|
Post by davecisar on Apr 2, 2008 6:11:13 GMT -6
How important is a coaches past results, win/loss, rankings, etc when it comes time to hiring a coach?
Last year Nebraska fired it's coaching staff, which included a DC that had always ranked in the 50-60 range for best defenses out of 119 DI teams. That at a school that has won league titles and played in Rose Bowls. Under a very good HC that will possibly be in the Hall of Fame. At NU said DC had a defense that ranked 114th out of 119 teams, set lots of "records" in 2007. He was hired by his old college buddy to coach at NU.
This year NU has an OC that while at Colorado running the WCO (what he's running here) his teams ranked: 87th, 85th, 66th, 58th, 29th, and 66th in total offense there. That with a HC that did a great job at Northwestern ( Gary Barnett). Said HC would probably still be at Colorado if not for the off-field problems.
Can a coach with very mediocre or even poor results at a competitive school all of a sudden skyrocket to the top at a comparable school running the very same stuff?
If so why? If not, then why are they hired in the first place? I know a lot about getting coaching jobs is about networking and personal relationships etc but when does this stuff go too far?
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Apr 2, 2008 7:03:52 GMT -6
Coaching is a fraternity. Every offense/defense will work, with the right players, the right coaches, the right situation and the right timing. We're about to see if the WVU offense is all about Rodriguez or about Pat White and Steve Slayton. My money is on the latter. Right kids at the right place at the right time. WVU wasn't a national power before they got there. But then again, "finding the right mixture" isn't that what coaching is all about? (Every offense/defense will work with the right coaches, players, timing), your words, maybe they arent the right coaches, wasnt that the question? So taking your logic to the logical extreme: even if a guys defense ranked 119th out of 119 teams 10 years in a row, his defense with the right kids will work to league championship caliber? BTW both of these coaches coached for teams that got descent players, Top 20 Caliber. Same for the new team. Remember I said both of these coaches came out of argueably comparable programs to the new situation: Championship caliber teams where football is big to the same type of school. Neither had descent results there with comparable players, but now in nearly the exact same circumstances they are going to do better than 55th or 75th? NU isnt going to win ANY league titles with numbers like those. Maybe it's different in business, I dont hire the guy with the lowest sales numbers from his previous job. He had better be the top guy there and showed he can compete with the best. But I guess if that is the prevailing sentiment ( all coaches are equal in talent) , then that may explain it.
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Apr 2, 2008 7:47:48 GMT -6
At my previous school we were 3-6 and 0-9. I was told that I would not be rehired, so I resigned and began my job search. I was fortunate to get my current job where we have gone 5-4 and 7-3. I am running the same offense and defense that I ran at the previous school. The difference is the players.
|
|
|
Post by resnik77 on Apr 2, 2008 8:06:54 GMT -6
I certainly think that players make the difference. There are a lot of different ways to run a football team. They've all worked and they've all failed. It comes down to the willingness of the players to buy into the program and to execute.
On the flip side, if a coach can't communicate technique, philosophies, or his vision, it won't matter who the players are or what system he runs.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Apr 2, 2008 8:10:17 GMT -6
Please read the post: Comparable players, comparable programs, very good Head Coaches etc. If those things are relatively equal and they sure do look like they are, ( one team was even in the same league and Division) how can one expect far different results with the same exact system coached by the same exact coach?
Sure all systems have worked to varying degrees of success, depends on how you define success. But if those specific coaches have NEVER had a real winner or even a consistently UPPER Half finish using their system, teaching it their way in a comparable program, how are they going to all of a sudden get great results unless of course it's a USC or Texas type recruiting class ( which almost anything will work).
