Ted Gains National Support

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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

Damn...just posted that, then I read yours.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Have any of you ever seen a team that had mediocre talent, but a great coaching staff? How did they do?

Have you ever seen a team with great talent, but average or below average coaching? The first one that comes to mind is San Diego this year. I think part of that one comes from the front office decision to shake things up after a 14-2 finish last year. Sure, it can take players time to adjust to a new coach/system, but then look at Dallas. Those players went through the same kind of change, except they went from a more stern, task-master type coach to Wade Phillips.

I think you can over-achieve with less experienced, less developed talent, as long you have enough talent/coaching (Green Bay 2007).

Even with a good coaching staff and system, you gotta have talent, especially if you are going to go 9-1. Front Office, Coaching Staff and Players cannot luck into a 9-1 record. There has to be a lot of buy-in and good talent evaluation.

Front Office and Coaching/Players in harmony is like:

While I would like to understand your point, using SD undermines it.

SD is not a hugely talented team. Marty got them to overachieve.

QB: Rivers is not a hugely talented QB. Average arm strength.
RB: Very talented
TE: Very Talented
WR: Way below average...maybe average with chambers.
Line: Ok

Defense...the DBs on that squad are very very average. Linebackers aren't great either.

So, actually i'm making your point. Marty got them to get as much out as he could. But, the reason they couldn't go far was TALENT. And, that remains today as it was last year.

[b bulldog]

Sherman was a very good coach when it came to preparation ect but his in game coaching skills are below average.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Have any of you ever seen a team that had mediocre talent, but a great coaching staff? How did they do?

Have you ever seen a team with great talent, but average or below average coaching? The first one that comes to mind is San Diego this year. I think part of that one comes from the front office decision to shake things up after a 14-2 finish last year. Sure, it can take players time to adjust to a new coach/system, but then look at Dallas. Those players went through the same kind of change, except they went from a more stern, task-master type coach to Wade Phillips.

I think you can over-achieve with less experienced, less developed talent, as long you have enough talent/coaching (Green Bay 2007).

Even with a good coaching staff and system, you gotta have talent, especially if you are going to go 9-1. Front Office, Coaching Staff and Players cannot luck into a 9-1 record. There has to be a lot of buy-in and good talent evaluation.

Front Office and Coaching/Players in harmony is like:

Wow, you said it.

Agreed, talent is needed but coaching too. Teams like the Glanville Houston Oilers comes to mind. Super talented team but an ass coach. Glanville saw no talent in Favre either. A very important Part of the coaches job is to spot the talent and develop it. COACHING. You gotta utilize the talent and mold it. Talent with the right mentality is the coaches job to add and to a much lesser extend the player himself. There are exceptions though.

Many doubted Favre even in his first few years. Gannon was a nobody untill McCarthy gave him tools to develop into a MVP player. I think the list goes on...

Let's not invent history. Glanville didn't like Favre, but never said he didn't have talent. Glanville didn't want Herock to draft Favre.

According to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution story, Glanville had four rules: 1) Be on time. 2) Prepare all week to play. 3) Spill your guts on the field. 4) Only accept victory.

"If he'd have got to 3 and 4, he'd have been fine," Glanville once told the paper. "But you had to get past 1 and 2."

Favre's behavior was immature and unprofessional. He stayed out late, he showed up late and fell asleep in meetings. As he once said, "I'm sure I didn't help my cause by trying to drink up Atlanta."

To this day, Herock doesn't know why Favre acted the way he did.

"He had a big ego," Herock said. "His comments to me in the locker room were, 'They need to play me. I'm better than those guys.' We had a Pro Bowl quarterback (Chris Miller) and I could see why he was still sitting, but he felt he was better than them. Why he was doing what he was doing, I have no idea. I think if you ask him he probably couldn't answer it either."


Oilers: Sorry, but to use them as example isn't right either. They used a gimmick offense and one that put a lot of pressure on the defense. You may remember them as being good, but their defense was never even in the top 10 in points allowed.

Spotting talent: Maybe in college, but not in the pros. THat is the GMs job. Why do you think coaches want that title. Those that don't have it have little or no say in the players being brought in.

Coaching: In the pros it is very little about developing talent. It is about using it the right way and schemes. Sorry, but you are flat out wrong. Case in point is Weiss at ND. His problems come from the fact that he is a poor talent evaluator and doesn't coach up his players. Why is this? Because it wasn't his job in the pros.

Favre: Doubted. Hardly. He was a second round choice. What they doubted was his dedication. Drinking and not paying attention in meetings.

Gannon: Do you make this up? McCarthy? Tools? LOL. You really think a coach gave him something at age 35? I've got some prime swampland for you.

Gannon was a long time pro. And, he was a marginally talented player. Gruden's SYSTEM took advantage of his skills and experience.

Stop using your memory and use FACTS.

99..Gannon threw a ton of balls to a HOF named Brown, to his fullback Ritchie and his TE Dudley. Second best WR was 39 catches from jett. 59 percent passing. Wahoo.

00- stunning 60 percent completion. Another year of pitch and catch to Brown and dump offs to the rb.

01-65 percent. Pitch and catch to Jerry Rice, Tim Brown and Charlie Garner.

02-67 percent. Garner leading receiver. Brown, Rice, and Porter.

What made him successful has a short passing game and they utilized his running/scrambling ability. AND NOT MAKING MISTAKES.

Same thing he is doing now with Jeff Garcia..and anyone who knows football knows Garcia has very little talent. He is a manager, not a game changer.