Drafting vs. Coaching

[sharpe1027]

Does anyone remember the success the Packers had at turning out quality QBs under the Walrus? Ron Wolf usually gets the credit for drafting all those QBs, but how much of an NFL player's success is predicated on his coaches in the NFL?

I find it interesting that perennially bad teams have bust after bust even from relatively high picks, while the good teams churn out quality from all rounds. Certainly the GMs have there part in this, but if the same GMs were swapped in pick position, I think that the draft selections wouldn't be all that different. There is usually a general agreement on who the best prospects are, and while there are a few surprises on draft day, the general draft boards are usually pretty good at laying about where each player will go. Even so, the results seemed skewed towards the successful teams. That leads me to think that the success of a young NFL player is as more about coaching than most people realize.

Do you agree or disagree?

[Packnut]

I believe coaching influence varies from position to position. QB is the most coach-able position due to it's steep learning curve. WR would be next with all the nuances of route running, depth and reading defenses.

RB is more of an instinct and athleticism. Line play is'nt that difficult as there are only so many technique's one can teach.

On defense you have to read and react so coaching is in-valuable. The quicker you read, the faster you react and use your God given ability. If you look at the best D's in the league, you will find good coaches from the coordinator on down the line.

[cpk1994]

Does anyone remember the success the Packers had at turning out quality QBs under the Walrus? Ron Wolf usually gets the credit for drafting all those QBs, but how much of an NFL player's success is predicated on his coaches in the NFL?

I find it interesting that perennially bad teams have bust after bust even from relatively high picks, while the good teams churn out quality from all rounds. Certainly the GMs have there part in this, but if the same GMs were swapped in pick position, I think that the draft selections wouldn't be all that different. There is usually a general agreement on who the best prospects are, and while there are a few surprises on draft day, the general draft boards are usually pretty good at laying about where each player will go. Even so, the results seemed skewed towards the successful teams. That leads me to think that the success of a young NFL player is as more about coaching than most people realize.

Do you agree or disagree?I agree. ANd McCarthy is off to a good start in developing QB's. He deserves a medal of honor for getting one good year out of Aaron Brooks. :D

[sharpe1027]

I believe coaching influence varies from position to position. QB is the most coach-able position due to it's steep learning curve. WR would be next with all the nuances of route running, depth and reading defenses.

RB is more of an instinct and athleticism. Line play is'nt that difficult as there are only so many technique's one can teach.

On defense you have to read and react so coaching is in-valuable. The quicker you read, the faster you react and use your God given ability. If you look at the best D's in the league, you will find good coaches from the coordinator on down the line.

Good point. I think DL might be considered similar to RB in that regard.

[Fritz]

I don't know about coachability, but I do think most safeties take 3-4 years to develop in the NFL.

[Packnut]

I believe coaching influence varies from position to position. QB is the most coach-able position due to it's steep learning curve. WR would be next with all the nuances of route running, depth and reading defenses.

RB is more of an instinct and athleticism. Line play is'nt that difficult as there are only so many technique's one can teach.

On defense you have to read and react so coaching is in-valuable. The quicker you read, the faster you react and use your God given ability. If you look at the best D's in the league, you will find good coaches from the coordinator on down the line.

Good point. I think DL might be considered similar to RB in that regard.

Yeah, there are only so many moves a D lineman can have. They need the physical attributes more than the brain power. I guess it is possible that coaching can help motivate those guys but you would think at the pro level they would be self motivated.

[Packnut]

I don't know about coachability, but I do think most safeties take 3-4 years to develop in the NFL.

Never thought about it before but now that I think about it, you make a good point. I really can't remember any saftey setting the world on fire early in his career, although I'm sure there are a couple, but they would be the exception.

[cheesner]

Does anyone remember the success the Packers had at turning out quality QBs under the Walrus? Ron Wolf usually gets the credit for drafting all those QBs, but how much of an NFL player's success is predicated on his coaches in the NFL?

