I've been reading a lot about recruiting and just wanted to sort of respond to what I see as some fallacies...
1. There seems to be this implication that a coach is going to come in here and the recruiting will come before the winning. Want to look at MAC teams that have beat us and see their list of two star recruits? I'm not a believer that four stars are bad.. I'll get to that later, but
a) You can win with two star recruits
b) The wins we'll need to get recruits will have to be the chicken that comes before the egg.
Can the egg come first? Yes. At programs that have been down like Alabama, where Slickster McGee wants to know when the friends of the program can start getting blue chip recruits' Moms a job and dropping off tractors on the family farm, that absolutely happens. Trust me, even at medium-low end programs where you see a coach get hired and boom, here comes recruits that average a star better than they've averaged not only under the bad coach, but under the so so coach that preceded the bad coach (at the end of his tenure), money is getting busted out. It's not a cop out.. can you recruit without money? Sure. But...
2. I like to refer to that as "having a player personnel plan" rather than recruiting.
a) Know what you can recruit to. Have a lousy team with three touted young QBs, even those who haven't done anything yet.. you can recruit receivers and offensive linemen and tight ends and backs who want to show up on film of NFL scouts with a guy who you are SELLING as a kid who will get NFL looks. You can offer playing time too. Maybe you have a coach with a reputation for putting DEs in the NFL.. there you go. Maybe geography dictates that you're going to have a bevy of lumberjack linemen like Wisconsin. Great. Maybe you're right by Chicago and you can go get speed (works for Northern Illinois... duh).
b) Part two is managing your plan. You have a receiver who looks like a lock for your class and you think he's a good "get" in recruiting. But you have two senior TEs and haven't signed a big time recruit (relative to your recruiting ability) at TE. Additionally, you have 3 receiver commits and another two athletes you think might be receivers. You might not deserve to take this kid. You might have to refocus your efforts into making sure you have no gaps in your two deep where you simply don't start anything resembling a Big Ten player.
When you're losing and not buying players, your star average is going to be low. Now, before some jamoke jumps on this last line... many low stars become successful and many high stars fail... what you do is try to get a ton of high stars so that when some fail, the law of averages is still on your side. When your star average is low, I am of the belief that you can win a lot by correctly managing your player personnel plan and making sure the talent you do get is spread out right.
Example... Tiller knew his offense was going to be dangerous regardless of talent on that side of the ball back in 1997. It was too easy to take advantage of 240 lb. slower outside linebackers in coverage with extra receivers. The Big Ten was simply not built to cover his offense. So... he gave the ATHLETES to the defense. That was his rule.. that they had first pick. THAT is managing your player personnel plan. Ending up with Logan Link or Jurasevich as a starter is a good sign that you're not excellent at managing what you can bring in.
And one may say, "well, lots of players have failed more than those two." Yes. But not because of lacking talent. Because of bad coaching, poor execution by said player and all out stupidity by said player.
3. Do you recruit to become good or do you John Fox yourself into being good...
I don't think recruits take you from losing to winning. I think playing good solid football helps you get to 5-7 through 7-5. Being in the right position, executing, having an offense and defense that is solid, is good chess and answers the questions posed by the opposition with clear plans. I've seen a lot of players come through here with more talent than Mike Rose, and yet be far worse as a player. Being 235 at a certain speed instead of 215 at a certain speed at linebacker.. doesn't matter if you blow a tackle or blow an assignment.
A coach who can flat out coach... like John Fox... who may never bring you to the Super Bowl, but can get you to 8-8 even if you were hapless under the last guy... that's where you start.
Where is recruiting relevant? As you recruit better and better once you're winning or even drawing (6-6), you may get players who, IF THEY'RE ALREADY EXECUTING ANYWAY, make that extra play to beat Michigan State (when they're actually turning it up to 11 on the dial) by being a little faster or a little bigger naturally.
You can overwhelm the growth scale of your team by just recruiting nothing but studs, but when losing teams do that, something smells. Purdue, Illinois, whoever.. doesn't matter.. they're not going to be doing that unless the money is coming out.
Why is all of this relevant? What's the point??
The point is this... do I want a guy with an innovative offense? Sure. But only if he can bring coordinators who can flat out get guys in position and get guys to execute. If our non-Ohio State recruiting means that a flat out executing player barely gets bowled over by a Nebraska halfback, that's fine. If we're in position and executing, we'll win our fair share. We have to have that in our next coach. Innovative offense with execution or even just execution. We can't be conservative in anything we do, but if we're somewhere in between air it out/blitz like crazy and conservative, that's fine. In position! Execute!
If we do that, I don't want this guy to be burdened by recruiting expectations that only come when you win unless you're dirty as all hell (and yes, I know that everyone is a little dirty). Should recruiting be "alright" even if we're 5-7. Yes. But that's good in the first couple years.
Now, the other danger is bringing in a guy who has recruiting as a major part of his currency. Maybe his teams have not executed that well or he is conservative.. but he's a recruiter! Won't work here. Don't want that kind of coach. Cause when that doesn't happen here without the wins FIRST or without the $80,000 bags left on kids' porches.. then you're going to be left with a guy who just plays sloppy football with Purdue recruits.
Hazell doesn't recruit. That's true. But the three stooges could be winning as many games as Danny freaking Hope did. They could. I could point to so many losses and say, "right here! You're up 3 v. Marshall! You can win this game if you don't think that you're so solid that run up the middle, run up the middle, try a 3rd and 9 pass and then punt is a good drive." And then... the opposite happened.