Maybe college football is like MLB they just keep retreading all the fired managers and they play merry go round every season. Maybe give some new blood a chance instead of the same ones with the same tired old results.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 2, 2008 8:22:57 GMT -6
Can a coach with very mediocre or even poor results at a competitive school all of a sudden skyrocket to the top at a comparable school running the very same stuff? ? yes, it is called the NFL. Comparable talent (best of the best) running virtually the exact same systems by every team..........one year Jon Gruden is a brainiac, the next he is passe. Same with defenses.....same coaches, comparable talent, different results. Lets hope this doesn't turn into NU-centered discussion of why their offense will stink (and Kevin Cosgrove hate).
|
|
|
Post by coachnichols on Apr 2, 2008 8:30:51 GMT -6
Please read the post: Comparable players, comparable programs, very good Head Coaches etc. If those things are relatively equal and they sure do look like they are, (one team was even in the same league and Division) how can one expect far different results with the same exact system coached by the same exact coach? Sure all systems have worked to varying degrees of success, depends on how you define success. But if those specific coaches have NEVER had a real winner or even a consistently UPPER Half finish using their system, teaching it their way in a comparable program, how are they going to all of a sudden get great results unless of course it's a USC or Texas type recruiting class ( which almost anything will work). Maybe college football is like MLB they just keep retreading all the fired managers and they play merry go round every season. Maybe give some new blood a chance instead of the same ones with the same tired old results. I believe there are no "bad systems" per say, but rather systems that are "bad" for your personnel. That said, cisar said it...comparable players, comparable programs, very good Head Coaches...how can one expect far different results with the same exact system coached by the same exact coach? YOU CAN'T. That's not to say the results might not be different, but you for sure can't expect anything different. As we all know, there is so much more to coaching and success than X's and O's. It comes down to connecting with kids, teaching players better than your opponents, and communicating well with each other. We all know some coaches don't connect with players and get them to buy in to what we're "selling". Some coaches aren't good teachers and some don't communicate very well. Some are are set in their ways and just won't change when it's necessary. I think you're right cisar, college football and the NFL too hires retreads over and over again. Big name coaches and coaches who are connected to big names or big schools. I imagine it's like that in high schools too. I know a suburban school around here (Wichita) hired an assistant from a catholic school head coach who has been extremely successful for 10 years now. My old school hires this assistant seemingly because he's coach with Coach So-and-So. They went 0-9 this year. Terrible on offense, terrible on defense, and the assistant walked in to the first meeting and announced that he didn't know what they were going to run on offense or defense, so did anyone have any ideas. The staff spent the summer putting together schemes. Anyway, I would expect nothing from the OC but the same thing he's shown so far up to this point.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Apr 2, 2008 8:45:18 GMT -6
Talking College football here. I know some that have lost a lot of games get their feathers ruffled a bit by this, not meant to be personal. But guys like Pelini go from school to school to school and their defenses work ( NU 11th when he was here, terrible before and after he left, and in the top 5 at OU and LSU), then an Urban Meyer goes bananas at every place he's been at scored tons of points and consistently won etc.
It just amazes me that people either cant see or refuse to see I guess that some coaches, no mattter what the situation they are in are not going to do very well and some, no matter the situation they are in are going to do pretty well> Some coaches are better than others, just like some salespeople are better than others and some waitresses are better than others. What I cant figure out is how those that have proven they are mediocre at almost the same exact situation can be expected to ever be better than mediocre using the same exact system and teaching methods with very comparable players? I dont get it.
Example: the former DC here had defenses that ranked 50-60th at his previous gig. The first 3 years hes gone, the old school finishes tops in their league ( top 10 nationally) in defense and finish 2nd in defense once. Here his defense went from #11 when he got here to 114th in 4 years. I know these guys stick together, but when does reality set in? Doesnt mean he isnt a fine guy a great person or anything, but maybe just not a DI DC for a team that wants to win league titles and be in the top 20 in defense consistently. Same for the OC maybe.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Apr 2, 2008 9:00:56 GMT -6
I would argue that Colorado, although in the same conference and enjoying some success within that conference, isn't the same place as Nebraska. Tradition, facilities, and program support in Lincoln attracts, in my opinion, a higher caliber of athlete than Colorado. I know they were "sucessful" under Barnett, but I think that was inspite of the players they had and not because of them. I don't think the depth or quality of athletes in Colorado at any point in Watson's tenure equals the depth and quality of athletes that he currently has at Nebraska. I think to put a blanket statement that it is the "same players and same situation" is inaccurate at best. It could easily be said the reason Colorado was in position to be where they were offensively was because of what they did. Their talent maybe dictated a worse position, who knows?
