What does it take to build a winning program?

[Snout team]

I think most would like to believe hiring the best coach and recruiting the best players automatically translates into championships.

Over the many years of watching college football it seems the most unlikely coaches and most unlikely players just put it together.  Then you have dynasty teams like Bama that have all the pieces year after year.

Looking at the NFL who would have thought the Rams would be good this year, much less as good as they are?

So what does it take to build a program that consistently wins? 

1. What kind of coach (young, old, innovative, traditional, delegator or hands on)

2. Players--Is it more about talent and stars or attitude and effort?

3. Injuries--how much does staying healthy play into the winning equation?  How often do players play at less than 100% and we never see them on an injury report?

4. The lucky bounce.  How much of winning comes down to how the ball bounces? (Scoop and score)

It seems to me that Beliema's system required trench to trench high quality play with every position being built with depth.

Petrino's system heavily relied on a few really good skill players.  However the reason we couldn't win "the big games" was probably because we didn't have enough of those.

How do you think CCM's teams will look in comparison?

We are going to have any D.C. Info for a few more days so let's talk this out in the mean time.

And go...

[RebelliousHog]

I think most would like to believe hiring the best coach and recruiting the best players automatically translates into championships.

Over the many years of watching college football it seems the most unlikely coaches and most unlikely players just put it together.  Then you have dynasty teams like Bama that have all the pieces year after year.

Looking at the NFL who would have thought the Rams would be good this year, much less as good as they are?

So what does it take to build a program that consistently wins? 

1. What kind of coach (young, old, innovative, traditional, delegator or hands on)
INNOVATIVE, REGARDLESS OF AGE. HANDS ON

2. Players--Is it more about talent and stars or attitude and effort?
SOME OF BOTH
3. Injuries--how much does staying healthy play into the winning equation?  How often do players play at less than 100% and we never see them on an injury report?
A LOT. LOOK AT THE PACKERS THIS YEAR. LOST RODGERS AND HAD 10 DIFFERENT LINEUPS ON THE OLINE. OR LOOK AT THE HOGS. NOT SURE HOW MUCH IT WOULD HAVE HELPED BUT WE SUFFERED A TON ON INJURIES
4. The lucky bounce.  How much of winning comes down to how the ball bounces? (Scoop and score)
WE WOULD NO HAVE BEEN IN THE MISS ST GAME WITHOUT LUCKY BOUNCES. PROLLY WOULD HAVE LOST OLE MISS
It seems to me that Beliema's system required trench to trench high quality play with every position being built with depth.  IF SO HE CERTAINLY NEVER GOT THERE

Petrino's system heavily relied on a few really good skill players.  However the reason we couldn't win "the big games" was probably because we didn't have enough of those.  I DISAGREE. WE DIDNT HAVE THE SAME CALIBER OF SKILL PLAYERS

How do you think CCM's teams will look in comparison?  HOPEFULLY QUICKER AND LEANER

We are going to have any D.C. Info for a few more days so let's talk this out in the mean time.

And go...

[potus]

Talent. You can't make silk from a sow's ear.  You've got to have 4 to 5 guys on offense and defense that are capable of playing in the pros and that will get you in the hunt for 8 wins.  It takes talent, talent, talent and out of all the talent you've got to have 3-4 that play with heart/character and refuse to lose. 

[GoHogzzGo]

Great coaching. It is that simple, and regrettably hard to find.

[hogfanny]

Cheat like hell!!!!!!!!!!! If you don't get caught cheatin occasionly you ain't tryin.

[woodrow hog call]

One thing we are missing is knowing how to win, good thing about a coaching change is it gives guys something to believe in again, they will know they have a chance because they are doing everything so different than they did in the past and they know the old way didn't produce wins.

A team working together and in total sync can overcome some talent gap too.

[Hawgphat]

Top-notch coaching and top-notch playing talent.  In other words - - - - - - -

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Inhogswetrust]

Great coaching. It is that simple, and regrettably hard to find.

It doesn't matter how good the trainer is IF they are running a mule in the Kentucky Derby, they aren't going to win.

[Inhogswetrust]

Cheat like hell!!!!!!!!!!! If you don't get caught cheatin occasionly you ain't tryin.

Go tell your wife you need to cheat.

[hogsanity]

It doesn't matter how good the trainer is IF they are running a mule in the Kentucky Derby, they aren't going to win.

