Interesting take.
I’m legitimately curious because I see this often. If a college coach has guys who play well for him while they’re in college and they get drafted highly, but they don’t dominate the NFL (your words), something that an extremely small percentage of NFL players do btw.... that’s an indictment on the college coach? Even though they might have dominated/played well enough to be drafted highly on the college level while they were actually being coached by said college coach?
What they do on the NFL level against a different level of competition and while being coached by a different staff under a different set of circumstances, but the college coach gets blame/credit for their shortcomings/success?
Are we knocking Al Goldens college coaching for Artie Burns and Ereck Flowers not dominating in the NFL? Lol. I’m not trying to start an argument or attacking you, but if you can’t tell...I have always thought that was an absolutely ridiculous argument so I’m curious as to why you say “that says alot”?
What an athlete does on the professional level is on their NFL team situation and that coaching staff and has nothing to do with a college coach and their reputation for coaching college kids on the college level. Their job is to get the kids to play well for them in COLLEGE. Put them in positions to succeed in COLLEGE. Yeah, a certain system/scheme etc could have a kid better prepared for the NFL but if it worked for said college coach in college, then that is what coaching is. Especially if said college coach put said athlete in position to succeed and got them drafted highly. It’s on the NFL coaching staff to help the kid adjust to that level, leave the college coach out of it. They did their job. JMO