Only as Good as Weakest Link: Winningest College Coach P. Summitt

Sculpt · Jun 28, 2016

Only as Good as Weakest Link: Winningest College Coach P. Summit

Heard (late) Pat Summitt interview today (winningest coach college basketball: 1,098 wins/8 national championships). She said a team is only as good as it's weakest link. That summary surprised me a little.

There's been many a game watching the Bears I'm sure she was right.

Who do you think is the Bears current, or likely, weakest link?

didshereallysaythat · Jun 28, 2016

Last year the weakest link was the center position on offense and inside linebacker on defense.

Chicago Staleys · Jun 28, 2016

didshereallysaythat said:
Last year the weakest link was the center position on offense and inside linebacker on defense.

WR was the weakest link on Offense last year.

JoJoBoxer · Jun 28, 2016

Chicago Staleys said:
WR was the weakest link on Offense last year.

Fullback was the weakest link last year. No 1st, 2nd, nor 3rd string was ever on the field last year. At least the WR position had some players on the field.

legendxofxlink · Jun 29, 2016

She was the ultimate motivator. Biggest stat that really sticks out, every person she ever coached in her 40 years graduated.

Woods · Jun 29, 2016

At the moment I would say CB, with hopes that Deon Bush is going to change that.

Sculpt · Jun 29, 2016

Woods said:
At the moment I would say CB, with hopes that Deon Bush is going to change that.

You think CB is weakest link? Both Fuller and Porter equally?

hmm...

Weakest link, in the context of the OP question, would be the worst player on the field -- coupled with the extent to which the opposing team can exploit that player.

CBs can certainly be heavily exploited. You can give him some Safety help. But I tend to see Fuller and Porter as being fairly solid, but you might be right.

Sculpt · Jun 29, 2016

Rory Sparrow said:
QB. Every decision the organization makes is designed to limit that position's impact on the game.

Going by severity, can't argue that QB as your worst player will cost you the most.

If they really wanted to limit that position's impact (Cutler) on the game as much as possible, wouldn't they go Wildcat?

Bronze65 · Jun 29, 2016

Rory Sparrow said:
QB. Every decision the organization makes is designed to limit that position's impact on the game.

Complete garbage. Peyton Manning was less than average last year and the Broncos won the super bowl.

AussieBear · Jun 29, 2016

Sculpt said:
Only as Good as Weakest Link: Winningest College Coach P. Summit

Heard (late) Pat Summitt interview today (winningest coach college basketball: 1,098 wins/8 national championships). She said a team is only as good as it's weakest link. That summary surprised me a little.

There's been many a game watching the Bears I'm sure she was right.

Who do you think is the Bears current, or likely, weakest link?

new faces.... the lack of cohesion and synergy... lack of depth across the board

botfly10 · Jun 29, 2016

What the fuck kind of OP is that?

You want us to ruminate on some fucking ancient, hackneyed cliche with zero context?

Hawkeye OG · Jun 30, 2016

Patrick Omameh/Vlad Ducasse had to have been the worst football players the Bears started last year.

Hawkeye OG · Jun 30, 2016

Rory Sparrow said:
I would throw Chris Prosinski into that mix as well.

He was going to be my third on the list.

modo · Jun 30, 2016

It is just a saying. There have been championship teams with bad players on them. And at important positions.....it really is how dominate the best player is.....that is very true in many sports.

Basketball especially....the court is limited to a few players and one person can take things over......football less so.

Sculpt · Jun 30, 2016

botfly10 said:
What the fuck kind of OP is that?

You want us to ruminate on some fucking ancient, hackneyed cliche with zero context?

Sure! Go for it!

it's just a conversation starter...

You can comment on who you think/predict will be the weakest player on the field.

Or you can comment on Summitt's quote about "a team is only as good as it's weakest link".

Hitting 1,000 college basketball wins, she had a 84% winning percentage, onto 8 national championships, and 38 years as a head coach. She knew a lot about making successful teams.

She (I surmise) concentrated on having/making every player good, as opposed to having a few super stars (as a policy and priority).

With Fox ditching some "stars", among other things, it looks to me Fox and Fangio are more about solid, complete and comprehensive team over a few "stars".

They talk about "impact players", but they're spreading out the bank.

There's some context, Botty-O'boy!

Sculpt · Jun 30, 2016

modo said:
It is just a saying. There have been championship teams with bad players on them. And at important positions.....it really is how dominate the best player is.....that is very true in many sports.

Basketball especially....the court is limited to a few players and one person can take things over......football less so.

That's party true... but classic example against that philosophy was early M. Jordan thumping 60 points a game, but the 6 championships only came when Bulls assembled a nifty supporting cast.

modo · Jun 30, 2016

Sculpt said:
That's party true... but classic example against that philosophy was early M. Jordan thumping 60 points a game, but the 6 championships only came when Bulls assembled a nifty supporting cast.

still the team didn't ride on what BJ Armstrong did....the weakest link......or Luc Longly

mmkyszka · Jul 1, 2016

Actually, Harry Statham is the all time winningest coach in college basketball.

ijustposthere · Jul 1, 2016

Sculpt said:
Sure! Go for it!

it's just a conversation starter...

You can comment on who you think/predict will be the weakest player on the field.

Or you can comment on Summitt's quote about "a team is only as good as it's weakest link".

Hitting 1,000 college basketball wins, she had a 84% winning percentage, onto 8 national championships, and 38 years as a head coach. She knew a lot about making successful teams.

She (I surmise) concentrated on having/making every player good, as opposed to having a few super stars (as a policy and priority).

With Fox ditching some "stars", among other things, it looks to me Fox and Fangio are more about solid, complete and comprehensive team over a few "stars".

They talk about "impact players", but they're spreading out the bank.

There's some context, Botty-O'boy!

She also coached college, not the pros.

Sculpt said:
That's party true... but classic example against that philosophy was early M. Jordan thumping 60 points a game, but the 6 championships only came when Bulls assembled a nifty supporting cast.

Jordan never averaged 60 points a game. His average always stayed above 30. I highly doubt Jack Haley & Trent Tucker were the final pieces to any puzzle.

Sculpt · Jul 1, 2016

ijustposthere said:
She also coached college, not the pros.

Jordan never averaged 60 points a game.

k

ijustposthere said:
His average always stayed above 30. I highly doubt Jack Haley & Trent Tucker were the final pieces to any puzzle

Obviously there's rotation of players in basketball during the game. I don't know what % of total minutes Haley and Tucker were on the court. Nor do I know how good they were. Question would be, (assuming they had significant time on the court) how often were teams able to take advantage of Haley or Tucker in scoring, rebounds or steals?

That's what she's talking about: the cost of the weakest link when they're in play. I'm just wondering how much that's significant in pro-football, and who might be the weakest links on the Bears this year?

Only as Good as Weakest Link: Winningest College Coach P. Summitt

Well-known member

Well-known member

Realist

Well-known member

Whistle Dixie

My favorite teams

Chicago Bears Fan

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

AussieBear

Guest

CCS Donator

Formerly Hawkeye

Formerly Hawkeye

Based

Well-known member

Well-known member

Based

New member

Message Board Hero

My favorite teams

Well-known member