The Fallacies of "Coaching Them Up"

[NaturalStateReb]

We always hear about how programs need coaches that can "coach 'em up."  This is one of the most absurd arguments put forward in college football.  Undoubtedly, good coaching improves players, but relying on this mantra to build a program is nothing but a fool's hope.  Here's why:

1.  First, everyone else is "coaching 'em up."  This notion that only your particular program is coaching them up assumes that everyone else is standing still, which is patently untrue.  Every other coaching staff is trying to develop their players as well.  Not only that, it assumes that you're an exception--that your coach somehow has the magical elixir that will allow him to outdevelop all of the other FBS coaching staffs.  That might be true, but it's very unlikely.

2.  Second, you can only coach a player up so far.  You can't coach a mule into a thoroughbred.  That doesn't mean that everyone has to be an All-American to be a contributor, but there's only so much that a player can be developed based on his individual talent/skill set.  Coaches have limited amounts of time to spend on individual instruction.  These guys are position coaches, not personal trainers.  Remember back when there was all that talk about Bielema and a walk-on program?  There's a reason they're walk-ons.  It's not an accident. For every Brandon Burlsworth, there are 150 Joe Schmoes. 

3.  Third, when we say that we want a coach that can produce with a 3-star player, what we're really saying is "we want a coach that can identify misclassified talent."  An average player doesn't just miracle himself into being an amazing player.  It could be that a player was a late bloomer, or that he comes from a small school, or that he just hasn't been heralded by the recruiting echo chamber.  Maybe he's just a good fit for the system.  Whatever the reason, the player has a chance to contribute at a higher level than he's been tabbed to.  It's not like recruiting "rankings" are some kind of scientific system, anyway.

You need a guy who's good with X's and O's, sure, but coaching, scheme, those things can take you only so far.  At some point, you have to be able to recruit at a high level on a semi-regular basis.  You don't have to have a top 10 class every year to succeed, but you do need a top 10-15 class every three years or so in order to challenge.  I still submit that Arkansas has, during its tenure in the SEC, yet to have a coach that is known as a top notch recruiter.  They've been pretty average recruiters, at best.  Arkansas needs to get a recruiting headhunter that can really work the I-30 corridor.  The talent situation isn't going to improve otherwise.

[AugustaHog]

I pretty much agree with all your points here.  I do think that there are a few coaches out there that legitimately do a great job at "coaching 'em up", but they are few and far between.  What I think that really involves is having a system and identifying kids that really fit your system well.  Petrino did well with that on offense at Arkansas.  Chris Petersen and Gary Patterson have done a great job at this for years.  I think that's how you get guys who are 3 stars to play like 4 stars.  They may not have been an elite guy for most teams, but you plug them into an ideal situation, and boom you have a stud.  CBB was doing this at UW.  They had a ton of unheralded linemen that thrived in his road-grader offense and went on to success in the NFL.  He just hasn't been able to remotely replicate that here.  If we had a Kirby Smart-type recruiter, we could afford to miss on the occasional 4 star.  As we sit, all of the 4 and 5 star guys have to be hits.

[Boss Hog in the Arkansas]

Player development is the job of position coaches. A bad position coach can make players worse

[Piggfoot]

I agree. If Arkansas were to find a magician that could transform 2 and 3 stars to 4 and 5 stars, an elite school would grab him up.

[SSFrazorback]

Player development is the job of position coaches. A bad position coach can make players worse

As Kurt Anderson has proven.

[Cotton]

Would argue that a coach has to be able to get players to buy-in.  I've seen it first hand where talented players weren't bought in (didn't take practices, workouts, nutrition seriously) and that kills this development you're referring to. The most successful coaches have their key players/leaders bought in to a bigger idea than themselves.

Everybody says that want a coach that can recruit and find the diamonds in the rough, but the reality is there are more 2 & 3 stars playing in the super bowl every year than 4 & 5.  Talent has to be developed but IMO the key is a coach that has the ability to convince players to buy in 100%. 

[12247]

Knowing how to build a mindset like Patterson can is the number one thing that a HC can do for his team.  Everyone from the walkon through the 5 star can buy into a mental mindset.  Refuse to Lose, Have Fire in Your Belly, these things can be had by any level of talent.  Next most important is choosing the right players for what you want to do on the field.  Synder at K. St. is very good at finding the mid talent and putting it to work on his team.  The mistake most coaches make is defining what he wants to do and trying to mold everything on the field to his impression of what you are going to do.  Example:  Arkansas should have had the Wildcat in its active playbook from day 1 of BBs time here.  And it should have included all the plays you can operate from that formation and there is a bunch that no one has seen from anyone, even Gus so far.  And there is nothing wrong with having knowledge of more than one formation for the defense.  We piss ourselves trying to change from a 4-3 to a 3-4 on defense.   We should have enough ability to have various players able to operate some of both those schemes and even other schemes on defense as the circumstance warrants.

Providing the proper Mindset which creates Attitude, Finding a players best position to help the team on the field and operating a system that utilizes the talents of the players on hand are what the coaches can do.  Do that and your team will certainly look, COACHED UP.

[hogsanity]

We always hear about how programs need coaches that can "coach 'em up."  This is one of the most absurd arguments put forward in college football.  Undoubtedly, good coaching improves players, but relying on this mantra to build a program is nothing but a fool's hope.  Here's why:

1.  First, everyone else is "coaching 'em up."  This notion that only your particular program is coaching them up assumes that everyone else is standing still, which is patently untrue.  Every other coaching staff is trying to develop their players as well.  Not only that, it assumes that you're an exception--that your coach somehow has the magical elixir that will allow him to outdevelop all of the other FBS coaching staffs.  That might be true, but it's very unlikely.

2.  Second, you can only coach a player up so far.  You can't coach a mule into a thoroughbred.  That doesn't mean that everyone has to be an All-American to be a contributor, but there's only so much that a player can be developed based on his individual talent/skill set.  Coaches have limited amounts of time to spend on individual instruction.  These guys are position coaches, not personal trainers.  Remember back when there was all that talk about Bielema and a walk-on program?  There's a reason they're walk-ons.  It's not an accident. For every Brandon Burlsworth, there are 150 Joe Schmoes. 

