My buddy is a long-time coach in very successful football-dominated school. In the many years of coaching, he describes what he refers to as “good” teams with decent athletes, vs. “great” teams with more “elite” athletes. In many of their more successful seasons, the “good” teams seemed to be the ones that always took home the hardware. I asked him what he attributes their success to, assuming the competition remained the same.
He has always maintained that he would take a well-coached, disciplined team with “good” talent over one with with several superstars and poor coaching. Although he said that he has observed “elite” players make game-winning plays, and “take over a game”, it wouldn’t change his preference. “Simple fundamentals (tackling, blocking, etc.), schemes and game planning puts your players in a better position to win” and “superior talent can’t overcome poor coaching in most cases.”
You coaches out there agree with him?
He has always maintained that he would take a well-coached, disciplined team with “good” talent over one with with several superstars and poor coaching. Although he said that he has observed “elite” players make game-winning plays, and “take over a game”, it wouldn’t change his preference. “Simple fundamentals (tackling, blocking, etc.), schemes and game planning puts your players in a better position to win” and “superior talent can’t overcome poor coaching in most cases.”
You coaches out there agree with him?
