Learning from your surroundings

[The Franchise]

Great coaches "fit" everywhere.

 

[Cans4life]

If you have to project how a coach might be improved or different from his past, then the coach is not someone you hire.

Not when your team has been a dumpster fire for 10 years. That's what drives me nuts the most.

This team isn't the 1984 team coming off a title, or the 89 team coming off a top 5 finish, or the 95 team coming off an Orange bowl appearance, or the 2001 team coming off a Gator smacking in the sugar bowl.

We need to hire someone the quality of Howard. The program has no momentum, no identity. No strength program. No excitement. It requires a massive hire to turn the ship around. Guys like Strong and Wario and we are back here having this same conver in 2 seasons. I'm tired of going through this.

Yeah. UM's not in a position to let a guy interview his way around recent failure. That's why he shouldn't even be on the list to be interviewed.

If Mario wants another crack at being a HC, then he should prove himself at some lesser program. UM isn't the place for an OL coach with no discernible x and o's skills to be the HC.

Mario should take the UCF job and prove he's ready for hte big time.

 

[The Franchise]

If you have to project how a coach might be improved or different from his past, then the coach is not someone you hire.

Not when your team has been a dumpster fire for 10 years. That's what drives me nuts the most.

This team isn't the 1984 team coming off a title, or the 89 team coming off a top 5 finish, or the 95 team coming off an Orange bowl appearance, or the 2001 team coming off a Gator smacking in the sugar bowl.

We need to hire someone the quality of Howard. The program has no momentum, no identity. No strength program. No excitement. It requires a massive hire to turn the ship around. Guys like Strong and Wario and we are back here having this same conver in 2 seasons. I'm tired of going through this.

Yeah. UM's not in a position to let a guy interview his way around recent failure. That's why he shouldn't even be on the list to be interviewed.

If Mario wants another crack at being a HC, then he should prove himself at some lesser program. UM isn't the place for an OL coach with no discernible x and o's skills to be the HC.

Mario should take the UCF job and prove he's ready for hte big time.

I doubt UCF wants him. They'll hire someone much better.

 

[LuCane]

Great coaches "fit" everywhere.

There are a handful of coaches that fit into situations no matter what. We should go after those coaches and, if we get lucky, hopefully land one. Everyone reasonable agrees with that. Outside of that group of coaches, you're looking at flawed options...

Are you saying that there's no such thing as strengths and weaknesses that better match situations? Even among a group of elite coaches. You don't think one is more optimal than the other?

 

[LuCane]

I tend to disagree with focusing on the "fit" good or bad characterization of coaches. I agree it is a plus, but to use it as the main search point is too risky. You tend to focus less on the other skills and overall competence. You start by finding a great proven coach who's abilities will make him succeed in multiple situations and environments. Case in point: Urban Meyer.

Tell me of an elite coach who you think would not be a good fit at Miami. Meyer? Harbaugh? Saban? Miles? Patterson? Any elite coach will kill it here even if we say Miami is a unique place.

To me, focus on getting someone with elite coaching abilities because "fitting" comes automatically with been such a good coach.

If that's aimed at me, that is NOT what I suggested at all. It's just something to consider because you want the specific person who takes advantage of your strengths in the most optimal way. It is NOT IN ANY WAY THE FOCUS. It happens after the obvious analysis of competencies.

Again, take a look at even your list and tell me that there aren't some of those you'd prefer over the others. What would be the reasons?

 

[demcanes26]

Great coaches "fit" everywhere.

So do you think Nick Saban would have a national championship with Michigan State? What about Les Miles at Oklahoma State? I believe that Dan Muellen would kill it here, but he has been very average at Mississippi State.

 

[FullyERicht]

Great coaches "fit" everywhere.

So do you think Nick Saban would have a national championship with Michigan State? What about Les Miles at Oklahoma State? I believe that Dan Muellen would kill it here, but he has been very average at Mississippi State.

Huh? Saban, Miles, and Mullen did great jobs at programs that will never, EVER have national titles.

Coaches that do well at low level programs are worth looking at. Coaches who fail miserably at top programs should be eliminated from contention instantly. Coaches who failed at bad programs shouldnt even get a look.

 

[The Franchise]

Great coaches "fit" everywhere.

There are a handful of coaches that fit into situations no matter what. We should go after those coaches and, if we get lucky, hopefully land one. Everyone reasonable agrees with that. Outside of that group of coaches, you're looking at flawed options...

Are you saying that there's no such thing as strengths and weaknesses that better match situations? Even among a group of elite coaches. You don't think one is more optimal than the other?

There are certainly strengths and weaknesses in just about any candidate. I'm not so sure that UM is such a unique situation that it requires some special fit.

We need to find a HC who is a great leader of men, who understands the incredible material to which he has access in his backyard and builds a team that accentuates those strengths. I don't think that's fit. I just think that's hiring a good, smart football coach. If that's fit to you, then I'm OK with you calling it whatever you want and I'll go along with it.

I'd love to see us hire an offensive or a defensive mastermind, who also understands that he needs to hire an equally adroit technician to handle the other side of the ball. I'm all about hiring some real football coaches this time around. I'm done with all this "he knows the area" or "he's a great recruiter" nonsense.

I'd like to test my theory that winning cures everything. You get someone in here who can win right away and build some excitement, and the recruits will start flocking again. I'm not really interested in hearing excuses after another 8 win season about changing culture and fit and HS coaches and all that nonsense. Bring someone in here who can scheme it up and win the lousy *** Coastal in 2016. If you can't win the Coastal in 2016, then I think you're a failure. I'm done with all these flimsy excuses for failures.

 

[Southcane]

I tend to disagree with focusing on the "fit" good or bad characterization of coaches. I agree it is a plus, but to use it as the main search point is too risky. You tend to focus less on the other skills and overall competence. You start by finding a great proven coach who's abilities will make him succeed in multiple situations and environments. Case in point: Urban Meyer.

Tell me of an elite coach who you think would not be a good fit at Miami. Meyer? Harbaugh? Saban? Miles? Patterson? Any elite coach will kill it here even if we say Miami is a unique place.

To me, focus on getting someone with elite coaching abilities because "fitting" comes automatically with been such a good coach.

If that's aimed at me, that is NOT what I suggested at all. It's just something to consider because you want the specific person who takes advantage of your strengths in the most optimal way. It is NOT IN ANY WAY THE FOCUS. It happens after the obvious analysis of competencies.

Again, take a look at even your list and tell me that there aren't some of those you'd prefer over the others. What would be the reasons?

To be honest with you, I really don't prefer one over the other. Even if I don't like certain traits of some of them, since it is so hard to find a member of this elite exclusive club available, any of them will be fine by me.

Yes you may look for the "fit" if I have a choice of elite coaches to choose from. The reality is, even a big spending program will rarely have this luxury. There isn't many available great coaches to choose from. So you only focus on getting a "great coach".
Just to give an example, if Saban doesn't like the local politics of recruiting like, let's say Meyer does, I know Saban, being the great coach he is, will find someone on this staff to make up for his deficit. So, no lack of "fitting" here.
If I know Les Miles is not a good X's and O's coach, based on his winning history I will be comfortable that he will hire some that is excellent in this area on his staff. Again, no lack of "fitting".
Saban may not be a personable guy, but winning will make him palatable to the BOT and big donors. So, again him not fit here because of his brash harsh personality is not an issue. You get the point.

 

[The Franchise]

Great coaches "fit" everywhere.

So do you think Nick Saban would have a national championship with Michigan State? What about Les Miles at Oklahoma State? I believe that Dan Muellen would kill it here, but he has been very average at Mississippi State.

That's not "fit". That's just good HCs who were at B or C level programs. When they had access to better material their results got better. That's the way it should work.

It's going to be interesting to see if Coach Dantonio's results start to slide a little at MSU now that Michigan has a real hoss as HC. Dantonio has done a great job capitalizing on Michigan's down years by using it to build a better roster. Make no mistake though. When Michigan is humming, MSU will always be the little brother up there who gets the table scraps.

 

[Southcane]

Great coaches "fit" everywhere.

So do you think Nick Saban would have a national championship with Michigan State? What about Les Miles at Oklahoma State? I believe that Dan Muellen would kill it here, but he has been very average at Mississippi State.

This argument comes up often but doesn't make sense. How much coaching experience Nick Saban had when he took the coaching job at Michigan State? At Toledo! Great coaches are molded and battle hardened. They don't just happen. Do you think Bill Belichick would win at least one Super Ball coaching the Cleveland Browns? But he failed miserably there!

 

[88]

How many assistants have been on Sabans staffs through the years? Of those how many have been quality head coaches. Fisher, McElwain... Then what? Chances are low a guy simply being around Saban becomes a hc close to his caliber. Same can even be said for Belichick

 

[Rellyrell]

Herman, McElwain, all first year coaches that when you see their on the field performance you know they stand out and that what they picked up from their mentors is intertwined with what they themselves bring to the table.

