Do you support Dorsey? Whipple? They've never called plays.
After more research, I don't think Ponce is nearly as bad as the board claims:
- He seems to have had a pretty decent year calling plays in Year 1.
- The QB play there dramatically improved.
- He learned under Satterfield, who's offenses are much more highly rated by the advanced analytics at Louisville than at App State, since F+ is biased in favor of more talented teams.
Does this make him a Kendal Briles? No. If you're objection is you want a proven commodity for 2M than I certainly understand... this is underwhelming.
But I'm really not sure why he's doomed to failure here, which is what many on the board are claiming. I myself put hires into 3 baskets:
(1) Proven, successful coordinators. Very likely to succeed. (Briles, Mullen, etc.)
(2) (Middle ground between 1 and 3). Not proven one way or another. Limited (or nonexistent) track record calling plays/implementing scheme. But promising signs pointing to potential future success. These are tossups, but acceptable risks. (E.g. Dorsey, Coen).
(3) Proven caca; Smells worse than my excrement. In all likelihood gonna fail types (e.g. Coley).
There's a much stronger argument to put Ponce in category 2 than in category 3. I'd obviously prefer someone in Category 1, but I'd be content with someone in Category 2. Within Category 2, I'd take some people over Ponce (Dorsey, Coen), but if we can't land them, I don't mind rolling the dice on Ponce. He's not an automatic, surefire failure in my mind and I actually think he has a decent shot to succeed here.
