🏈 Quarterback or coaching???

[38AUTiger]

How much of an impact can coaching make on a QB and how much is pure talent?

Can you take a mediocre QB and really turn him into something or do you think they are just born with the ability?

It seems to me that most of it is pure talent. Just looking for some opinions.

 

[bamafan4ever]

A little of both maybe?

Gary Hollingsworth didn't have all the "tools" but in the system he operated in (short to intermediate passes) he was effective. Some QB's are indeed a product of the system but they have to first fit that system. An example, I wouldn't want Jimmy Barnes running a spread or option offense! :lol:

 

[Guest]

To me, it is a combination. There is no substitute for the rifle arm, the great hand-eye coordination or the nimble feet, but at least as important is judgment and decision making. Experience helps, but so does that savvy coach who teaches the finer points. Mike Shula, to name one, had a very nice career as an Alabama quarterback, but he couldn't throw the deep ball and had at best, average speed.

 

[rammerjammer]

I'll agree with BF4E on this one. System...which goes back to coaching. Two prime examples are Jay Barker a field general and on the tigers side would be Brandon Cox. Cox had a dish rag for an arm, but he excelled under Borges and what all he was trying to accomplish. The right personnel and the right system I think boils down to coaching.

 

[38AUTiger]

I'll agree with BF4E on this one. System...which goes back to coaching. Two prime examples are Jay Barker a field general and on the tigers side would be Brandon Cox. Cox had a dish rag for an arm, but he excelled under Borges and what all he was trying to accomplish. The right personnel and the right system I think boils down to coaching.

That's my point exactly when you bring up Brandon Cox. Rag arm, he did OK at best under Borges but he could never get the mental aspect of throwing the ball away, he took more sacks than you'll find at Publix.

 

[bamafan4ever]

I'll agree with BF4E on this one. System...which goes back to coaching. Two prime examples are Jay Barker a field general and on the tigers side would be Brandon Cox. Cox had a dish rag for an arm, but he excelled under Borges and what all he was trying to accomplish. The right personnel and the right system I think boils down to coaching.

That's my point exactly when you bring up Brandon Cox. Rag arm, he did OK at best under Borges but he could never get the mental aspect of throwing the ball away, he took more sacks than you'll find at Publix.

That kind of takes away from your theory it's pure talent then, yes? (or most of it)

 

[rammerjammer]

That's my point exactly when you bring up Brandon Cox. Rag arm, he did OK at best under Borges but he could never get the mental aspect of throwing the ball away, he took more sacks than you'll find at Publix.

Homeboy didn't do anything but win........I think he was Auburn's all time winningest QB, is he not? Kind of hard to gripe about that.

Be careful what you wish for. I recall a lot of folks were ready for Stallings to go because he wasn't winning flashy. Spurrier was lighting folks up with the fun-n-gun and we were just ol'pack mule type football team. About 2000 we would have given vital organs away to been a pack mule football team again.

Cox was all the things you and I mentioned.....but most importantly he was a winner.

 

[38AUTiger]

That kind of takes away from your theory it's pure talent then, yes? (or most of it)

I think it solidifies it. They obviously couldn't coach him to throw it away for 3 years.

 

[38AUTiger]

Homeboy didn't do anything but win........I think he was Auburn's all time winningest QB, is he not? Kind of hard to gripe about that.


Cox was all the things you and I mentioned.....but most importantly he was a winner.

I'm not griping about Cox specifically, he is just an example.

 

[Swamptick]

No doubt about it, it is both.

 

[cjaytch]

I'll agree with BF4E on this one. System...which goes back to coaching. Two prime examples are Jay Barker a field general and on the tigers side would be Brandon Cox. Cox had a dish rag for an arm, but he excelled under Borges and what all he was trying to accomplish. The right personnel and the right system I think boils down to coaching.

Danny Weurfell(sp?) is a perfect example of this. Had an OK arm, but won a Heisman, NC, 3 SEC Champs, threw for a Gazillion yards and TD's.

 

[UAgrad93]

I've got to say that it is a combination of both coaching and talent with a dash of the intangible of just having football smarts. There have been QB's that had all the ability in the world and couldn't make it because coaching was good enough to utilize that ability. Also, the greatest coaching in the world can't save those with little or no talent. It kinda goes with that old saying, "can't make chicken salad out of chicken s#@* !!!"
Being coachable and having a good system can hide those with lesser ability. texas Tech has had several QBs to throw for tons of yards but didn't move on to the pros.

 

[reger60]

I think you have to put your QB in the right system. You can't put JPW in the huddle at Florida and expect any more immediate success than you would if Tebow put on a Crimson jersey and came in for us for a series. In successful college programs, the offense is specifically built around a quarterback's strengths and avoids their weaknesses at all costs.

It's one of several reasons why some great college QBs flounder in the NFL. They are one dimensional athletes that cannot adapt to a new system that wasn't built around them.

Quarterbacks are great until you start asking them to do things that they mentally or physically are not capable of.

 

[Outlaw]

A little of both maybe?

Gary Hollingsworth didn't have all the "tools" but in the system he operated in (short to intermediate passes) he was effective. Some QB's are indeed a product of the system but they have to first fit that system. An example, I wouldn't want Jimmy Barnes running a spread or option offense! :lol:

Everything he did for UA and they can't spell his name right. :lol:

 

[bamafan4ever]

A little of both maybe?

Gary Hollingsworth didn't have all the "tools" but in the system he operated in (short to intermediate passes) he was effective. Some QB's are indeed a product of the system but they have to first fit that system. An example, I wouldn't want Jimmy Barnes running a spread or option offense! :lol:

Everything he did for UA and they can't spell his name right. :lol:

Who spelled who's name wrong? ;e.gif

 

[Guest]

I think you have to put your QB in the right system. You can't put JPW in the huddle at Florida and expect any more immediate success than you would if Tebow put on a Crimson jersey and came in for us for a series. In successful college programs, the offense is specifically built around a quarterback's strengths and avoids their weaknesses at all costs.

It's one of several reasons why some great college QBs flounder in the NFL. They are one dimensional athletes that cannot adapt to a new system that wasn't built around them.

Quarterbacks are great until you start asking them to do things that they mentally or physically are not capable of.

I wonder if ESPN would love him then in crimson. :lol:

 

[Guest]

Take LSU and Ryan Perrilloux for example.... $%CR

_______ is as ________ does.

 

[Guest]

To be a great QB one needs:
To be a winner. This cannot be taught. You either are or you aren't.
Be able to take instruction.
Be smart. See above.
Be a leader. Again, this cannot be taught.
Be talented.
Know where your bread is buttered. You better thank that left tackle. Often.

 

[dirtroadlizzard]

http://www.al.com/alabamafootball/m...sports/1227176225184620.xml&coll=3&thispage=1