Also, there is no guarantee he is going to use the same system he did at Colorado. I believe I read something the other day that stated he would be doing something different than he did at Colorado. I don't remember them ever using zone read from Gun, and I think late in the year when Watson was calling the shots, they did that more with Ganz. He may do things similar, but he could have learned somethings over the past 3 years when he wasn't an OC.
Also, i believe his position coaches are completely different than the ones he had in Colorado. Long time Husker coaching great Ron Brown and proven quality offensive line coach (maybe not OC, but OL coach) Barney Cotten among others could create a better quality of fundementally sound athletes.
So in a vacuum, maybe the arguement is you can't expect much more, but the situations only have some similarities. They aren't the same or really close, in my opinion.
Does that mean Watson will be a roaring success? I don't know, but it can't be predicted.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Apr 2, 2008 9:14:56 GMT -6
Some coaches are better than others, just like some salespeople are better than others and some waitresses are better than others. What I cant figure out is how those that have proven they are mediocre at almost the same exact situation can be expected to ever be better than mediocre using the same exact system and teaching methods with very comparable players? I dont get it. I believe it is true that some coaches are better than others. I also think you overlook a lot of factors and make a lot of assumptions that things are comparable/the same. In college football talent is king. The often complimented Urban Meyer's most overlooked trait is his ability to recruit. When he finally broke through and won his national title for Florida it was with a 4 year starter at QB who was one of the most highly sought after QBs in the nation (Leak) a phenomenal freshman player who was offered by every major college in the country (Tebow) and the rivals #1 high school player (Harvin) making huge contibutions. The schools ability to get players (tradition, facilities, program support, etc), the assistant coaches, the perspective that different years bring, along many other factors dictates success. Even Pelini, whom you have deemed a proven winner, has never stepped out on the edge coaching. He coached at Ohio State, Nebraska, OU, and LSU. It isn't like he made something out of nothing. He coached at places that had a tradition of strong defenses and quality players in the fold.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 2, 2008 9:23:01 GMT -6
Can a coach with very mediocre or even poor results at a competitive school all of a sudden skyrocket to the top at a comparable school running the very same stuff? If so why? If not, then why are they hired in the first place? I know a lot about getting coaching jobs is about networking and personal relationships etc but when does this stuff go too far? The argument would HAVE to be "yes", because the evidence shows that folks ARE hired despite their past statistics (though, it is a stretch to say they are completely irrelevant). So there would have to be a stronger argument as to why "losers" are hired soley on the "buddy system". Again, to make this assertion (system) then there has to be an absolute perfect system. To make the assertion that there is a Coach Midas out there (regardless of other contributing factors) then what are the elements that a coach directly contributes to the wins (I think this is what you're questioning, right)? Does this just become a polished up version of the "coaching matters" thread? What are these coaches doing "differently"? why would a guy with less than impressive stats be hired? why not get a guy with a more impressive resume?
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Apr 2, 2008 9:36:48 GMT -6
J,
1 game they ran zone read only the last game. I live here in Lincoln area, trust me we know what is going on it is NU news 24X7 here and then some. Coach Watson has been very vocal in yesterday and todays paper he is running what he ran at Colorado. Hopefully with a twist or two, but doesnt look that way so far.
My friends that played for NU including 4 guys that coach for me now were always adamant that CU had great players some of the best in the conference. The ones that played back when NU was winning all the time were always shocked why CU and Mizzou didnt win even more than they did. Remember CU won a bunch under McCartney including a National Title. McCartney went 153-93 and Neuheisel went 47-33. In the last 10 years CU has won 4 North Division Titles ( more than NU). Wisconsin for the other coach we are speaking of has had quite a run of its own. Colorado certainly has proven they can be a national contender and have a few unique attractions of their own.
So saying that either of those schools is significantly inferior to NU in players and facilities Im not sure would be very accurate today or in the last 8 years.