Take Fuente, he runs his program exactly as Patterson runs his, but Fuente brings a great coaching acumen especially on the offensive side of the ball. So it creates a highly effective combination between what the student learned and what he himself brings to the table.

With a guy like mario, you lose half of the equation. He may pick up the organizational structure, S&C regimen, scheduling, recruiting, etc from Saban, but what does he personally bring that he can combine with what he learned that he can make it into a successful experience at Miami?

The idea of hiring someone because they learned under a great coach is flawed if that person doesn't bring something tangible to the table that they can integrate with what they learned

absolutely solid post.

 

[Rellyrell]

How many assistants have been on Sabans staffs through the years? Of those how many have been quality head coaches. Fisher, McElwain... Then what? Chances are low a guy simply being around Saban becomes a hc close to his caliber. Same can even be said for Belichick

This is true on so many levels.

 

[Awsi Dooger]

I don't see anything great about Mario Cristobal. We need special qualities. I would disregard anything Cristobal has done at Alabama identical to disregarding anything Kiffin has done or learned there.

Saban was smart enough to take guys who were being dumped by sports fans in general, while recognizing those coaches could help fortify his staff and boost recruiting. It's similar to Belichick taking Josh McDaniels back as opposed to lesser coaches who would have allowed public sentiment to dictate.

Coaches receive far too much credit when they take a lower tier program and bump it to 7-8 win status. Who cares? Often that is merely a string of tight victories in the toss up games, or taking advantage of a down year or two in the conference. The odds against that type of upward move are not nearly as high as conventional wisdom prefers. It's flawed thinking that the same guy will win huge at a major program. The range from let's say 2 or 3 wins to 7 or 8 is much more fluid and by chance than the leap from 7 to 11. You better be **** sure he's an elite mind who is merely getting started. Otherwise I'd prefer someone who has demonstrated he can win big, like Jim Tressel at Youngstown State or the major bowl victory by Charlie Strong.

I got a kick out of all the posters who ridiculed the "poor fit" aspect of Strong at Texas. It absolutely was a poor fit in the short term, due to several factors. Texas obviously didn't take them into account. For one thing, that conference is unique in that it has a high number of established head coaches with established offensive systems and firepower. Plug and play. I may not like that style of play with all the pinball type games but I'm not dense enough to ignore how effective it can be. Check the bowl games. The best opponents can maul that frail style but if you are just a little bit vulnerable and overwhelmed it can avalanche against you. I lost several bowl game wagers before figuring that out a decade or so ago. TCU destroyed Mississippi last year. Something like 40-3. Countless other examples.

Charlie Strong enters with a plan to assert defense. Good plan. But he takes over for an older head coach. As I've emphasized countless times, older head coaches are generally lazy and forfeiting the vital 3-5% everywhere. For years. It's worse than it looks. Strong doesn't have that established quarterback or offense to counter the teams he's asked to outscore every week, and his team and program in general are far softer than he prefers or he expected. The positive signs show up occasionally, but the fanbase expected minor miracles, and soon.

Strong's recruiting style and personality don't work as well with Texas kids as Florida kids. Is that racism? It's not shocking, not if you've heard Strong speak and listened to some of the kids he recruited at Louisville talk about those visits and the recruiting process.

I happen to believe it would be very effective with the Canes, and partially offset the massive disadvantage we face with our stadium situation.

I know one thing about trees...if you get too close to the bottom limbs you can bump your head and it doesn't feel good.

 

[tsimonitis]

Good topic. I don't buy into the osmosis theory on coaching. There have been far too many examples of guys failing badly who worked under the greatest of all time. Just look at all the HC failures that have fallen from the Belichick and Jimmy Johnson trees.

The only time I really see the "working under" thing being relevant is when a guy works under as an offensive coach under a guy who runs a particular system. Same with defense. They pick that system up and then apply it.

Look at the Air Raid guys for example from the Mumme tree. Or the Art Briles disciples. They all learn how to run those systems and are invariably pretty good at it wherever they wind up.

You can learn technical things working under other coaches. But you don't really learn how to be a great leader or motivator. Usually, that sort of stuff is in you or it isn't.

Going a step further and closer to home...Larry Coker was from the Butch tree

 

[Southcane]

Good topic. I don't buy into the osmosis theory on coaching. There have been far too many examples of guys failing badly who worked under the greatest of all time. Just look at all the HC failures that have fallen from the Belichick and Jimmy Johnson trees.

