How to separate "talent" from "coaching"

[*psychdoctor*]

(09-07-2021, 06:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't believe that coaches can win without good players, but I also believe some coaches can win with less talent than others (or lose with more).  

Andy Reid is one of the greatest coaches of all-time.  He took over an Eagles team that won 3 games and had the unusual distinction of finishing dead last in both yards gained and yards allowed.  He only won 5 games his first season, but since then he has made the playoffs 16 out of 21 years.  He has won 17 playoff games with 2 different teams going to 6 Conference Championship Games and 3 Super Bowls.  But he also went 6-10 in '05 and 4-12 in '12.  Sometimes even the best coaches can't overcome losses of talent due to injury or free agency.

So if a guy like Andy Reid has a bad year, no one claims he is a terrible coach.  But when dealing with a lot of players and new coaches that don't have a track record it is very hard to determine how much of the problem is coaching and how much is lack of talent.

I have a couple of ideas, but once I will admit that I don't have all the answers in this area.  So I'd like to hear what you guys think.

-I think one way to separate coaching from talent is too look at what happens at the very end of a half or end of a game. I feel the effects of coaching are magnified in the more difficult situations.

-Some fans like to point to penalties, but when you look at the numbers every year there are a lot of the best teams that are among the most penalized.

-I find it very difficult to criticize play calling.  If a coach plays it by the books and fails he is not creative enough.  If he tries something out of the ordinary and fails then he is stupid for not doing what every other coach knows is best.  Fans want coaches to "keep their foot on the pedal" with a lead until they throw away a game like we did against Tampa Bay in 2010.  Lots of Bengal fans claim Marvin Lewis cost us a lot of games by being too conservative with a lead, but when asked to give just one single example most come up blank.  Lots of fans also claim the Bengals threw the ball too much last year, but our run game was really bad.  I felt we had to throw a lot to have any chance of winning.

-From what I saw last year it seemed like much of the problem in pass blocking was players not knowing what to do.  I saw more mental mistakes than guys just getting bullrushed or beaten with speed.  But I have absolutely no way of measuring that with statistics.  I do know that Baltimore got 5 sacks from DBs in our first meeting.  Those guys were not just running over our O-linemen.  I blame a lot of that on coaching, but again it is hard to say 100%.  Sometimes there are players so dumb that not even top coaches can do anything with them.

Any other suggestion on how to (or not how to) split the blame between players and coaches?

Like you implied, talent is innate and differs from performance.  So, as example, Chase is talented but not performing well in preseason.   Athletes with less talent then the league average may perform well. But it doesn't mean bad coaching. Some athletes are head cases and high maintenance.

I guess I would suggest using performance metric data to compare individual expectation of performance.  Coaching is subjective and usually comes down to outcome goals like winning or the end of year record.  Some might say winning a playoff game equates to good coaching.  I think Trey Hopkins is a product of good coaching, good scheme fit, and good development. I also think it comes down to a coaches relationship and ability to connect with players. I think Lou may have problem here, and Turner failed big time connecting and communicating with players.

Then there are variables such as team chemistry and synergy.  Team facilities for training. Lingering injuries. Lingering injuries is underestimated by most fans and can destroy an athlete psychologically.