• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Recruiting vs. Coaching

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Zurp

Zurp

I have misplaced my pants.
First, I didn't know if this should go into the Buckeye forum or the College Football forum or basketball or recruiting. And I don't really care. Sorry to the mods if this is wrong.

Second, I very much admit to not following recruiting. As far as I know, the kids' lives don't begin until Fall Practice starts. And even then, I usually don't know who they are until they make a few plays on the field.

So, I'm not one to answer this question. So I'll ask it: Is it better to have a coach who does a great job at recruiting, but mediocre at "coaching them up" and gameday preparation, playcalling, etc., or the other way around? If you split a coach's duties into those 2 parts (yes - I know there are likely hundreds of more aspects to being a coach), and your coach was great at one of those but not the other, which would you choose?

This is not specific to any real-life coaches, but feel free to use real coaches to make your point.

Edit - I guess a better way to ask the question is this: should I be more interested in a coach who gets top-5 recruiting classes, or a coach who gets a ~20th ranked recruiting class but consistently goes to BCS bowl games?
 
BB73;2064270; said:
Bob Davie often says "It's not about the X's and the O's, it's about the Jimmies and the Joes."
Click to expand...

Davie was referring to game play calling. I think Zurp means "coaching" to be more than that...motivation, teaching, practice structure, finding out what that player does best and using him for that.

We've seen a lot of blue-chip recruits that initially semed to be recruiting successes only to be busts on the field, while 3-star players like AJ Hawk, Santonio Holmes, and Malcolm Jenkins were recruiting afterthoughts and ended up being NFL starters (Holmes being Super Bowl MVP). That said, I'd rather take my chances on a boat-load of 5-stars under a decent staff than a bunch of 3-stars (some of whom may become great) under a great staff.
 
Upvote 0
This is kind of a paradox. When you really shake all of this out coaches that continuously go to BCS bowls are also hauling in top 15 recruiting classes. I think recruiting is a function of coaching and a great coach does that exceptionally well as well.

A coach that only does one or a few things really well, like recruiting, isn't a great coach in my eyes. It really is no different than the corporate world. Businesses can be successful when they have a leader that is inept but understands how to put the right people around him (that can be analgous to assistant coaches or recruits). But it is far more likely the leader that has a deeper understanding and passion for the business, that also knows how to do this, will have greater success.

I guess the short way to answer this is that it is best to have your cake and eat it too. If you have to pick one or the other, go with recruiting. You can hide a lot of weaknesses by putting the right people in the right places.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;2064281; said:
Davie was referring to game play calling. I think Zurp means "coaching" to be more than that...motivation, teaching, practice structure, finding out what that player does best and using him for that.
Click to expand...

Correct -
Step 1 - Recruiting - Get the 5-stars (or whoever you want) to be part of your team.
Step 2 - Coaching - Everything after that.

Thanks for helping with that Mili.
 
Upvote 0
Ask Ferentz how his coaching awards stack up to Tressel's run, which included an underwhelming offensive staff.
buckeyebri;2064373; said:
I always thought Cooper was a pretty darned good recruiter. As a coach he seemed to rely heavily on his staff. That seemed to work okay to a point....
Click to expand...

Except Cooper didn't keep Howard, Woodson, Carter in Ohio. That is why this start by Urban is,so huge. He can get supers, but keeping Dunn, Pittman, Dodson, Diamond, Spence, Williams from playing against him is a double whammy.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyebri;2064373; said:
I always thought Cooper was a pretty darned good recruiter. As a coach he seemed to rely heavily on his staff. That seemed to work okay to a point....
Click to expand...

It did work okay to a point, then bring in a true "Coach" like Tressel and the results were a National Championship.

If you have to pick just one, I'll always go with the pure talent. However, with Coach Meyer on board, we're now going to have them both!:oh:

Peace
 
Upvote 0
I think good coaching follows through with good recruiting. You can have a good coach build up talent, and if that coach stays there, good recruiting will follow. Comparatively, you can have consistently good recruiters, and very poor results. Looking at the Rivals historical rankings, you have a nearly-equal mix of teams that recruit good and preform poorly (ND, Miami, FSU), teams that recruit great and do great (LSU, Alabama, Florida, USC), and teams that recruit poorly and do good (Wisconsin, TCU, Oregon).

So in the end, I'd rather take a great coach that can take good talent and do well, because success will yield to better recruits.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top