Someone on here made a good point this morning

[Poultry King]

ESPN commented on it sort of tonight.

SC is a very cyclical state for recruiting. Per capita, we produce D1 players at a high level. But in year over year levels, we force a HC to go out of state.

The poster this morning talked about scheme more important than recruiting. We should quit trying to out recruit bama and other SEC heavyweights. Be like Oregon, TCU, and Baylor that routinely recruit no better than us....BUT the scheme takes the mass amount of speedy players and puts them in position to beat the more highly rated classes.
Really think Utah looks as good on paper as some schools they have and will beat this year? What about TCU ...they really 50-7 better on paper than Texas ?
Maybe we need to get a HC w a scheme predicated the same way.

 

[Mox94]

Don't disagree. Football is an offensive game these days. Yet many are panting for Kirby Smart for no other reason than he has been standing by Saban all these years. But he ain't Saban.

 

[1SGgamecock]

Clemson has proved that head coach doesn't really matter. He just has to be smart enough to sorround himself with great assistants.

 

[Sending an SOS]

Here's the problem - if our goal is to win a national championship, how many of those gimmick schemes have actually pulled it off? Even a more realistic goal like winning the SEC would be a challenge for a gimmick offense in the SEC. Look at TAMU. They haven't done it. Auburn has pulled it off, but they are falling back.

It's an idea, and I understand the argument, but will it really make all the difference? Not 100% sold on it...

 

[superflyby]

I have never been high on hiring a defensive coach as a HC. I think the emphasis should be on the defense but a head coach is not going to be the defensive coach anyway. The offensive coaches just seem to better understand the overall approach to the game. They take care of both ends when it comes to DC and OC.....JMO.

 

[Poultry King]

Here's the problem - if our goal is to win a national championship, how many of those gimmick schemes have actually pulled it off? Even a more realistic goal like winning the SEC would be a challenge for a gimmick offense in the SEC. Look at TAMU. They haven't done it. Auburn has pulled it off, but they are falling back.

It's an idea, and I understand the argument, but will it really make all the difference? Not 100% sold on it...

I read you; but the odds of and desire to win a MNC. Especially coming out of this conference is a TALL ORDER! We need to follow Lou's directive and understand that there are a handful of 5-7 schools that will routinely be in the equation for a MNC. The rest of the country has to recruit and coach...and hope that their team one day becomes experienced, has the schedule line up right, and they make their move.
I would settle for several more 10+ win seasons like TCU, Baylor, Utah, Oregon; even if we never win a MNC. IMHO, any UGA fan wanting Richt gone because he can't win more than 10/year is a special type of idiot.
If you are waiting for USC to routinely join the "I beat Bama, LSU, etc Club and Won the SEC" you may be a very old...disgruntled fan!!

 

[Cock-Vader]

I think you can definitely make the argument that we were just recruiting who we could get the last two years... we didn't seem to have an offensive identity. I think that's especially apparent at QB with a transition from Connor Shaw to a guy like Dylan... there is just no continuity there at all.