I would agree with you that NU should be able to and have according to many experts attracted good talent here. It just hasnt translated to success on the field with the past grouping of coaches.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 2, 2008 9:44:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Apr 2, 2008 9:45:57 GMT -6
Some coaches are better than others, just like some salespeople are better than others and some waitresses are better than others. What I cant figure out is how those that have proven they are mediocre at almost the same exact situation can be expected to ever be better than mediocre using the same exact system and teaching methods with very comparable players? I dont get it. I believe it is true that some coaches are better than others. I also think you overlook a lot of factors and make a lot of assumptions that things are comparable/the same. In college football talent is king. The often complimented Urban Meyer's most overlooked trait is his ability to recruit. When he finally broke through and won his national title for Florida it was with a 4 year starter at QB who was one of the most highly sought after QBs in the nation (Leak) a phenomenal freshman player who was offered by every major college in the country (Tebow) and the rivals #1 high school player (Harvin) making huge contibutions. The schools ability to get players (tradition, facilities, program support, etc), the assistant coaches, the perspective that different years bring, along many other factors dictates success. Even Pelini, whom you have deemed a proven winner, has never stepped out on the edge coaching. He coached at Ohio State, Nebraska, OU, and LSU. It isn't like he made something out of nothing. He coached at places that had a tradition of strong defenses and quality players in the fold. NUs defense was in shambles when Pelini got here. NU had just had 62 points put on them, they were irrelevant. He took them from that to 11th in total defense in just 1 season (10-3). I think his OU and LSU teams finished in the top 2-3-5 in defense when he was there. So while he obviously has never coached at a Bowling Green or Utah, he has done fairly well as a DC.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Apr 2, 2008 9:52:39 GMT -6
we all we be anxiously awaiting the 19 April session.....will that answer this thread's question? also, what impact does having a 5'9" freshman QB have on an offene's production? WHo has a 5'9" frosh QB? KU seemed to do pretty well with a tiny 5'9" QB no one wanted last year, they put 70+ on NU with him. One Spring Game Scrimmage wont come close to answering that question.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Apr 2, 2008 9:55:02 GMT -6
People from bad teams can get hired.
The people doing the hiring obviously believe in them, because their jobs are tied to their success more or less.
I don't believe the equation is that simple.
Sometimes good players carry bad coaches, sometimes good coaches carry bad players. Sometimes BOTH are good, and the team still falters.
I don't think coaches go to far when hiring people they know. "Win or don't eat" usually means they are going to be picking primo guys as assistants------same goes for AD's picking HC's.
Were the coaches at NU bad? Far be it for me to say.
Were they bad for NU? Looks that way.
Could they be good somewhere else? Apparently, some think so, and when a man's living is tied to whom he hires, he picks the best people he can.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Apr 2, 2008 10:04:40 GMT -6
In business I hired friends as well. But not unless they were tops in their field. Im just not sure that happens all the time in coaching. NUs previous head coach hired a DC that always had his defenses in the 50-60 range, but was his buddy from back in college. His OC had worse results than that 85th, 87th, 66th etc. Not sure why that is, I guess the buddy buddy bond is deep.