Exactly. People act like the right coach can take any group of players and win, and that just is not so. Talent is the key above all else.

Now, when talent is equal to or close to equal to the opponent, then yes, coaching can often be the difference in that scenario, but overall the programs with the most talent win most of the time. And I am not talking about recruiting rankings, I am talking about on the field talent. On any given Sat are my receivers better than their db's? Is my DL better than their OL? Things like that.

[Cinco de Hogo]

It doesn't matter how good the trainer is IF they are running a mule in the Kentucky Derby, they aren't going to win.

Why would you recruit mules to play football?  Sounds like a previous staff problem.  I assume CCM is only recruiting football players.

Regardless it all starts with the head coach you hire, then it's the talent he brings in, then it's development, then its luck.

[Cinco de Hogo]

Exactly. People act like the right coach can take any group of players and win, and that just is not so. Talent is the key above all else.

Now, when talent is equal to or close to equal to the opponent, then yes, coaching can often be the difference in that scenario, but overall the programs with the most talent win most of the time. And I am not talking about recruiting rankings, I am talking about on the field talent. On any given Sat are my receivers better than their db's? Is my DL better than their OL? Things like that.

You consistently refuse to understand what people are talking about.  Arkansas gets a certain level of talent and unless we have a coach and more importantly keep that coach and he wins at a level higher than that recruiting ranking we will remain the mid-tier team people like you think we can only be.  But, some of us keep hoping that at some point the PTB will actually make smart decisions and Arkansas can get back to at least the status we had in the 60, 70 and 80's.  Is that a mountain to climb, sure, but gosh why else be a fan if you don't cling to some hope.

[Snout team]

I agree talent matters.  However, does that have to be superior talent at every position to win 9-10 games a year?

Missouri is a good example.  They consistently are bottom dwellers in the recruiting rankings.  Even residing in the East, I must admit their win total since they entered the SEC has been impressive.  Before you chalk that up to a weak schedule, look at our schedule last year, see what we did with superior talent at most positions, and help me understand.

I personally believe if you get a few difference makers, surround them with solid (but not spectacular) players, you can win way more than you lose.  That is assuming you run a scheme which puts those players in a position to excel.

I also believe we have had some difference makers.  We just didn't put them into a system to succeed.  Then when we began to repeat the pattern of disappearing in the second half of games, the wheels fell off.

[razorbrass]

Talent
Player Development
Financial Resources
Recruiting
Consistency
Coaching Stability
Unified Fan Base
Favorable Schedule - (see Ohio State)
Intangibles - timing - (right person, right place, right time)
Healthy Players

I am sure there are more.  If you have these you have a shot to be a wining program but even with all these there are no guarantees.

[HognotinMemphis]

Good night's sleep 7 nights a week, proper diet with 3 squares per day (stay completely away from donuts and other fatty and fried foods), limit alcohol intake, daily exercise which means good cardio workout of at least an hour, and regular bowel movements.

If the entire coaching staff would follow this regimen, the winning will follow as sure as stink follows dung.

[hogsanity]

You consistently refuse to understand what people are talking about.  Arkansas gets a certain level of talent and unless we have a coach and more importantly keep that coach and he wins at a level higher than that recruiting ranking we will remain the mid-tier team people like you think we can only be.  But, some of us keep hoping that at some point the PTB will actually make smart decisions and Arkansas can get back to at least the status we had in the 60, 70 and 80's.  Is that a mountain to climb, sure, but gosh why else be a fan if you don't cling to some hope.

I understand EXACTLY what they are talking about. They cling to the hope some coach is going to come here, recruit "3 star" talent and beat teams full of 4 and 5 stars " because the coach is supper duper smart and the players just want it more ".

You know why the Hogs did what they did in the 60's and 70's? Because they usually had better players than all but 1 or 2 teams on the schedule. You know why Texas was 14-6 against the Hogs in the 60's and 70's, because they usually had better players. Even in the 80's, the Horns were 7-3 against the Hogs.

[HF#1]

Time and Talent

[LJHOG]

Given the location of the U of A, it will take lots and lots of $$$$$$$ and a willingness to spend it liberally on recruits.  Not on recruiting, but recruits.

[Inhogswetrust]

Why would you recruit mules to play football?  Sounds like a previous staff problem.  I assume CCM is only recruiting football players.