1. There seems to be this implication that a coach is going to come in here and the recruiting will come before the winning. Want to look at MAC teams that have beat us and see their list of two star recruits? I'm not a believer that four stars are bad.. I'll get to that later, but
a) You can win with two star recruits
b) The wins we'll need to get recruits will have to be the chicken that comes before the egg.
Can the egg come first? Yes. At programs that have been down like Alabama, where Slickster McGee wants to know when the friends of the program can start getting blue chip recruits' Moms a job and dropping off tractors on the family farm, that absolutely happens. Trust me, even at medium-low end programs where you see a coach get hired and boom, here comes recruits that average a star better than they've averaged not only under the bad coach, but under the so so coach that preceded the bad coach (at the end of his tenure), money is getting busted out. It's not a cop out.. can you recruit without money? Sure. But...
2. I like to refer to that as "having a player personnel plan" rather than recruiting.
a) Know what you can recruit to. Have a lousy team with three touted young QBs, even those who haven't done anything yet.. you can recruit receivers and offensive linemen and tight ends and backs who want to show up on film of NFL scouts with a guy who you are SELLING as a kid who will get NFL looks. You can offer playing time too. Maybe you have a coach with a reputation for putting DEs in the NFL.. there you go. Maybe geography dictates that you're going to have a bevy of lumberjack linemen like Wisconsin. Great. Maybe you're right by Chicago and you can go get speed (works for Northern Illinois... duh).
b) Part two is managing your plan. You have a receiver who looks like a lock for your class and you think he's a good "get" in recruiting. But you have two senior TEs and haven't signed a big time recruit (relative to your recruiting ability) at TE. Additionally, you have 3 receiver commits and another two athletes you think might be receivers. You might not deserve to take this kid. You might have to refocus your efforts into making sure you have no gaps in your two deep where you simply don't start anything resembling a Big Ten player.
When you're losing and not buying players, your star average is going to be low. Now, before some jamoke jumps on this last line... many low stars become successful and many high stars fail... what you do is try to get a ton of high stars so that when some fail, the law of averages is still on your side. When your star average is low, I am of the belief that you can win a lot by correctly managing your player personnel plan and making sure the talent you do get is spread out right.
Example... Tiller knew his offense was going to be dangerous regardless of talent on that side of the ball back in 1997. It was too easy to take advantage of 240 lb. slower outside linebackers in coverage with extra receivers. The Big Ten was simply not built to cover his offense. So... he gave the ATHLETES to the defense. That was his rule.. that they had first pick. THAT is managing your player personnel plan. Ending up with Logan Link or Jurasevich as a starter is a good sign that you're not excellent at managing what you can bring in.
And one may say, "well, lots of players have failed more than those two." Yes. But not because of lacking talent. Because of bad coaching, poor execution by said player and all out stupidity by said player.
3. Do you recruit to become good or do you John Fox yourself into being good...
I don't think recruits take you from losing to winning. I think playing good solid football helps you get to 5-7 through 7-5. Being in the right position, executing, having an offense and defense that is solid, is good chess and answers the questions posed by the opposition with clear plans. I've seen a lot of players come through here with more talent than Mike Rose, and yet be far worse as a player. Being 235 at a certain speed instead of 215 at a certain speed at linebacker.. doesn't matter if you blow a tackle or blow an assignment.
A coach who can flat out coach... like John Fox... who may never bring you to the Super Bowl, but can get you to 8-8 even if you were hapless under the last guy... that's where you start.
Where is recruiting relevant? As you recruit better and better once you're winning or even drawing (6-6), you may get players who, IF THEY'RE ALREADY EXECUTING ANYWAY, make that extra play to beat Michigan State (when they're actually turning it up to 11 on the dial) by being a little faster or a little bigger naturally.
You can overwhelm the growth scale of your team by just recruiting nothing but studs, but when losing teams do that, something smells. Purdue, Illinois, whoever.. doesn't matter.. they're not going to be doing that unless the money is coming out.
Why is all of this relevant? What's the point??
The point is this... do I want a guy with an innovative offense? Sure. But only if he can bring coordinators who can flat out get guys in position and get guys to execute. If our non-Ohio State recruiting means that a flat out executing player barely gets bowled over by a Nebraska halfback, that's fine. If we're in position and executing, we'll win our fair share. We have to have that in our next coach. Innovative offense with execution or even just execution. We can't be conservative in anything we do, but if we're somewhere in between air it out/blitz like crazy and conservative, that's fine. In position! Execute!
If we do that, I don't want this guy to be burdened by recruiting expectations that only come when you win unless you're dirty as all hell (and yes, I know that everyone is a little dirty). Should recruiting be "alright" even if we're 5-7. Yes. But that's good in the first couple years.
Now, the other danger is bringing in a guy who has recruiting as a major part of his currency. Maybe his teams have not executed that well or he is conservative.. but he's a recruiter! Won't work here. Don't want that kind of coach. Cause when that doesn't happen here without the wins FIRST or without the $80,000 bags left on kids' porches.. then you're going to be left with a guy who just plays sloppy football with Purdue recruits.
Hazell doesn't recruit. That's true. But the three stooges could be winning as many games as Danny freaking Hope did. They could. I could point to so many losses and say, "right here! You're up 3 v. Marshall! You can win this game if you don't think that you're so solid that run up the middle, run up the middle, try a 3rd and 9 pass and then punt is a good drive." And then... the opposite happened.
