I mean on defense if you have a ball hawk, can he still be that without the defensive coaching. The saints players need a coach to help them play better defensively? But I get tired of hearing how the bears defense will be okay without Lovie and Urlacher because they have good defensive players.

And on offense, because Boldin went and grabbed balls, its assumed that it doesnt matter what defense shows up, its like they can make plays anytime they want to. Whats the point of even having a decent defense if this is the case right? People act like Boldin is just gonna jump and grab passes because he's Boldin.

It does make me feel we need physical big name bodies. Because Idk if Colston is a receiver that cooperates with Brees or if he jumps up and catches any passes that are tough to catch. Or do we need to start going after big name defenders that can make our defense pop. I mean, not by leadership, but by his raw talent that will get everyone playing hard. I mean if coaching isnt necessary.

What is your main issue here? Chicago or the Saints?

To answer your question, it is not either/or it is a little of both.

Raw talent has to be coached, ball hawking is a mix of natural physical ability and vision. It doesn't help if the player hasn't been coached as to where he needs to be to use his skill set.

A second set of eyes on the sidelines is invaluable.

For example: Tiger Woods has natural ability, his coach teaches him how to use it.

as for the title "overcome coaching"... I am not sure what you mean.