Let's be more specific than "done the job before at D1 level". A guy that has done it before at a Power school, but never seen the struggles at Group level, would concern me. I don't think it's a deal breaker, but my preference would be someone that is getting it done at our level or lower, and is hungry to prove himself.
Older guys that have proven themselves at Power level also might not be that hungry anymore.
Yeah, having that level of play at the position is great for any formation, but I think you're kind of watering down the point here: If you're a 3-3-5 base coach, and you want to work at a G5 school, you face a massive uphilll climb without that DT playing at an AA level. We are seeing this scheme fail over and over because, as we are learning, even with elite play in the back 5, it's nearly impossible to compensate for a 3 man front that is facing 5 men other side of the line every single down.
Counterpoint: I don't think the answer is necessarily going back to a traditional 4-3. Don't be surprised if in the next 5-10 years (or less!) we see an evolution on that side of the ball, where your formation has 4 up front, but they get creative with the back 7. Might be worth investigating what has already been done with a 4-2-5.
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.