ADVERTISEMENT

I have to admit... our lack of recruits is surprising me

Teams with better players win a preponderance of the time. Teams recruiting at the top of the class generally get the better players. Better players are generally identified by the evaluators with 'star' system being the identifying tool.

All 3,4,5 stars are not yhe same. All 4 stars are not the same.
Agree, but if you take a team full of "4 stars" and have a coaching staff that has no idea of how to develop talent vs a team of "3 stars" that has a staff that are great at developing talent I'll take the 3 star team.

Now, take that same "3 star" team and put them up against a team of "4 &5 stars" with a staff that can develop talent I'll that the "4 & 5 star" team.

My point is one without the other is useless. You can't win at an elite level no matter how good of a coach you are if you don't have talent. On the flip side you can't win at an elite level with 5 star athletes if you cannot develop those athletes.

Guys like Saban and Meyer are the best because he can do both extremely will on offense and defense. Guys Kelly, Miles, Dantonio, etc are very good coaches because they are excellent at one or the other but fall a bit short in some area.
 
it is extremely unlikey a dufus coach will recruit at the 4 star level for any sig # of classes. Your argument is impossible to argue against as it would not ever happen. Example would be Zook.
 
Last edited:
It seems most who think talent doesn't mean as much as coaching didn't take time to read my earlier post because you can't argue with facts. I am in no way saying coaching doesn't matter because anyone who understands football, or any sport for that matter, knows these are the teachers who develop talent. That being said I completely agree that if you do not have the talent you aren't going to win a national championships and I don't care if your name is Rockne, Bear, Woody, or whoever you want to place on that list.

Anyone here again is my earlier post about the NC from 2001 and the recruiting classes they had leading to their titles, not one had a class outside the top 10 and most were in the top 5 at least once.

2001 Miami (#2 in 2001, #9 in 2000, #8 in 1999)

2002 Ohio State (#7 in 2002, #4 in 2000, #2 in 1999)

2003 LSU/USC (LSU #1 class in 2003, #4 in 2001 USC #3 in 2003, #14 in 2000, #21 in 2001)

2004 USC (#3 class in 2003, #1 class in 2004)

2005 Texas (#1 class in 2002, #15 class in 2003 with only 18 recruits, which averaged highest star rating in country, #18 class in 2004 -- only signed 15) If Texas had signed 20 players in either of these classes, they would have ranked in the top five. The #1 class in 2002 was simply too large, with over 30 players).

2006 Florida (#2 in 2003, #10 in 2004, #2 in 2006)

2007 LSU (#1 in 2003, #1 in 2004, #7 in 2006, #4 in 2007)

2008 Florida (#2 in 2006, #1 in 2007, #3 in 2008)

2009 Alabama (#10 in 2007, #1 in 2008, #1 in 2009)

2010 Auburn (#10 in 2006, #7 in 2007, #4 in 2010) Auburn was #20 in 2008 and #19 in 2009

2011 Alabama (#1 in 2008, #1 in 2009, #5 in 2010, #1 in 2011)

2012 Alabama (#1 in 2009, #5 in 2010, #1 in 2011, #1 in 2012)

2013 Florida State (#7 in 2009, #10 in 2010, #2 in 2011, #6 in 2012, #10 in 2013)

2014 Ohio State (#11 in 2011, #4 in 2012, #2 in 2013, #3 in 2014)
 
I keep a similar worksheet - back to 2005.
The only way to argue that there is no relationship is to remain ignorant of the data.
 
So engaging you in a discussion makes me a d-bag? You said there is "very little difference" between the two groups, my bad I didn't directly quote that and paraphrased by saying you said "there isn't really a difference".


Bingo and bingo. You agreed with me albeit, sarcastically. What more is there to engage upon other than pointing out your sarcasm - which was probably what you wanted and for the simple reason that you are a d-bag. I get it. It's your nature.

