Let's Hear From Some Former Players

[BreakTheGopherCurse]

I appreciated and read with great interest the post that provided Gopher recruiting results since 2004. It got me thinking. It might be interesting to hear from GH'ers who played college football their opinion about the following:

Please comment on, rank or provide weighting for how much you believe the following factors determine whether a college football team has what it takes to have an extremely successful season:

1. Players ranked in the top 50 in the nation at their position
2. An extremely talented quarterback
3. Extremely hard working players
4 Players with unbelievable "heart"
5. Players who are highly confident
6. Players with high football intelligence
7. A team that loves their head coach
8. Players that love their position coach
9. Well-above-average team chemistry (players who genuinely care about each other)
10. Precise execution (regardless of player talent level or how complicated the playbook is)
11. A highly disciplined team
12. Extremely bright coordinators
13. A head coach that has won a lot of football games as a head coach over his career
14. Team Speed
15. A team that spends well-above-average time in the weight room
16. A highly effective kicking game
17. Other key factors that I didn't think of

For example, perhaps I'll learn that most former players believe "team chemistry" is way overrated or that a team packed with highly rated recruits probably doesn't require a top-of-the-line coaching staff. Perhaps I'll learn that most former players believe there are very different "formulas" that could create equivalent outstanding results. I thought this would generate some interesting discussion and help us all look at/analyze Gopher football a little differently in the future.

I realize that many of you will think this is ridiculous. That's fair, but I would ask that you refrain from criticizing the question. Please respond only if you intend to positively address and add to the discussion. Of course, anyone can respond to this, but please identify yourself if you played football at the collegiate level or played for a high school team that had a sophisticated program.

Thank you. And here's wishing Coach Brewster incredible success with the program and that he becomes (and wants to become) to the UofM what Joe Paterno has been to Penn St. Go Gophers!

 

[maxwellsmart]

I think this is an interesting topic, not one to be criticized on its face. If I might make one suggestion? Perhaps your responses would pack more of a collective punch if the question was open-ended rather than asked with a pre-set list of choices. Like "List the top three characteristics that are most important for a successful college football season." This was done once with NFL coaches and surprisingly the most common answer regarding a necessity for a successful coach at that level was that he "be himself." Respondents included Madden, Grant, Landry, Noll, Shula, Allen and other now former coaches you'd expect to find queried about the subject.

Just a thought, not trying to hijack your survey. Proceed as desired and I appreciate the effort.

 

[littlebigboy]

Alot of these things are needed, but you must have, and these are not in any order,but.
A close knit team or groups
Hard working players with alot of heart
Players that don't like to lose and don't blame everybody else and expect to win
Discipline on the field. Some party just as hard as they play
Talented players, but hardwork and heart can overcome alot, but not speed
Chemistry is a key, and most good teams like to play football

You need most of what you listed, but without the above forget winning,

 

[BreakTheGopherCurse]

Thanks LittleBigBoy

Thanks for giving your opinion. Let's assume for a moment that your opinion is 100% accurate (even if it's not), wouldn't that tell us that coaches might want to re-think how they allocate their time? Perhaps less time should be spent flying all over the country to recruit or courting the "big kahoona", and more time spent figuring out how to create chemistry. Maybe in recruiting "pure talent" is not the thing to look at first. Maybe for schools like Minnesota there needs to be a complete paradigm shift in recruiting.

Let me throw out a wild idea? What would happen if a head coach decided he's only going to recruit players who desperately want and have always wanted to be Gophers, even if they're less talented. It seems like Gjere and Pride and Olson, for example, have always wanted to be Gophers. We all know they are talented players. But what if we found some lesser talented players who've also had a life-long dream of being Gophers. Guys, for example, that have ended up at North Dakota, NDSU, SDSU, Nothern Iowa, or even smaller schools. Perhaps their common dream and desire and love for the program could overcome lots and lots of talent.

Isn't it worth a shot trying a whole new approach to recruiting. While Brewster has clearly upgraded our recruiting, it's probably not going to be good enough to ever win a big ten championship. After all, the other teams are getting "better" players. That's not Brewster's fault, it's just a fact. So let's change the game. Let's see if heart, desire, character, passion, strong academic commitment, love for each other and love for the program, etc. can overcome superior talent. If we believe that doing things the right way usually wins out in the long run, then lets give this a try. Keep in mind, how in the world did NDSU beat us? How did Michigan lose to that D-2 school? Their recruiting classes must've been at least 50, 60 or 70 ranks below Michigan's. Yet they had a superior team. We've got to examine cases like that much more carefully in order to learn some new formulas.

