Coaches Who Do More with Less

[CoachCB]

I think Peterson is very good at putting a team together. But his success is ultimately going to come down to recruiting. He's going to have to pick it up on that end to be able to compete in that league. So far UW isn't doing all that well on the recruiting front. Like I said, if he can get into the top 20-25 in recruiting I think he'll win that division. That's a big if I know. Mainly because their geographical location doesn't really allow them to have the top classes like USC or UCLA.

GS, look at the bolded part......then go look at the title of this thread and what the discussion is all about: Coaches that do more with less.

That's the whole point. You argued he did more with less....now you're saying in order to do more (win) he needs to recruit better.

So does he do more with less....or does he need MORE (better recruits) to do more?????

 

[GoSooners]

GS, look at the bolded part......then go look at the title of this thread and what the discussion is all about: Coaches that do more with less.

That's the whole point. You argued he did more with less....now you're saying in order to do more (win) he needs to recruit better.

So does he do more with less....or does he need MORE (better recruits) to do more?????

Peterson has already exceeded expectations this season doubling their projected win total. But there is a difference between going over your projected team win total and winning championships. When it comes to doing more with less, nobody has done better than Dantonio at Michigan State and Snyder at KSU. But neither of those teams are going to win national championships with their recruiting. Most coaches aren't miracle workers. Poor to average recruiting will only take you so far. As good a coach as Saban is, he didn't have great teams Michigan State like he has at Bama/LSU, because you can't recruit to MSU like you can the SEC. It's really that simple. Paul Rhodes used to always exceed Phil Steel's projected win total and make a bowl every year. But he was never going to get beyond 6 or wins with his recruiting base. There are coaches who do less with more like a Muschamp or Chizik. And there are coaches who have done more with less like a Peterson or Dantonio. I think that's what this thread is about...

 

[WinOne]

I think Peterson is very good at putting a team together. But his success is ultimately going to come down to recruiting. He's going to have to pick it up on that end to be able to compete in that league. So far UW isn't doing all that well on the recruiting front. Like I said, if he can get into the top 20-25 in recruiting I think he'll win that division. That's a big if I know. Mainly because their geographical location doesn't really allow them to have the top classes like USC or UCLA.

It'll be interesting to see as the number of kids on the UW roster that were recruited by Sark and Lupoy(his top recruiter) drops, what type of kids Peterson brings in. I dont think he's got anyone on his staff that is a stellar recruiter. Especially no one to go into urban areas and recruit effectively. As I've stated in the past, if he brings in the boise type of kids, he'll fail if the rest of the north (Stanford/Oregon) stay strong. Dykes at Cal is going to get players because he's not only in a fertile area, but he can still get into homes in Texas. Cal has a nice mix of kids from a lot of good HS football states. Leach seems to be getting more and more of that Tx Tech type of kid up to Pullman, so they should be decent for the next few years if he stays there.

 

[escrow]

Charlie Strong and Kevin Sumlin! Oh wait.....what was the question, again?