Regardless it all starts with the head coach you hire, then it's the talent he brings in, then it's development, then its luck.

I never said the head coach didn't have to bring talent in. That's exactly my point. IF the head coach doesn't bring in some talent and develop it than don't expect to win.

[CPO Hog]

1. A coach who can incite #2
2. Mix of talent & effort (Drew Morgan)
3. BAMA's LBs were all broke and Auburn gashed them. Injuries makes a big difference especially for w/out depth.
4. Good teams are ready to take advantage of "lucky bounces". Often game changers.

I think CCM teams will play fast and on edge, ready to take advantage of any opportunity. 

[Cinco de Hogo]

I understand EXACTLY what they are talking about. They cling to the hope some coach is going to come here, recruit "3 star" talent and beat teams full of 4 and 5 stars " because the coach is supper duper smart and the players just want it more ".

You know why the Hogs did what they did in the 60's and 70's? Because they usually had better players than all but 1 or 2 teams on the schedule. You know why Texas was 14-6 against the Hogs in the 60's and 70's, because they usually had better players. Even in the 80's, the Horns were 7-3 against the Hogs.

Now you don't because you think we are talking about a NC every year.  We ARE talking about winning an occasional CC and having a chance at a NC and probably being 9-21 against Bama.  Yea right now that looks pretty dang good.

[hogsanity]

Now you don't because you think we are talking about a NC every year.  We ARE talking about winning an occasional CC and having a chance at a NC and probably being 9-21 against Bama.  Yea right now that looks pretty dang good.

Well, that all goes back to a question I have asked for years on here - What is WINNING? -.

Winning, at it's base, would be winning more games than you lose. Yet no one is going to be happy going 7-5 or 7-6 every year.

Winning 8 or 9 games every year would be nice, but eventually it is going to get old never playing in the SECG, so winning would have to include at least a secw title every now and then. How long are fans willing to wait for one of those? I think that is the really key question because you have to get there to do anything above that most years.

[rtr]

Well, that all goes back to a question I have asked for years on here - What is WINNING? -.

Winning, at it's base, would be winning more games than you lose. Yet no one is going to be happy going 7-5 or 7-6 every year.

Winning 8 or 9 games every year would be nice, but eventually it is going to get old never playing in the SECG, so winning would have to include at least a secw title every now and then. How long are fans willing to wait for one of those? I think that is the really key question because you have to get there to do anything above that most years.

We've played in the SECCG before and will again.

[hogsanity]

Another thing it takes is not being unbalanced, and I am not talking about offensive philosophy. I am talking about how often it seems the Hogs will have a veteran QB, but be young on the OL and at WR. Or have a veteran offense, and a young defense, or some other combo of good at one spot but not at another important one.

[HF#1]

Another thing it takes is not being unbalanced, and I am not talking about offensive philosophy. I am talking about how often it seems the Hogs will have a veteran QB, but be young on the OL and at WR. Or have a veteran offense, and a young defense, or some other combo of good at one spot but not at another important one.

Really this has been Arkansas' biggest problem. We have never had the right pieces in place at the same time. There has always been something missing.

[12247]

Coaching is far more valuable than its given credit for.  The ideal coach understands how to get his charges in position to take advantage of your teams charges on offense, defense and special teams.  A 1 star can score on a 5 star if your coach has figured a way to get 1 star far enough ahead of 5 star and with the ball in hand.  Coaching is conditioning, scheming, mental attitude, leading and leadership.  Bret lead but had no leadership abilities, therefore he led to failure.

Mental approach is likely the most important trait to winning.  Look at the playoff teams.  OK lost to Iowa State.  Absolutely no excuse except attitude that day.  Clemson lost to Syracuse and theres no excuse for that.  It could be argued that both BAMA and GA lost to a very good Auburn team and I would agree.  But both those games should have been 3 to 7 point losses and neither was.  ATTITUDE or lack thereof, loses many football games annually.

Point is that if you are well coached, you can and will win, often against a more talented team.  Where you run into trouble is facing a more talented team that is WELL COACHED also.  At this point Talent is supreme.

Arkansas should have a coaching staff that understands their efforts will have an effect on the overall team.  That staff needs energy, correct attitude, the will to win, to recruit, to lead.  With that, the players will eventually buy in.  A bought in team with the best scheme to fit that team should give them the best chance to be successful.  At that point they will win games against the inferior and often easily, they will win more than they lose against equally talented teams and sometimes they will upset a team far superior to them.  This is likely to lead to 8, 9 and sometimes even 10 win seasons. 

