Talent v Coaching

[orangenauburn]

using our own hoops team as an example - because JB and his system have not changed in decades, yet we have sustained success, lets take a look at the roster from a down period:

http://orangeupdate.com/syracuse-basketball/roster/2000-2001

Look at the gems on that squad

If the talent is not there, then it is much harder to win games. Priority one has to be improving depth and talent.

I am not thrilled with the recent recruiting happenings, but overall this has the makings of a deeper class than usual for us with some nice offensive potential (Broyld, Morris, Thompson, McFarlane)

We need play-makers, and hopefully in the 2013 class we can start to land a few impact recruits to go with depth fillers.

 

[44PRIDE]

If the talent is not there, then it is much harder to win games. Priority one has to be improving depth and talent.

My only argument to this is that we had a reasonable amount of talent this year. This past year's collapse had nothing to do with talent. We had more than enough to win a sixth game.

• We "supposedly" had an experienced offensive line and running back...yet we couldn't establish a running game
• We "supposedly" had an experienced QB and stacked receiving corps...yet we couldn't complete a pass over 15 yards (with regularity).
• We "supposedly" had an experienced secondary...yet we were regularly torched by deep passes.

Sure, having play-makers and depth most certainly helps. But let's not kid ourselves that talent alone will cure the ill's of this past season.

 

[SoBristol]

There is some new talent, but it is bunched up in an odd way. TEs (depending on where you think Broyld ends up). Two very similar RBs. A couple of taller WRs. Not much speed or break-away talent.

Not to rehash last year, but our talent level was about where we ended up (should have beat Rutgers, but we stole the Toledo game). Hard to be much better with rookie LBs and a weak pass rush.

 

[tipphill]

There is some new talent, but it is bunched up in an odd way. TEs (depending on where you think Broyld ends up). Two very similar RBs. A couple of taller WRs. Not much speed or break-away talent.

Not to rehash last year, but our talent level was about where we ended up (should have beat Rutgers, but we stole the Toledo game). Hard to be much better with rookie LBs and a weak pass rush.

its ALWAYS talent first coaching second----talent and playmakers can make up for poor coaching, good coaching cannot make up for poor talent

 

[suthrills]

using our own hoops team as an example - because JB and his system have not changed in decades, yet we have sustained success, lets take a look at the roster from a down period:

http://orangeupdate.com/syracuse-basketball/roster/2000-2001

Look at the gems on that squad

If the talent is not there, then it is much harder to win games. Priority one has to be improving depth and talent.

I am not thrilled with the recent recruiting happenings, but overall this has the makings of a deeper class than usual for us with some nice offensive potential (Broyld, Morris, Thompson, McFarlane)

We need play-makers, and hopefully in the 2013 class we can start to land a few impact recruits to go with depth fillers.

It's just so hard to compare football and basketball.
One player can carry a bball team to at least mediocrity. Allen Griffin actually had a superb year (and one of the most underrated years ever by an orangeman) in 2001 and carried the team to the tournament despite the underwhelming talent surrounding him.
I guess the closest thing in football would be Freeney's senior season but that Syracuse team did have other good players.
There's just way more moving parts on a football team than a basketball team.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Wrong on the premise. JB changes each year. Sometimes it's subtle sometimes not. He doesn't run the same system for KJ that he did for Moten or Wallace or DC.

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk

 

[OrangePA]

My only argument to this is that we had a reasonable amount of talent this year. This past year's collapse had nothing to do with talent. We had more than enough to win a sixth game.

• We "supposedly" had an experienced offensive line and running back...yet we couldn't establish a running game
• We "supposedly" had an experienced QB and stacked receiving corps...yet we couldn't complete a pass over 15 yards (with regularity).
• We "supposedly" had an experienced secondary...yet we were regularly torched by deep passes.

Sure, having play-makers and depth most certainly helps. But let's not kid ourselves that talent alone will cure the ill's of this past season.

We lost to Cincy, USF and Louisville because each team had more talent - each was quicker and stronger.

We lost to Rutgers because we made a lot of mistakes, but the Rutgers defense was very talented and made it almost impossible for us to spread the field with our WRs. So, talent had something to do with that loss.

Pitt also had more talent than we did - maybe more than any other team in the BE.

Our talent is better, but it has a long way to go.