By me saying there is very little difference, I'm implying there IS a difference. For you to say I said "There isn't really a difference" was incorrect. I also said it's great to have 5*'s, again implying that there is a difference. The germane point of my post was in the 1st paragraph. You and the tool, the mo1e, choose to agree with me that there are more 3 and 4*s in the NFL than 5*s. Cookies and milk for you both.
 
If you take a team of five stars and play a team of 3 stars with similar level coaches the winner is ?

JMO of course but anyone who thinks getting high level talent isn't the most important part of the job does not know much about college football or basketball.

I agree with you on this post. But you changed the point from your original argument and what I responded to originally, by saying "similar level coaches." here in this post. Wouldn't that reason alone (that it's the coaches that bring in the talent) make them at least equally important as players playing with that talent? Then all the other responsibilities they have come into play...I stand by it. Coaching is as least as important as the players themselves.
 
Bingo and bingo. You agreed with me albeit, sarcastically. What more is there to engage upon other than pointing out your sarcasm - which was probably what you wanted and for the simple reason that you are a d-bag. I get it. It's your nature.

By me saying there is very little difference, I'm implying there IS a difference. For you to say I said "There isn't really a difference" was incorrect. I also said it's great to have 5*'s, again implying that there is a difference. The germane point of my post was in the 1st paragraph. You and the tool, the mo1e, choose to agree with me that there are more 3 and 4*s in the NFL than 5*s. Cookies and milk for you both.
Speaking of "tool".... of course there are more 3 and 4 stars than 5 stars in the NFL. No one with an IQ above 50 would argue that. But not because 3 and 4 star players are just as likely to make an NFL team as a 5 star player. That's ludicris and facts do not support the premise.

It's all about supply and demand. For example.... most every team is looking to draft the best OL player they can each year. Well, this year in the Rivals top 250 there are two 5 star OL. There are 40 4 star OL. There may be more not ranked in the top 250 and that's not even counting the 3 star players. So ... if each NFL team only drafted one OL and the 5 star players were among them then there would be two 5 star players drafted and 30 others who aren't 5 star. Apply that formula to every position.
 
Says responding with sarcasm is a D-bag move, uses sarcasm in the same post... no reason to be so salty
 
Speaking of "tool".... of course there are more 3 and 4 stars than 5 stars in the NFL. No one with an IQ above 50 would argue that. But not because 3 and 4 star players are just as likely to make an NFL team as a 5 star player. That's ludicris and facts do not support the premise.

It's all about supply and demand. For example.... most every team is looking to draft the best OL player they can each year. Well, this year in the Rivals top 250 there are two 5 star OL. There are 40 4 star OL. There may be more not ranked in the top 250 and that's not even counting the 3 star players. So ... if each NFL team only drafted one OL and the 5 star players were among them then there would be two 5 star players drafted and 30 others who aren't 5 star. Apply that formula to every position.


I should have said inane tool.
 
Talent trumps coaching - both are important BUT if ND doesn't have Will Fuller we're looking at a 8-4 / 7-5 scenario this season . Talented kids make plays it's that simple . Again you put a kid who runs a 4.7 40 on Will Fuller and I'm beating you three or four times a game for big plays no matter what .
That's why I am crossing my fingers that Kelly comes up with another big time speedster to come in and fill Fuller's void when he leaves . Can't coach speed fellas and if you think you can please consult with Lou Holtz and he will redirect you into my school of thought .
 
Talent trumps coaching - both are important BUT if ND doesn't have Will Fuller we're looking at a 8-4 / 7-5 scenario this season . Talented kids make plays it's that simple . Again you put a kid who runs a 4.7 40 on Will Fuller and I'm beating you three or four times a game for big plays no matter what .
That's why I am crossing my fingers that Kelly comes up with another big time speedster to come in and fill Fuller's void when he leaves . Can't coach speed fellas and if you think you can please consult with Lou Holtz and he will redirect you into my school of thought .


And would that be a COACH you are quoting? ;)

It's the Ying-Yang thing. Coaches need players and players need coaches. Equally. At least.
 