3.  Third, when we say that we want a coach that can produce with a 3-star player, what we're really saying is "we want a coach that can identify misclassified talent."  An average player doesn't just miracle himself into being an amazing player.  It could be that a player was a late bloomer, or that he comes from a small school, or that he just hasn't been heralded by the recruiting echo chamber.  Maybe he's just a good fit for the system.  Whatever the reason, the player has a chance to contribute at a higher level than he's been tabbed to.  It's not like recruiting "rankings" are some kind of scientific system, anyway.

You need a guy who's good with X's and O's, sure, but coaching, scheme, those things can take you only so far.  At some point, you have to be able to recruit at a high level on a semi-regular basis.  You don't have to have a top 10 class every year to succeed, but you do need a top 10-15 class every three years or so in order to challenge.  I still submit that Arkansas has, during its tenure in the SEC, yet to have a coach that is known as a top notch recruiter.  They've been pretty average recruiters, at best.  Arkansas needs to get a recruiting headhunter that can really work the I-30 corridor.  The talent situation isn't going to improve otherwise.

Excellent post and all true. Of course people will argue and twist it to still make it sound like a coach with 2 and 3 star talent can work miracles. Hog fans have to believe that because the Hogs are never going to have the talent that many of our conference foes have, so to give up on a coach being able to " coach em up " is to pretty much accept 8-4 7-5 type seasons are going to be the norm, and 10+ the exception, just like it has been for 60 years.

[Razorback de Nosferatu]

Call it what you will, but Arkansas needs a coach that can win with the variety of 3* and 4* talent typical of classes that rank somewhere in the twenties. 

It's not realistic to assume Arkansas is going to suddenly start landing top 15 classes (maybe on occasion, as was stated), but top 25-30ish classes are realistic, as has been proven on a routine basis.  Whether or not that puts Arkansas near the bottom of the SEC...  Whatever.  At some point, the rankings gets silly.  The actual differences in the #18 class and the #28 class are probably negligible, and coaching will determine the rest.

I get tired of hearing about how Arkansas is stinking up the joint because there's "Sun Belt" talent on the field (saw that on Twitter).  The talent currently on this team, at least as far as indicated by the recruiting services, is on par with what we should expect to get here.  It's sure as heck on par or superior to the likes of what Missouri, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, and TCU have been getting. 

Arkansas just needs a coach with the ability to lead, inspire, scheme, and ultimately win with it. 

[hogsanity]

Call it what you will, but Arkansas needs a coach that can win with the variety of 3* and 4* talent typical of classes that rank somewhere in the twenties. 

It's not realistic to assume Arkansas is going to suddenly start landing top 15 classes (maybe on occasion, as was stated), but top 25-30ish classes are realistic, as has been proven on a routine basis.  Whether or not that puts Arkansas near the bottom of the SEC...  Whatever.  At some point, the rankings gets silly.  The actual differences in the #18 class and the #28 class are probably negligible, and coaching will determine the rest.

I get tired of hearing about how Arkansas is stinking up the joint because there's "Sun Belt" talent on the field (saw that on Twitter).  The talent currently on this team, at least as far as indicated by the recruiting services, is on par with what we should expect to get here.  It's sure as heck on par or superior to the likes of what Missouri, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, and TCU have been getting. 

Arkansas just needs a coach with the ability to lead, inspire, scheme, and ultimately win with it. 

Right on cue. The problem remains, a top 20is class is still going to be only 8ish in the sec, so at least 7 teams are getting better talent year after year and you have to play them. If the Hogs were getting a 20th ranked class and everyone else on their schedule was getting the same type of class, then yea the coach would likely be the deciding factor in 2 or 3 games. But that is not the case here. What is the case is that Bama, Aub, A&M, LSU in the secw and GA, TN, FLA in the sece are bringing in better classes EVERY YEAR than are the Hogs. 5th in their own division in recruiting. Let that sink in for a minute and then HONESTLY say they should be winning 8 or more a year.

[Razorback de Nosferatu]

Right on cue. The problem remains, a top 20is class is still going to be only 8ish in the sec, so at least 7 teams are getting better talent year after year and you have to play them. If the Hogs were getting a 20th ranked class and everyone else on their schedule was getting the same type of class, then yea the coach would likely be the deciding factor in 2 or 3 games. But that is not the case here. What is the case is that Bama, Aub, A&M, LSU in the secw and GA, TN, FLA in the sece are bringing in better classes EVERY YEAR than are the Hogs. 5th in their own division in recruiting. Let that sink in for a minute and then HONESTLY say they should be winning 8 or more a year.

I will respectfully agree to disagree with anybody who puts tremendous amounts of stock in the recruiting rankings.  They're a general measuring tool.  Nothing about recruiting is science.

Yes, top ten classes are better than those much lower on the list.  Yes, there is correlation between consistently recruiting top ranked classes and success on the field--to an extent. 

But I don't think there's enough difference between #15 and #25 or maybe even #30 that a good coach couldn't help make up some of that ground.  On paper, Arkansas should seldom or never beat anybody in this division outside the state of Mississippi.  But it happens all the time.  There are coaches who could get a lot out of the #22 class.  There are coaches who could underachieve epically with the #12 class.  Coaching is important. 

Edit: And for what it's worth, I think most Hog fans expect "8 or so a year" is a perfectly decent base with the occasional cycle up to the top every few years.  That's realistic.  I thought that's what Bielema might be working toward, until the collapse started.

