Game Planning VS Recruiting...Whats more important?

[dubsker]

Football is a game of matchups. That doesn't necessarily mean the matchup between players is the most important matchup. That statement is more based one gameplan vs another gameplan - that's the big matchup. How do we utilize our players in a way that gives us the advantage over the opponent's gameplan?

Let's take a look at the 2009 Big 12 title game as an example (painful, I know, but proof is in the puddin). Texas is a big-time favorite coming in. They have great recruiting and a solid coach. This coach produces a gameplan for these players. On the other side is Nebraska, the underdog, which doesn't have the blue-chippers that TU does, but does have a solid coach in its own respect. This underdog coach produces an impeccable game plan that owns the Texas blue-chippers & the gameplan they're following. We all remember how that game ended, but Texas had no business winning that game because of gameplanning.

One second and officiating aside (there's other threads for that), they won that game because of better athletes on offense. They found a way to put it in the end zone and we didn't. I mean let's face it, Greg Davis and Colt McCoy got schooled for most of that game. If we're going to say that Watson is a poor game planner, it's not like he got outdone by Davis.

Also, this poll leaves out player development.

 

[junior4949]

Dan Hawkins has more talent on his CU roster than Boise State does. Since Hawkins has been at CU, CU's average recruting ranking is #42. In that same time, Boise State's average recruiting ranking is #76. Pete Carroll seemed to do pretty well with the talent there at USC. He ended up 4th in the country in his second year with what would have been some of Robinson's final recruiting classes.

Are you saying Walsh had far superior talent while coaching in the NFL? I'm confused. Did Walsh all of a sudden forget everything he knew about evaluating talent when he went from pro ball to the college game?

Erickson took over a Miami program who had won 10 or more games the previous year and had won a NC. This scenario is a little different than at Idaho where he took over a 3-8 team. He's still Idaho's winningest coach. He took Washington State to their first bowl game since 1931. Again, not exactly the same scenario as Miami. He took over at Oregon State when it was considered the doormat of the Pac 10. In his first season, he took Oregon State to their first winning season in 29 years. In his second year, he took Oregon State to an 11-1 season where they finished the season ranked #4. In his second year, they were one missed field goal away from playing in the BCS title game. Are you trying to tell me that Oregon State had all of this stockpiled talent just waiting there even though they'd been the doormat of the Pac 10 for years?

Here's a blurb from Jeff Jamrog: Jamrog reminds that Tom Osborne’s teams that went 60-3 during his last five years were made up of guys from recruiting classes that were usually ranked 20th or worse.

TO's best recruiting classes came as a result of winning NC's. They weren't what led up to NC's. Obviously, a great coach with his greatest talent is going to perform his best. However, a poor coach with poor game management can take elite talent and will have an average year. Take Mark Richt for example. Since 2002, his recruiting classes have been in the top 10. The average ranking over those years is 6.375. In 2006, Georgia finished #24. In 07', they finished #7. In 08', they finished #13. In 09', they finished #36. Then we look at Randy Shannon. Since 2002, Miami has had high rated recruiting classes. Actually, Miami's recruiting has fallen since Shannon has become the coach. However, he did inherit several top 10 recruiting classes for his debut. In 07' which was his first year, he finished the season rated #78. There shouldn't be a lot of emphasis put on that year considering it was his first year. However, in 08' Miami finished #60. In 09', they finished #26. He's yet to have a top 25 team even though his roster is stacked with top talent.

 

[Pedro Guerrero]

Paul Hackett was the coach before Pete Carroll not Robinson.

Since Hawkins recruiting classes at CU are “better” then his at Boise shouldn’t he be having more success since his game planning probably didn’t change that much?

I think your Bill Walsh question is the same thing that I said you just used different words. I’m saying Bill Walsh bombed in College but is one of the best NFL coaches ever. He didn’t forget how to coach when he went to college. He didn’t have the talent he had in the NFL.

As far as the 2000 Oregon State team goes – Chad Johnson and TJ Houshmandza were the 2 starting WR, IMO that equals a talent advantage. Look at Erickson at ASU, if he is a superior game planner and not someone who benefits from talent why is he sitting right around .500 in his time there? Did college football catch up to him or can he not bring in the talent? :dunno

As far as Jamrogs statement, a Top 20 – 25 recruiting class equals a class with talent. It doesn’t equate a bunch of hacks that all of a sudden learned how to play football.

Once again you try to make points for both sides and it is very confusing. Do you think it is recruiting or do you think it is game planning?

 

[Enhance]

Why wasn’t Lou Holtz as successful at South Carolina as he was at Notre Dame?

