Good Coaching or Good Players? You Decide...

Good coaching can improve marginal and average players. Bad players cocahing will not save. Thus I think good coaching could help Chilo, but I believe Baas and Synder are hopeless.

Why are premier OTs drafted high in the first round? It must be that there is only so much frame, quickess and athleticism that can be created by good coaching. Genetics creates a ceiling.

No doubt, a good coach can help a player with his techniques and skills, but it is hard to create quicker feet - to wit, Baas and Snyder.

I assume that Nolan brought his Ravens vision here to SF. He told McC he wanted BIG linemen. Following his marching orders, McC targeted Baas and Snyder. Although big, they are not quick-footed. Quick defensivelinemen blow around or by them. Snyder just doesn't seem well-suited to be a RT.

While I am thrilled with the Solari hire, signing a FA and drafting a couple of premier OL seems essential. I suspect Solari cannot make a silk purse out out of a sow's ear.

The debate is not over good players. It's over great ones.

Originally posted by GEEK:
It's 50-50.

The player needs to have the natural ability, dedication for improvement, and mental capability to handle complex playbooks at the NFL level.

At the same time, a coach needs to also have the mental capability to learn and teach specific schemes at a high level, and have the ability to connect with his players and establish the coach-player relationship.

Failure in any of these categories may and will lead to a decline in overall performance.

You are right

Originally posted by VA49er:
The debate is not over good players. It's over great ones.

Good coaching can put average players in position to be good and good players in position to be great. Coaching can't make average players great but it can make good players great.

Some players are born great and have that natural desire to be the bets, like Peyton. I think he would have been just as good as of a player regardless of where he was drafted. I don't feel the same way about Brady. If he was drafted by the Browns or the Raiders I don't think he'd have become a HOF.

Originally posted by excelsior:
Why are premier OTs drafted high in the first round? It must be that there is only so much frame, quickess and athleticism that can be created by good coaching. Genetics creates a ceiling.

No doubt, a good coach can help a player with his techniques and skills, but it is hard to create quicker feet - to wit, Baas and Snyder.

I assume that Nolan brought his Ravens vision here to SF. He told McC he wanted BIG linemen. Following his marching orders, McC targeted Baas and Snyder. Although big, they are not quick-footed. Quick defensivelinemen blow around or by them. Snyder just doesn't seem well-suited to be a RT.

While I am thrilled with the Solari hire, signing a FA and drafting a couple of premier OL seems essential. I suspect Solari cannot make a silk purse out out of a sow's ear.

I've heard that Scot McCloughan wanted to draft Logan Mankins in that draft, but the Patriots drafted Mankins before we could get him, so David Baas was McCloughan's second choice.

1. Baas has played well at times, so he's not a "bad" player.
2. Rachal has played well at times, so he's not a "bad" player.
3. When both look "bad" it appeared more like missed assignments (mental mistakes) rather not ability.


In this case, a better OL coach may help but if the OC's overall strategy isn't good, then the players will still look bad.

Your Friends made major mistake and is that All players are Good or they would not make it to that level. They look bad because of the level of talent they are playing against.

The great ones will make everyone else look way better than they really are. The good coach will make many players play well above their talent level while a mediocre coach will get hired in DC

both, but great players are usually very good on their own and when they get to be great...they really do not need much coaching. Tell that to Willis, Manning, Lott, Rice....and so on.

great players do not need much coaching, but good players need great coaches to become great or average players to be good or solid.

Rachal is too slow and looks like he's in a fog half the time

Originally posted by PTulini:
I got into a heated debate with one of my friends tonight (49ers fan, but He's not a Webzone member). I told him about the 49ers hiring Mike Solari as the team's new offensive line coach. I also explained Solari's background, and that I thought he could really help our O-line players and make them into better players. He seems to think that good coaching will not improve bad players and that no matter what, we need to totally rebuild the O-line. However, I believe that good coaching can make bad players into better players.

What do you think?

We have horrible coaching. There is not a decent coach on the whole f**king staff.... Manusky is middle of the road.... without Willis this defense would suck and would be easily one of the 5 worst. Singletary is a complete charade. If you're serious about winning, this guy isn't coaching for you. Just a complete and total joke.

[ Edited by posterX on Jan 22, 2010 at 22:54:56 ]

Originally posted by elguapo:
both, but great players are usually very good on their own and when they get to be great...they really do not need much coaching. Tell that to Willis, Manning, Lott, Rice....and so on.

great players do not need much coaching, but good players need great coaches to become great or average players to be good or solid.

Sorry my friend. Even they like someone that is there to coach them up!

Originally posted by SF4EVA:

Originally posted by elguapo:
both, but great players are usually very good on their own and when they get to be great...they really do not need much coaching. Tell that to Willis, Manning, Lott, Rice....and so on.

great players do not need much coaching, but good players need great coaches to become great or average players to be good or solid.

Sorry my friend. Even they like someone that is there to coach them up!

WTF?

Originally posted by SF4EVA:

Originally posted by elguapo:
both, but great players are usually very good on their own and when they get to be great...they really do not need much coaching. Tell that to Willis, Manning, Lott, Rice....and so on.

great players do not need much coaching, but good players need great coaches to become great or average players to be good or solid.

Sorry my friend. Even they like someone that is there to coach them up!

Watch the America's Game story of the 1981 Niners. Ronnie Lott was giving credit to George Seifert and Ray Rhodes in developing that whole entire secondary. Great coaches and great players make a great team. They really need each other.

Originally posted by posterX:

Originally posted by PTulini:
I got into a heated debate with one of my friends tonight (49ers fan, but He's not a Webzone member). I told him about the 49ers hiring Mike Solari as the team's new offensive line coach. I also explained Solari's background, and that I thought he could really help our O-line players and make them into better players. He seems to think that good coaching will not improve bad players and that no matter what, we need to totally rebuild the O-line. However, I believe that good coaching can make bad players into better players.

What do you think?

We have horrible coaching. There is not a decent coach on the whole f**king staff.... Manusky is middle of the road.... without Willis this defense would suck and would be easily one of the 5 worst. Singletary is a complete charade. If you're serious about winning, this guy isn't coaching for you. Just a complete and total joke.

Do you think you could do any better? I hate when people around here feel like they need to piss all over everything! How do you know Singletary won't be a good, maybe even great HC?