Originally Posted by ud2
Yes, but being good/at least competent with the x's and o's is essential IMO.
If you are not at least competent with the x's and o's, your x's and o's deficiencies will become readily apparent pretty quickly.
I think that I would rather have a good x's and o's coach, who might be a little weak with recruiting, rather than have a guy who is a good recruiter, but is a little weak with the x's and o's.
It seems very difficult to overcome poor x's and o's, no matter how good your recruiting is.
|
You need look no farther than the last 2-3 coaches who left UD for different pastures.
-AM. Very good tactician. Mixed bag in recruiting. Some very good (particularly transfers). Some very bad (Pierce). Some in the middle (Khari Price).
-BG. Pretty good recruiter (C-Dub, B-Rob, CJ). Lousy tactician (Exhibit A: The Weave; Exhibit B: hockey line substitutions).
-OP. Pretty good at both, but outstanding at neither.
Not surprising that OP and AM both did better in-con than BG (once OP had rebuilt the program after the JOB era). X’s and O’s.
Posted via Mobile Device