Says responding with sarcasm is a D-bag move, uses sarcasm in the same post... no reason to be so salty


Geez, wrong again. I wasn't being sarcastic when calling you a d-bag.

A sarcastic response would be saying to the mo1e - a guy people hardly tolerate here - something along the lines of "Shouldn't you be out there holding a sign "Save the rapist" mo1e?

btw, my friends in college called me the salty dog. Very endearing. I liked it.
 
Talent trumps coaching - both are important BUT if ND doesn't have Will Fuller we're looking at a 8-4 / 7-5 scenario this season . Talented kids make plays it's that simple . Again you put a kid who runs a 4.7 40 on Will Fuller and I'm beating you three or four times a game for big plays no matter what .
That's why I am crossing my fingers that Kelly comes up with another big time speedster to come in and fill Fuller's void when he leaves . Can't coach speed fellas and if you think you can please consult with Lou Holtz and he will redirect you into my school of thought .
again speed is a great asset but how it is used is much more important. will fuller is a great player who has been developed by the staff at nd. no one expected this level of performance from him when he entered nd. you can have top level ingredients in the kitchen bit you need a quality chef to prepare a high quality meal.
 
Speed - CJ Porcise vs Cam McDaniel
Football IQ J Schmidt - Nyles Morgan - same coach big difference
Vision - CJ Procise - Darean Folston vs Greg Bryant
Efficiency ( Josh Adams - Greg Bryant ) Adams has it Bryant didn't
Mobility Arm Strength - Kizer - Zaire - Golson vs Tommy Rees -- 12 wins 10 wins vs 7-5

Lastly if I have Will Fuller and you have John Goodman - I win every night if coaches on both teams are of equal football IQ

Echo/Weisheimer - Please list specific examples where coaching beat superior talent and for every example you come up with I will give you 20 to every one of yours where talent beats scheme starting with a 43 game winning streak vs Navy
 
Speed - CJ Porcise vs Cam McDaniel
Football IQ J Schmidt - Nyles Morgan - same coach big difference
Vision - CJ Procise - Darean Folston vs Greg Bryant
Efficiency ( Josh Adams - Greg Bryant ) Adams has it Bryant didn't
Mobility Arm Strength - Kizer - Zaire - Golson vs Tommy Rees -- 12 wins 10 wins vs 7-5

Lastly if I have Will Fuller and you have John Goodman - I win every night if coaches on both teams are of equal football IQ

Echo/Weisheimer - Please list specific examples where coaching beat superior talent and for every example you come up with I will give you 20 to every one of yours where talent beats scheme starting with a 43 game winning streak vs Navy
c'mon. it's not that black and white. of course you need talent. it's what you do with that talent that matters. you clearly don't get the process. good coaches will have success with will fuller and john goodman.
 
Talent trumps coaching - both are important BUT if ND doesn't have Will Fuller we're looking at a 8-4 / 7-5 scenario this season . Talented kids make plays it's that simple . Again you put a kid who runs a 4.7 40 on Will Fuller and I'm beating you three or four times a game for big plays no matter what .
That's why I am crossing my fingers that Kelly comes up with another big time speedster to come in and fill Fuller's void when he leaves . Can't coach speed fellas and if you think you can please consult with Lou Holtz and he will redirect you into my school of thought .
Bingo!
 
Speed - CJ Porcise vs Cam McDaniel
Football IQ J Schmidt - Nyles Morgan - same coach big difference
Vision - CJ Procise - Darean Folston vs Greg Bryant
Efficiency ( Josh Adams - Greg Bryant ) Adams has it Bryant didn't
Mobility Arm Strength - Kizer - Zaire - Golson vs Tommy Rees -- 12 wins 10 wins vs 7-5

Lastly if I have Will Fuller and you have John Goodman - I win every night if coaches on both teams are of equal football IQ

Echo/Weisheimer - Please list specific examples where coaching beat superior talent and for every example you come up with I will give you 20 to every one of yours where talent beats scheme starting with a 43 game winning streak vs Navy


