Franklin on coaching vs talent - a popular topic on here

[uppermaclion]

I didn't see this posted yet. I tend to agree with his statement.

"I've been around the game long enough, coaching counts and coaching matters, don't get me wrong. But if your players are better than the players across from the opposite sideline, more times than not you've got a chance to be successful.''

http://www.pennlive.com/pennstatefo...l?hootPostID=5a2d0eacb4f5384b88fc11aef8ee9811

 

[bxle]

At least 60/40 talent/coaching. Hard to win big without lots of talent.

 

[bmw199]

At least 60/40 talent/coaching. Hard to win big without lots of talent.

I'll buy the 60-40 split. Certainly some guys can just coach them up though. Clearly Malzone was huge for Auburn. Gary Patterson makes his kids a lot better. Ferentz has made some good runs at Iowa and Kill is doing it now at Minnesota, Fitzgerald obviously. But to go undefeated and win the big ones you need talent.

 

[bdgan]

Probably true but coaches are hired to get good talent as much as they are to coach. Otherwise why pay a coaching staff $8 million per year?

It will be interesting to see how Franklin does in 2016 & 2017. By then PSU should have recovered from the sanctions.

 

[m.knox]

In the college game, it is Jimmy's and Joe's more than X's on O's.

A good college coach absolutely has to love recruiting.... I'm interested to see how Harbaugh deals with it at UM. I am pretty sure it wasn't one of OB's favorite things.

 

[KSLion]

In the college game, it is Jimmy's and Joe's more than X's on O's.

Sometimes X's and O's get in there, too. Can still see Gary Andersen running up the sideline trying desperately to get a timeout in the 2013 Wisconsin game because his defense had left a PSU receiver completely uncovered on its own 3 yard line. This was a game where it looked like OB's offensive X's and O's caused the UW defense to become confused in stages. Andersen was gracious enough to admit afterward that his defense had been "schemed up pretty good a few times by a pretty good football coach".

I think it's safe to say Wisconsin had more overall physical talent on the field that day than did Penn State, not to mention a strong home field advantage -- which is why it entered the game as a 24-point favorite. And I suspect it was primarily O'Brien's X's and O's which allowed his undermanned team to pull out a win despite the defense's surrendering 24 points.

 

[SR108]

At least 60/40 talent/coaching. Hard to win big without lots of talent.

I think its more than 60/40. More like 75/25. It's the Jimmies and Joes not the x's and o's.

 

[dawgduice]

I think its more than 60/40. More like 75/25. It's the Jimmies and Joes not the x's and o's.

I have to agree on the 75/25. You can REALLY see that with our BB team.

 

[psuro]

I will split the difference and say 65/35

 

[royboy]

I think its more than 60/40. More like 75/25. It's the Jimmies and Joes not the x's and o's.

Yeah, probably so, but look at the 1987 Fiesta Bowl:

Joe's PSU team 14
Jimmy's Miami team 10

PSU had some very good players, but the talent advantage went to Miami.
And Jimmy Johnson was a very good coach, but the X and O advantage went to Penn State.

A certain amount of unpredictability is one thing that makes high level college football so interesting.

 

[joeparules]

I'm in the camp it is around a 70/30 split, but another aspect overlooked is teamwork. It is a little cliche to talk about needing players to buy into the system and trusting the coaches and their teammates, but that 86 PSU squad is a great example. Miami by far had the better INDIVIDUAL talent on the field, but PSU played better as a TEAM! That is why a team of NBA all-stars can now lose to other countries.

 

[Ranger Dan]

look at the 1987 Fiesta Bowl

I think you have to have a certain level of talent to be able to compete and the rest is decided by tactics/strategy/motivation. There are teams that win on talent/athletic ability virtually alone, and others that have had just enough talent to execute the more complex strategy/tactics. I think you can be successful in both models.

 

[tboyer]

The other thing to keep in mind -- coaching is a bit of a commodity now. Good position coaching can be found at 50 or 60 programs. So the programs that recruit at a very high level -- the Ohio States, Alabamas -- they also have some of the best position coaches in the business.

It's hard to find a program that recruits at a very high level but does a poor job of developing players. Michigan might have been an example of this in the past. On the offensive side Paterno was an example in his latter years -- he recruited a lot of talent on the offensive side and didn't give it state of the art position coaching.

 

[Ranger Dan]

they also have some of the best position coaches

Position coaches equate to tactics, and head coach, offensive and defensive coordinator equate to strategy.

 

[JR4PSU]

I'll buy the 60-40 split. Certainly some guys can just coach them up though. Clearly Malzone was huge for Auburn. Gary Patterson makes his kids a lot better. Ferentz has made some good runs at Iowa and Kill is doing it now at Minnesota, Fitzgerald obviously. But to go undefeated and win the big ones you need talent.

A coach can get out of a player no more than the player is capable. Some coaches are better than others at getting to a players true capability, both physically and mentally. The coach is first and foremost a motivator. Obviously teaching skills and honing those skills through practice is a coaches duty, but it is through motivating the player that a coach makes the biggest difference and separates himself from other coaches. But all coaches are limited by the true capabilities of the players he coaches. Raw talent, again both physically and mentally, is the number one ingredient necessary.

