The problem with your scenario is most good DCs have their system and their own scheme. I would assume CGC wants to hire a good DC, right? Gonna be fun to listen to CGC's interview with potential DC candidates. "Hey buddy, I know you had an outstanding 3-3-5 defense at School X that was one of the top defenses in your conference, but I would like you to continue our 4-2-5 Effort Based system here that gave us a sterling product...."
Look at the DCs under CPJ: Wommack, Groh, Roof, Woody. All of them had different schemes. CPJ didn't dictate what scheme they could run.
This is on top of the fact that it's probably well known if CGC doesn't turn it around in 2022, he's out the door along with probably every coach on the staff. So you're basically telling a DC that he needs to change what made him successful in the first, while he's essentially coaching for his job the following season.
Now, I totally agree that coaching individual players and position groups has a lot to do with the success of the overall scheme. That is part and parcel with hiring a good DC, though, and part of hiring a good DC is running what made them successfull, not running something they're not well versed at. That's a recipe for failure.
Of course, CGC may pull a rabit out of a hat and find a DC that runs a similar "4-2-5 effort based" system. That would be akin to hiring only a head coach that has ties to GT and has relationships with coaches the AD has worked with. That's not going too well for us, is it?
Now formations are not the same thing as scheme. Not all 3-3-4 defenses, 4-4-3 defenses, 3-4-4 defenses, 4-2-5 defenses, etc. use the same scheme. Scheme and formations are not the same thing.
Right now, I'd take a 4-2-5 cheeseburger defense from Five Guys over our 4-2-5 "effort based" defense. At least I'll leave full, and not with an empty feeling of disgust. (Yes, that was a cheap shot at our defense)
