Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
I would say that in HS and maybe ever college sports, you would be absolutely correct. Remember, my point was that those who reach the pinnical of the game (the NFL) are near their optimal level of mental acuity and composure with respect to the game of football.
This is obviously not true with college and high school athletes. Thus there is so much more effect a coach can have on his talent. I mean, in High School, I think its common place that a team is just not prepared for a game. In the NFL, I would say that I've maybe seen it twice in the last five years (usually in Week 1).
High school and college players may not trust their system or always work their hardest and still be successful, but these players by and large will be weeded out before they reach the NFL level. And thats why in the NFL, a coach's legacy is pretty much tied to the guys he has, not the other way around.
Norv Turner has never really had a team with all that much talent before. His two best teams were most likely the 99 Redskins, and the 04 Raiders. Neither was really all that much better than average. This year in San Diego, he has by far the most talented team hes ever had. I don't think theres any reason to expect that he won't win 11 games. It's not like his team won't be ready just because hes Norv Turner.
|
I think we'll have to agree to disagree regarding leadership then, because pros are no more "mentally" acute then most of the guys on any college team I can guarantee you that. Futhermore, I don't know what you do for a living, but a good leader will always get more out of his guys over the long run than a bad one, no matter how talented and self-motivated his/her people are.
I do agree in your other post that good coaching is reflected in ensuring the best people are on the field in any given situation. That is part of adapting your coaching to the skills of your personell, something great coaches have always done well.