 

[royboy]

The other thing to keep in mind -- coaching is a bit of a commodity now. Good position coaching can be found at 50 or 60 programs. So the programs that recruit at a very high level -- the Ohio States, Alabamas -- they also have some of the best position coaches in the business.

It's hard to find a program that recruits at a very high level but does a poor job of developing players. Michigan might have been an example of this in the past. On the offensive side Paterno was an example in his latter years -- he recruited a lot of talent on the offensive side and didn't give it state of the art position coaching.

Based on recruiting rankings vs results, Texas would be an example of poor use of talent. As would Miami and, recently, Florida.

 

[Bygsky]

A coach can get out of a player no more than the player is capable. Some coaches are better than others at getting to a players true capability, both physically and mentally. The coach is first and foremost a motivator. Obviously teaching skills and honing those skills through practice is a coaches duty, but it is through motivating the player that a coach makes the biggest difference and separates himself from other coaches. But all coaches are limited by the true capabilities of the players he coaches. Raw talent, again both physically and mentally, is the number one ingredient necessary.

This is a contidiction is it not?

 

[JR4PSU]

This is a contidiction is it not?

I certainly don't think so.

 

[KC-KS-Lion]

I didn't see this posted yet. I tend to agree with his statement.

"I've been around the game long enough, coaching counts and coaching matters, don't get me wrong. But if your players are better than the players across from the opposite sideline, more times than not you've got a chance to be successful.''

http://www.pennlive.com/pennstatefootball/index.ssf/2015/05/penn_state_football_james_fran_17.html?hootPostID=5a2d0eacb4f5384b88fc11aef8ee9811

I think you have to include the mental side of talent, maturity and attitude.
I remember the '81 Pitt game when Marino threw 2 quick touchdown passes, and Penn State bounced back with relentless physical play.
How many times have we seen more talented teams go up with huge leads early then fold after the other team hasn't.
Some of this is coaching, teaching the kids to recognize their inner abilities, but some kids come to college with this personal recognition.

 

[psu00]

Yeah, probably so, but look at the 1987 Fiesta Bowl:

Joe's PSU team 14
Jimmy's Miami team 10

PSU had some very good players, but the talent advantage went to Miami.
And Jimmy Johnson was a very good coach, but the X and O advantage went to Penn State.

A certain amount of unpredictability is one thing that makes high level college football so interesting.

Generally if you have better players you should win (baring any fluke type issues with the occasional upset). Where coaching becomes crucial is against teams of equal or better talent or in close games late in the game. Then great coaching can overcome the talent difference many times (especially in college football where emotion and motivation play such a big factor). Psu vs Miami in the Fiesta Bowl shows that.

Bad coaching can also negate the talent advantage. Running it up the middle every down against a stacked line daring you to throw (for example) will allow teams of lesser talent to stay in games and pull off upsets.

To me it's more 50/50 in the college game. You need the talented players to make plays but you also need a coach who can think outside the box, strategize the offense/ defense with new wrinkles and expose the opponents weaknesses, knows how to use time outs and manipulate time in close games, etc. A lot of the 'coaching aspect' goes unnoticed as its really done on the practice fields out of the public eye but it's clearly important in the game. There's a reason Saban gets millions of $$ more than the Coastal Carolina coach.

 

[zwick99]

I'll buy the 60-40 split. Certainly some guys can just coach them up though. Clearly Malzone was huge for Auburn. Gary Patterson makes his kids a lot better. Ferentz has made some good runs at Iowa and Kill is doing it now at Minnesota, Fitzgerald obviously. But to go undefeated and win the big ones you need talent.

Chip Kelly at Oregon. Oregon is not the recruiting hotbed that many memeber of the media imply. Oregon is no better than about the 4th school in the Pac 12 in recruiting. Many years they probably are not even that high. Last year oregon had ZERO recruits from Oregon. I was looking at the 2016 ranked players and Florida and Texas had over at hundred ranked players compared to Oregon with 3. That was a while back so those numbers change. Oregon will probably end up with about 10-15 ranked players.

 

[KSLion]

Yeah, probably so, but look at the 1987 Fiesta Bowl:

Joe's PSU team 14
Jimmy's Miami team 10

PSU had some very good players, but the talent advantage went to Miami.
And Jimmy Johnson was a very good coach, but the X and O advantage went to Penn State.

Agree.

What do you think the probability might be that Vinnie Testaverde, who had thrown four picks during the entire regular season would, just by chance, throw five in one game -- which is what happened.

 

[dawgduice]

Agree.

What do you think the probability might be that Vinnie Testaverde, who had thrown four picks during the entire regular season would, just by chance, throw five in one game -- which is what happened.

Have to say Jimmie "continued" to do what his team always did. To such point that even when it was not working he would NOT change "his" game plan. Either he had no plan B or he felt NO ONE could stop his plan A. Out coached? I would say so.
As an aside "Bleacher Report" did a piece on the 20 best college games of all time, the Fiesta Bowl game was not on the list. Really ?????

