Swinney reorganises recruiting duties

[CURES]

http://www.thestate.com/tigers/story/781126.html

Will it help or hurt the team's overall performance??

[Tiger80]

Look at Swinney's comment, "Sometimes you get around coordinators that don’t recruit; all they want to do is Xs and Os every day. That’s great, but we’ve got to evaluate, and you want everybody on the same page.” He was taking a swipe at the previous arrangement when Rob Spence had no recruiting duties or was assigned to recruit only 6 schools.

Swinney's move focuses are two issues:
1. Personal relationships which require repetition - a H.S. coach sees the same guy form year-to-year
2. Getting the guys calling the plays involved in recruiting the guys that will be on the field.

.... makes sense to me!

[CURES]

It makes sense to me to have the OC and DC involved in evaluaiting the talent that needs to fit their scheme. I think in the past we recruited without taking that into consideration.

[Tiger80]

It makes sense to me to have the OC and DC involved in evaluaiting the talent that needs to fit their scheme. I think in the past we recruited without taking that into consideration.

Yes, I think we were too quick to recruit based on physical characteristics or someone that was broadly categorized as an "Athlete" rather than someone that could fit a need on offense or defense.

[TigerTheory]

Im going to disagree a little as usual here. Id have to say that our corners, safeties, and defensive line have been lights out as far as recruiting goes. We have had guys in there that are multi positional (Daquan Bowers, DeAndre McDaniel, etc.) that we could shift around have play some cat and mouse with. And at the same time those individuals can be somewhat dominant at their primary positions. I think we recruited pretty well for a cover 2 type defense.

With that said, under Rob Spence we had a good (not great) Oline in 06 but we didnt have a QB worth a darn, or a kicker. His philosophy that year was run oriented to hide the arm of our QB. 07 was a more liberal with the passing and Cullen Harper looked almost unstoppable. 08 our weakness with an inexperienced Oline, and injuries to some of the veterans really put us back. Spence never had an idea he changed as the season progressed. It had to be hard to recruit his "style" (if you wanna call it that) offense. Did he want quick limber Olinemen for pass blocking, or stumps on steroids for run blocking? He was so fickle and stubborn that he really lost sight of what was going on right in front of him on the field. Things like the game clock and depth at positions on his offense never really pinged a light in his head. Really hard to recruit that offense.

[TigerTheory]

We should get Nevadas offensive coordinator and push the ACCs skull back. I love that style offense! Probably somewhat easier to recruit for...Davis would have thrived for sure!

[CURES]

We should get Nevadas offensive coordinator and push the ACCs skull back. I love that style offense! Probably somewhat easier to recruit for...Davis would have thrived for sure!

I like the skull pushing offense. If you are going to run, that's the offense for sure.

[Hopefultiger]

I'm not sure about this decision at all. While everything in the article and in the responses above make great sense from a recruiting perspective, I'm not sure that it does from an "x's and o's". Sure, you can point out some deficencies in personnel, but IMO when you ask yourself how Clemson hasn't won an ACC Champoinship in the last 4 year, it isn't lack of talent that springs to mind. Most of our losses come from teams that we were as talented as (or more so) that just plain outplayed us on gameday and/or we were outcoached (sometimes both). I'm pretty confident that Steele is going to field a pretty decent Defense, but I'd feel better if Napier was game planning a bit more.

Overall though, you really can't argue with anything that makes recruiting better. If you look programs with consistantly top 25 recruiting classes and their finishes in the polls at the end of the season, there's a TON of correlation.