Again, equal. At least. If Nick Saban doesn't have the ability to recruit the top level kids, they are just another team playing football. And scheme isn't the only thing that coaches offer - by a long shot. A coach needs to bring them in to their program. Evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. Determine how much they can handle. Play them to their strengths while scheming all these things for the 10 other players on the field.Keep them grounded (as they were kings in high school). Motivate them to work harder than the guy next to them and then other teams. Develop them through 4 years. Overcome injuries. Be their parents in the parent's absence. Run meetings with players. Run meetings with coaches. Study film to create game plans. Meet with kids. Meet with parents. Meet with boosters. Meet with AD's. Meet with press. Get updates on injuries and plan accordingly. Road trips. Recruiting road trips and all that planning and scheduling. Oh yea, and winning each game. If coaches don't do all that at the optimum level, 5* talent loses.
 
We keep arguing on the fringes, while throwing out overly simplistic absolutes. I think the reality is that superior talent trumps inferior talent, and the quality of coaching doesn't change this dramatically. It's also true that given relatively equal talent, great coaching trumps good coaching. As noted previously by myself and others, coaching entails a hell of a lot more than scheme, and great coaches develop players and programs and programs attract talent, etc...
 
We keep arguing on the fringes, while throwing out overly simplistic absolutes. I think the reality is that superior talent trumps inferior talent, and the quality of coaching doesn't change this dramatically. It's also true that given relatively equal talent, great coaching trumps good coaching. As noted previously by myself and others, coaching entails a hell of a lot more than scheme, and great coaches develop players and programs and programs attract talent, etc...

Agreed -- you effectively made this clear
 
We keep arguing on the fringes, while throwing out overly simplistic absolutes. I think the reality is that superior talent trumps inferior talent, and the quality of coaching doesn't change this dramatically. It's also true that given relatively equal talent, great coaching trumps good coaching. As noted previously by myself and others, coaching entails a hell of a lot more than scheme, and great coaches develop players and programs and programs attract talent, etc...

Pretty safe input, sorta fringey as it relates to the topic KellysHeros and I are debating. So I'll ask you: What would your percentages be as they relate to importance to the team's success given talent and coaching?
 
Weis didn't get talent in all areas, though. He got good skill position talent but we lacked depth and speed in a lot of the other areas.
 
Echo...of course there are plenty of underachieving talented teams, just as there are plenty of overachieving less talented teams. This is part of the appeal of sports. Still, the most talented teams win the vast majority of the time. Kelly's guesstimate of 80% is as good as any. My point is you cannot boil this down to a talent versus scheme proposition because the better coaches bring a whole lot more to the table than scheme; and they succeed because they systematically improve the program at every level, and this in turn breeds winning and attracts the better talent, which Results in winning the vast majority of their games. If you think that is BS, then we'll just agree to disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: greengael
Echo...of course there are plenty of underachieving talented teams, just as there are plenty of overachieving less talented teams. This is part of the appeal of sports. Still, the most talented teams win the vast majority of the time. Kelly's guesstimate of 80% is as good as any. My point is you cannot boil this down to a talent versus scheme proposition because the better coaches bring a whole lot more to the table than scheme; and they succeed because they systematically improve the program at every level, and this in turn breeds winning and attracts the better talent, which Results in winning the vast majority of their games. If you think that is BS, then we'll just agree to disagree.
i don't think it's BS. that guy seems to think that coaching is basically irrelevant. cultivating talent is the single biggest thing in my opinion. talent needs teaching, refining and guidance. ingredients don't come together on their own. as a coach maybe i'm oversensitive to the discussion. give me great coaching with average talent over great talent with average coaching any day. combine the two and you have something special. that's just me.
 
Fair enough, and I agree with the proposition as you stated it. Now, substitute great coaching with average talent against good coaching with elite talent, and I come to a different conclusion. As someone who played for both good coaches and lousy coaches, I fully appreciate the value and positive impact of the former, both in terms of impact on the team and winning, but also in terms of lifelong impact on the individual outside of sports. Good coaches are a blessing.
 
