Which is better?

[jhopduck]

No evidence or statistics to debate the following:
Is it better to be great at recruiting or.... great at evaluating talent?

I'd like to say that I believe our coaches are GOOD at recruiting not Great.

But I do feel that most if not all the coaches are GREAT at evaluating talent. And that tool right there is what translates into on the field success.

Watch the following video, watch it with a clean slate, pretend you don't already know about this recruit. Then after watching it, tell me would you rate him the same as scout/rivals after seeing some video of him?

http://oregon.scout.com/a.z?s=128&p=11& ... s%3D637182

[GoDucksIn09]

If I had to choose between the two of which is better to have I would be inclined to say is better to have coaches who can develope talent. Ideally would want both but if a coach can't coach and can only turn out good teams with superstars then truthfully is not that good of a coach. I would love to see our coaches land lots of top notch talent every year because I know what they do with developing talent. I can only imagine what they would do with lots of great players. Just my two cents. I am not saying I am right or wrong. It is.. just my opinion.

[slammer]

Definately evaluating talent is the most important IMO. You see a guy with 3* stars turn into a major stud by the time he graduates, and i've seen kid's rated 5* stars coming out of high school and not deliver the high expectations he was prematurely given. Look at Nick Reed & Pat Chung, those 3* stars turned out too be pretty good IMO!!!

[slammer]

I also wanted to use Brian Jackson ( CB out of Hoover H.S. ) as an example. People were talking about he's not very speedy for a CB, but he's all over the field making tackles everywhere and thats the kind of guys i want on this football team. I think thats what all coaches ( or atleast ours ) are looking for. I think they see a CB who is NOT afraid to make a tackle, even if he's outsized.

[Duckxing]

This isn't really even a debate. Being able to evaluate talent is far more important. If all these guys at scout and rivals, that rank and evaluate talent, were so good at evaluating talent then they wouldn't be working at scout and rivals. They would be making millions evaluating talent for an NFL or college team.

A perfect example of this is ND. ND has 5* talent up and down the lineup but is a horrible team.

[woundedknees]

I think the best combination is a coach who can evaluate talent, and develope it. I think everyone is in agreement that it doesn't matter how good the players you bring in are, if the coaches are not able to get the maximum return for their investment. Even the current Trojans underperform on the field, compared to the talent on the sidelines.

(It is just as important for a team to recruit a group of coaches with the combination of knowledge, skill, and chemistry necessary to provide the best opportunity for player/team growth.)

IMO, it is a delicate blend of evaluation of a players strengths, teaching, training, discipline, and motivation that creates the best physical and mental attributes in players.

[wlduck]

This isn't really even a debate. Being able to evaluate talent is far more important. If all these guys at scout and rivals, that rank and evaluate talent, were so good at evaluating talent then they wouldn't be working at scout and rivals. They would be making millions evaluating talent for an NFL or college team.

A perfect example of this is ND. ND has 5* talent up and down the lineup but is a horrible team.

Notre Dame has been the exception. For all the talk about 2 star sleepers, look at the facts. The schools that finish at the top of the Scout and Rivals recruiting ratings regularly Rivals are USC, Ohio State, Florida, Georgia, LSU, etc. See a pattern there? I do. Look at Alabama. Last years top rated class, and this year they make a run at a NC.

But the question is not as simple as JHop framed it here. Two "equal" recruiters will not produce equal results if one is recruiting for USC and one for Oregon. Too many inherent advantages for USC (or Florida Ohio State, etc). So it becomes important to do both. Recruit like crazy to get some high caliber potential in every year, and evaluate like crazy to fill in the gaps.

[ducksball]

I really think being able to evaluate and develop talent and see potential is necessary, but without a certain amount of pure athleticism and talent, a team can only be so good (OREGON STATE). I think we have a good mixture at Oregon and i believe both are increasing. WHich is a good, good sign. We have a bright future with this last class and others in the future. I have much trust in our coaches.

[Tray Dub]

Depends on the school. If you're a USC or a Florida, it's more important to evaluate talent because you can have most recruits you really go after. If you're a San Diego State or an Air Force, you need to be able to recruit, because it's a harder sell to get kids to get to come to your school. I think we're closer to the USC Florida thing, I think it's better for our coaches to be able to evaluate talent. But ours need to be good at both.

And developing talent is totally different from recognizing it, so you guys are kinda cheating