Why hasn’t Steve Spurrier been as successful at South Carolina as he was at Florida?

Dennis Erickson compared to when he was at Miami?

Did these coaches all of a sudden forget how to game plan or did their team’s talent level fall off?

It isn’t a coincidence that T.O.’s best teams were also the ones that he coached with the most talent.

But there are always counters to what you are saying.

-Dan Hawkins goes to Colorado and gets "better" recruits, but fails miserably.

-Bill Callahan goes to Nebraska and has a top 10 recruiting class, and then fails miserably.

-Rich Rodriguez goes to Michigan where the talent is supposed to be better, and then has yet to get them to a bowl game in two seasons.

-Charlie Weis goes to Notre Dame and has seemingly Top 10 recruiting classes each year, yet never amounts to much other than a BCS bowl game loss.

If talent were more important, then the best recruiters would win the most games, Mack Brown would be undefeated every year, and Bo Pelini wouldn't have taken Texas down to one second in the Big 12 title game.

Granted there are both sides to the stories here, which leads me to believe that both recruiting and gameplanning are important. However, I would also have a coach who was an excellent coach and a good not great recruiter, rather than an excellent recruiter but a good not great coach. It's because of guys like Bill Callahan that makes me want better coaching over anything else.

And if I'm not mistaken, T.O.'s classes that won the 94, 95, and 97 titles were all in the 20-ish rankings. It wasn't until the 96-97 season that he hauled in a very impressive Top 10 recruiting class. His three championship winning teams weren't even in the top 20 in recruiting rankings if I'm not mistaken, they were similar to all of his other classes.

 

[junior4949]

Paul Hackett was the coach before Pete Carroll not Robinson.

Since Hawkins recruiting classes at CU are “better” then his at Boise shouldn’t he be having more success since his game planning probably didn’t change that much?

I think your Bill Walsh question is the same thing that I said you just used different words. I’m saying Bill Walsh bombed in College but is one of the best NFL coaches ever. He didn’t forget how to coach when he went to college. He didn’t have the talent he had in the NFL.

As far as the 2000 Oregon State team goes – Chad Johnson and TJ Houshmandza were the 2 starting WR, IMO that equals a talent advantage. Look at Erickson at ASU, if he is a superior game planner and not someone who benefits from talent why is he sitting right around .500 in his time there? Did college football catch up to him or can he not bring in the talent? :dunno

As far as Jamrogs statement, a Top 20 – 25 recruiting class equals a class with talent. It doesn’t equate a bunch of hacks that all of a sudden learned how to play football.

Once again you try to make points for both sides and it is very confusing. Do you think it is recruiting or do you think it is game planning?

Hackett was only at USC for 3 years, thus Pete's first couple of years would have had Robinson recruits.

As far as Hawkins goes, it really comes right back to my feeling about coaches leaving lesser schools going to bigger and better markets. A lot of people forget that Koetter was Boise States coach before Hawkins. Both left for bigger schools in a bigger market, and both didn't have much success. This is probably the biggest reason schools can't lure the current coach of Boise State away. I really can't explain why both Koetter and Hawkins had pretty records at Boise State only to fail in a bigger market. Maybe they just couldn't deal with the stress and expectations from the bigger market.

The NFL is interesting especially when it comes to coaches. For instance, why was Jimmy Johnson a huge success at Dallas but not so much with Miami? If we really believe the west coast offense is as extensive with regards to the number of plays, I think this probably demonstrates why Walsh was great in the NFL where players devote 8-10 hours a day to football compared to the average college player devoting 4-5 hours a day. I don't buy into the argument that Walsh had superior talent while coaching the 49ers compared to all the rest of the teams in the NFL.

Erickson is interesting. If you'll notice throughout his career, he does best with a team in the first couple of years he coaches them. At Miami, he won a NC his first and third year as HC. It's after he's been there a while that things begin to erode. Even at Arizona State, he was very successful his first year tieing for #1 in the Pac 10. He's a great coach that gets the best out of his athletes. However, it has been noted that he has a severe drinking problem. He also moves a lot from team to team. He appears to be one of those guys who can give a program immediate success no matter how much or little talent is there. However, the thrill of the new job wears off quickly and he loses his edge.

There really is no great answer out there. All coaches who have become head coaches have at least some competence with regards to coaching. What it really boils down to is the fact that some coaches have to have elite talent to win while some don't. Some coaches can take a program that's been down and out for quite a while and immediately make them contenders, some coaches just can't turn around a down and out program, and for some coaches it takes a few to many years to turn things around. Frank Beamer typically has recruiting classes in the 20's with an occasional one being a bit better and an occasional one being a bit worse. Yet, his teams are usually up there.