[JonesboroHogFan]

Knowing how to build a mindset like Patterson can is the number one thing that a HC can do for his team.  Everyone from the walkon through the 5 star can buy into a mental mindset.  Refuse to Lose, Have Fire in Your Belly, these things can be had by any level of talent.  Next most important is choosing the right players for what you want to do on the field.  Synder at K. St. is very good at finding the mid talent and putting it to work on his team.  The mistake most coaches make is defining what he wants to do and trying to mold everything on the field to his impression of what you are going to do.  Example:  Arkansas should have had the Wildcat in its active playbook from day 1 of BBs time here.  And it should have included all the plays you can operate from that formation and there is a bunch that no one has seen from anyone, even Gus so far.  And there is nothing wrong with having knowledge of more than one formation for the defense.  We piss ourselves trying to change from a 4-3 to a 3-4 on defense.   We should have enough ability to have various players able to operate some of both those schemes and even other schemes on defense as the circumstance warrants.

Providing the proper Mindset which creates Attitude, Finding a players best position to help the team on the field and operating a system that utilizes the talents of the players on hand are what the coaches can do.  Do that and your team will certainly look, COACHED UP.

Knowing how to build a mindset like Patterson can is the number one thing that a HC can do for his team.  Everyone from the walkon through the 5 star can buy into a mental mindset.  Refuse to Lose, Have Fire in Your Belly, these things can be had by any level of talent.  Next most important is choosing the right players for what you want to do on the field.  Synder at K. St. is very good at finding the mid talent and putting it to work on his team.  The mistake most coaches make is defining what he wants to do and trying to mold everything on the field to his impression of what you are going to do.  Example:  Arkansas should have had the Wildcat in its active playbook from day 1 of BBs time here.  And it should have included all the plays you can operate from that formation and there is a bunch that no one has seen from anyone, even Gus so far.  And there is nothing wrong with having knowledge of more than one formation for the defense.  We piss ourselves trying to change from a 4-3 to a 3-4 on defense.   We should have enough ability to have various players able to operate some of both those schemes and even other schemes on defense as the circumstance warrants.

Providing the proper Mindset which creates Attitude, Finding a players best position to help the team on the field and operating a system that utilizes the talents of the players on hand are what the coaches can do.  Do that and your team will certainly look, COACHED UP.

You are totally correct when you talk about mindset.  It doesn't matter if you are coaching a 5 year old team or a college team.  Consistently dominating coaches always have a strong work ethic during every season of the year and they always find players that they can teach/coach/mold into having a focused mindset.

I coached 3 basketball teams per year from the time my son was 5 years old until he turned 9 years old.  We won every single intramural game thru third grade and we won 6 straight summer and winter city league championships with different players on every team.  The most important part of my coaching was constantly engaging the players thru every practice and every game getting their mind focused on what each of them needed to do.  By doing this we were highly successful.

[Arkansas Fan]

A five-star CB can still be beat by a three-star WR because the five-star CB didn't use proper footwork and technique to cover his man. That's where the "coaching them up" comes in.

[hogsanity]

I will respectfully agree to disagree with anybody who puts tremendous amounts of stock in the recruiting rankings.  They're a general measuring tool.  Nothing about recruiting is science.

Yes, top ten classes are better than those much lower on the list.  Yes, there is correlation between consistently recruiting top ranked classes and success on the field--to an extent. 

But I don't think there's enough difference between #15 and #25 or maybe even #30 that a good coach couldn't help make up some of that ground.  On paper, Arkansas should seldom or never beat anybody in this division outside the state of Mississippi.  But it happens all the time.  There are coaches who could get a lot out of the #22 class.  There are coaches who could underachieve epically with the #12 class.  Coaching is important. 

Edit: And for what it's worth, I think most Hog fans expect "8 or so a year" is a perfectly decent base with the occasional cycle up to the top every few years.  That's realistic.  I thought that's what Bielema might be working toward, until the collapse started.

Fans of teams that don't do well in recruiting always pooh pooh recruiting rankings. I do agree that the rankings are not the be all end all. One thing that can help make more sense of it is who else was on the recruit, not just offered but were really after them. How many kids do the Hogs sign that the teams above them in the SEC were REALLY after? OF none of the teams above them in the sec were after those players there is a reason, because they were after BETTER players.

[JoeyCapital]

You are totally correct when you talk about mindset.  It doesn't matter if you are coaching a 5 year old team or a college team.  Consistently dominating coaches always have a strong work ethic during every season of the year and they always find players that they can teach/coach/mold into having a focused mindset.

I coached 3 basketball teams per year from the time my son was 5 years old until he turned 9 years old.  We won every single intramural game thru third grade and we won 6 straight summer and winter city league championships with different players on every team.  The most important part of my coaching was constantly engaging the players thru every practice and every game getting their mind focused on what each of them needed to do.  By doing this we were highly successful.

I agree with you, but surely you see the humor in relating your experience coaching your kid from kindergarten to 3rd grade with major college sports, right? Highly successful 1st graders by constantly engaging them in practice through the strategic use of popsicles. We got their minds focused on what they needed to do, by having a liberal potty break philosophy, and allowing their hot moms to bring halftime snacks. I'm dying.

[hogsanity]

You are totally correct when you talk about mindset.  It doesn't matter if you are coaching a 5 year old team or a college team.  Consistently dominating coaches always have a strong work ethic during every season of the year and they always find players that they can teach/coach/mold into having a focused mindset.

I coached 3 basketball teams per year from the time my son was 5 years old until he turned 9 years old.  We won every single intramural game thru third grade and we won 6 straight summer and winter city league championships with different players on every team.  The most important part of my coaching was constantly engaging the players thru every practice and every game getting their mind focused on what each of them needed to do.  By doing this we were highly successful.

Yes, I am sure making sure 5 yr olds were "focused" was the same as making sure you have the players to go up against Bama/Aub/LSU/A&M or the like 8 times a year. Good grief.

[bphi11ips]

Excellent post and all true. Of course people will argue and twist it to still make it sound like a coach with 2 and 3 star talent can work miracles. Hog fans have to believe that because the Hogs are never going to have the talent that many of our conference foes have, so to give up on a coach being able to " coach em up " is to pretty much accept 8-4 7-5 type seasons are going to be the norm, and 10+ the exception, just like it has been for 60 years.

