Is it better to hire a currently employed DC for recruiting?

Submitted by A_Maize_Zing on December 15th, 2010 at 6:37 PM

I’m not asking if we decide to change DC but more just in theory.  Is it better to hire a currently employed DC?  My reasoning is the ability to poach recruits from that DC’s current school.  I know it is low down and dirty but for a DT recruit I think most of us would like to see snake oil 2.0.  It seems like a currently employed DC would still be cultivating relationships at his current school while someone like Shannon has had to sit on the sidelines for the last month.

 I’m not sure if the theory is sound or if it would make no difference at all in the long run.  Obviously you take the best candidate but if it is close it seems plausible that you take the guy with the best current commits under his belt.  

Comments

Zone Left

December 15th, 2010 at 6:40 PM ^

I suppose hiring someone who has succeeded enough in his current job to remain employed would be advantageous.  My reasoning is that I use employed doctors instead of Dr Nick.

jhackney

December 15th, 2010 at 6:47 PM ^

is doing the recruiting, a new standard is to bring your best stuffed animal. Teams like Cal and Baylor will have a traditional advantage in this aspect.

wesq

December 15th, 2010 at 6:50 PM ^

We are either in a dead period or about to be in one through the bowl games so there won't be much legal recruiting anyways.  A guy like Randy Shanonn has lost like two weeks "culitivating relationships".  Even if a guy was guranteed to bring in a couple of blue chip kids this year, you don't make a hire this important based on a couple of recruits in one year.  Obviously if he's a good recruiter that helps but generally guys hired specifically for their recruiting prowess are position coaches like Tony Gibson and Ed Ogeron.

uminks

December 15th, 2010 at 6:59 PM ^

I'm hoping RR doesn't get canned, and that he is allowed to get the best DC available and let him hire his own defensive coaches!  RR it's time to get serious about the D!

profitgoblue

December 15th, 2010 at 8:54 PM ^

I was at the Backyard Brawl and watched Pitt move the ball fairly easily against Casteel's WVU defense (there were several WIDE open receivers but the Pitt QB sucks).  But, at the end of the day, the WVU defense shut Pitt down on the scoreboard and forced numerous turnovers.  After seeing it in person and seeing the stats, I'm not so sure it is an awful scheme.  Like many have said, its not necessarily the scheme but finding personnel to fit the scheme that matters . . .

Irish

December 15th, 2010 at 8:07 PM ^

With such a short time frame RR will have to look around, if he's still there, before signing day it could certainly help.  A lot of coaches won't try to recruit away kids that they have committed already to the school they're leaving; but it could still open the door for recruits that the DC missed on to other schools.

Denarded

December 15th, 2010 at 8:08 PM ^

Well my good sir, that is because his "awful" 3-3-5 scheme is currently the number 3 defense in the country. He also currently has the number 2 run defense and number 11 pass defense. Greg Robinson runs it, but Casteel knows how to run it perfectly. If he came to Michigan it would be a defense the guys already know, just taught a whole lot better.

Blue in Yarmouth

December 16th, 2010 at 8:24 AM ^

and the spread won't work in the Big Ten as well....Go look in the NFL and see how many teams run a three man front. Some of the best defenses in the league run 3 man fronts AND stop the run just fine.

The idea that our defense isn't working because of scheme rather than the fact that we have a guy running it who knows nothing about it and a group of kids who had no experience playing it is bizarre.

Denarded

December 15th, 2010 at 8:29 PM ^

You're right, but he did have to face Dion Lewis, who ran for 1,800 yards last year, held him to 34 yards rushing. He had to face Jordan Todman, one of the best runningbacks in the NCAA this year. Also, he held LSU, a SEC team to 20 points, while facing Stevan Ridley who is a pretty big back in himself. Although you may say the 3-3-5 doesn't work, the difference between the 102nd ranked defense and 3rd is a huge difference, which makes me believe he could improve our defense just a little. Also they gave up 12 points a game, we gave up 33. I would gladly take some Casteel right now.

Denarded

December 15th, 2010 at 8:32 PM ^

He doesn't run just a 3 man front like Greg does, when I watched the WVU vs Pitt game, there's guys coming from anywhere linebacker, safety, corner. He consistently sends 4 or 5 guys every play.

Indiana Blue

December 15th, 2010 at 10:00 PM ^

The best offense in the Big East was ..... yep - Cincinnati (ranked #32).   The BCS representative, UConn was 93rd.  Hmmm .... West Virginia (probably thought of as the most explosive offense in the conference) was 61st.   Take a look at the rankings ....

 

Big East Rankings    
    Offense Defense
       
  Uconn 93rd 46th
  WV 61st 3rd
  Pitt 70th 10th
  Syracuse 103rd 5th
  S. Fla. 100th 19th
  L'ville 62nd 12th
  Cinn. 32nd 59th
  Rutgers 111th 61st
       

Anyone notice the defensive rankings ... as compared to the offensive rankings ???   Hell - the entire league except for Cincinnati ranks in the bottom half of the entire country in offense ... with 1/2 of the conference at # 93 or worse !!!  

Anyone's defense would look good playing in this conference ... Syracuse #5 in the country ????   WTF -  Michigan would be favored over Syracuse !!!  

Bottom line  -  Big East football in 2010 sucks and referencing anything statistically about the Big East is irrelevant.

Go Blue !

Blue in Yarmouth

December 16th, 2010 at 8:31 AM ^

looking at all the evidence. I am not saying you are wrong, and frankly don't care enough to look it up myself. However, you are saying: The defenses aren't really that good because the offenses in that conference stink....just look at their rankings. You are concluding the defenses numbers are good because the offenses are bad.

One could look at those exact numbers and say the complete opposite. Let me show you: The defenses in that conference are great! Just look at the rankings of the offenses.

My point is, perhaps the defenses play a part in the offense being ranked so low. Again, I am not saying they are great, but you are just using stats to try and back up what you want to believe.

UMxWolverines

December 15th, 2010 at 10:46 PM ^

Isn't the 3-4 and 3-3-5 interchangeable? I heard we were going to run the 3-4 for the bowl game correct? If Casteel can bring a defense of the likes of ohio state and west virginia, by all means we'd love you here.

edit: Nevermind, they are using 4 lineman for the Gator Bowl

gobluesasquatch

December 15th, 2010 at 11:53 PM ^

There is an entire coaching staff that has already been recruiting, so either way is fine. A current DC or position coach moving up probably does have some recruits, but will they be coming with him. Some schools coordinate recruiting based on positions, some on location, some a mixture of both. 

I think it depends on why they are unemployed. Guys like Randy Shannon didn't get fired based on their defense, but because they weren't winning as a head coach. Some coaches might have been off for a year based on coaching changes they had nothing to do with. 

I found it interesting that on Rivals, one of the potential candidates for the Temple job was Bob Davies. Now, I realize a lot of people don't like the former ND head coach, but he was innovative during his pretty impressive run at Texas AM and even at ND - his problem wasn't defense (it was a horrible offense). If he's interested in getting back into coaching, might be worth a look as a DC. 

That said, can we please just scrap the 3-3-5?