Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
18 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

All their symbols at the bottom of that graphic. What’s the last one?

I know man. I was teasing you. 212 is skeletors charity I think. I think it’s a Sandusky thing.

Posted
27 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

That is exactly the same thought I had. There are some interesting perspectives but the overall approach is going to fail miserably. 

They're not doing anything groundbreaking wrt recruiting. Literally every program that can't recruit at a high level tries to make up for it with evaluations. It's been that way forever. The only difference is the guy they put in charge has the title of "general manager" rather than "head coach."

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, TXpride said:

They're not doing anything groundbreaking wrt recruiting. Literally every program that can't recruit at a high level tries to make up for it with evaluations. It's been that way forever. The only difference is the guy they put in charge has the title of "general manager" rather than "head coach."

And does he think we don’t have an army of analysts who are also prioritizing our rankings rather than the recruiting services? Only difference is that our head coach actually gets to participate in (have control over) talent acquisition. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
6 minutes ago, TXpride said:

They're not doing anything groundbreaking wrt recruiting. Literally every program that can't recruit at a high level tries to make up for it with evaluations. It's been that way forever. The only difference is the guy they put in charge has the title of "general manager" rather than "head coach."

It sounds like they’ve separated recruiting and coaching to the extent possible. Like, here’s your team , coach them. 

Posted
Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

It sounds like they’ve separated recruiting and coaching to the extent possible. Like, here’s your team , coach them. 

And if there were a draft, that approach might make a little more sense. I will be shocked if this little experiment doesn’t set them back at least a decade. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chili dog said:

And does he think we don’t have an army of analysts who are also prioritizing our rankings rather than the recruiting services? Only difference is that our head coach actually gets to participate in (have control over) talent acquisition. 

But do we have anyone on staff who spent 7 years working for the Senior Bowl? Advantage gooner.

Posted
1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

It sounds like they’ve separated recruiting and coaching to the extent possible. Like, here’s your team , coach them. 

Phantom Island just did an episode about this, but coming from the angle of asking if the days of the workaholic coach are falling into the past.  With the context we have, it does seem relatively easier to find people who are good at eval, people who are good at gameplan/scheme, people who are good at talent acquisition, and people who are good at talent maximization versus finding 11-15 unicorns who are great at all areas. 

I'd still pay good money to hear the unvarnished truth about what happend with Thad Turnipseed and the AD's office.  It can't have been as simple as "he wanted to build a new basketball arena and they refocused fundraising on NIL."

Posted
8 hours ago, kilroydos said:

Phantom Island just did an episode about this, but coming from the angle of asking if the days of the workaholic coach are falling into the past.  With the context we have, it does seem relatively easier to find people who are good at eval, people who are good at gameplan/scheme, people who are good at talent acquisition, and people who are good at talent maximization versus finding 11-15 unicorns who are great at all areas. 

I'd still pay good money to hear the unvarnished truth about what happend with Thad Turnipseed and the AD's office.  It can't have been as simple as "he wanted to build a new basketball arena and they refocused fundraising on NIL."

Sure, it’s smart to departmentalize work so that one person is not responsible for too much. Still, how departments are organized, with who reports to whom, are important. 
 
Texas and Georgia are following the Saban model, with scouting reporting to the HC. OU says they are following the NFL model, which typically has a GM overseeing relatively autonomous personnel and coaching staffs. However, to me, they look more like the Dallas Cowboys, where the GM hires coordinators and limits coaching inputs to personnel decisions. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
12 hours ago, Vertigo said:

This post needs to be a template answer to literally every thread topic.

I could have bloviated in the topic like many do, but chose not to. 

I think it’s going to go poorly because excluding the coaches who will be hands on from the process of who they’ll be coaching is a bad idea. At that level, coaches know what they’re looking for in a player. 

This is setting up to end like a Jerry Jones draft and I’m here for it. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, statsman said:

Sure, it’s smart to departmentalize work so that one person is not responsible for too much. Still, how departments are organized, with who reports to whom, are important. 
 
Texas and Georgia are following the Saban model, with scouting reporting to the HC. OU says they are following the NFL model, which typically has a GM overseeing relatively autonomous personnel and coaching staffs. However, to me, they look more like the Dallas Cowboys, where the GM hires coordinators and limits coaching inputs to personnel decisions. 

The Cowboys comparison is solid.  They don't trust Venables when it comes to offense.  That's well earned, but when a coach is that incompetent on one side of the ball, it's never going to work out.  It doesn't sound like he has any intention of changing his approach to practice, so they're still going to have injury problems.

Edited by kevwun
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

The affective side of CFB, from recruiting, through development and gameplay, and even into post-career association, strikes me as a major difference wrt the NFL. Teenagers and their parents respond to coaches in ways that 22-YOs frequently do not. The GM over HC model appears to overlook the importance of the distinction much to their detriment. Football Dad is demoted to boss.

  • Hook 'Em 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...