10+ win seasons are the exception for virtually every team in the country, but don't miss an opportunity to push your mantra.  Having said that, the OP is correct.  One of the many Hogville myths is that a coach can somehow "coach up" athletes to match the 4 and 5 star players who fill the rosters of some of our opponents. 

Head coaches do make a difference.  That is obvious from the records of great head coaches.  They make a difference even at schools like Alabama.  Look at the records of Alabama's coaches between Bear Bryant and Nick Saban. 

Great head coaches create a process that produces a winning culture that can be perpetuated over time.  That process has nothing to do with on-the-field strategies. 

Another Hogville myth is that great head coaches recruit to their "system" to the exclusion of all else.  Rather, great head coaches tailor their "system" to the players on the roster.  They also change "systems" with the times.  Frank Broyles did this.  Darrell Royal and Bear Bryant did this.  Bobby Petrino's offense at Louisville is entirely different right now than Arkansas's with Ryan Mallett and Tyler Wilson.  At a school like Arkansas, which depends heavily on in-state talent for good years (yes - sanity - there's truth to this, just not to the extent you insist there is), being able to adapt to your personnel is more important than it is at a school like Alabama, which currently has a point-and-click ability to recruit.

The improvements in DWRRS are going to help with recruiting.  The improvements in the players' facilities, especially the locker rooms, are going to help even more.  Good players are going to go to Arkansas. 

Coaches at schools like Arkansas are challenged today to sort the real 3 stars from the beauty contest winners being marketed by player reps with an assist from recruiting services.  Even some 4 star players fit into the beauty contest category.  At the end of the day, coaches must watch a lot of film and make a lot of visits to identify the best football players.  Not all 6'4" 215 lb. 4.3 specimens with a 42 inch vertical and 32 inch arms are great football players.  Not all want to be great football players. 

Great football coaches tend to be great people.  Larger than life people.  That's not to be confused with nice people, although great football coaches can be nice people.  Some are, many aren't.

There is no reason why another Frank Broyles-level coach can't produce consistently excellent football again in Fayetteville.  That is not to say that Arkansas will win at the level it did in the 1960s when it was one win short of being the winningest college football program of that decade.  Another Hogville myth is that the SWC was the equivalent of the SWAC.  Not even close.  It was at least the equivalent of the Big 12 (at the time known as the Big Eight).  But it wasn't the SEC of the 21st century.

The most important thing a head coach does is create a process that fosters commitment and development to a winning culture.  If the process is there, development follows.  Year after year.           

[Cinco de Hogo]

A five-star CB can still be beat by a three-star WR because the five-star CB didn't use proper footwork and technique to cover his man. That's where the "coaching them up" comes in.

Drew Morgan consistently beat 5* talent. 

[Atlhogfan1]

Coaches do have to adapt. But they also need to find players who fit what they want to do.  Petrino had already planned for a qb like Jackson years ago when he thought he was going to coach Vick.

Heard an interview with Mullen yesterday describing his and his staffs thought process when recruiting and evaluating Fitzgerald and how they thought he would fit in spite of not being highly ranked.  Miss St offense didn't lose its identity from Dak to Fitzgerald. 

[JonesboroHogFan]

Yes, I am sure making sure 5 yr olds were "focused" was the same as making sure you have the players to go up against Bama/Aub/LSU/A&M or the like 8 times a year. Good grief.

Hogsanity your above statement is very foolish.  I'm sure you haven't been very successful in coaching anything?  I've been very successful coaching basketball, football and soccer teams over the last 7 years.  Talent definitely plays a big part in winning but creating a mindset at any age also plays a very big part.

[JoeyCapital]

Hogsanity your above statement is very foolish.  I'm sure you haven't been very successful in coaching anything?  I've been very successful coaching basketball, football and soccer teams over the last 7 years.  Talent definitely plays a big part in winning but creating a mindset at any age also plays a very big part.

Where does having a hot mom rank in your recruiting metric? Don't lie to me and say you don't recruit those marginal kids based on momma's looks. 

[Razorback de Nosferatu]

Fans of teams that don't do well in recruiting always pooh pooh recruiting rankings. I do agree that the rankings are not the be all end all. One thing that can help make more sense of it is who else was on the recruit, not just offered but were really after them. How many kids do the Hogs sign that the teams above them in the SEC were REALLY after? OF none of the teams above them in the sec were after those players there is a reason, because they were after BETTER players.

One more long post:

I'm not "pooh"-ing the recruiting rankings.  I WISH Arkansas could land consistent top ten classes.  Or even consistent top fifteen classes. But it's a fact that they're for general guidance, not to be used as a calculator of future success, and I AM "pooh"-ing the idea that somehow jumping five spots in the recruiting rankings every few years is the pill this program needs to take (though it wouldn't hurt).  Arkansas recruits *good enough* that COACHING is more important than landing a couple of more kids with an extra star by their names so we can leap up a few arbitrary spots on a list that's by its nature tremendously flawed and unscientific to begin with.

My ultimate argument is that somewhere in between, say, the #10 class and the #30-something class, there is a vast gray area featuring a bunch of teams with wide varieties of 3* and 4* players.  The makeup and ultimate quality of those classes is impossible to accurately rank.

So, no, I'm not downing the recruiting services.  I accept that Arkansas will never recruit on par with Alabama, just as I pray this 50-something class we have right now improves tremendously. 

In between, which is where Arkansas routinely lands, is the teens-twenties-thirties land of really good football players who might not be natural freaks of nature but who are a lot better than what Sun Belt schools get, and COACHING will determine their futures.

[NaturalStateReb]

Call it what you will, but Arkansas needs a coach that can win with the variety of 3* and 4* talent typical of classes that rank somewhere in the twenties. 

It's not realistic to assume Arkansas is going to suddenly start landing top 15 classes (maybe on occasion, as was stated), but top 25-30ish classes are realistic, as has been proven on a routine basis.  Whether or not that puts Arkansas near the bottom of the SEC...  Whatever.  At some point, the rankings gets silly.  The actual differences in the #18 class and the #28 class are probably negligible, and coaching will determine the rest.