Injuries will always play a part in winning and losing but theory says that will balance out over time. 

[hogsanity]

Point is that if you are well coached, you can and will win, often against a more talented team.  Where you run into trouble is facing a more talented team that is WELL COACHED also.  At this point Talent is supreme.

And that, for the most part is the sec, good talent AND good coaches. OR do you think, without any proof, that CM is a better coach than most of the other sec coaches?

[Snout team]

Another thing it takes is not being unbalanced, and I am not talking about offensive philosophy. I am talking about how often it seems the Hogs will have a veteran QB, but be young on the OL and at WR. Or have a veteran offense, and a young defense, or some other combo of good at one spot but not at another important one.

For a team not loaded with Bama talent I believe this is one of the most overlooked points.  Look at Mississippi State.  In their best (recent history) year, they had experience all over the field.  They had multiple seniors who had been developed in the program and a couple of elite players sprinkled in.

They didn't win it all but they had a heck of a year!

[Pigsknuckles]

4. Winning teams usually make their own luck. Hone in-game management skills such that you create opportunities for the opponent to make mistakes, while reducing your exposure of doing the same. Funny bounces are most prevalent during special teams play. Proficiency here is vital. You may not win many games with special teams, but you can crap one away in a heartbeat by failing to execute in this area. Winning programs/coaches are good clock managers and minimize the occurrence of junk penalties and drive stopping mistakes.

[deedster84]

Winning games

[Snout team]

4. Winning teams usually make their own luck. Hone in-game management skills such that you create opportunities for the opponent to make mistakes, while reducing your exposure of doing the same. Funny bounces are most prevalent during special teams play. Proficiency here is vital. You may not win many games with special teams, but you can crap one away in a heartbeat by failing to execute in this area. Winning programs/coaches are good clock managers and minimize the occurrence of junk penalties and drive stopping mistakes.

Hence a team with less talent but plays clean against a team with immense talent which gets lots of turnovers and penalties.

Of course if a team has less talent they get away with less turnovers and penalties.  During BP's time it infuriated me how many false starts we would have.  Yet, time and again, RM would rifle the ball 15 yards down field for a first down.  With Nutt and Beliema it seemed every small penalty caused a 3 and out.

[bphi11ips]

In high school, college, and the NFL, over time, the head coach has proven to be the most important factor in sustained success.  Of course players matter.  At the highest level of college football, schools with recruiting advantages dominate over time.  But even the Ohio States, Alabamas, and USCs need Woody Hayes, Nick Sabans and John McKays.  The NFL is as close to a level playing field as it gets, but from George Halas to Bill Belichik, great coaches have always dominated the NFL.

Great coaches from all levels talk about "the process".  The process takes time to become ingrained in a program, but once it does, it perpetuates itself.  Sustained success attracts the best players when recruiting is a key to success.  But teams with ingrained winning processes win where recruiting is not a factor.  It is possible to build a winning program or return a program to a winning tradition after one or a string of bad coaches.  Examples are everywhere.

It is very clear that Arkansas would not have become one of the winningest teams of the 1960s without Frank Broyles.  Florida State would not have finished in the AP Top 5 for 14 straight years without Bobby Bowden.  Alabama would not be what it is now without Nick Saban. 

In any given game, the players on the field determine the outcome.  Over time the most important factor to sustained success is the head coach.

[bennyl08]

I think most would like to believe hiring the best coach and recruiting the best players automatically translates into championships.

Over the many years of watching college football it seems the most unlikely coaches and most unlikely players just put it together.  Then you have dynasty teams like Bama that have all the pieces year after year.

Looking at the NFL who would have thought the Rams would be good this year, much less as good as they are?

Rams have had the talent. They just couldn't get that offense together yet. Goff in his second year is improved and Gurley has always been a beast of a back. Some key free agent WR's and a good offensive coach to help balance out the defensive superstars that were going to waste and voila.

So what does it take to build a program that consistently wins? 

