Matt Campbell’s definition of “talent”

#1
NighthawkVol

NighthawkVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
14,979
Likes
53,245
#1
  • Like
Reactions: volpride1998, PA Vol and LittleVol
#6
#6
turnuptheVOLtage said:
They play in a very weak conference besides OU. Their type of success is not sustainable and wouldn’t ever be able to win an SEC/Natl title.
Click to expand...

They routinely beat OU and other schools that have higher rated talent. As the article mentions, Clemson won a Natty with classes that averaged 15th.

I’m not saying Tennessee will get to where we want to be by averaging 52nd in recruiting. But Tennessee doesn’t have to be top 10, either. Recruiting rankings aren’t science. And they’re not produced by people who understand talent evaluation as well as coaches do. That last part is too often forgotten. Further, rankings do not account for developability and fit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: krichunaka, FïreBall, LittleVol and 1 other person
#7
#7
GregAmsler said:
Clemson is also referenced in there.
Click to expand...
I made that reference in past star debates. Clemson’s teams that either bested or stretched Bama’s loaded roster to the limits were averaging 16th in rankings…and that only recently. Now they’re pulling top 3 classes but have the same results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sjt18, FïreBall and DiderotsGhost
#8
#8
butchna said:
I made that reference in past star debates. Clemson’s teams that either bested or stretched Bama’s loaded roster to the limits were averaging 16th in rankings…and that only recently. Now they’re pulling top 3 classes but have the same results.
Click to expand...
Those were classes that had quality, not quantity. Lotta sub-20 classes with 5 star guys. But at the same time, the ACC was pitifully weak in that period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: preacherwebb, matt1107, VolNash17 and 1 other person
#9
#9
GregAmsler said:
They routinely beat OU and other schools that have higher rated talent. As the article mentions, Clemson won a Natty with classes that averaged 15th.

I’m not saying Tennessee will get to where we want to be by averaging 52nd in recruiting. But Tennessee doesn’t have to be top 10, either. Recruiting rankings aren’t science. And they’re not produced by people who understand talent evaluation as well as coaches do. That last part is too often forgotten. Further, rankings do not account for developability and fit.
Click to expand...


Some coaches....some coaches have talent evaluation skills that are impressive. However most coaches arent that great at it. Which is why most teams have no chance at championships.

I hope that CJH is able to spot the underrated guys and more importantly develop them. The development part will be the difference in whether he is successful at a high level or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: savannahfan, Remy and preacherwebb
#11
#11
ptclaus98 said:
Those were classes that had quality, not quantity. Lotta sub-20 classes with 5 star guys. But at the same time, the ACC was pitifully weak in that period.
Click to expand...
They were ranked for their quality. A 15 man class loaded with 5 stars at least makes top 10.
 
#13
#13
GetYouSomeofThat said:
Some coaches....some coaches have talent evaluation skills that are impressive. However most coaches arent that great at it. Which is why most teams have no chance at championships.

I hope that CJH is able to spot the underrated guys and more importantly develop them. The development part will be the difference in whether he is successful at a high level or not.
Click to expand...

If “most coaches” aren’t that great at it, how good at it are the guys running recruiting websites?
 
  • Like
Reactions: volroadwarrior, butchna and SockeyeVol
#15
#15
GregAmsler said:
They routinely beat OU and other schools that have higher rated talent. As the article mentions, Clemson won a Natty with classes that averaged 15th.

I’m not saying Tennessee will get to where we want to be by averaging 52nd in recruiting. But Tennessee doesn’t have to be top 10, either. Recruiting rankings aren’t science. And they’re not produced by people who understand talent evaluation as well as coaches do. That last part is too often forgotten. Further, rankings do not account for developability and fit.
Click to expand...
Clemson takes way less kids than most programs. But their average recruit rating is Top 10 which is good enough. You have to have 4’s and 5’s to win a National Title with good coaching as well
 
  • Like
Reactions: lifeisdeep
#16
#16
GregAmsler said:
If “most coaches” aren’t that great at it, how good at it are the guys running recruiting websites?
Click to expand...
They must be pretty dang good if the ones that are competing for the national title are all usually Top 10 in average recruiting ranking per commit.. Can not win a national title without Top tier talent AND coaching
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmcarr33, GetYouSomeofThat and lifeisdeep
#18
#18
butchna said:
I made that reference in past star debates. Clemson’s teams that either bested or stretched Bama’s loaded roster to the limits were averaging 16th in rankings…and that only recently. Now they’re pulling top 3 classes but have the same results.
Click to expand...