I get tired of hearing about how Arkansas is stinking up the joint because there's "Sun Belt" talent on the field (saw that on Twitter).  The talent currently on this team, at least as far as indicated by the recruiting services, is on par with what we should expect to get here.  It's sure as heck on par or superior to the likes of what Missouri, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, and TCU have been getting. 

Arkansas just needs a coach with the ability to lead, inspire, scheme, and ultimately win with it. 

I think you can do it with top 25 classes as long as you have a top 10-15 class sprinkled in every 3 or 4 years.  Preferably 3.

[logic]

Recruiting ranking are not reliable for an individual player.  However, they are very accurate for recruiting classes.  It is like this.  A hotel is having conferences for the Electrical Union and a group of lawyers.  Pass a person on the way, and you may not know which conference he is attending.  However, open the door to a conference and you can tell at a glance if is the the lawyers or the electrical union.

[Boarcephus]

Drew Morgan consistently beat 5* talent. 

True but so many times him beating  5* talent was the result of a 5* play caller calling the shots.   

I think it goes back to what Bobby Bowden said in his final year or two.  Every year they had the top 5 or 10 recruiting classes that didn't produce the wins people thought they  should.   He came out and said even though they had all the 4* and 5* players they, as coaches, made serious errors in evaluating how those players would fit their particular system and culture. 

[Cotton]

True but so many times him beating  5* talent was the result of a 5* play caller calling the shots.   

I think it goes back to what Bobby Bowden said in his final year or two.  Every year they had the top 5 or 10 recruiting classes that didn't produce the wins people thought they  should.   He came out and said even though they had all the 4* and 5* players they, as coaches, made serious errors in evaluating how those players would fit their particular system and culture.

Give me a coach like BP or Gus that consistently find ways to get the most out of what they have instead of make players fit their system. 

[Atlhogfan1]

Give me a coach like BP or Gus that consistently find ways to get the most out of what they have instead of make players fit their system.

Coaches usually recruit to what they intend to do because they need players who can do what they want to do successfully.  Gus had to go out and get Marshall to run his offense in 2013.   

[WilsonHog]

Heart, desire, mindset...very valuable characteristics.

Against a stronger, quicker football player? Probably not enough to keep a kid from getting his ass whipped.

[Atlhogfan1]

Heart, desire, mindset...very valuable characteristics.

Against a stronger, quicker football player? Probably not enough to keep a kid from getting his ass whipped.

Valuable players to have but can only take you so far. 

[PonderinHog]

Recruiting ranking are not reliable for an individual player.  However, they are very accurate for recruiting classes.  It is like this.  A hotel is having conferences for the Electrical Union and a group of lawyers.  Pass a person on the way, and you may not know which conference he is attending.  However, open the door to a conference and you can tell at a glance if is the the lawyers or the electrical union.

Yep, dead giveaway, the electricians will be trying to screw in a light bulb and the lawyers will just be trying to screw the light bulb...   

[LJHOG]

  You can't coach a mule into a thoroughbred.

Or as my mom used to say, "You can't win the Kentucky Derby ridin' a jackass."

[hogsanity]

Hogsanity your above statement is very foolish.  I'm sure you haven't been very successful in coaching anything?  I've been very successful coaching basketball, football and soccer teams over the last 7 years.  Talent definitely plays a big part in winning but creating a mindset at any age also plays a very big part.

Not nearly as foolish as acting like you kept 5 yr olds "focused" and that is why you won multiple city titles in 5 - 7 yr old sports.

I have been a youth league coach for almost 15 yrs, have had good teams and bad teams, depending on what kids that signed up got put on my team. In our league we do not get to recruit, we get what we get from signups. I've had teams with kids that went on to play in college, and had a team this last spring that had 4 kids make their HS baseball teams as Freshmen, and none of it had anything to do with me keeping them focused, nor does it translate to the world of college football. The only comparable factor is that our team won a lot of game strictly because we had better players.

Heart, desire, mindset...very valuable characteristics.

Against a stronger, quicker football player? Probably not enough to keep a kid from getting his ass whipped.

Exactly. OF course you want your players to have heart, to desire to do their best, but that is only going to go so far if the opponent is just flat out better. If your WR is 6'3" 220 and runs a 4.3 and my CB is 5'10 180 and runs a 4.6, well guess who is going to win that battle most of the time, I do not care how much heart the DB has, he is going to get beaten time after time after time.

[hawgfan4life]

All true, but you still need coaches that are getting those players to reach their potential on a consistent basis.  Nobody with a brain believes our OL is anywhere near that standard.  Nor are any other position groups or teams (i.e. defense, offense, specialty).  There is also a lot that goes into the overall play of the team that isn't based on talent.  Heart, effort, discipline, technique, intelligence, motivation, and the so-called intangibles.  Most 3 star players with the physical body build and ability Arkansas is recruiting can be developed into a dependable player that can help the team be competitive against anyone and successful against good to average teams.  Most 4 star players can be developed into great players that can help you be successful against the great teams when those teams aren't focused and are making mistakes. A&M and USC tried their best to give us those games in the first half and we were not developed enough to take advantage.  BB should be able to produce a team that can be expected to win or compete for 8 wins in a normal year and rise above that when things fall into place much like Snyder has done at K-State all these years.  We have shown no signs or ability to do this the past two years and are going in the wrong direction.   8 wins are still within reason this year if we are any kind of team at all.  7 wins is very realistic allowing for us to still lose to AL, AUB, and LSU.  Beat cupcake, both Mississippi schools, a pitiful MO team, and win the bowl.  Right now, I wouldn't take odds on beating MO by the time we play them because we have never demonstrated any degree of heart, determination, and fight with this current group the past several games.