1. What kind of coach (young, old, innovative, traditional, delegator or hands on)

Most of that stuff doesn't matter. Young/old, innovative/traditional. The one consistent thing that you do seem to see with the successful HC's out there is being hands on and very good with X's and O's. Meyer, Saban, Petrino, Bellicheck, Harbaugh, and so on. For the HC, that hands on is a bit constrained though. As good as Saban is, he isn't calling the plays on saturday, his DC is. He's involved in setting up the defense, but the actual playcalling is done by the coordinators.

2. Players--Is it more about talent and stars or attitude and effort?

More about talent and stars, but not to say that attitude and effort don't play a role as well. A highly motivated "average" (by D1 college comparison) athlete can perform better than an unmotivated super athlete. See Morgan vs Reed. However, a motivated top level athlete is going to be better than an motivated average athlete. It's no surprise that most of our top producing players have been highly rated and highly recruited prospects.

With the undying 'stars' debate, a HS recruits stars are just a function of probability. We've seen high star busts and low star studs. However, most of the low star guys have lived up to their low star billing and most of the high stars have lived up to their billing. In labeling tens of thousands of HS recruits, the level of in depth analysis the services can afford to do is not very deep. There will be misses. Stars are no guarantee of success or failure. The individual coaches get to dig a lot deeper. However, if you blindly choose only 5* recruits, statistically speaking, a little half of all those players would be drafted. I.e. if you sign 20 5*'s a year, you'll have ~10 draft picks every single year with 3-5 first round draft picks each and every year. Don't remember the stats for 4*'s off the top of my head, but it's something like if you sign 20 4*'s each year, you'll have about 5 draft picks each and every year with about 1 first round draft pick each year.

https://247sports.com/Article/Do-recruiting-rankings-matter-The-2017-NFL-Draft-says-yes-52571897

Eh, decided to do a quick google search. This is just one year's draft and there was an sbnation article that had a 5 year average but couldn't quickly find it. 23 out of 32 5*'s were drafted or about 72%. 76 out of a little over 300 4*'s were drafted for a little <25% of those being drafted. While there were 90 3*'s drafted, there were 3,000 3* players each year at just 3%.

Thus, you're about 8 times more likely to be NFL level player if you are a 4* than a 3* and 25 times more likely if you are a 5* player than a 3*. The key then for coaches is to try and find those 90 3* guys who are NFL talent.

A side note, I recognize there's a difference b/w collegiate talent and NFL talent. Case in point, Michael Sam didn't have NFL level athleticism but was able to tear up SEC OL's on the way to defensive player of the year in the conference. However, overall, it's a pretty good measure of talent and is unbiased by how many wins you had.

3. Injuries--how much does staying healthy play into the winning equation?  How often do players play at less than 100% and we never see them on an injury report?

Every team has injuries. Can't speak for college, but the NFL has a 100% injury rate. You are going to get something happen. With college, medical issues are kept more quiet than the NFL for legal reasons, but most players will be playing at less than 100% so to speak. The amount of injuries can and does vary from year to year. They key point is having depth.

For example, 2010. We lose our starting tailback first game that year with Johnson. We lost our best receiver in Childs. We lost our best corner in Issac Madison, not to mention Mallett for the better part of the Auburn game.

If you have depth, you can overcome injuries. If you don't, you can't. Another good example is Ohio St vs FSU. OSU loses their qb and by the time the playoffs come around are on their third string qb. FSU this year was a early season championship contender but is now playing wake forest in a bowl game after losing their starter.

4. The lucky bounce.  How much of winning comes down to how the ball bounces? (Scoop and score)

Luck is preparation meeting opportunity. Take the 2010 Vandy game where they fumbled and it was either Nelson or Franklin there to run it 90 something yards back. That was an unforced error on their part to fumble, but if we hadn't gotten penetration and had players in the backfield to scoop it up, we wouldn't have recovered and may have lost. The more players you have in the area, the more likely the ball will bounce towards one of your own.

It seems to me that Beliema's system required trench to trench high quality play with every position being built with depth.

Petrino's system heavily relied on a few really good skill players.  However the reason we couldn't win "the big games" was probably because we didn't have enough of those.

Bielema and Petrino both used pretty much the same system. Petrino favored more crossing routes while Bielema favored passes out to the flats, but both used power concepts, play action passing, and tried bend but don't break defenses to win. Petrino was simple better able to execute than Bielema.

We didn't win the big games under Petrino in part due to a weaknesses in the OL along with having smaller receivers which Bama were able to be manhandled. We didn't win big under Bielema largely due to a lack of in game adjustments.

How do you think CCM's teams will look in comparison?

Hard to really say. He has only been coaching for 8 years and never in the SEC. Odds are he isn't going to do the same things here that he did at SMU, Clem, or Tulsa.

We have the speed, athleticism, talent, and depth right now to be an 8-9 win team in the SEC west. The questions will be if he can get our players to buy into his system. If he can get them to take on a winning mindset rather than a losing one. And whether or not he has the skills from question one.

Most any scheme can be successful if executed well enough. Can Morris execute his system? Can he adapt his system to our players?

[root_hawg]

First thing would be for Saban to retire.

Second thing for more D1 recruits to come out of the state.

[bennyl08]

And that, for the most part is the sec, good talent AND good coaches. OR do you think, without any proof, that CM is a better coach than most of the other sec coaches?

Disagree on the good coaches aspect. Or at least, better coaches than any other league. I mean, take a top 10 list of college coaches right now and Saban is the only guarantee on that list.

As for the wider debate of coaching vs talent, what happens if you take things to the extreme. For example, let's take Alabama's roster and Vandy's roster with Saban and John L. Smith as coaches. What probably happens under the four scenarios? (I'm assuming at an equilibrium state. I.e. the program itself is held constant (players still graduate, but the caliber stays the same), but the coach has been there say 5 years).

Bama with Saban is going to be in serious contention for a natty most years.
Bama with Smiley is going to be a 6-10 win team IMO. He did win coach of the year at Mich St in the past and hard to say how much of the debacle was due to the instability after losing Petrino. However, it's safe to say that he'd lose several games he shouldn't each year and with some roster turnover and bad breaks, could dip into the 6 win range every few years.

Vandy with Saban isn't going to be a national title contender with the lack of talent, but they are going to be a perennial bowling team and probably in the 6-9 win range with maybe a double digit season every blue moon.
Vandy with Smiley is going to win 1-2 games every year and might even go a season winless.

That's the difference that talent and coaching can make, IMO. With a team as loaded as Bama's, coaching makes a difference, but it is a smaller difference. At a team like Vandy, there's a much bigger difference. For Arkansas, it's a little in between. Based on NFL level talent, Bielema has had the luxury of more talent than Petrino did during his time here, yet Petrino had more wins. Why? Better coaching.

The saints from 2011 to 2013 had minimal roster turnover, but in 2012, they lost their HC after the bounty hunting scandal before he returned in 2013. Their point differential fell from +208, to +7, then back up to +110 when he came back in 2013. They were a double digit win team both before and after making it to the second round of the playoffs both years to a losing record team and no playoff the one year he was gone. Brees still put up phenomenal numbers the year that Peyton was gone, but he was having to try and win games by himself and ended up throwing more interceptions and completing fewer % of passes. This greatly mirrored our own play that season with Petrino gone. Tyler Wilson still put up some big numbers, but was pressing, made more mistakes, and we won a lot fewer games without our HC.

[HognitiveDissonance]

A good Head Coach.

Get that part right, and everything else falls into place nicely.

Two examples: Arkansas and Alabama.
Arkansas goes 21-5 with a great head coach, then coach leaves, and the bottom falls out. Because he was replaced with lesser coaches.
Alabama: Was just another 'good' SEC program who Arkansas was beating 50% of the time pre-Saban, then Saban arrives, and they're unbeatable. When Saban leaves, they will drop off (some) again, maybe a lot.

The Head Coach is everything in college athletics. The programs with the best head coaches win the most. It's that simple.

[Bacons Rebellion]

Why would you recruit mules to play football?  Sounds like a previous staff problem.  I assume CCM is only recruiting football players.

...

Why would you recruit mules to a college football team? Really? Perhaps Leonard Nimoy can explain it to you.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x54t4me

[Snout team]

Rams have had the talent. They just couldn't get that offense together yet. Goff in his second year is improved and Gurley has always been a beast of a back. Some key free agent WR's and a good offensive coach to help balance out the defensive superstars that were going to waste and voila.

Most of that stuff doesn't matter. Young/old, innovative/traditional. The one consistent thing that you do seem to see with the successful HC's out there is being hands on and very good with X's and O's. Meyer, Saban, Petrino, Bellicheck, Harbaugh, and so on. For the HC, that hands on is a bit constrained though. As good as Saban is, he isn't calling the plays on saturday, his DC is. He's involved in setting up the defense, but the actual playcalling is done by the coordinators.