I'll conclude with one hypothesis that most people will reject. I submit that Eric Decker was not considered by top tier programs in the nation as a highly talented football player in high school. In fact, I heard he almost went to play for a school like St. John's!! Well, look what he became. Had recruiters been focused on the more esoteric qualities of a person, rather than pure talent, perhaps one could argue that he should've been offered by every top program in the country. I refuse to believe that guys like Eric are one-in-a-million. I think there are guys like him all over the place. Stacy Robinson comes to mind. Kurt Warner comes to mind too.

Well, just some thoughts for today.

 

[Kuato Lives!]

how in the world did NDSU beat us?

Yikes. Did you even watch any games that year?

 

[husker70]

I picked 6 of yours to top my list.

1. Your number 10. Precise execution. Add to that training ablity to react to the situation.
2. Your number 11. Highly Disciplined.
3. Your number 3. Extremly hard working players.
4. Your number 4 Which goes along with 3, unbelievable heart. The gotta wanta.
5. Your number 6. Players with football intelligence.
6. Your number 9. Team Chemistry. Everyone on the field has to play as one.


You can further break this down to player/coach responsibilty. Until a system is developed and understood. It is the Coach who is responsible for Execution and Discipline. Who do you blame when the team gets a 5 yard penalty for delay comming out of time out?

Give me players with unbelievable heart and willing to work harder than anyone in America. And coach em up is the key.

 

[The 12th Man]

I played at the D-1 collegiate level.

The ability of the players, bar none, is the most important aspect. There is absolutely no way to downplay the importance of recruiting good players. Anyone trying to pin it on something else is looking for excuses. You can romanticize it all you want and talk about how players from the home state play harder because it means more to them, but these are D-1 athletes you are talking about. They play balls out to win because that is what they do, and all of them are proud to play for the university they chose to attend. Good players make good coaches.

 

[maxwellsmart]

I played at the D-1 collegiate level.

The ability of the players, bar none, is the most important aspect. There is absolutely no way to downplay the importance of recruiting good players. Anyone trying to pin it on something else is looking for excuses. You can romanticize it all you want and talk about how players from the home state play harder because it means more to them, but these are D-1 athletes you are talking about. They play balls out to win because that is what they do, and all of them are proud to play for the university they chose to attend. Good players make good coaches.

Respect your POV, but it's over the top for me. Too many "all, no way, everybody and anybody" statements usually provide a smokescreen for lack of substantive argument. Personal experience shows there have been many cases in which teams without great players experienced greater success than teams with star-studded rosters. There are other things at play in competitive athletics, just like in life.

I didn't play college football, but I did play baseball at a highly competitive level well into my thirties. Seemed to me you could win with a variety of formula. Key was for everyone on the team to understand what that had to be and then work together to make it happen. In other words, trying to rely on talent where there isn't enough of it rarely works, but relying on outstanding execution of basic fundamentals and understanding the importance of timing within a given game can bring better results for a team than its talent level deserves. I'd say if you've played competitive ball and don't see how coaches can make players then you must either have been missing something or could have used more effective coaches. At the very least a good coach puts players in a position to make the most of his abilities. I know darn well a bad coach can put a player in a position to do very little.

 

[The 12th Man]

I'd say if you've played competitive ball and don't see how coaches can make players then you must either have been missing something or could have used more effective coaches. At the very least a good coach puts players in a position to make the most of his abilities. I know darn well a bad coach can put a player in a position to do very little.

If a coach starts with a good player, that player is more likely to suceed. My experience, which is in the exact arena we are discussing, is that ability means way more than anything else. I am of the opinion that heart and being coachable are parts of what makes ability.

Your point of view is the fan's point of view, which is what always pisses off players. It is the idea that there is a quick fix. It is impatient. As a player, I took offense to the idea that some guy standing on the sideline dictated my success. My ability, effort, and attention to detail dictated my success. Part of that was knowing my role in the system and playing for the guys next to me, but that was dictated by my love for those guys rather than the coach's rousing speeches.