[WilsonHog]

Yada, yada, yada!  Another recruiting thread!  I'm not sure why these threads keep popping up because they shed light on nothing!  If stars and recruiting rankings mean so much, why does FSU suck, OK lose to Iowa St playing a 3rd string QB, why did Michigan lose to Mich St, how did Washington St ever beat USC, how does Vandy beat anybody, when was the last time Ga Tech was ranked in the Top 25 in recruiting, why is Ok St consistently ranked in the top 25 with 30-40 something recruiting classes, how does a QB playing for Po Dunk High in one of the smallest classifications in one of the smallest states garner a 4 Star rating, and last but not least, how has there been more 3 and 4 Star Pros than 5 Star?  Wouldn't all the 5 stars be in the NFL?  There is not one shred of evidence out there that says if you pile up 4 and 5 Star players, who by the way, was dubbed that by some goofy recruiting service, that they will become an over night NC!  And NO, I don't want to hear about Saban, Myer, or even Dabo because they are without a doubt, the best coaches in the country and could win 10 games with the current UA roster in the SEC.  My goodness how did any team EVER become winning programs before the end all be all recruiting rankings?!!!!!!

Just because high school players weren't ranked as they are now doesn't mean top schools weren't getting great athletes. "Blue-chippers."

Never cite outliers as proof of the bigger picture.

(a) Yeah, Florida State is struggling THIS year, but in the last seven years under Jimbo Fisher they've averaged 11.1 wins per year. Think he did that with a bunch of 2 and 3 stars?

(b) Yeah, Iowa State beat OU last weekend....for the second time since 1961.

(c) USC and Washington State have played 72 times, and the Cougars have won 10 (.164).

(d) Michigan and Michigan State? When you factor out the current freshman class for both schools, here is where their respective classes have ranked the last few years:

2016: Michigan 8, Michigan State 17
2015: Michigan State 23, Michigan 37
2014: Michigan 20, Michigan State 26

Finally, Bret Bielema has never beaten Alabama; if he does so tomorrow, would you give him a contract extension, or would you examine his body of work over five seasons?

[HognitiveDissonance]

As I've posted before, 'player development' tends to be overrated by fans.
Can guys improve their technique through coaching, drills, and practice? Yes.

But mostly what happens is a natural process.
An 18-year old freshman comes in and over four years, sometimes five, he develops into a 23-year old young man. He's physically, emotionally more mature and being in the program for five years makes him much more comfortable with playing at this level. He knows the 'speed of the game'.
Brandon Allen is a good example. He was a 3-star QB, and had some moments in his career. But by his 5th year in 2015, he was playing as well as any QB in the country.

A 23-year old senior, as a 3-star recruit, let's say, should outperform most freshmen, or sophomores. The exceptions would obviously be the 5-star recruits who are super talented, and often those 4 and 5-star guys can outperform 5th-year seniors on talent alone.

What I'm saying is that coaches tend to get too much credit for 'development' for something that happens on its own time and course.

[Piggfoot]

As I've posted before, 'player development' tends to be overrated by fans.
Can guys improve their technique through coaching, drills, and practice? Yes.

But mostly what happens is a natural process.
An 18-year old freshman comes in and over four years, sometimes five, he develops into a 23-year old young man. He's physically, emotionally more mature and being in the program for five years makes him much more comfortable with playing at this level. He knows the 'speed of the game'.
Brandon Allen is a good example. He was a 3-star QB, and had some moments in his career. But by his 5th year in 2015, he was playing as well as any QB in the country.

A 23-year old senior, as a 3-star recruit, let's say, should outperform most freshmen, or sophomores. The exceptions would obviously be the 5-star recruits who are super talented, and often those 4 and 5-star guys can outperform 5th-year seniors on talent alone.

What I'm saying is that coaches tend to get too much credit for 'development' for something that happens on its own time and course.

+1000

[hogsanity]

I bet you can't convince the Liberty team that beat Baylor of that!

Of what, that they won their opener against a depleted Baylor that they had all summer to prepare for and got the biggest win in program history. Since then Liberty is 2-2 with losses to JSu and St Francis Pa. Guess they just did not want those wins as much or maybe SFP has better players than Baylor?

[DeltaBoy]

I agree Patterson is great at doing this.  When he was on Franchione staff the local media said it was impossible to build and substain a winning program in Fort Worth


https://books.google.com/books?id=IiwEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=You+can%27t+build+a+winner+at+TCU&source=bl&ots=NDmKVAiA0v&sig=51h5LigcTVygfl2mj1WhbYfTSCE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1jI6are7WAhUN8YMKHZ5UAoc4ChDoAQhKMAk#v=onepage&q&f=false

[zebradynasty]

Heart, desire, mindset...very valuable characteristics.

Against a stronger, quicker football player? Probably not enough to keep a kid from getting his ass whipped.

Post of the year! The criticism on this team is not about heart, desire...they play hard. It's plain to me that compared to other SEC schools we do not have the talent. For whatever reason we signed too may kids that were good players in high school or stood out being a big fish in a little pond. The current staffs talent evaluations leaves a lot to be desired. I will say this as it pertains to the OL. No way I believed we missed on all those highly recruited OL that are sitting on the bench. Something is not right there. We need better athletes than what we are signing.

[NaturalStateReb]

Just because high school players weren't ranked as they are now doesn't mean top schools weren't getting great athletes. "Blue-chippers."

Never cite outliers as proof of the bigger picture.

(a) Yeah, Florida State is struggling THIS year, but in the last seven years under Jimbo Fisher they've averaged 11.1 wins per year. Think he did that with a bunch of 2 and 3 stars?

(b) Yeah, Iowa State beat OU last weekend....for the second time since 1961.

(c) USC and Washington State have played 72 times, and the Cougars have won 10 (.164).

(d) Michigan and Michigan State? When you factor out the current freshman class for both schools, here is where their respective classes have ranked the last few years:

2016: Michigan 8, Michigan State 17
2015: Michigan State 23, Michigan 37
2014: Michigan 20, Michigan State 26

Finally, Bret Bielema has never beaten Alabama; if he does so tomorrow, would you give him a contract extension, or would you examine his body of work over five seasons?