At least some of this is because the recruiting rankings are a bit circular. After Clemson won the national title, they were more likely to upgrade the ratings of top Clemson targets. Same deal with Bama. Basically if Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, or Oklahoma is after a recruit, they are much more likely to get a bump in the rankings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: matt1107, lifeisdeep, Orange_Crush and 1 other person
#19
#19
GregAmsler said:
They routinely beat OU and other schools that have higher rated talent. As the article mentions, Clemson won a Natty with classes that averaged 15th.

I’m not saying Tennessee will get to where we want to be by averaging 52nd in recruiting. But Tennessee doesn’t have to be top 10, either. Recruiting rankings aren’t science. And they’re not produced by people who understand talent evaluation as well as coaches do. That last part is too often forgotten. Further, rankings do not account for developability and fit.
Click to expand...
To his credit, his 2-4 record against OU looks pretty impressive considering the school’s overall record vs OU of 7-77-2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Plecoptera, Remy, marcusluvsvols and 1 other person
#20
#20
The secret to Matt Campbell's success is that he is a pretty good coach and their schedule is dog shid. He'd have a tougher time turning chicken shid into chicken salad in the SEC, which is why he wants no part of it. His career trajectory in the SEC with that philosophy would be a lot like Mark Stoops at Kentucky, he'd punch his way up to respectability where he could, but when he ran into one of the teams with better athletes that was also well coached, he'd still lose 49-10.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Remy, marcusluvsvols, FranklinVol16 and 1 other person
#21
#21
Since clemson was mentioned… their roster ranking (total team talent) since 2016 season per the 247 composite
2016 season 9th (won national title)
2017 season 9th
2018 season 6th (won national title)
2019 season 9th
2020 season 4th
Again, you can not win a national title without top tier talent AND good coaching
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolDave53, Plecoptera, Flovol and 2 others
#22
#22
VolNash17 said:
Since clemson was mentioned… their roster ranking (total team talent) since 2016 season per the 247 composite
2016 season 9th (won national title)
2017 season 9th
2018 season 6th (won national title)
2019 season 9th
2020 season 4th
Again, you can not win a national title without top tier talent AND good coaching
Click to expand...
Talking about BEFORE that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bpalmer28 and beachvol23
#23
#23
butchna said:
Talking about BEFORE that.
Click to expand...
Before that? 2016 is when they won their first national championship. Their roster was ranked 9th which included every scholarship player on the team for that season… before that they obviously didn’t win a national title
 
#24
#24
GregAmsler said:
That’s not the point.
Click to expand...
You might be missing what I’m saying. I’m saying that a coach could be a genius but if he doesn’t have the basic tools he’s hopeless at a certain level of competition. Bring Campbells Iowa State over here and they probably lose 6 to 7 games, not because he’s doing something wrong but because there’s a limit on what coaching alone can do. The inverse is our 1990s teams, Fulmer is not a great coach but was able to achieve a ton because of superior talent. The better coach doesn’t always win
 
  • Like
Reactions: lifeisdeep and VolNash17
#25
#25
Stoops at Kentucky has that mentality as well, I think. It's not a bad way to build a strong foundation, but you do have to switch into that higher gear to recruit and utilize better talent.

Right now, I would take 2-3 seasons of classes like that to build depth and culture. I'd rather have those classes than the star-chasing Butch Jones used to do, signing extra guys just because it looked good on signing day, but they didn't pan out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bpalmer28, Smokey19rt, NighthawkVol and 3 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top