Recruit your butt off, get good players working in your system, let those players get to be juniors and seniors, and expect the wins to come. The reason that Brewster mentioned recruiting players from winning programs is that they are more likely to be self-starters. A winning team is one made up of players who simply want to win. The teams I played on and went to bowl games with played hard and were made up of good players. Coaches come and go. Mediocre players rely on coaches. Good players are good regardless.

As someone who now coaches, I have also seen this from the other side and it all makes sense. The best thing a coach can do in most cases is the same thing he expects of his players: Have high expectations, work tirelessly, pay attention to details, and care about the people around him. It all starts, however, with having the right people in the program. Sucky players in a fantastic system will still suck.

 

[BreakTheGopherCurse]

Great Discussion

This is the kind of discussion I was hoping for. Thank you gentlemen.

12th man clearly believes there is no substitute for getting the best players. Very interesting. 12th man, please know I'm not looking for shortcuts. I'm looking to discuss paradigm shifts. If none exist, then in theory the Gophers will never win a Big Ten Championship because they will never get the best players. I am a romantic at heart and will never let go of that. I believe less talented players can overcome better players if "all the stars line up". What you're saying, and I respect that very much, is the team with the best talent almost always prevails. And I'm smart enough to know that you would allow room for exceptions. For example, I would bet you didn't think Appalachian State had a more talented/skilled team when they beat Michigan. The recruiting statistics sure would be on your side. But somehow they won.

I tend to believe that the same group of players can either do great or just so-so depending on a single change here or there. For example, I happen to believe that the exact same team (with the exception of the starting quarterback) could go from a so-so record to a very good record by simply inserting a highly talented quarterback, assuming the o-line can give him enough time. Therefore, if I were a college coach, I would spend the most time finding a quarterback. I would probably bring in as many as I could (trying hard not to jeopardize the other positions) hoping that one turns out to be amazing (playing the "numbers" game).

I also believe you could take the exact same players and go from a losing team to a winning team by simply changing the system or the staff. Furthermore, I believe that a team with the most talent (i.e. the highest rated recruits) could fail if there was a lot of dissension among the players.

The fact of the matter is nobody can disagree that currently our beloved Gophers are unable to attract the quantity of talent that Alabama, Florida, U.S.C, Texas and Oklahoma do. It's hard to accept, but true. So, programs like Minnesota better start figuring out different formulas to produce wins if they ever want to move up the ladder. We all know that Wisconsin somehow accomplished this. Boise State too. I'm not looking for quick fixes or short cuts, just some other indicators of success we can focus on besides the highest rated recruits. Without this, we are destined to remain towards the bottom of the conference.

 

[littlebigboy]

On your QB comment Curse, the perfect example is the Vikings. Without BF they would have been lucky to be 9-7

 

[The 12th Man]

Absolutely. I think the outliers are, of course, outliers for a reason. Appalachian State beat Michigan for a reason, but I don't think anyone of reason would argue that Appalachian State would have contended for the B10 title that year. The outliers are outliers for a reason. A good coach can get a team up for a game or a few games, but sustained success requires good players. USC, Florida, etc. are good consistently because their players are much better than everyone else's.

A good coach can make a win or two difference, but the ultimate success of that coach will be determined by his ability to translate his one year of over-acheiving into improved recruiting. Howard Schnellenberger is a great example at Miami. He got some kids, won a few games, and proved to his recruits that it could be done at a school that had not had a lot of prior success. Alvarez at Wisconsin is another example.

My expectation is that a staff change can impact the success of a program only if players are put into a position far better than that in which they were previously placed. Still, it does depend on the ability of the players. Notre Dame, for example, can have a huge change in one year because the players are all really good. For a program like Minnesota, where the players have historically been not "elite," it takes something different. It takes a great recruiter and a little bit of luck.

At the end of the day, people complain about the lack of recruiting stars and such because ability does matter and recruiting rankings, for the most part, reflect that ability. There are kids who are missed, but anyone who says otherwise is trying to make themselves feel better. Brewster is a good recruiter. If we have a great season, look for the recruiting to explode. If the recruiting explodes, look for sustained success. It is just the way things work.