So, you're saying there's a chance?

[Vantage 8 dude]

I, for one, don't expect ANY coach to achieve miracles. I don't expect any staff to be able to take two and three star players and consistently turn them into All-Americans. And yes, it's true that with NCAA mandated limitations as far as practice time is concerned this development is only made for challenging. Having said and acknowledged that, I DO believe that a HC and his staff CAN upgrade most kid's play once he gets to campus. While the ability and desire has to most certainly be there, the TEACHING aspect can then come into to play. A properly coaching kid stands a far, far better chance of performing his best if he's been given proper assistance along the way.

Let's face it: We are never going to consistently out recruit the Alabama's, LSU's Georgia's, Florida's and Ohio State's of the college football world. Recognizing that fact it becomes even more important that to more effectively compete we're going to have to "try harder" by working to develop the talent we have (and part of that is to try to ensure the kids we do sign just don't end up sitting on the bench for all, or the better part, of their college careers). Plain and simple fact is that no player will do any program much good if he sits on the bench because he can't get the job done.

This also means that our staff is going to have to do their part to not only get the kids to play hard, but do so with a positive attitude. This entails not only helping the kids to perform at peak level, but also give them the best opportunity at succeeding. And part of THAT includes game planning, making in-game adjustments AND keeping these kids focused the ENTIRE GAME, not just a quarter or two. Sorry, but it doesn't take a Knute Rochne or even a Nick Saban to get your kids to play hard an entire game.....and to repeatedly have second half funks, turn overs, missed assignments, etc. I won't accept as a fan......nor IMHO should any true supporter. And if THAT'S being unrealistic then apparently the game has fundamentally changed since I played a LONG, LONG time ago. Interesting thing is that far too many programs have these basic things. And while they may not always compete for a championship, most of those can at least feel good that they're leaving all on the field. I can promise we USED to have that and it wasn't a few decades ago either.

[Pigdiana Jones]

We always hear about how programs need coaches that can "coach 'em up."  This is one of the most absurd arguments put forward in college football.  Undoubtedly, good coaching improves players, but relying on this mantra to build a program is nothing but a fool's hope.  Here's why:

1.  First, everyone else is "coaching 'em up."  This notion that only your particular program is coaching them up assumes that everyone else is standing still, which is patently untrue.  Every other coaching staff is trying to develop their players as well.  Not only that, it assumes that you're an exception--that your coach somehow has the magical elixir that will allow him to outdevelop all of the other FBS coaching staffs.  That might be true, but it's very unlikely.

2.  Second, you can only coach a player up so far.  You can't coach a mule into a thoroughbred.  That doesn't mean that everyone has to be an All-American to be a contributor, but there's only so much that a player can be developed based on his individual talent/skill set.  Coaches have limited amounts of time to spend on individual instruction.  These guys are position coaches, not personal trainers.  Remember back when there was all that talk about Bielema and a walk-on program?  There's a reason they're walk-ons.  It's not an accident. For every Brandon Burlsworth, there are 150 Joe Schmoes. 

3.  Third, when we say that we want a coach that can produce with a 3-star player, what we're really saying is "we want a coach that can identify misclassified talent."  An average player doesn't just miracle himself into being an amazing player.  It could be that a player was a late bloomer, or that he comes from a small school, or that he just hasn't been heralded by the recruiting echo chamber.  Maybe he's just a good fit for the system.  Whatever the reason, the player has a chance to contribute at a higher level than he's been tabbed to.  It's not like recruiting "rankings" are some kind of scientific system, anyway.

You need a guy who's good with X's and O's, sure, but coaching, scheme, those things can take you only so far.  At some point, you have to be able to recruit at a high level on a semi-regular basis.  You don't have to have a top 10 class every year to succeed, but you do need a top 10-15 class every three years or so in order to challenge.  I still submit that Arkansas has, during its tenure in the SEC, yet to have a coach that is known as a top notch recruiter.  They've been pretty average recruiters, at best.  Arkansas needs to get a recruiting headhunter that can really work the I-30 corridor.  The talent situation isn't going to improve otherwise.

Yet another reason BP should not have been fired.

[WilsonHog]

First of all BB is not going to beat Bama so that analogy is fantasy.  Second, if recruiting rankings were so important, why has Saban stated he do not use them.  Third, if they were so important and we could tell what teams would finish in the top 25 by using them, why is there some no name teams finishing in the top 25 yearly?  And I'll ask the same question a different way:  If recruiting rankings mean so much and the Star jazz is so dependable, why hasn't EVERY HS 5 Star went on to the NFL?

You are making an argument for an imperfect system that does not define where a team will finish the season.  None of you star gazers ever want to admit it but there are more indicators that suggest that's just not a reliable measurement to determine success or failure as a team.

First of all, do not refer to me as a "star gazer." I do not follow recruiting, period.

More times than not, the team who has the best players wins. That's why when they don't, there is a term for it.

They call it an "upset."

[Al Boarland]

I still submit that Arkansas has, during its tenure in the SEC, yet to have a coach that is known as a top notch recruiter.

Top notch recruiter become not top notch recruiters when they get to Fayetteville. You aren't going to convince enough studs to come play ball at the UofA when they pass 3 or 4 other programs with the same resources, more tradition and are closer to mama on the way to the Natural State.

[PorkSoda]

Damn you delta

Why you no tinyurl?

[zebradynasty]

First of all BB is not going to beat Bama so that analogy is fantasy.  Second, if recruiting rankings were so important, why has Saban stated he do not use them.  Third, if they were so important and we could tell what teams would finish in the top 25 by using them, why is there some no name teams finishing in the top 25 yearly?  And I'll ask the same question a different way:  If recruiting rankings mean so much and the Star jazz is so dependable, why hasn't EVERY HS 5 Star went on to the NFL?

