No doubt. There's a how much time question that remains the rub with investing almost entirely in that side.If the position coaches do a great job of development that will eventually help recruiting, won’t it?
No doubt. There's a how much time question that remains the rub with investing almost entirely in that side.If the position coaches do a great job of development that will eventually help recruiting, won’t it?
damn me.Flower Mound Marcus... for 38 years now! Named after Edward S. Marcus, of Neiman-Marcus fame.
More times than not, as assistant is either one or the other, but rarely both.Crazy thought, but what if you hire position coaches that are not only great developers of talent, but also great recruiters? Last time I checked it isn't a one or the other type of thing.
No, it wasn't one or the other but the emphasis was on development. If development is recognized as being outstanding, that will help in recruiting . However it will take some time to determine if they are great at recruiting. This is not a good time to evaluate them at Texas.Crazy thought, but what if you hire position coaches that are not only great developers of talent, but also great recruiters? Last time I checked it isn't a one or the other type of thing.
That is what Tom did with his first staff. They did a very good job at recruiting, didn't they?More times than not, as assistant is either one or the other, but rarely both.
Usually, you invest in recruiting.
Edward Marcus had an Angus farm in Flower Mound. He donated land from the farm for the high school, hence the name. FM Marcus made it to the 5A state finals in football in the 90’s, winning once.damn me.
I'm not sure that I would include proven in your sentence for most of the recent position hires.The position coaches were hired because of their proven development of players.
All but the WR coach had a history of development. I don't know about the WR coach.I'm not sure that I would include proven in your sentence for most of the recent position hires.
No, it wasn't one or the other but the emphasis was on development. If development is recognized as being outstanding, that will help in recruiting . However it will take some time to determine if they are great at recruiting. This is not a good time to evaluate them at Texas.
Depends on the scale you are referring to. Neither Hagen, Huntzler, Valai nor Coleman (or Hand for that matter) have distinguished records of putting players into the NFL. Actually, same with Hand. I'd be shocked if any of them ranks anywhere close to top 20 at their position groups.All but the WR coach had a history of development. I don't know about the WR coach.
I agree. Recruiting at Texas is a challenge. Most of the recruits we go after are offered extra benefits by some schools. The kids that are willing to accept these benefits will not not come here. To get the kids that meet our standards, we have to have top facilities. We have to provide the best academic, strength and conditioning, health and nutrition as well as coaching.In the end the best teams year in and year out recruit the best players. That is why you consistently see the same teams at the top. The TCU's of the world that develop talent well, don't have too many great seasons stacked upon one another.
It's cool you are in the wait and see mode. However, while I might think that some coaches will be better at teaching kids, it won't matter in the long run if we don't win big and our recruiting classes begin to suffer.
For the most part. Some were not what I would call elite in either phase.That is what Tom did with his first staff. They did a very good job at recruiting, didn't they?
How would you grade the current staff in a way to early poll on development and recruiting? Just what you expect? How does this compare to the replaced staff on those two different functions?For the most part. Some were not what I would call elite in either phase.