It is easy to fall into a logic trap when discussing this, which is why I asked you if you believe that talent (evaluation, acquisition, & development) are all a byproduct of coaching? In your 1st reply you made it seem like you believe the differences between the two are trivial, which is simply not true. I can also understand how thinking the differences between coaching & talent are trivial, could prevent someone from establishing proper causal relationships between the two. Otherwise criticizing symptoms makes it almost impossible to perform an accurate root-cause analysis. Not only that but what is implicit in this criticism is that if somehow the symptoms become addressed, the main underlying issue will also be solved. You gave the example of bad coaches being bad talent evaluators/recruiters. So if poor coaches become good talent evaluators/recruiters, does that now make them good coaches? Of course not-UGA Mark Richt is a prime example of this. He just does not possess the competitive drive/spirit/temperament that is required as HC to win anything of significance, regardless of talent. Finally..criticizing roster talent, while also simultaneously acknowledging incompetent coaching, indirectly undermines the argument that MIA has underachieved relative to it's potential. Underachieving essentially means that MIA has done less with more. Criticizing both talent & coaching simultaneously, implies that you think MIA has done less with less.
No reasonable person would ever try to legitimately make the argument that MIA possesses roster talent that is comparable to Bama, at least not at this moment. But that's really not the point. The more important question to ask is WHY, and is it justified?