You are making an argument for an imperfect system that does not define where a team will finish the season.  None of you star gazers ever want to admit it but there are more indicators that suggest that's just not a reliable measurement to determine success or failure as a team.

If you take the top 10 teams with highest average 5 year recruiting ranking and compare it with the current top 10 teams currently ranked, I bet the list will be nearly the same programs. Rankings aren't perfect it's a lot like forecasting weather even harder because you trying to see what going happen over a 4-5 year period. Sure the ranking service miss some but overall teams consistently signing top 10 classes are consistently showing up in the top 10 polls. Coincidence?....I think not!

[lakecityhog]

consistent and significant skill development of student-athletes both individually and collectively.

Part of the coach requirements for Oregon, wow a university that expects a coach to "coach'em up"!!!

Yeah, maybe we should expect for a coach to DEVELOP kids and actually make them better each and every year.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

We always hear about how programs need coaches that can "coach 'em up."  This is one of the most absurd arguments put forward in college football.  Undoubtedly, good coaching improves players, but relying on this mantra to build a program is nothing but a fool's hope.  Here's why:

1.  First, everyone else is "coaching 'em up."  This notion that only your particular program is coaching them up assumes that everyone else is standing still, which is patently untrue.  Every other coaching staff is trying to develop their players as well.  Not only that, it assumes that you're an exception--that your coach somehow has the magical elixir that will allow him to outdevelop all of the other FBS coaching staffs.  That might be true, but it's very unlikely.

2.  Second, you can only coach a player up so far.  You can't coach a mule into a thoroughbred.  That doesn't mean that everyone has to be an All-American to be a contributor, but there's only so much that a player can be developed based on his individual talent/skill set.  Coaches have limited amounts of time to spend on individual instruction.  These guys are position coaches, not personal trainers.  Remember back when there was all that talk about Bielema and a walk-on program?  There's a reason they're walk-ons.  It's not an accident. For every Brandon Burlsworth, there are 150 Joe Schmoes. 

3.  Third, when we say that we want a coach that can produce with a 3-star player, what we're really saying is "we want a coach that can identify misclassified talent."  An average player doesn't just miracle himself into being an amazing player.  It could be that a player was a late bloomer, or that he comes from a small school, or that he just hasn't been heralded by the recruiting echo chamber.  Maybe he's just a good fit for the system.  Whatever the reason, the player has a chance to contribute at a higher level than he's been tabbed to.  It's not like recruiting "rankings" are some kind of scientific system, anyway.

You need a guy who's good with X's and O's, sure, but coaching, scheme, those things can take you only so far.  At some point, you have to be able to recruit at a high level on a semi-regular basis.  You don't have to have a top 10 class every year to succeed, but you do need a top 10-15 class every three years or so in order to challenge.  I still submit that Arkansas has, during its tenure in the SEC, yet to have a coach that is known as a top notch recruiter.  They've been pretty average recruiters, at best.  Arkansas needs to get a recruiting headhunter that can really work the I-30 corridor.  The talent situation isn't going to improve otherwise.

Arkansas' reputation as a recruiting machine would be greatly aided if, like some of our SEC counterparts, there was more money paid to highly ranked recruits to attend their school.

But we aren't going to do business that way so we are left with having to work harder at recruiting to identify those that have been under-evaluated and those who have the "puh-tential" to become better players than anyone first projected.

Now that is the truth of the matter and that is just how it is for Arkansas.

We'll get a few 4 stars and the occasional 5 star but we have to have a HC and Staff who either through virtue of scheme and philosophy, as well as player development, can get more from less. Until someone at Arkansas decides to start handing out bags of cash, that is pretty much always going to be true.

[OneTuskOverTheLine™]

We always hear about how programs need coaches that can "coach 'em up."  This is one of the most absurd arguments put forward in college football.  Undoubtedly, good coaching improves players, but relying on this mantra to build a program is nothing but a fool's hope.  Here's why:

1.  First, everyone else is "coaching 'em up."  This notion that only your particular program is coaching them up assumes that everyone else is standing still, which is patently untrue.  Every other coaching staff is trying to develop their players as well.  Not only that, it assumes that you're an exception--that your coach somehow has the magical elixir that will allow him to outdevelop all of the other FBS coaching staffs.  That might be true, but it's very unlikely.

2.  Second, you can only coach a player up so far.  You can't coach a mule into a thoroughbred.  That doesn't mean that everyone has to be an All-American to be a contributor, but there's only so much that a player can be developed based on his individual talent/skill set.  Coaches have limited amounts of time to spend on individual instruction.  These guys are position coaches, not personal trainers.  Remember back when there was all that talk about Bielema and a walk-on program?  There's a reason they're walk-ons.  It's not an accident. For every Brandon Burlsworth, there are 150 Joe Schmoes. 

3.  Third, when we say that we want a coach that can produce with a 3-star player, what we're really saying is "we want a coach that can identify misclassified talent."  An average player doesn't just miracle himself into being an amazing player.  It could be that a player was a late bloomer, or that he comes from a small school, or that he just hasn't been heralded by the recruiting echo chamber.  Maybe he's just a good fit for the system.  Whatever the reason, the player has a chance to contribute at a higher level than he's been tabbed to.  It's not like recruiting "rankings" are some kind of scientific system, anyway.

You need a guy who's good with X's and O's, sure, but coaching, scheme, those things can take you only so far.  At some point, you have to be able to recruit at a high level on a semi-regular basis.  You don't have to have a top 10 class every year to succeed, but you do need a top 10-15 class every three years or so in order to challenge.  I still submit that Arkansas has, during its tenure in the SEC, yet to have a coach that is known as a top notch recruiter.  They've been pretty average recruiters, at best.  Arkansas needs to get a recruiting headhunter that can really work the I-30 corridor.  The talent situation isn't going to improve otherwise.

Listen to this in its entirety and let him explain it to you...

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Listen to this in its entirety and let him explain it to you...

People want to talk about Bielema throwing the team under the bus, but what you see in that video is just truthfullness by a HC. No difference but I appreciate that level of honesty.