Talent v … other stuff–your views?

Agamemnon wrote:

<span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: blue”>I am a talent guy. I think we have playoff talent. I think that counts more than any other element.</span>

<span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: blue”>Top 10 Defense, top 10 Special Teams, middle of the pack Offense(in the second half of the season).</span>

<span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: blue”>I can’t decide yet if I think Fisher and Co. is a B- or a C+. Either way I don’t see coaching as better or worse than the rest of the league, so I just figure they cancel out in the area of helping us win or lose more games.</span>

======================

Ditto. Thats how I assess it too.

Could be wrong of course. I mean, I am
not ‘sure’ I am seeing things correctly.
Maybe I’m over estimating the talent — but, ya know,
I see it the way i see it.

I get RFL’s view, btw. He may
be right. Lets hope not 🙂

w
v

w
v

rfl wrote:

Agamemnon wrote:

I am a talent guy.

Can you expand on that?

Apart from the Rams this year, I am interested in what seems to be a view that sees talent level as being the most important determining factor. I’d appreciate a general argument for that perspective.

Ok. Talent can equal many things.

Most generally, someone who can make a play, especially a game changing play. In the game of football, a player that can score a TD or get a TO.

A player can be physically and athletically superior.

A player can be mentally superior, this is most associated with QBs. imo

Another thing, which is more of an acquired talent, is how long can you play well. At the highest levels, what separates good players from better players is simply, how long can you play well. How many good plays can you do in a row or how many plays can you go without making a mistake.

That is about all I feel like writing rfl. I don’t make long posts. 😉

I guess I should say something about coaching. Good coaching can be a positive 20%. Talent is 80%. Those are my numbers. But a good foreman can increase production about 20 %. I read that somewhere and it makes sense to me.

Coaching can speed up learning, but it can’t make someone smarter.

And the old sort of truism, Good players make coaches smarter.

Thought experiment. How many different coaches could be the Rams DC and the Rams defense still be expected to be a top 10 defense?

• This reply was modified 9 years, 1 month ago by Agamemnon.

Agamemnon wrote:

And the old sort of truism, Good players make coaches smarter.

Thought experiment. How many different coaches could be the Rams DC and the Rams defense still be expected to be a top 10 defense?

Obviously, coaching, talent, and health
are the three big things, and they are all related,
but…i never thought Mike Ditka was a genius — and he won it all
with the talent the Bears had. And there was the coach
in Dallas who won a Ring (i forget his name. The one after JJ) — But he
never struck me as a good coach.

And then there’s the DV example — We all wanted DV’s head to roll,
until he got himself a RB named Faulk and a QB named Warner.

The real question is Do the Rams have enough talent
on OFFENSE and is Fisher a good enough coach to
develop all his talent and put it all together.

I ‘think’ there is enough talent on offense.
I just think its going through growing pains.
But I expect them to get better and better
every week or so.

And i certainly think Fisher is good enough
to win Ten games. I dunno about a ring,
but a wildcard berth? Sure.

w
v