Tex -

Same level coaches

if all else is even if team A has Will Fuller and Team B has John Goodman Team A wins 80% of the time
 
Fair enough, and I agree with the proposition as you stated it. Now, substitute great coaching with average talent against good coaching with elite talent, and I come to a different conclusion. As someone who played for both good coaches and lousy coaches, I fully appreciate the value and positive impact of the former, both in terms of impact on the team and winning, but also in terms of lifelong impact on the individual outside of sports. Good coaches are a blessing.

Completely agree with you. I assume people are arguing about coaching vs talent in college football but nobody really states if they are discussing winning games or winning championships. The list I posted above clearly shows that coaches aren't winning national titles with mediocre talent and that can't be disputed. At the same time I do think top coaches in college can win a lot of games, get close to a title, with recruiting classes in the 10-30 range... especially if they have a solid quarterback leading the team. I always point out to Oregon and TCU as examples over the past 4 years, neither had top 10 classes but each had quality coaches and a solid QB leading the team.

I guess it comes down to what we all expect? For ND the thought for so many years was always winning championships and since we have no conference there is only 1 title available. Unfortunately we aren't in the 30's-70's when we were clearly one of the most dominating programs in football and it is hard to accept the fact the talent levels aren't the same.

That being said we finally have some stability and have a couple kids at QB that look very special, not to mention some studs on the offensive line and RB. Actually one of the things that always got me bitter about people blaming Kelly for losing was the fact he has never had a great QB since he has been coach! Anyway to win a title we still need a solid all around team and that was entire point with this post. We need those top players, especially on defense, and when I wrote this we hadn't gotten Hayes so we were ranked at like 18 overall. I really hope we can get one more big time LB, WR (considering Fuller will probably leave now), and DE but not many players left on the "elite" list. I think Kelly is definitely one and it would be huge to have him and Hayes playing together next season. I am still not as sold on this new recruit Studstill because of his lack of speed but as someone made a good point before, we have to wait and see so let's hope he fills the hype.
 
Tex -

Same level coaches

if all else is even if team A has Will Fuller and Team B has John Goodman Team A wins 80% of the time
so if all else is even one position is the deciding factor ? stupid analogy. who catches the ball better fuller or goodman ? we can play this silly game all day long. if you can't appreciate quality coaching and its impact on a team so be it.
 
so if all else is even one position is the deciding factor ? stupid analogy. who catches the ball better fuller or goodman ? we can play this silly game all day long. if you can't appreciate quality coaching and its impact on a team so be it.
Not to mention under different coaches who is to say that Fuller ever develops into the WR he is today. Who knows how good of a QB Tebow would have been (in college) if he had gone to ND or Texas? A big part of why most players are as good as they are is because of the coaching they receive, or lack of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: echowaker
Brian Kelly was quoted yesterday that he will not out coach Meyer and Meyer will not out coach him - it will come down to the players

The jury rests --let's stop the nonsense ok fella's it's about getting better talent than the other guy --thats why 80 % of the discussion on this board lately is about recruiting not zone read schemes .

Let's try to keep it real Java and Echo
 
Brian Kelly was quoted yesterday that he will not out coach Meyer and Meyer will not out coach him - it will come down to the players

The jury rests --let's stop the nonsense ok fella's it's about getting better talent than the other guy --thats why 80 % of the discussion on this board lately is about recruiting not zone read schemes .

Let's try to keep it real Java and Echo
real ? look in the mirror.
 
Brian Kelly was quoted yesterday that he will not out coach Meyer and Meyer will not out coach him - it will come down to the players

The jury rests --let's stop the nonsense ok fella's it's about getting better talent than the other guy --thats why 80 % of the discussion on this board lately is about recruiting not zone read schemes .

Let's try to keep it real Java and Echo
so i guess the coaches can take the game off.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT