Game Planning VS Recruiting...Whats more important?

[zoogs]

I'm with JTrain. Recruiting is hands down more important than gameplanning. Coaching is most important of all, but getting the right guys into the program is pretty darn significant.

Have a skilled mix of guys that are exceptionally coached, and it doesn't take clever gameplanning to dominate. In other words, scheme will never be more important than being able to execute.

 

[Enhance]

I'm with JTrain. Recruiting is hands down more important than gameplanning. Coaching is most important of all, but getting the right guys into the program is pretty darn significant.

Have a skilled mix of guys that are exceptionally coached, and it doesn't take clever gameplanning to dominate. In other words, scheme will never be more important than being able to execute.

So do you not consider coaching part of gameplanning? I consider anything involved in game preparation (including practices and coaching in general) to be part of gameplanning. I don't look at it on an individual game basis. I look at it more as an entire process.

But I guess if people consider coaching not part of gameplanning, then that's a different story. I would still throw in T.O. as the ultimate thorn in any "recruiting is more important" argument, but that's just me.

 

[eliot1171]

Planning or recruiting. Which is more important to a coaches success? In my eyes this is sort of a bogus question. The easy out would obviously be that they are equally important and in the end, go hand in hand. Obviously, game planning is a huge part of winning any given game. And in turn, winning games is a huge part of better recruiting. I don’t think there is any coach out there that people consider “good” that isn’t at the very least decent in both attributes. But if I had to chose one, I would choose recruiting. Here’s my reasoning. Take Mack Brown; its hard to argue that he isn’t considered my most to be a good coach and at the very least a “successful” one. While he may dabble a bit in the planing of each game, his primary focus is recruiting and overall leadership. He leaves the majority of planing to the assistant coaches. I’m making this decision based on the fact that the recruiting we are talking about is the number of stars that recruiting sites put next to each players name. If we are instead talking about bringing in guys that fit the mold of the program and what it wants to achieve, that’s a whole new ball game.

Really, that is the key. First, someone needs to define what "good recruiter" means. I can assure you that Mr. Callahan was not a good recruiter as he so often gets dubbed. The players never meshed, they didn't respond to the coaches, and overall didn't fit the cultural mold. Bo on the other hand seems to be on the right track whether you want to call him a "good recruiter" or not.

 

[junior4949]

I'm with JTrain. Recruiting is hands down more important than gameplanning. Coaching is most important of all, but getting the right guys into the program is pretty darn significant.

Have a skilled mix of guys that are exceptionally coached, and it doesn't take clever gameplanning to dominate. In other words, scheme will never be more important than being able to execute.

John Blake. Several here credit Bob Stoops's only NC to the outstanding recruiting of John Blake. However, John Blake is a horrible head coach. He holds the worst winning percentage record in history at OU. Great recruiting didn't work out so good for him giving him barely one win for every three losses.

It doesn't take clever gameplanning to dominate? Did you watch the 96' Big 12 Championship game? Texas who I wouldn't exactly say was on par talent wise with Nebraska beat us do to gameplanning. It might not take clever gameplanning to dominate weaker foes. However, it does take clever gameplanning to dominate teams that have as good of talent. One of the great things about our defense now is the gameplanning of Pelini. He does a tremendous job of studying tape and putting our defenders in a place that will cause the most confusion by the opposing team's QB.

 

[Enhance]

I'm with JTrain. Recruiting is hands down more important than gameplanning. Coaching is most important of all, but getting the right guys into the program is pretty darn significant.

Have a skilled mix of guys that are exceptionally coached, and it doesn't take clever gameplanning to dominate. In other words, scheme will never be more important than being able to execute.

John Blake. Several here credit Bob Stoops's only NC to the outstanding recruiting of John Blake. However, John Blake is a horrible head coach. He holds the worst winning percentage record in history at OU. Great recruiting didn't work out so good for him giving him barely one win for every three losses.

It doesn't take clever gameplanning to dominate? Did you watch the 96' Big 12 Championship game? Texas who I wouldn't exactly say was on par talent wise with Nebraska beat us do to gameplanning. It might not take clever gameplanning to dominate weaker foes. However, it does take clever gameplanning to dominate teams that have as good of talent. One of the great things about our defense now is the gameplanning of Pelini. He does a tremendous job of studying tape and putting our defenders in a place that will cause the most confusion by the opposing team's QB.

Didn't the 96 team also have a bunch of guys recovering from the flu?

 

[schuhbdoo]

Whats more important for a college coach? I voted gameplanning, and the results map was very interesting to me;for a number of reasons. Im sure you can extrapolate why, being a knowledgeable Nebraska college football fan like myself.

SportsNation Poll

Screen Cap

Aren't these two totally different things??? If one team has 5 star athletes and the other has 3 star athletes, it doesn't matter what game planning you do. Unless you compare Boise St against the Bama's of the world.

To be successful you need to have a combination of both. Good planning without good recruits is meaningless.

Looks like the 3 players of the 5 seniors of this defensive squad are going to get drafted. Turner and O Hanlon may get free agent invites. Not too bad to game plan with that kind of talent.

Playing defense this year was like playing with 12 men on the field, when you factor in that SUH was so good, he played like 2 players. That is a stretch but you kinda know what I am trying to say.

 

[Igetbored216]

I don't think you can pick one out and say it is more important than the other.

In regards to recruiting, no, you don't have to have what are deemed the "best" players to be successful. HOWEVER, you have to recruit players that will fit the system you are trying to run. I think Bo and company have been doing a great job of this. They go after players that, after reviewing film, they feel can be coached up and become successful in their system.

Game Planning is very important because once you have the recruits that fit the system, you have to have a way to put them in the right positions to make plays. I think another aspect of game planning is the ability to make adjustments during the game. Bo and company have definitely shown that they can not only do this, but do it well.

All in all, I don't think the two are independent of each other, and therefore one cannot be picked over the other.

 

[robsker]

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

Then again... if your weapons are too small then all the technique in the world matters not.

My point.... recruiting is hugely important. So too is the development of the players. So too is the game plan. The question of what is more important, game plan or recruiting is much like asking which is more important, food or drink --- you can't live w/o either , you need both. Same with recruiting and game plan. And, for what it is worth, Osborne placed many into the NFL and those people got there based on talent (and development). But those who somehow think that Osborne was w/o talent on his squads are not right --- he had plenty of talent. Not as much as some --- who we sometimes beat. But people seem to forget this --- Osborne lost far, far more often to more talented teams and won typically when he had comparable or better talent. His game plan was always good --- and that game plan won against teams with equal or lesser talent (and sometimes modestly better talent, but not that often). Osborne won with his game plan only when he had the talent to pull it off (early and mid 90's). When he played against superior talent, he lost --- almost every time. This is the way it works.

Recruiting (talent) is necessary. Game plan is necessary. One without the other is not enough.

For the reverse (plenty of talent --- but poor development and game plan) see USC under Pete Carroll. They should have 4-6 MNC's in the past 7-8 years based upon the talent they have,.... but they underachieved. Again illustrating that both talent and scheme/development are needed. Oh... and a little luck too.

 

[ESPY]

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

:yeah BOOM! The truth is so refreshing.

 

[walksalone]

I'm with JTrain. Recruiting is hands down more important than gameplanning. Coaching is most important of all, but getting the right guys into the program is pretty darn significant.

Have a skilled mix of guys that are exceptionally coached, and it doesn't take clever gameplanning to dominate. In other words, scheme will never be more important than being able to execute.

Two Words

Bill Callahan

Thank you, and good night...

 

[zoogs]

I'm with JTrain. Recruiting is hands down more important than gameplanning. Coaching is most important of all, but getting the right guys into the program is pretty darn significant.

Have a skilled mix of guys that are exceptionally coached, and it doesn't take clever gameplanning to dominate. In other words, scheme will never be more important than being able to execute.

So do you not consider coaching part of gameplanning? I consider anything involved in game preparation (including practices and coaching in general) to be part of gameplanning. I don't look at it on an individual game basis. I look at it more as an entire process.

But I guess if people consider coaching not part of gameplanning, then that's a different story. I would still throw in T.O. as the ultimate thorn in any "recruiting is more important" argument, but that's just me.

Well, I consider gameplanning the week-to-week scheme we throw out there, and coaching as the fundamental development of the players' skills.

Gameplanning IS important - I mean, everything is, and the most successful teams do all the things right, big and small - but compared to being able to get the right players, and being able to develop skills in those players, I think the importance of gameplan is secondary. In other words, a good scheme won't do too much if you don't have the right talent properly coached.

Example: Nebraska-Missouri last year. Without the players properly coached and buying in, even a clever scheme designed by a veritable defensive guru can fall flat on its face. Ultimately Pelini had to keep things simple, and his D started to really flourish only after a couple years of getting the right coaching and development.

Callahan's offenses were pretty darn good for the most part. He got a lot of the right players here on O (as well as some duds, like Keller) that you look at and have to say, where would we have been without them? That staff made guys like Zac Taylor, Joe Ganz, Nate Swift, Marlon Lucky, Brandon Jackson. Sure, there was a coaching and buy-in problem with that staff, but can anyone dispute that they got a LOT of the right guys here? Bo's taken a bunch of them and coached them up to their true potential, but let's be thankful for the Suh's, Asante's, Dillards, Helus, of the world. Even Zac Lee - my gosh, for all the flack he's taken, but where would we be without this guy? Nobody else on the roster is close.

 

[junior4949]

In the past couple of years, Boise State has beat some highly talented teams with great recruits even though they didn't have stellar talent themselves. How do you suppose they beat Oregon, TCU, OU, etc.? I guarantee you it wasn't because they had better recruits or talent than any of those teams. They don't even have top 25 talent on their team, yet they end up there year after year. It's called coaching and game planning.

 

[Pedro Guerrero]

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.

 

[junior4949]

Why was Lou Holtz a flop in the NFL? Why was Steve Spurrier a flop in the NFL? In the NFL, the talent with the salary caps and such is for the most part even. Why was Big Tuna a great success at the Giants but not so much at the Cowboys? Why was Dan Hawkins a big success at Boise State but a complete bust at Colorado? Why was Dennis Franchione a great success at TCU but a bust at A&M? The street runs both ways.

Here's another question. Why was John Robinson so successful his first go around at USC but then a flop when he came back? It must also be noted that both Dennis Erickson and Lou Holtz were found out to have been cheating while at Miami and Notre Dame where both schools were eventually put on probation. You also forget to point out that Erickson took a 3-8 Idaho under the previous staff and turned them into an 8-3 team the next year. Erickson is Idaho's all-time winningest coach. You also forget to point out what he did at Washington State. In two years, he took them to their first bowl game since 1931.

 

[Pedro Guerrero]

So are you saying it is recruiting or are you saying it is game planning? I’m confused. :dunno

Has Dan Hawkins all of a sudden forgotten how to game plan or has his talent level dropped from Boise to CU? John Robinson had a lot better talent his first go around at USC so did he forget how to be successful his second time around or did the talent carry him the first time? When Holtz and Erickson were cheating it wasn’t due to game planning it was so they could recruit better players so they could win more games. Also is it any wonder that the best year Erickson had at Oregon State was also the year he had the most talent?

Bill Walsh maybe the best NFL coach ever but an average College coach. Did he forget everything he knew about game planning when he went to the college game? <_<