Ted Gains National Support

[3irty1]

I like TT and appreciate the talent he has collected but I think Coaching is still more important. I'd even go so far as to say hes the most important part of a team. There is no substitute for great schemes and great preparation. Would you rather have tons of talent and an idiot coach like the Chargers have?

[swede]

Talent or coaching, coaching or talent?

It's like asking whether the front wheel or the back wheel is more important to a bike in the Tour d'France.

I'll make talent the back wheel since you could probably finish the last hundred yards doing a wheelie if the front tire blew.

[billy_oliver880]

Think coaching is unimportant? Ya just ask the chargers.

[Green Bud Packer]

Give credit where credit is due and this year there is plenty to go around. Next week Howie will be giving all the credit to Mac, then against Dallas Bradshaw will be putting all the success on Favre.

Johnson even says Mac is doing a fine job. The media is fleeting cuz thats the way most viewers want it.

Leave it to the Rasta Rat to be the voice of reason.

[The Leaper]

I think coaching is more than talent at most positions in the NFL. If you have great coaching, it can cover a lot of sins. Of course, having a stud like Favre can also cover a lot of sins.

The key with Thompson is that he recognizes the VALUE of young talent. Continually replenishing the roster with 8-10 young hungry guys every year will make for a healthy team...but you do also need a coaching staff capable of motivating and bringing the roster together as a unit.

[VegasPackFan]

There is much to be said for bringing in lots of young bodies each year vs signing high - priced FA's or hanging on to vets like some kind of security blanket after they have had their best years.

The young guys push the existing starters to raise their level of play to keep their jobs. Some vets stand up and actually become leaders. The young, "college attitude" guys fit in GB like a glove. They buy into the M3 system.

It has certainly worked for TT and the Green Bay Packers.

[Scott Campbell]

Talent or coaching, coaching or talent?

I'll take both please.

[Scott Campbell]

Some of the criticisms were valid, but TT seemed to generate an extraordinary amount of anger due perhaps to his tight-lipped demeanor. So it's nice to see him get some credit.

Maybe some of the fan reaction to him was due to his personality, or seeming lack thereof. But I think the majority of the resentment had to do with people not agreeing with his approach. Many wanted him to spend that cap money, sign big names, and solve all our problems overnight in the American traditon of instant gratification. And I have no problem with that. But I think characterizations of him not having ANY plan, him being cheap, him being decietful and unethical, him being stupid and him trying to force Brett to retire were simply untrue, unfair and unfortunate. People were lashing out simply because they didn't understand, or didn't agree with his methods. I think much of that critisism went way overboard when people began projecting character defects onto the guy just because they disagreed with his chosen methodology.

But that's just my opinion.

[RashanGary]

I'm a firm believer that it is talent.

Sherman looked good when he had talent. He looked like a bozo when he had none.

Shannahan won SB's with Elway and now struggles with average or young QB's.

Holmgren was the best coach in the league when he had the best talent. He was a good coach when he had good talent and now he's an average coach when he has average talent. Funny how that works.

Bellecheat was a disaster in Cleveland. Give him Tom Brady and 6 or 7 other HOFers and he's a genius.

Martz was teh mastermind of the greatest show on turf when he had Faulk, Bruce and Holt all in their prime. When the exited their prime, his genius wore off. NOw he's in Detroit and while they are doing well, they might not have a very good QB and their WR's might be big and fast, but they are not the HOF players that Bruce and Holt are. It's not the greatest show on Turf. That is in NE where the HOFers reside.



Talent reigns supreme in the NFL (and any other sport for that matter). If the coach was the most important piece, he'd be hiring teh GM and not the other way around.

Talent isn't being 6'2", 215 lbs and running a 4.4 like Ferguson
Talent is having a knack for catching the fucking football and punking DB's like JOnes.

The Packers have talent. McCarthy looks like a genious, but he could easily look like a moron if we took Jennings, Jones and Robinson away. How would he look if Fergy was running bad routes, dropping balls. How smart would he look if he didn't have one of the games greatest QB's throwing the ball 50 yds down the feild, hitting one of the games most natural deep route runners? He would'nt look like a genius at all. He would look like a hot air blowing fat head.

I'm a huge believer in talent. The GB Phoenix coach was on the fan saying the same thing as Jimmy Johnson. They said "how great is MM" and he responded by saying "I'm a coach and I hope my boss isn't listening, but it's all about talent. Ted Thompson is doing a great job, they are both doing a great job". He went out of his way to credit the GM when asked about the coach. He wasn't lead into it at all. The person asking the question seemed to think MM was a genious and was the reason for teh winning. The professional coach corrected him. It's a common theme if you listen to current and former coaches and it makes sense if you just use your noggan to piece together (easy to spot) patterns.

I thought TT was blowing sunshine up our rumps when he started talking about Packer people, pretty girls with curls and real tough guys that know how to play and love contact. I was wrong. The guy loves old sschool football players and take a look around the NFL; good teams have always sort of been that way.

[Scott Campbell]

I still think it takes both coaching and talent.

KGB looks much improved this year. Think its his talent?

The best coaches know how to play to their teams strengths, and minimize their weaknesses. They teach and develop. And they gameplan to take away other teams strengths.

Everything has to be clicking to get to 9-1.

[RashanGary]

I think coaching is 20%. Players are 80%.


KGB always got about 10 sacks per year. He also got run over and wore down becaue they didn't have Jenkins playing well untill last year.

Surely a case can be made for coaching, but I think the much stronger case is made for talent and the guys who did it for a living echo that sentiment consistantly.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think coaching is 20% inspiration, playing is 80% perspiration.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I still think it takes both coaching and talent.

KGB looks much improved this year. Think its his talent?

The best coaches know how to play to their teams strengths, and minimize their weaknesses. They teach and develop. And they gameplan to take away other teams strengths.

Everything has to be clicking to get to 9-1.

I don't think you'd classify this example as coaching. They simple finally found a guy to replace him on early downs, so they could use him in the role that fits him best. If Mike Montgomery was the backup to KGB, he'd be probably still be in the same role as he has been the last few years.

[Scott Campbell]

Well, Switzer won a Superbowl. So you guys may be right.

[RashanGary]

Who would you rather have?

Bellechek or Brady/moss
Shannahan or Elway/Davis
Holmgren or Reggie/brett
Manning/Harrison/Freeney or Dungy
Ray Lewis or Billick
Sapp/Brooks or Gruden

I'll bet you can plug 10 current coaches into any of the SB winning situations and they'll have similar success. I'll bet you can't plug 10 other players into Brady, Moss, Elway, Reggie, Manning or Lewis's spots and have similar results. Playmakers are not replacable. Coaches are. GM's gather playmakers, coaches are lucky enough to coach them.