More about talent and stars, but not to say that attitude and effort don't play a role as well. A highly motivated "average" (by D1 college comparison) athlete can perform better than an unmotivated super athlete. See Morgan vs Reed. However, a motivated top level athlete is going to be better than an motivated average athlete. It's no surprise that most of our top producing players have been highly rated and highly recruited prospects.

With the undying 'stars' debate, a HS recruits stars are just a function of probability. We've seen high star busts and low star studs. However, most of the low star guys have lived up to their low star billing and most of the high stars have lived up to their billing. In labeling tens of thousands of HS recruits, the level of in depth analysis the services can afford to do is not very deep. There will be misses. Stars are no guarantee of success or failure. The individual coaches get to dig a lot deeper. However, if you blindly choose only 5* recruits, statistically speaking, a little half of all those players would be drafted. I.e. if you sign 20 5*'s a year, you'll have ~10 draft picks every single year with 3-5 first round draft picks each and every year. Don't remember the stats for 4*'s off the top of my head, but it's something like if you sign 20 4*'s each year, you'll have about 5 draft picks each and every year with about 1 first round draft pick each year.

https://247sports.com/Article/Do-recruiting-rankings-matter-The-2017-NFL-Draft-says-yes-52571897

Eh, decided to do a quick google search. This is just one year's draft and there was an sbnation article that had a 5 year average but couldn't quickly find it. 23 out of 32 5*'s were drafted or about 72%. 76 out of a little over 300 4*'s were drafted for a little <25% of those being drafted. While there were 90 3*'s drafted, there were 3,000 3* players each year at just 3%.

Thus, you're about 8 times more likely to be NFL level player if you are a 4* than a 3* and 25 times more likely if you are a 5* player than a 3*. The key then for coaches is to try and find those 90 3* guys who are NFL talent.

A side note, I recognize there's a difference b/w collegiate talent and NFL talent. Case in point, Michael Sam didn't have NFL level athleticism but was able to tear up SEC OL's on the way to defensive player of the year in the conference. However, overall, it's a pretty good measure of talent and is unbiased by how many wins you had.

Every team has injuries. Can't speak for college, but the NFL has a 100% injury rate. You are going to get something happen. With college, medical issues are kept more quiet than the NFL for legal reasons, but most players will be playing at less than 100% so to speak. The amount of injuries can and does vary from year to year. They key point is having depth.

For example, 2010. We lose our starting tailback first game that year with Johnson. We lost our best receiver in Childs. We lost our best corner in Issac Madison, not to mention Mallett for the better part of the Auburn game.

If you have depth, you can overcome injuries. If you don't, you can't. Another good example is Ohio St vs FSU. OSU loses their qb and by the time the playoffs come around are on their third string qb. FSU this year was a early season championship contender but is now playing wake forest in a bowl game after losing their starter.

Luck is preparation meeting opportunity. Take the 2010 Vandy game where they fumbled and it was either Nelson or Franklin there to run it 90 something yards back. That was an unforced error on their part to fumble, but if we hadn't gotten penetration and had players in the backfield to scoop it up, we wouldn't have recovered and may have lost. The more players you have in the area, the more likely the ball will bounce towards one of your own.

Bielema and Petrino both used pretty much the same system. Petrino favored more crossing routes while Bielema favored passes out to the flats, but both used power concepts, play action passing, and tried bend but don't break defenses to win. Petrino was simple better able to execute than Bielema.

We didn't win the big games under Petrino in part due to a weaknesses in the OL along with having smaller receivers which Bama were able to be manhandled. We didn't win big under Bielema largely due to a lack of in game adjustments.

Hard to really say. He has only been coaching for 8 years and never in the SEC. Odds are he isn't going to do the same things here that he did at SMU, Clem, or Tulsa.

We have the speed, athleticism, talent, and depth right now to be an 8-9 win team in the SEC west. The questions will be if he can get our players to buy into his system. If he can get them to take on a winning mindset rather than a losing one. And whether or not he has the skills from question one.

Most any scheme can be successful if executed well enough. Can Morris execute his system? Can he adapt his system to our players?

