Started By
Message
1
Posted on 6/18/14 at 3:59 pm to Monticello
Right now it is 1-0 Xs and Os vs Elite recruiter. We will see at the end of the year.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 4:00 pm to Rabern57
quote:
Recruiters need a huge talent gap or weak schedules to win even at the best schools.
But can't they just hire elite Xs and Os guys like Cheesedick did with Gus? Is it harder to find great recruiting coordinators or great play calling/designing coordinators?
quote:
Right now it is 1-0 Xs and Os vs Elite recruiter. We will see at the end of the year.
some of y'all Aubies are such asshats.
This post was edited on 6/18/14 at 4:02 pm
Posted on 6/18/14 at 4:00 pm to Patton
quote:
Elite with the Xs and Os
or
Lights out Recruiter
Put it like this, Phil Jackson, as good as he was, doesn't win shite without Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, and Kobe.
If you can find an incredible recruiter who also is above average at Xs & Os then you've got potential for something special.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 4:07 pm to bamasgot13
quote:
Put it like this, Phil Jackson, as good as he was, doesn't win shite without Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, and Kobe.
If you can find an incredible recruiter who also is above average at Xs & Os then you've got potential for something special.
Or you could play for the NC two out of four years with good players and a great system.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 4:13 pm to Patton
quote:Yeah but if your elite assistants leave you will fall off just like Chizik. Thats why the good X and O guys are good no matter their assistants or situations.
But can't they just hire elite Xs and Os guys like Cheesedick did with Gus? Is it harder to find great recruiting coordinators or great play calling/designing coordinators?
You put a good X and O guy against a good recruiter and the X and O guy is going to win more times than not. With the exception of a talent gap thats too much for anyone to over come.
Its a lot easier to find elite recruiters than elite X and O guys. Most of the time winning with Xs and Os gets you recruits and even the school gets you some. The school can't help you with play calling.
This post was edited on 6/18/14 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 6/18/14 at 4:17 pm to Patton
my point is it's much harder to find elite Xs&Os assitants than it is elite recuiting assistants.
used car salesmen are a dime a dozen... just put your team colors on them and call them "assistant head coach", then cut'em loose on the mommys and daddys.
used car salesmen are a dime a dozen... just put your team colors on them and call them "assistant head coach", then cut'em loose on the mommys and daddys.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 4:19 pm to Rabern57
quote:
Thats why the good X and O guys are good no matter their assistants or situations.
But they can still be easily smashed by a team that is chock full of 5*s. I honestly am not sure which quality I'd rather see displayed in my HC more prominently. I'm leaning towards recruiter just bc even if you are average or slightly below average at coaching the finite details, the talent increase would level it out.
quote:
my point is it's much harder to find elite Xs&Os assitants than it is elite recuiting assistants.
I think this is what is all boils down too. I guess you are right. Having a HC with elite Xs and Os stuff is probably more important.
This post was edited on 6/18/14 at 4:22 pm
Posted on 6/18/14 at 4:20 pm to Patton
Recruiting.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 4:21 pm to Patton
depends on your supporting staff imo
Posted on 6/18/14 at 4:23 pm to cas4t
imagine you don't have one then. I know it's a ridiculous scenario but for the purposes of this thread it makes it easier.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 4:28 pm to Patton
OP. Put extreme cases of both. Bobby P for X and O's and Chiz for recruiting, for example.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 4:35 pm to Patton
quote:Anyone can lose to anyone on a given day. But you put a good recruiter in a conference with a bunch of elite X and O guys and he is going to lose. You put a good X and O guy in a conference with good recruiters or less talent on his team and he will win.
But they can still be easily smashed by a team that is chock full of 5*s. I honestly am not sure which quality I'd rather see displayed in my HC more prominently. I'm leaning towards recruiter just bc even if you are average or slightly below average at coaching the finite details, the talent increase would level it out.
You look at the schools that come out of nowhere to beat the teams with all the talent. They are almost always coached by the top X and O guys. Which type do you think would have more success at a school like Kentucky? An X and O guy. There isn't a school a X and O guy can't help win but there are plenty a recruiter can't do anything at.
This post was edited on 6/18/14 at 4:38 pm
Posted on 6/18/14 at 4:41 pm to Rabern57
quote:
Which type do think would have more success at a school like Kentucky?
I don't have a clue. I'd love for some UK fans to come in and tell me. Kentucky is in the southeast, if they could pull like 4 straight top 10 classes, they would absolutely compete. However, if Stoops proves to be a defensive mastermind they might upset a few schools but eventually they would lose to more talented teams more often than not.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 4:45 pm to Patton
you can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh_t.
