ADVERTISEMENT

Spurrier and NFL Talent

HI Cock

Well-Known Member
Oct 14, 2012
9,661
6,206
113
Did he just have a nose for NFL talent, or did he really know how to develop players?

Cook and Samuels are two that really stand out to me.
 
There is not a lot about Spurrier that will ever make sense. The only thing that makes sense in regards to his success is his ability to read defenses on the fly and call an offense that can expose it. That makes sense and he was very gifted at it.

But his success goes far past that and he didn't outwork anyone. He wasn't a great recruiter. To answer your question, I can't imagine that Spurrier had any kind of "nose" for NFL talent because, outside of QB, I would bet he never even saw a high school tape. Then on top of that, he made horrible hiring decisions for coaches.

But he had "it." Whatever "it" is.

Having said all of that, I still think he underachieved overall. I truly believe he would be one of the top 3 college coaches of all times if he had recruited. Think about it for a minute. If he had recruited and been more invested in hiring decisions, I think he would won several more NCs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JodyD and Brace1
I think the biggest thing that Spurrier brought to the table was a proven winner and a successful and respected offensive mind. Those things allowed us to get guys that would have passed on signing as Gamecocks in years prior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gamecock Lifer
Did he just have a nose for NFL talent, or did he really know how to develop players?

Cook and Samuels are two that really stand out to me.
Cap Munnerlyn, Devin Taylor, Antonio Allen, Pat DiMarco, Melvin Ingram, Rok Watkins. I know I'm missing many more. I agree with paladin, he knew how to cultivate talent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JodyD and Brace1
Cap Munnerlyn, Devin Taylor, Antonio Allen, Pat DiMarco, Melvin Ingram, Rok Watkins. I know I'm missing many more. I agree with paladin, he knew how to cultivate talent.
These are the low 3* guys, right? That somehow got worked up into NFL talent (with the exception of Watkins)?
 
Munnerlyn and DiMarco were underrated by stars, but it was no secret how good they were.
Really? When DiMarco committed this board claimed it was simply a favor from Spurrier to another former gator, Chris DiMarco. Pat's uncle.
Munnerlyn wasn't expected to do much, until he locked down Sidney Rice in practice. He had 2 other offers, WVU and K-State.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tngamecock#
The best thing about Munnerlyn was how quickly he could recover from hamstring issues. Every time he got beat he pulled up lame but was right back out there two plays later.
 
Having said all of that, I still think he underachieved overall. I truly believe he would be one of the top 3 college coaches of all times if he had recruited. Think about it for a minute. If he had recruited and been more invested in hiring decisions, I think he would won several more NCs.
Think about it....Steve started coaching in the '80's....look at how much recruiting and hiring of coaches has changed since then. Look at how much it has changed in the past 10 years.
It could be said that Steve fell behind because he didn't adapt enough.
 
There is not a lot about Spurrier that will ever make sense. The only thing that makes sense in regards to his success is his ability to read defenses on the fly and call an offense that can expose it. That makes sense and he was very gifted at it.

But his success goes far past that and he didn't outwork anyone. He wasn't a great recruiter. To answer your question, I can't imagine that Spurrier had any kind of "nose" for NFL talent because, outside of QB, I would bet he never even saw a high school tape. Then on top of that, he made horrible hiring decisions for coaches.

But he had "it." Whatever "it" is.

Having said all of that, I still think he underachieved overall. I truly believe he would be one of the top 3 college coaches of all times if he had recruited. Think about it for a minute. If he had recruited and been more invested in hiring decisions, I think he would won several more NCs.

i keep hearing he wasn’t a great recruiter. The players he recruited were the best we have ever had here.
 
Think about it....Steve started coaching in the '80's....look at how much recruiting and hiring of coaches has changed since then. Look at how much it has changed in the past 10 years.
It could be said that Steve fell behind because he didn't adapt enough.
Is there another head coach who was winning lots games in the 80s that was also winning lots of games in the 2010s? If Spurrier didn't adapt enough, I can't think of any coach who did.

When I think of Spurrier relative to other great coaches, I think of a guy who won while having fun, while the other guys won while making themselves mostly miserable. In that sense, maybe Spurrier didn't work as hard as the Sabans and Meyers of the world, but I think he had more fun doing it.
 
Great post highlighting the few negatives about the man.

Even though his work ethic clearly matched that of the top leaders on each of his teams, for better and worse, he will always be remembered as a truly unique and dominant figure of his time even though he always sought challenging jobs at Duke, Florida 1.0 and Carolina and even wasted 1983-1986 and 2002-2004 with Tampa Bay and failing in the NFL and doing whatever else he did.

We were blessed.

There is not a lot about Spurrier that will ever make sense. The only thing that makes sense in regards to his success is his ability to read defenses on the fly and call an offense that can expose it. That makes sense and he was very gifted at it.

But his success goes far past that and he didn't outwork anyone. He wasn't a great recruiter. To answer your question, I can't imagine that Spurrier had any kind of "nose" for NFL talent because, outside of QB, I would bet he never even saw a high school tape. Then on top of that, he made horrible hiring decisions for coaches.

But he had "it." Whatever "it" is.

Having said all of that, I still think he underachieved overall. I truly believe he would be one of the top 3 college coaches of all times if he had recruited. Think about it for a minute. If he had recruited and been more invested in hiring decisions, I think he would won several more NCs.
 
Cap Munnerlyn, Devin Taylor, Antonio Allen, Pat DiMarco, Melvin Ingram, Rok Watkins. I know I'm missing many more. I agree with paladin, he knew how to cultivate talent.

It also helped these guys to play with the Gilmores, Clowneys, Alshon, Marcus...those elite guys. It likely elevated their game and probably the way they worked. I’m sure they were more confident playing alongside the likes of those studs.
 
It also helped these guys to play with the Gilmores, Clowneys, Alshon, Marcus...those elite guys. It likely elevated their game and probably the way they worked. I’m sure they were more confident playing alongside the likes of those studs.
Having really good players not only feeds each other, but other guys doing their jobs well makes doing your own job easier often enough. When the opposition has to double team a guy, it leaves openings for others, and when your DL gets more pressure on the QB, your LBs can be more run focused and your DBs get more errant passes into the secondary. Good secondary means a slightly less talented DL gets time to pressure the QB. Good LBs mean everything from runs to short passes is covered. When you're good at all of it, you have an elite defense. Same on the O. When you get safeties cheating because you run well, your receivers get open for the long ball more often. When the receivers have the defense backing up, the RB has a less crowded situation at the line. Everyone helps everyone else look a a little better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: funktavious
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT