Game Planning VS Recruiting...Whats more important?

[Enhance]

Look at Nick Saban for example. Guy can flat out coach. Like him or not, that isn't the point. He is at Michigan St. and I don't recall him have the success he has at LSU and Bama. And it isn't like he learned how to coach overnight. It doesn't matter how good a coach is, without good players you won't win. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh**...Not even Bo Pelini.

In my honest opinion, saying something like this goes against everything it means to be a Cornhusker. So, respectfully, I must disagree with your logic.

 

Your example can be flipped right back around. There are plenty of coaches who had success at smaller schools who go on to coach the "big boys", and they end up falling flat on their face. Dan Hawkins had a lot of success at Boise State, but when he got to a school that without question had better athletes (according to star and recruiting rankings), he failed. Hawkins has yet to have a season of better than .500 at Colorado. Going 53-11 at a place like Boise State (that had not even gone to a BCS bowl game at this point) and then going 13-24 in his first three seasons at CU says a lot.

 

I'm not saying recruiting isn't important, but coaching is much more important. Like I said in my other post, Nebraska had multiple walk-ons starting during the 1995 National Championship game. Florida had way better athletes according to those beloved star rankings, yet Nebraska ripped them apart like they were a High school team.

 

That was also 15 years ago and there wasnt the same scholarship limit. In 1992 Nebraska had one of the best recruiting classes ever. So those guys were juniors and seniors correct?? So they must have been some pretty good players before they got here.

In hind-sight, the 92 class was extremely talented. But as I recall, they weren't even a top 15 recruiting class. I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure I'm right.

 

I'm not saying the players we recruited weren't good or even great, but believing that recruiting is much more important just doesn't make sense. What about Boise State beating Oklahoma a few years ago? Oklahoma's third stringers are rated higher than Boise State's first stringers. Even without the gimmick plays, they scored 40+ points against one of the best defenses in the country. That game took place during the current scholarship limit.

 

Or what about Appalachian St. taking down Michigan? If recruiting is what mattered more, Michigan would have walked away with a clear victory simply because they had pound for pound better athletes. They just got straight up outcoached.

 

If recruiting were more important, there would be no such thing as upset victories, because the team with better athletes would win regardless.

[huKSer]

Maybe its not recruiting in absolute terms, aka 5* but recruiting to your system, as in type of QB, character and walk ons

[huzkerbob]

The size and quality of your weapons are irrelevant if you don't know how to wield them.

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

Callahan and his top-notch recruits couldn't win a bitch-slap contest...even with his scripted play sheet each Saturday.

[IceMan]

Game Planning and then Recruiting! If you can't game plan you won't get the recruites! But without the good/decent recruites your limited!

[huKSer]

The size and quality of your weapons are irrelevant if you don't know how to wield them.

[Drowning_in_the_Sea_of_Red]

This is kinda like the chicken or the egg thing, huh?

 

I'm inclined to lean towards the game planning part of it...

[sd'sker]

obviously you need good players, but game planning can either close the talent gap or separate the teams when both have strong talent. BO was able to close the gap between UT and NU even though UT had much better talent. every team wants a decided schematic advantage, unless it is provided by charlie weis.

[walksalone]

Game planning.

 

With the right plan of attack, you can make even mediocre players, better than they should be. I know almost everyone here can think of a team that on paper, wasn't that good, but was so well coached, and had such a good gameplan, that they were able to "adapt, improvise, overcome". Perfect example, the Big XII title game. We didn't necessarily match up well personnel wise, but due to the fact that we had an outstanding game plan, we almost won.

 

You can recruit the best guy on the planet, but if he doesn't have good coaching, his full potential may go untapped.

[junior4949]

You can give a poor mechanic the best tools in the World, yet they'll still be a poor mechanic. You can give an excellent mechanic poor tools, and he'll still outperform a poor mechanic. I'd actually say player development has more to do with it than game planning. TO was great at this because he had a cohesive and consistent coaching staff. The reason Bob Stoops and Carroll have had recent problems stemmed from not being able to keep their coaching staff together.

[HuskerMoon]

Coaches at this school have proven that you can make an NFL player out of a Walk-On from Jerkwater, Nebraska. Tom Osborne did it and I believe Bo has the coaching talent to do it too. As long as an athlete has a fair amount of potential they can be great football players. The measurement of physical ability isn't the most important factor in the success of a player. It's the amount of heart that kid has that makes the difference. Coach Pelini has served as a defibrillator for some of these guys, Ndamukong Suh is a good example. While in this case he is a 5 star recruit, before Bo he was playing like a 3 star player on a good day. I think he has a keen eye for a healthy heart and knows how to mold many into a cohesive unit. One heart bleeding husker red.

[Count 'Bility]

Look at Nick Saban for example. Guy can flat out coach. Like him or not, that isn't the point. He is at Michigan St. and I don't recall him have the success he has at LSU and Bama. And it isn't like he learned how to coach overnight. It doesn't matter how good a coach is, without good players you won't win. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh**...Not even Bo Pelini.

 

uuuhhhhhh....did you happen to notice what happened to the blackshirts when Bo replaced Coz?

 

Yea, and we also had four losses. I thought we all wanted to win championships??? We need better O players.

Yep, 4 losses that woulda been 6 or 7 if not for some terrific "GAMEPLANNING" on the coaches parts. As far as the 1992 class goes, their #2 all time ranking is based on their success in their 4-5 years at Nebraska. They were not highly tauted at all at the time in February of 92.

[Count 'Bility]

Coaches at this school have proven that you can make an NFL player out of a Walk-On from Jerkwater, Nebraska. Tom Osborne did it and I believe Bo has the coaching talent to do it too. As long as an athlete has a fair amount of potential they can be great football players. The measurement of physical ability isn't the most important factor in the success of a player. It's the amount of heart that kid has that makes the difference. Coach Pelini has served as a defibrillator for some of these guys, Ndamukong Suh is a good example. While in this case he is a 5 star recruit, before Bo he was playing like a 3 star player on a good day. I think he has a keen eye for a healthy heart and knows how to mold many into a cohesive unit. One heart bleeding husker red.

 

MATT O'HANLON- This young man will be receiving substantial playing time for someone on Sunday in the near years.

[kansas husker]

Two word Boise state. There is a reason that they sre 49-4 over the last 4 years and it sure as hell isn't the loads of talent they have comming in. As much as I hate to admit it look at the success kstate had in the late 90's. They didn't have a lot of talent comming in also look at the coaches who coached under snider and went on to have success themselves. I'm shocked that 61% of the nation believes that recruiting is more important.

[Count 'Bility]

Most of them believe that because of the over hype that centers around recruiting. We'll see it all again today as it is signing day, and espn u will picking the powerhouses for the next couple years, I remember last year it was Miami and UCLA were gonna be so damn good cuz they had awesome recruiting classes. hmm. Although Miami may turn out to be solid, UCLA never will amount to anything special.