Napier: 'Sometimes it takes a crisis' to get attention

I do believe Coaching makes a difference when it comes to recruiting, evaluating talent, game planning, teaching technique, etc... However, it is obvious that good players make good coaches! There is not a chance that the outcome of next Saturday's game would change if Nick Saban was coaching the Cajuns and Billy Napier was coaching the Tide! The team with the better Jims & Joes will come out on top the vast majority of the time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duggie35

I do believe Coaching makes a difference when it comes to recruiting, evaluating talent, game planning, teaching technique, etc... However, it is obvious that good players make good coaches! There is not a chance that the outcome of next Saturday's game would change if Nick Saban was coaching the Cajuns and Billy Napier was coaching the Tide! The team with the better Jims & Joes will come out on top the vast majority of the time!

---

Head coach is much like being the CEO of a company. They set the tone and direction of the organization. Have a bad one and losing seasons are sure to follow. I think LSU being ranked #5 tells you how important talent and organizational structure are to winning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MetryCajun

Head coach is much like being the CEO of a company. They set the tone and direction of the organization. Have a bad one and losing seasons are sure to follow. I think LSU being ranked #5 tells you how important talent and organizational structure are to winning.

---

+1000

To each his own

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ManAboutTown

To each his own

---

I don't want to get into an argument, but are you really convinced that a good coach can win consistently, even when the talent he has to work with is below that of his opponents on a regular basis?

Every time Alabama plays LSU you see what happens when both teams have “similar talent” and only one of the teams has elite coaching

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duggie35

I don't want to get into an argument, but are you really convinced that a good coach can win consistently, even when the talent he has to work with is below that of his opponents on a regular basis?

---

This question is a setup.
Good coaching with inferior talent (not substantially inferior) has won in this league since its inception.

Here is why no one will ever win this argument. Talent is very subjective. There is no argument that the top half of the SEC is more talented than any Sun Belt team. Now when comparing teams in the Sun Belt, that is a different story. Did Hud really have the talent we were sold he had? They looked like they should be talented, but I've seen guys at the grocery store that look like they should be talented and can't stop tripping over their two feet.

Also, there are physical gifts and football talent. I think we had/have a majority of guys that tested great, but couldn't play football. So, yes they are talented, but aren't really D1 football players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rainman66

Here is why no one will ever win this argument. Talent is very subjective. There is no argument that the top half of the SEC is more talented than any Sun Belt team. Now when comparing teams in the Sun Belt, that is a different story. Did Hud really have the talent we were sold he had? They looked like they should be talented, but I've seen guys at the grocery store that look like they should be talented and can't stop tripping over their two feet.

Also, there are physical gifts and football talent. I think we had/have a majority of guys that tested great, but couldn't play football. So, yes they are talented, but aren't really D1 football players.

---

No doubt about it, we're a lower level G5 team this year with lower level talent. I think we're probably in the bottom 15 or so of all FBS teams, but you have to remember, we've only been playing football for 110 years or so. It's not like we've been at this as long as schools like UCF, USF, and FAU. It's sickening to me when I compare us to programs like these and what they've accomplished in just their first couple of decades of being in existence.

UTSA will be the next program that leaves us in the dust. They had 46,000 in attendance against Texas State last week in San Antonio to watch two WINLESS teams square off. Imagine what the crowd would have been like if UTSA had a winning record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oiler

No doubt about it, we're a lower level G5 team this year with lower level talent. I think we're probably in the bottom 15 or so of all FBS teams, but you have to remember, we've only been playing football for 110 years or so. It's not like we've been at this as long as schools like UCF, USF, and FAU. It's sickening to me when I compare us to programs like these and what they've accomplished in just their first couple of decades of being in existence.

UTSA will be the next program that leaves us in the dust. They had 46,000 in attendance against Texas State last week in San Antonio to watch two WINLESS teams square off. Imagine what the crowd would have been like if UTSA had a winning record.

---

29,205

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oiler

No doubt about it, we're a lower level G5 team this year with lower level talent. I think we're probably in the bottom 15 or so of all FBS teams, but you have to remember, we've only been playing football for 110 years or so. It's not like we've been at this as long as schools like UCF, USF, and FAU. It's sickening to me when I compare us to programs like these and what they've accomplished in just their first couple of decades of being in existence.

UTSA will be the next program that leaves us in the dust. They had 46,000 in attendance against Texas State last week in San Antonio to watch two WINLESS teams square off. Imagine what the crowd would have been like if UTSA had a winning record.

---

There's a lot of baggage to carry around on the tail end of that 118 year journey.

Upstarts are unencumbered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oiler

No doubt about it, we're a lower level G5 team this year with lower level talent. I think we're probably in the bottom 15 or so of all FBS teams, but you have to remember, we've only been playing football for 110 years or so. It's not like we've been at this as long as schools like UCF, USF, and FAU. It's sickening to me when I compare us to programs like these and what they've accomplished in just their first couple of decades of being in existence.

UTSA will be the next program that leaves us in the dust. They had 46,000 in attendance against Texas State last week in San Antonio to watch two WINLESS teams square off. Imagine what the crowd would have been like if UTSA had a winning record.

---

So much about success is having a reliable recruiting area. This is something UL has never been able to foster. We have heard numerous coaches say LA will be our focus, but in the end we are scouring the southeast for players other programs may have over looked. It sometimes works spectacularly but it is not a replacement for a strong recuiting footprint. We see this even with P5 teams. Where are Nebraska or Michigan getting their players? When I was growing up these schools could go into Dallas, NOLA or Florida and get premium skill talent. Now they can't, and their stature has been reduced.
UL will be relevant in football when they carve out a reliable recruiting niche in LA, East Texas and southern MS. It looks like Napier is trying to do just that.