 

[KSLion]

Have to say Jimmie "continued" to do what his team always did. To such point that even when it was not working he would NOT change "his" game plan. Either he had no plan B or he felt NO ONE could stop his plan A. Out coached? I would say so.

Actually, Miami's offense worked pretty well most of the time. Gained 445 yards to PSU's 162. Five picks and two lost fumbles were the difference. Tough to win no matter who you are when you hand the other guys the ball seven times. Even so, the game wasn't decided until Pete Giftopoulos made PSU's fifth pick of the day in the end zone, with about ten seconds left on the clock, to end what would've been the game-winning drive for Miami.

 

[dawgduice]

Actually, Miami's offense worked pretty well most of the time. Gained 445 yards to PSU's 162. Five picks and two lost fumbles were the difference. Tough to win no matter who you are when you hand the other guys the ball seven times. Game wasn't decided until Pete Giftopoulos made PSU's fifth pick of the day in the end zone, with about ten seconds left on the clock, to end what would've been the game-winning drive for Miami.

We will have to "agree to disagree", it is about points scored My point was "hand the other guys the ball?" more like TOOK the ball away !! Miami was really lost when it counted and had no answers, coaching?

 

[psu00]

Have to say Jimmie "continued" to do what his team always did. To such point that even when it was not working he would NOT change "his" game plan. Either he had no plan B or he felt NO ONE could stop his plan A. Out coached? I would say so.
As an aside "Bleacher Report" did a piece on the 20 best college games of all time, the Fiesta Bowl game was not on the list. Really ?????

Watching the replay of Jimmy toward the end of the game reminded me of the movie 'Miracle' about the 1980 Olympic hockey team. The Russians were expected to win easily. They were sort of full of themselves but suddenly got caught in a close game. It was close enough that they still figured they'd pull it out eventually. There's a point in the movie where there's seconds left and the Russian coach is yelling but doesn't pull his goalie. The U.S. coaches are shocked and then realize 'he doesn't know what to do'. Vwatching Johnson I thought the same thing.

 

[TheHumbleBuckeye]

65% coaching, 35% talent.

The reason we tend to overstate talent is because the best coaches naturally gravitate towards environments where they can pull in better talent. So we assume its talent and we undervalue coaching. But history is full of examples of teams with comparable talent from one year to the next taking huge steps back simply because of coaching changes.

OSU: Tressel 12-1 in 2010 > Fickell 6-7 in 2011
Arkansas: Petrino 11-2 in 2011 > John L Smith 4-8 in 2012
Florida: Meyer > Muschamp (despite what anyone says, the Meyer left plenty of talent there, especially for the SEC East, which is not veyr good)
Minnesota: Glen Mason 6-6 in 2006 > Tim Brewster 1-11 in 2007
Nebraska: Frank Solich 10-3 in 2003 > Bill Callahan 5-6 in 2004
Michigan State: Nick Saban 10-2 in 1999 > Bobby Williams 5-6 in 2000
Michigan: Lloyd Carr 9-4 in 2007 > RichRod 3-9 in 2008
Illinois: Ron Zook 7-6 2011 > Tim Beckman 2-10 in 2012

Those are just the ones off the top of my head. And they're great examples because in each of those scenarios, the teams under the new coach were playing with essentially the same talent level as the previous coach. And you can say things like "scheme changes" when it comes to people like RichRod, but A) even with a scheme change, 3-9 is pitiful given that the B1G in 2008 was probably at its lowest point in history, and B) great coaches find ways to adapt to what they have on the roster... like Saban (who completely overhauled his offense last year because he didnt have his ideal QB, and still found a way to dominate the SEC), or Meyer, or Tressel (who contrary to popular belief, was very diverse with his offense based on his personnel)... or best of all, Bill O'Brien, who did so much with so little and fit all the pieces into his grand puzzle, he should rightfully be known as the MacGyver of coaches. Give him a baseball pitcher, two basketball players, half a rugby team, and a handful of shot-putters, and he'll give you an 8 win football team.

 

[KSLion]

We will have to "agree to disagree", it is about points scored My point was "hand the other guys the ball?" more like TOOK the ball away !! Miami was really lost when it counted and had no answers, coaching?

If you want a game where PSU's defense played bend-but-don't-break to a "T" that one might be it. 445 yards of bending but only 10 points worth of break, allowing a less-than-spectacular PSU offense to do just enough to win.

And, in fairness, I think Jerry Sandusky has to get some credit for an observation he made watching film while putting together PSU's defensive scheme. He noticed that opponents hadn't ever made da U's receivers "pay the price" for coming into their defensive area -- whether the ball was thrown their way or not. As a result, part of his strategy was to make sure those all those receivers got tagged, hard, as often as possible, no matter where the ball went on a given play. Can remember post-game comments by the "Smurf's" that all the tagging caused the development of some alligator arms, which no doubt contributed to the five picks as well as a bunch of dropped balls. Ray Isom "complained" about a splitting headache -- thru a grin a mile wide.