Recruiting is vital for SEC, but I think that most schools in the SEC can get enough good players to compete IF they have a good system that creates mismatches on offense and defense.
I will vote recruiting as slightly more important, but X's and O's are close behind.
Recruiting is vital for SEC, but I think that most schools in the SEC can get enough good players to compete IF they have a good system that creates mismatches on offense and defense.
I will vote recruiting as slightly more important, but X's and O's are close behind.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 4:54 pm to makersmark1
Elite with the Xs and Os.
Chris Petersen, Art Briles, Mike Gundy, Jim Harbaugh, and Chip Kelly are all coaches that have led their team to significant success because of their knowledge of the game. Recruiting is important, but Texas had a top 5 class the last 4-5 years and look at how that worked out for them. If you coach at a big school and know your Xs and Os, the recruiting will follow.
Chris Petersen, Art Briles, Mike Gundy, Jim Harbaugh, and Chip Kelly are all coaches that have led their team to significant success because of their knowledge of the game. Recruiting is important, but Texas had a top 5 class the last 4-5 years and look at how that worked out for them. If you coach at a big school and know your Xs and Os, the recruiting will follow.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 4:56 pm to Patton
quote:The best recruiters out there isn't going to pull 4 straight top classes at UK. There is nothing there to sell to start with and their state is void of talent most years.
Kentucky is in the southeast, if they could pull like 4 straight top 10 classes, they would absolutely compete.
quote:Most schools that win with elite X and O guys are usually offensive minded. You put someone like Gus, Kelly, or Petrino there and they would win their share. You put a recruiter there and he isn't going to get enough players to out man anyone.
However, if Stoops proves to be a defensive mastermind they might upset a few schools but eventually they would lose to more talented teams more often than not.
This post was edited on 6/18/14 at 5:08 pm
Posted on 6/18/14 at 5:12 pm to Patton
quote:
Elite with the Xs and Os or Lights out Recruiter
I can only assume this is meant as a comparison between Malzahn and Saban. Saban designed the defense that has been at or near the top of the NCAA rankings since he's been a Alabama. He also had great success with it at LSU. Those are some pretty decent Os in my opinion.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 5:19 pm to Patton
It isn't that simple as this or that.
It also depends on the managing style of the HC.
Micro-managers better be elite at what they are micro-managing, this is usually on one side of the ball, so Xs and Os in this example.
Since the HC is allotted only so many visits on a prospect, the recruiting is really handled more so by the staff than the HC, the HC just needs to not be an insufferable prick who can close the deal.
Nutt was mentioned, he tried to micro-manage the offense, but obviously isn't very good at the X's and O's and refused to ever let the control go. That was his down fall, he isn't the best recruiter due to lack of effort in recruiting, but he could close on recruits when he wanted.
Petrino micro-managed the offense like Nutt, he is elite in X's and O's and play calling, but an insufferable prick IRL, his recruiting reflects that.
Les Miles gave up some control over the offense, more of a CEO coach, not elite as Xs and Os, but likeable enough to sell the program and close on recruits.
Lane Kiffin was a pompous arse every he's been, not elite and X's and O's, results show after tanking in the NFL and failing at SC.
Orgeron and Chizik would be good examples of elite recruiters who did not hire the X's and O's to compensate for their lack of going 0-16 in their final seasons as a SEC HC.
It also depends on the managing style of the HC.
Micro-managers better be elite at what they are micro-managing, this is usually on one side of the ball, so Xs and Os in this example.
Since the HC is allotted only so many visits on a prospect, the recruiting is really handled more so by the staff than the HC, the HC just needs to not be an insufferable prick who can close the deal.
Nutt was mentioned, he tried to micro-manage the offense, but obviously isn't very good at the X's and O's and refused to ever let the control go. That was his down fall, he isn't the best recruiter due to lack of effort in recruiting, but he could close on recruits when he wanted.
Petrino micro-managed the offense like Nutt, he is elite in X's and O's and play calling, but an insufferable prick IRL, his recruiting reflects that.
Les Miles gave up some control over the offense, more of a CEO coach, not elite as Xs and Os, but likeable enough to sell the program and close on recruits.
Lane Kiffin was a pompous arse every he's been, not elite and X's and O's, results show after tanking in the NFL and failing at SC.
Orgeron and Chizik would be good examples of elite recruiters who did not hire the X's and O's to compensate for their lack of going 0-16 in their final seasons as a SEC HC.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 5:24 pm to Patton
The correct answer is that if a guy is competent at both, and outstanding at one, he will be successful. Being a head coach requires both IMO, and being really good at one can account for a shortcoming in the other.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News