The only time I really see the "working under" thing being relevant is when a guy works under as an offensive coach under a guy who runs a particular system. Same with defense. They pick that system up and then apply it.

Look at the Air Raid guys for example from the Mumme tree. Or the Art Briles disciples. They all learn how to run those systems and are invariably pretty good at it wherever they wind up.

You can learn technical things working under other coaches. But you don't really learn how to be a great leader or motivator. Usually, that sort of stuff is in you or it isn't.

Going a step further and closer to home...Larry Coker was from the Butch tree

So as Randy Shannon.

 

[nope44]

When you look at Cristobal, you say what does he bring? The conversation always seems to start and end with recruiting. We haven't really had a hard time recruiting nationally. Ironically enough, our problem has been local recruiting, x and o, evaluation and development. Mario brings nothing terribly impressive for local recruiting. He's pulled what, 2 players from South Florida his whole time at Bama? X and O he is terrible and hasn't even called plays. Evaluation and development? Where are his units dominating? He got canned at **** hole FIU. He is an under performer. His hiring means we can watch home games like we do road games, at home, no pun intended. The fact that he's a candidate is terrifying. His O line play this year is unremarkable. You might as well hire Kehoe, the only difference is Kehoe learned from successful NFL coaches and won rings as a coach.

 

[gogeta4]

Solid take. In the case of Cristobal wouldn't it be equally or even more important to discuss what he's "learned" from one Lane Kiffin- his direct superior. This little narrative about Cristobal somehow being Saban's little prodigy is almost as flawed as people somehow disregarding that not only is he below Lane Kiffin in the Bama power structure but also probably has more day to day "learning" exposure to Kiffin than Saban. Do you really think Saban gives a rat's *** about taking ANY time to specifically expose his freakin' OL corch to the overall workings of Bama? People just want soooooo hard to believe this is some sort of mentorship going on with our little Mario and they have absolutely no proof that is even remotely true.

Completely agreed. Add to it...Calling anything the SABAN coaching tree or this one or that one "learned" under saban is b.s.

Channing Crowder played FOR Saban....and dude said he regularly treated the assistant coaches like sh*t...meaning in meetings he said the lb or other db coach would come up with an idea and give reasons for it, etc...and dude would be like.." yup....like i was saying we will be playing a cover 3"...and completely disregard them...lmao...Dude is a dictator...Mario aint learning sh*t from dude.

lol @ thinking even Mcelwain learned from him..check who he coached under.... Guys like Saban like you said aint spending time to give the inner workings to other coaches especially on the other side of the ball from what he coaches..and an ol coach at that

 

[LuCane]

Great coaches "fit" everywhere.

There are a handful of coaches that fit into situations no matter what. We should go after those coaches and, if we get lucky, hopefully land one. Everyone reasonable agrees with that. Outside of that group of coaches, you're looking at flawed options...

Are you saying that there's no such thing as strengths and weaknesses that better match situations? Even among a group of elite coaches. You don't think one is more optimal than the other?

There are certainly strengths and weaknesses in just about any candidate. I'm not so sure that UM is such a unique situation that it requires some special fit.

We need to find a HC who is a great leader of men, who understands the incredible material to which he has access in his backyard and builds a team that accentuates those strengths. I don't think that's fit. I just think that's hiring a good, smart football coach. If that's fit to you, then I'm OK with you calling it whatever you want and I'll go along with it.

I'd love to see us hire an offensive or a defensive mastermind, who also understands that he needs to hire an equally adroit technician to handle the other side of the ball. I'm all about hiring some real football coaches this time around. I'm done with all this "he knows the area" or "he's a great recruiter" nonsense.

I'd like to test my theory that winning cures everything. You get someone in here who can win right away and build some excitement, and the recruits will start flocking again. I'm not really interested in hearing excuses after another 8 win season about changing culture and fit and HS coaches and all that nonsense. Bring someone in here who can scheme it up and win the lousy *** Coastal in 2016. If you can't win the Coastal in 2016, then I think you're a failure. I'm done with all these flimsy excuses for failures.

We're arguing over semantics, it seems. I've stated numerous times that fit is about finding the sharpest guy that gets us back to what made us great: being on the cutting edge. That may mean Xs and Os. That may mean evaluation, but still needs technical strength behind it. Fit means taking speed and aggression and making it fly upfield instead of trying to play a strength game. That's just one example.

There are other examples of why you'd choose one good candidate over another good candidate. Essentially, because one fits better in accentuating your program's strengths.

And, by the way, I agree that "fit" is a bad excuse for an outright failure.