I always looked to hire the best candidate, if he was a friend that I knew could do the job and had shown in his career he had success, I hired him. Sure it was less risky, but he had to be a proven winner to work for us.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Apr 2, 2008 10:25:10 GMT -6
People from bad teams can get hired. The people doing the hiring obviously believe in them, because their jobs are tied to their success more or less. I don't believe the equation is that simple. Sometimes good players carry bad coaches, sometimes good coaches carry bad players. Sometimes BOTH are good, and the team still falters. I don't think coaches go to far when hiring people they know. "Win or don't eat" usually means they are going to be picking primo guys as assistants------same goes for AD's picking HC's. Were the coaches at NU bad? Far be it for me to say. Were they bad for NU? Looks that way. Could they be good somewhere else? Apparently, some think so, and when a man's living is tied to whom he hires, he picks the best people he can. Not 100% true, the DC is not coaching still living in Lincoln callahan is working in the NFL as assistant coach ( not a college coach) probably a descent NFL guy as long he doesnt lose a team again like he did in 2003 DB coach is at Louisiana Monroe ( has coached at 17 schools in his 33 years and been fired from 14-15 of those jobs) One is DII head coach Two are now assistant coaches at A&M One is at Wisconsin (frat thing) 2 were retained
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Apr 2, 2008 10:38:48 GMT -6
In business I hired friends as well. But not unless they were tops in their field. Im just not sure that happens all the time in coaching. NUs previous head coach hired a DC that always had his defenses in the 50-60 range, but was his buddy from back in college. His OC had worse results than that 85th, 87th, 66th etc. Not sure why that is, I guess the buddy buddy bond is deep. I always looked to hire the best candidate, if he was a friend that I knew could do the job and had shown in his career he had success, I hired him. Sure it was less risky, but he had to be a proven winner to work for us. It goes much deeper than "buddy-buddy". HCs have to hire people that they know will be loyal and people that they can be around during the long hours that they spend together.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Apr 2, 2008 10:46:55 GMT -6
Dave, I just think it's too fluid of a situation to nail it down to an exact cause and effect relationship. My argument would be to take guys like Joe Montana and Bill Walsh. Would Joe Montana have been as successful in a different offense? Would the West Coast offense have been as successful without Joe Montana? Perhaps...but that's just 2 guys, how about Rice, Taylor, Craig, Rathman, and the list goes on. My point is for a lot of coaches...and players for that matter, success is a matter of being at the right place at the right time. There is certainly more to it than athletes. I know of 2-3 schools here that have had unbelievable football players on the field, they also have quality coaching, but for some reason, they haven't been able to reach the mountain top. The probably the most notable is Cleveland Glenville. Troy Smith and Ted Ginn Jr. on the same team and not reach the state title? They have a slew of kids every year headed to D1 schools, but yet no titles. I think the right coach is the guy who can get the kids to buy in, to play for each other not themselves. The right players are the players who are willing to do that and have enough talent (not necessarily superior talent) to play, but the team has to "gel", all the talent in the world won't be a comparable "team". I also know a few HS coaches around here who failed miserably at their first coaching position but went on to be successful later. Sometimes you have to try 2-3 different things before you find the way that works best for you. Belichik was a huge failure at Cleveland. Why? Who knows. But I'd bet when he took New England, he made some changes to how he looked at some things and how he did some things. John Wooden was at UCLA for 15 years before he became the "Wizard of Westwood", and UCLA was actually his 2nd choice, he wanted to stay in the midwest and coach at Minnesota. Would he have been the "Wizard of Minneapolis"? Who knows. Got the UCLA, right guy at the right time, got the right kids and the rest is history. Then how does that explain a Tom Osborne? 255 winds 49 losses and 3 National Titles as a head coach. Did he always just have that lucky combination lotto ticket for 25 straight years Wooden : took a last place team to the top at UCLA his very first season 22-7 and the next year 24-7 and League Champions, with no home court and horrific practice facilities.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Apr 2, 2008 10:51:02 GMT -6
Then how does that explain a Tom Osborne? 255 winds 49 losses and 3 National Titles as a head coach. Did he always just have that lucky combination lotto ticket for 25 straight years Tom Osborne could be a freaky good coach, but I don't think he is justification for this argument. Would anyone hire TO? Of course, but not everyone has that option. Of course it didn't hurt Tom's cause that the Big 8 was soft for a lot years in a row. Also, when I started noticing Nebraska, I think Osborne had lost like 7 straight bowl games at one point. Actually according to this site en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Osborne_(Nebraska)Dr. Tom lost 12 of 16 bowl games before finishing his career with 4 bowl wins and 3 titles in his last 4 years. Why does a guy who is the model of success and consistency struggle so mightly in bowl games? Did his formula not work after the holidays?
|
|
|
Post by kurtbryan on Apr 2, 2008 10:58:10 GMT -6
When choosing a coach, history is important but it needs to be weighed vs. the factors involved:
1. Admin. support the coach had, both money & facilities
2. Amount of quality athletes vs. their competition
3. When he took over the program: better or worse now overall?
4. What his former players actually say about him when interviewed overall?
5. The reputation of the program in the community.
There is a famous saying about relationships that is somewhat analagous to hiring the right coach and it goes like this:
"You don't have to marry everyone you date...but it's good idea to date everyone you marry."
