd still be winless. Not taking anything away from the players but they didn't have very many numbers at all last night. Maybe 16 guys at the max. Give them credit though, they never gave up and played their tails off.
As far as college goes, recruiting is the reason Alabama has an awesome team. Kids want to play for Nick Saban. You can put him at an average school and coach their talent and he wouldn't have as good of a team as he doesn now. So I would say coaching has an advantage but talent is also a very important ingrediant as well. It's kind of hard to answer this question with a exact answer.
Yeah good point Cheese. I'm a big UK fan, would I say Calipari is the best coach!? Is he better than Krzyzewski? Roy Williams? Rick Pitino? Bill Self? No I would say he isn't. But he can recruit the talent better, and is a good enough coach to mold them into Final 4 teams, and a National Championship. So I would think it is a mix of both.
But in the college game recruiting is a part of coaching. Also with his track record from LSU and Bama, if Saban is at a lower tiered college I believe that the recruits would follow. I put forth Steve Spurrier as evidence.
Also all because you have top level recruits doesn't mean you are going to win a lot of games. For this I would like to put forth Gene Chizik as evidence.
As for East Prairie I believe injuries and off the field issues have hampered their team this season. So yes they would still be down, but I believe they would of at least one one game this season if they had an NFL head coach.
Yah coaching for sure, look what happened at jackson this year! Same kids as last year, new coach, they gonna win distrix!!
I agree recruiting has a lot to do with coaching, which is why I put that in my comment. However, you can't just put a great coach on a team with zero talent and expect great things. You have to have some sort of talent to win. Jackson had talent at that school but didn't have a coach who knew how to use it. Big difference in this years team compared to last year. Same goes for Portageville. Talent has always been there but needed a good coach who knew how to use it. Personally I say you have to have both. Talent can't win without coaching and coaching can't win without talent.
I'm not saying they can't win games but competing at higher levels.
You gotta have a leader COACH