+1

[Snout team]

In high school, college, and the NFL, over time, the head coach has proven to be the most important factor in sustained success.  Of course players matter.  At the highest level of college football, schools with recruiting advantages dominate over time.  But even the Ohio States, Alabamas, and USCs need Woody Hayes, Nick Sabans and John McKays.  The NFL is as close to a level playing field as it gets, but from George Halas to Bill Belichik, great coaches have always dominated the NFL.

Great coaches from all levels talk about "the process".  The process takes time to become ingrained in a program, but once it does, it perpetuates itself.  Sustained success attracts the best players when recruiting is a key to success.  But teams with ingrained winning processes win where recruiting is not a factor.  It is possible to build a winning program or return a program to a winning tradition after one or a string of bad coaches.  Examples are everywhere.

It is very clear that Arkansas would not have become one of the winningest teams of the 1960s without Frank Broyles.  Florida State would not have finished in the AP Top 5 for 14 straight years without Bobby Bowden.  Alabama would not be what it is now without Nick Saban. 

In any given game, the players on the field determine the outcome.  Over time the most important factor to sustained success is the head coach.

+1

[Hardcore Hoggy]

Speed, speed, and more speed. That's how you win SEC football.

Of course you have to have a coach capable of recruiting that speed, so that's kind of a chicken and the egg thing.

[Pigsknuckles]

Was it Bear Bryant that said "I can beat your players with my players, and my players with your players"?


Nope...was a variation of a Bum Phillips quote about Bryant.
Bryant can take his'n and beat your'n, and then he can turn around and take your'n and beat his'n.

[FrJoseph]

Bobby Petrino

Fr Joe

[hogsanity]

Was it Bear Bryant that said "I can beat your players with my players, and my players with your players"?


Nope...was a variation of a Bum Phillips quote about Bryant.
Bryant can take his'n and beat your'n, and then he can turn around and take your'n and beat his'n.

So Saban could take the players at oh lets say Illinois and beat Bama?

[Pigsknuckles]

So Saban could take the players at oh lets say Illinois and beat Bama?

I doubt it. I think though that was just a general comment emphasizing that coaching ability is just as important as talent.

[Hardcore Hoggy]

I doubt it. I think though that was just a general comment emphasizing that coaching ability is just as important as talent.

Give Saban a month to prepare for Bama in that scenario and I wouldn't bet against him.

[Pigsknuckles]

Give Saban a month to prepare for Bama in that scenario and I wouldn't bet against him.

Neither would I.

[BroyledNutts]

So Saban could take the players at oh lets say Illinois and beat Bama?

It would never happen, but just once I'd like to see a coach the calibre of Nick Saban accept the challenge to come to a program like Arkansas and see if he's as good as he is at Alabama ... put his philosophy and skills to the ultimate test.

It would go a long way in solving the age old debate of "is it the Xs and Os, or Jimmies and Joes."

[hogsanity]

It would never happen, but just once I'd like to see a coach the calibre of Nick Saban accept the challenge to come to a program like Arkansas and see if he's as good as he is at Alabama ... put his philosophy and skills to the ultimate test.

It would go a long way in solving the age old debate of "is it the Xs and Os, or Jimmies and Joes."

Nah, if he came here and produced 7-8 wins on average people would say it was because of this that or anything other than the program itself.

[HognitiveDissonance]

It would never happen, but just once I'd like to see a coach the calibre of Nick Saban accept the challenge to come to a program like Arkansas and see if he's as good as he is at Alabama ... put his philosophy and skills to the ultimate test.

It would go a long way in solving the age old debate of "is it the Xs and Os, or Jimmies and Joes."

And the answer is, it's both. It's talent AND coaching. Of course, he recruits the talent, too.
You can't compare Illinois to Alabama.
He clearly has access to more athletes at Alabama and LSU.
So what would he do if he coached at Arkansas for 10 years?
I would submit that he IS a great coach and would probably average 9-10 wins per year over 10 years, with some 'spike' years. Arkansas is not Alabama.
But still, that would be a great coaching job, and what would be capable here with a  great coach.
I think Petrino is a great coach and this is the pace he was on until his demise.

A good Arkansas analogy for Saban is Mich St, where he once was. He wasn't there 10 years, but he did win 10 games one year and went to the Citrus Bowl.

[Cinco de Hogo]

Just keep up with the Jones, that's rule number one and just about covers everything.