KB
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Apr 2, 2008 11:06:51 GMT -6
Does this just become a polished up version of the "coaching matters" thread? That does seem to be the premise.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Apr 2, 2008 11:07:37 GMT -6
Yeah Oklahoma, Colorado, OSU were slouches back then LOL. When you play in the big game nearly every year 25 straight Bowl games when Bowl games meant something ( lost 4 national title games, won 3) you are going to lose a few. Some amazing out of conference wins over Bama, Penn State, FSU, Auburn, UCLA, USC, Washington, Iowa, Miami, Texas, LSU, Florida, A&M, Tennesse, Arizona State, Cal and whoever else they could get to accept an invite Come now, reality.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 2, 2008 11:13:24 GMT -6
if Watson is a mediocre coach, why do YOU think the successful Pelini (& Osborne) hired him? I would imagine you are privy to the situation more than most, so I'm sure you have the inside track on what is going to take place there.
How much radically different will be Watson's approach over what Pelini had to endure (offensively) at LSU?
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Apr 2, 2008 11:21:34 GMT -6
I know why, very simple reasons really. I dont know anything about LSUs offense, I do have a very good feel for what coach Watson will be running. Obviously I cant comment on the comparison. But will end my portion of this thread, some chose to take it in a direction not to try and figure out why the heck these guys make these hires into something purely for the sake of developing purley argumentative tangents . which was not the intent. Maybe the moral of this story is if you want to advance your coaching career you should be spending an equal amount of time to networking and building coaching frat relationships as you so working Xs and Os and spending time here Seems to have worked for a guy like former DB coach from Nebraska who has been fired from 15 different jobs in his 33 year coaching career and is working again now right by you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2008 11:24:09 GMT -6
Yall have heard this a thousand times, but its so true.....
"Its not about the x's and o's, its the jimmies and joes"
best scheme in the world wont work with slugs who cant _______ or ________ an ok scheme with STUDS will get you a couple of wins (or more) just on talent alone.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Apr 2, 2008 11:28:47 GMT -6
First of all when you're comparing hiring a HC to hiring an assistant it's apples to oranges. W-L record and statistical success may be a more valid predictor of success for a HC. There's no way for an outsider to have any idea how good an assistant will be.
Even for HCs, though, W-L record doesn't tell the whole story. Just about every coach who gets a high level HC job came from a lower lever HC job. Presumably they had a good WL record at the lower level school. So when he gets fired 5 years later, what happened? Did he get hit on the head and forget how to coach?
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on Apr 2, 2008 11:42:58 GMT -6
I agree phatnom.
I have been told this and seen it happen to me. I have been passed over twice for HC jobs for coaches with HC experience. At the end of the day, I think that having this experience no matter the results is always key in interviews.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 2, 2008 11:47:46 GMT -6
Correct me if I'm misguided (because maybe something can be gleaned here)
1) What goes into hiring coaches?
--Past results? How much / how do you quantify it?
--Just relationships? Is it enough to like someone, or is there a different relationship dynamic at work?
--Playbook? How much scheme is relative / how much is crucial?
What makes successful people successful? ......is it the product they sell? Is it their clientele? Is it the location? Is it their habits? Is it their personality? Is it their support staff? Is it their ego? Is it their relationships?
Are standings relative?
What is the difference between Belichick and Billick? Bob Devaney and Bear Bryant?
To say Alan Greenspan was a brilliant economist because he ate peanut butter and jelly sandwiches everyday for lunch is a stretch ('unsuccessful' coaches get hired just because they drink beer)....there has to be quanitifiable criteria to give cause for consistent output, right?
|
|