What's more important, Talent or Coaching?

[Ricky Spanish]

I read somewhere (can't remember where don't ask me to cite it) that good coaching can really only add 2-3 wins per season. The vast majority of the wins were said to come from talent on the roster. That's not to say you wouldn't prefer to have a good coach over a bad one, but they can only do so much.

As of right now, we seem to be devoid of both talent, and good coaching, so I have a few questions:

• In your opinion, what is the ratio of Coaching to Talent in terms of a team's overall record?
• Which is worse on our team, the coaching or the talent (or both equally suck)?
• Based on your previous response, who is at fault the most between the coaching staff and the FO?

 

[Jackie Lee]

I believe Reich put 90% on the players and 10% on the coaching when asked before the season

[SmokinwithWilly]

With a few exceptions of superstar players, it takes coaching to bring college level players to the NFL game. 

[ForJimmy]

Wilks vs Rhule was a huge difference with the exact same roster and no offseason to install Wilks’ defense or offense. Coaching matters most IMO as long as it’s not an extreme difference in talent. Let Andy Reid coach our Cam, Luke team and we would have been in the playoffs every year.

[Ricky Spanish]

2 minutes ago, Jackie Lee said:

I believe Reich put 90% on the players and 10% on the coaching when asked before the season

I forgot about that.

I think the question becomes, do you believe him?

If so, how much blame are we willing to put at the feet of Scott Fitterrer?

[Dorian Gray]

I actually think coaching is becoming MORE important in the league. Because of all the offensive innovations recently, you're seeing coaches taking the same talent and doing so much more with them. 

[Pantherxtreme]

6 minutes ago, Ricky Spanish said:

I read somewhere (can't remember where don't ask me to cite it) that good coaching can really only add 2-3 wins per season. The vast majority of the wins were said to come from talent on the roster. That's not to say you wouldn't prefer to have a good coach over a bad one, but they can only do so much.

As of right now, we seem to be devoid of both talent, and good coaching, so I have a few questions:

• In your opinion, what is the ratio of Coaching to Talent in terms of a team's overall record?
• Which is worse on our team, the coaching or the talent (or both equally suck)?
• Based on your previous response, who is at fault the most between the coaching staff and the FO?

 

The margin of talent in the NFL is so small that coaching matters even more. 

Every team has weaknesses and strengths, good coaching knows how to exploit the other teams flaws while limiting their own. 

 

 

[Cdparr7]

I don’t know, I’ve seen some talented rosters with some horrible seasons and vice versa.

I look at it more like good coaching gets you X amount of points per game. Like you can have  a 14 point roster and 20 point roster, but good coaching can get you that extra 7 points to push you over. Then again you can have a 7 point roster playing a 28 point roster and no matter how good your coaching is you can’t make the difference.

[CamWhoaaCam]

Talent is more important.

 

You're not winning a championship without talented players. We have seen some of the best coaches in history just become another coach the moment they lose a superstar.

 

BB was the GOAT HC when he had Brady. Without Brady nobody has thought of the Pats as a contender.

 

Greg Popovich was one of the best HC in NBA history when he had Tim Duncan. He's now been coaching a team that has been in the lottery for multiple years now.

 

Players make coaches, always have always will.

[Byrdman4real]

Coaching is more important 

[tukafan21]

At this level, you can't win without both, but talent is more important than coaching.

The best coaching at this level just can't win if they don't have the talent.  But the best talent can absolutely carry bad coaches to success and can even take them on deep playoff runs.

But in the end, you still need elite coaching to win a SB unless you happen to strike gold with the right talent, like we almost did in 2015.

Talent is more important as the base of a team

Coaching is more important to consistently win and contend at the highest of levels, but it can't do so without that base first.

Edited October 3, 2023 by tukafan21

[Wundrbread33]

1 hour ago, Ricky Spanish said:

I read somewhere (can't remember where don't ask me to cite it) that good coaching can really only add 2-3 wins per season. The vast majority of the wins were said to come from talent on the roster. That's not to say you wouldn't prefer to have a good coach over a bad one, but they can only do so much.

As of right now, we seem to be devoid of both talent, and good coaching, so I have a few questions:

• In your opinion, what is the ratio of Coaching to Talent in terms of a team's overall record?
• Which is worse on our team, the coaching or the talent (or both equally suck)?
• Based on your previous response, who is at fault the most between the coaching staff and the FO?

 

I think taking something intangible like “good coaching” and trying to quantify it with “2-3 more wins” is trying to make a complete crapshoot guess sound intelligent. 
 

No matter how much sense we try to make of the world, some things aren’t explainable numerically. 
 

A great team is a combination of coaches putting players in situations that take advantage of their strengths, the players having strengths that can be put in position for an advantage, leadership at the player level that holds everyone accountable, and full buy-in by those players. Leadership and buy-in build a circular momentum, with everyone feeding off each other momentum, and that leads to chemistry, and success.

 

Special teams are a perfect storm of these things.

 

2015 was that. 

 

2023 lacks all of that by the looks of it, but one of those things being off can have a cascade affect on all the others. 
 

That why you see a coaching change turn a team around. Or one star player lifting his peers (Luke).

 

Without being in the building, it’s hard to tell if it’s all the above that is wrong, or just one or two things (coaching/o-line maybe?).

[LinvilleGorge]

I watched some elite talents drag Ron to 15-1. We saw Brady win a SB in TB while NE has had a significant falloff with Brady. Elite coaching can only do so much with inferior talent. You need both to establish consistent success but if I had to pick one or the other I'm taking talent.

[Eric4280]

Probably a mix of both. We don’t have enough dawgs on the team/ coaching doesn’t adjust or get creative. No one would thrive in this hogwash. Baker looks legit with an aging Bucs roster. I’d be willing to bet the house that Darnold would kill it in SF. We aren’t doing much correctly.