I absolutely believe in Barry Jackson- I look for his buzz column before going to bed on Tuesday and Saturday nights- but he's really written some unnecessary things here. Of course he's going to put down recruiting analysts for Rivals and Scouts; he's a writer for an affiliated paper and it is in his best interest to make them look like lesser journalists than what he does. It's interesting to me he would take a shot at them, essentially saying they would work for teams if they were any good at it, yet then he cites "local recruiting analysts" who do not work for teams in the same article to drive home his point. That is soft, lazy journalism.
He makes quite a leap in saying some of the players were overrated due to production but then doesn't mention how they're used. I could recruit Clowney, but if I play him at S and then wonder why he's not an All-American, is that on the player, or is that on me? It's essentially the same thing when we ask players who excel and win based on their athleticism and ask them to gave 30 pounds in a year and use their hands to keep T's off of them all game. same thing with Tracy Howard. He's a press man boundary CB who has limitations athletically. Instead of asking him to do what allows him to win- play physical, press man coverage, we ask him to play off zone coverage, which requires excellent change of direction skills and an ability to read coverages as they are happening. Is that Howard's fault, or is it the coaches fault for putting him in a position to fail?
I'm big on finding out exactly what a player does well, then finding a way to put him in a position to ask him to do only those things. It is then imperative that I mask the things he does not do well, and not ask him to do them if at all possible. I need contingencies in place if I do have to ask him to do those things. Forcing my scheme onto the player is lazy coaching, and is the single biggest reason I see coaches fail. If you don't believe in yourself, you'll never win at anything, but if you never change you'll also never win in the longterm. Recruit players to a certain vision on your team and then put them there. It's up to you to change for them- not the other way around. If a coach even gave me a hint of stubbornness or rigidity in his style, he would no longer be considered by me. Innovation isn't just about the day he's hired, it's a continuous evolution of who you are and how you teach.
Finally, the need to put Cristobal into every column seems forced and as though he has an agenda. It reduces your credibility to start with a conclusion and then write a narrative to fit it. Tell the story with the facts and things will become clear for everyone. You don't need to force your agenda. Perhaps it's because that's what the fans continue to be interested in, but it feels as though that's what Jackson is interested in.
Rivals and Scout analysts get to work from home, make their own hours, make a decent salary, and get to dictate their own lifestyle. When you evaluate for teams, you are on the road all the time, your future is tied to the coaching staff's success, you work notoriously long hours, and get paid notoriously poorly. Again, I believe in Jackson, but he's left me wanting more here.
