jobiwan
I Have No Inside Info
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2010
- Messages
- 554
- Likes
- 688
It is. You're presumably asking who is the best at drawing up little X's and O's on chalkboards and diagramming plays, which would be meaningful if that were a useful disembodied skill independent of the players involved. The problem is that the Xs and Os represent wildly varying players of vastly different skill levels, and selecting and recruiting those players is at least as important as what you do with them once you've got them. You could match the world chess champion against some random eighth-grader, and if the eighth grader has five queens then the champion's going to lose every time. Asking who the "best coach" is while ignoring roster-building is a meaningless question.
It is. You're presumably asking who is the best at drawing up little X's and O's on chalkboards and diagramming plays.
There is a lot more to coaching than "drawing little X's and O's" and recruiting. If that's how you chose to break down the question that's fine. There have been over 20 people that have answered thus far and you seem to be the only one stumped by the question.
Oh, okay. So you're willing to expand your question to include other coaching responsibilities besides gameplanning, but for some inexplicable reason you want to leave recruiting out of the question. "Other than that one hugely important slice of the pie, who's the best coach?" This is an even more useless question than I thought.
If a chicken and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day in a half, how many flapjacks does it take to shingle a doghouse? Just because 20 people answer a question doesn't mean that it's not meaningless.
Oh, okay. So you're willing to expand your question to include other coaching responsibilities besides gameplanning, but for some inexplicable reason you want to leave recruiting out of the question.
Dude, I seriously don't have some evil master plan behind all of this, so take off your tinfoil hat and calm down. I only left recruiting out because I didn't want this thread to devolve in to a "calapari is a cheater"/"no he's not" flame war.
but he is a cheater and has proved that every place he has moved to.I dont see where he is that great of a coach , he just pulls recruits in and let them go.Hes not a X & O kind of guy.The only reason I say Pearl is better is because he takes players of lesser talent and competes with him every year and is in every ball game.I know Im going to get bashed for this comment but the proof is there with these 2.On paper and talent Ky should of beat the vols by 25 easy,same as last year when he was at Mempuss.
jc is the BEST recruiter by far, the best coach, not so much. if you were to switch rosters in that game, UT wins by 30. pearl switched to the zone d and the great jc had no answer. they just have the better players. as far as coaching goes, pearl and stallings outshine jc imo. as far as recuiting goes, hardly anyone touches jc. if jc is such a great coach wouldnt he have a national championship by now?
Dude, I seriously don't have some evil master plan behind all of this, so take off your tinfoil hat and calm down. I only left recruiting out because I didn't want this thread to devolve in to a "calapari is a cheater"/"no he's not" flame war.