But how many QBs has Holmgrem turned out since his GB days? None. He had to trade for one. They are both important, although I agree with you, coaching is more important in developing talent than finding the talent to begin with. Just look at the Dolphins 2 years ago to last year. You can't tell me that they went from the worst team in the NFL to boarderline playoff team because of a few players that parcells brought in. The coaching change made the bigger difference.

[Guiness]

SO many variables in a discussion like this. Coaching and drafting were brought in, but what about team atmosphere, winning tradition? And who is in front of them in the depth chart?

Favre just might've been as responsible as anyone else for the QB churned out of Green Bay over the past decade.

At QB especially, seeing how a pro does it, and being able to come along slowly make a big difference. Put me firmly in the camp who believes in sitting a QB for a year or so, and letting him take snaps with the second unit. Sure, there are guys who can step in day 1 - Matt Ryan last year, Ben R. a couple of years ago, P. Manning a decade ago. But I don't think the pundits got it all wrong when they ranked Smith ahead of Rodgers 3 years ago - but the different paths they took made all the difference in the world.

[cheesner]

SO many variables in a discussion like this. Coaching and drafting were brought in, but what about team atmosphere, winning tradition? And who is in front of them in the depth chart?

So true. But really you can boil them down to coaching or drafting but usually its both.

As for Atmosphere:

Coaching. Sets the tone of practices. Motivates every day. Lead by example.

Drafting: Getting guys who are team players and are likely to get along. Players who are leaders and will help motivate, help set the tone, etc.

It takes both to have success, IMHO.

[sharpe1027]

SO many variables in a discussion like this. Coaching and drafting were brought in, but what about team atmosphere, winning tradition? And who is in front of them in the depth chart?

So true. But really you can boil them down to coaching or drafting but usually its both.

As for Atmosphere:

Coaching. Sets the tone of practices. Motivates every day. Lead by example.

Drafting: Getting guys who are team players and are likely to get along. Players who are leaders and will help motivate, help set the tone, etc.

It takes both to have success, IMHO.

No doubt it does takes both. Which is why I find it interesting that pretty much all of our discussions on this forum assume that the player's output is directly a result of a GM's drafting ability. It seems to me that the coaches might be even more important than the GM.

Let's just say that I hope Capers can prove me right. :D

[cheesner]

SO many variables in a discussion like this. Coaching and drafting were brought in, but what about team atmosphere, winning tradition? And who is in front of them in the depth chart?

So true. But really you can boil them down to coaching or drafting but usually its both.

As for Atmosphere:

Coaching. Sets the tone of practices. Motivates every day. Lead by example.

Drafting: Getting guys who are team players and are likely to get along. Players who are leaders and will help motivate, help set the tone, etc.

It takes both to have success, IMHO.

No doubt it does takes both. Which is why I find it interesting that pretty much all of our discussions on this forum assume that the player's output is directly a result of a GM's drafting ability. It seems to me that the coaches might be even more important than the GM.

Let's just say that I hope Capers can prove me right. :D

I am with you on Capers. He has a good track record so my hopes are high.

As far as what TT is responsible for, he not only selects the players, but he has selected the coaching staff also. Therefore, he is ultimately responsible in either case.

[sharpe1027]

I am with you on Capers. He has a good track record so my hopes are high.

As far as what TT is responsible for, he not only selects the players, but he has selected the coaching staff also. Therefore, he is ultimately responsible in either case.

I agree completely and never meant to suggest that TT was not responsible for any of it. I thinking more along the lines of that talent evaluation of players could be made to look terrible with inept coaching and vice-versa. Ultimate responsibility for the team does not change. :)

[Pugger]

I too think it helps young QBs if they can sit and learn for a couple of years before they are put into the line of fire. Guys like Big Ben and Petyon Manning are exceptions to the rule. How many decent college QBs get drafted high by crappy teams and thrust into the starting lineup expected to save the franchise while their heads are swimming and they get hammered into the turf? :doh: