Who do you want as head coach?

[casatiger 513]

3 hours ago, CleCoTiger said:

Really? Sark is a great cooridnator. I don't know that he's head coach material. Not a slam against him. Some coaches just are better at working for someone than being worked for.

I like the fact that he has faced some adversity, seems to havd gotten it together, and is rebuilding himself.  He is going to make someone a fine coach.  

[Beaker 2,457]

One more thought - 

we better not try to find a coach that doesn't exist:

- great with boosters

- someone who embodies "an Auburn man"

 -  HC experience

 - great recruiter

 - SEC experience

 - comes from a great coaching tree

 - won't shy away from coaching in the hardest division in college or pro

- yada yada yada

 

That guy doesn't exist.  

 

We better find a warrior type who can recruit and wants to be here.  The rest will come.  

(On another note: why does Muschamp fail?  He had all he needed at UF to do great things...amazes me that he failed there.  USC?  Hmmm, not amazed about that stop.)

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

5 hours ago, cole256 said:

Ok how about tenn last year, how a about SC? 

You are as dense as lead. read the title of the thread. It's not about Gus it's about who might replace him.

[Beaker 2,457]

5 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

You are as dense as lead. read the title of the thread. It's not about Gus it's about who might replace him.

11.3  g/mL    Or 11.3 g/cc since Cole is a solid.      So pretty close to 11 g/cc  is the assertion.      Just sayin'.    

I am going to bed and hoping I wake up a new man tomorrow. 

[cole256 17,039]

33 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

You are as dense as lead. read the title of the thread. It's not about Gus it's about who might replace him.

No you big dummy it's about replacing Gus so it's about him too. 

[cole256 17,039]

29 minutes ago, Beaker said:

11.3  g/mL    Or 11.3 g/cc since Cole is a solid.      So pretty close to 11 g/cc  is the assertion.      Just sayin'.    

I am going to bed and hoping I wake up a new man tomorrow. 

Hahaha that's good stuff!

[BizTiger 242]

Question... 

What's the general opinion of the S&C staff?

[JBiGGiE 2,488]

3 hours ago, casatiger said:

I like the fact that he has faced some adversity, seems to havd gotten it together, and is rebuilding himself.  He is going to make someone a fine coach.  

I hear South Alabama and Vandy are in the market for a head coach...

My problem with Sark is the same problem with 90% of former Saban assistant coaches. Kirby has the Georgia recruiting machine in his favor but can't beat Saban. Cristobal had been doing well but is hitting a hard speed bump this year. Napier is having a good season but Power 5 football is a big leap from Group of 5 football.

Sarkesian can coach offense, but there is no evidence based on the results elsewhere that Sark will be a better than .500 head coach just because to the Nick Saban Coach Rehabilitation Center.

It's a hard sell for me but at this point I'll take anyone over Malzahn.

[BizTiger 242]

3 minutes ago, JBiGGiE said:

I hear South Alabama and Vandy are in the market for a head coach...

My problem with Sark is the same problem with 90% of former Saban assistant coaches. Kirby has the Georgia recruiting machine in his favor but can't beat Saban. Cristobal had been doing well but is hitting a hard speed bump this year. Napier is having a good season but Power 5 football is a big leap from Group of 5 football.

Sarkesian can coach offense, but there is no evidence based on the results elsewhere that Sark will be a better than .500 head coach just because to the Nick Saban Coach Rehabilitation Center.

It's a hard sell for me but at this point I'll take anyone over Malzahn.

I wouldn't hold 2020 against a guy like Cristobal. He or PJ Fleck would be good at AU. Or the Indiana coach. Especially Cristobal. He can croot his tail off

[JBiGGiE 2,488]

Just now, BizTiger said:

I wouldn't hold 2020 against a guy like Cristobal. He or PJ Fleck would be good at AU. Or the Indiana coach. Especially Cristobal. He can croot his tail off

That's why I call it a speed bump. Rumor has it that the PAC 12 is in more disarray than what's on the surface and I think everything should be analyzed with some nuance...

Fleck I'm not so sure is that attainable. He's currently making $4.75M/yr at Minnesota (and just signed $33.25M for 7 years)... Compare that to Cristobal's $2.6M (under contract til 2024, negotiations halted due to COVID) and Allen's $3.9M (also freshly signed $27.3M for 7-year).

Even Fickell is making $3.4M through 2026. But now Billy Napier is making a $0.9M through 2025

I think of the "splash" hires out there, Cristobal makes the most sense. Billy Napier could be the most bang-per-buck. Though there's always risk involved with hiring up from the G5 ranks...

[Tiger 8,818]

Lets say its Freeze. 

What would be the potential pitfalls? OK so there'd be an article or 2 about Bruce Pearl and Hugh Freeze being on AU's campus. What about on the field? How was his decision making? Clock management? What are on-field reasons that people wouldn't want him?

I've seen Cristobal make Gus-like blunders in-game like that weird timeout he took against us. That is basic strategy and knowing the rules IMO. That would worry me if it was him. We would of course improve recruiting, though.

[GwillMac6 20,607]

15 minutes ago, Tiger said:

Lets say its Freeze. 

What would be the potential pitfalls? OK so there'd be an article or 2 about Bruce Pearl and Hugh Freeze being on AU's campus. What about on the field? How was his decision making? Clock management? What are on-field reasons that people wouldn't want him?

I've seen Cristobal make Gus-like blunders in-game like that weird timeout he took against us. That is basic strategy and knowing the rules IMO. That would worry me if it was him. We would of course improve recruiting, though.

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

6 hours ago, Tiger said:

Lets say its Freeze. 

What would be the potential pitfalls? OK so there'd be an article or 2 about Bruce Pearl and Hugh Freeze being on AU's campus. What about on the field? How was his decision making? Clock management? What are on-field reasons that people wouldn't want him?

I've seen Cristobal make Gus-like blunders in-game like that weird timeout he took against us. That is basic strategy and knowing the rules IMO. That would worry me if it was him. We would of course improve recruiting, though.

I can't think of any issues with Freeze in terms of game day coaching. I'm still not sure if he can build a stable program for long term success, and I think we've seen with Bruce the danger of hiring a guy the NCAA has it out for. Obviously Bruce has been nothing but a godsend for us, but the undue scrutiny is actually causing problems for us beyond bad press. Does Freeze bring such a massive improvement as Bruce has that the juice is worth the squeeze? I dunno. Of course, it would make Fathead Forde go apoplectic, so that's a plus.

As for Cristobal and any in-game blunders he's made, how many of them are there? Honest question. He's still fairly young, in age and in the profession, so if he's made a few high profile mistakes and learned from them, then I can live with it. Of course, I assumed that Gus would make a lot of mistakes *and learn from them*, but I was only right about the first part. 

I think every coach except Bill Belichick makes game day mistakes. I think the great coaches just build teams that are so damned good that the mistakes don't lose games and people forget about them or don't even really realize they were made to begin with. Can Cristobal do that at Auburn? Who knows. 

Back to Freeze vs Cristobal, I have to be completely honest. I really, really do not "like" Freeze. Wouldn't want to hang out with him. I "like" Cristobal. I'd want to hang out by his pool and drink beers and eat Cuban food. And that totally colors how I look at them as coaches. It's a personal flaw.

[chizhead 618]

2 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Freeze vs Cristoba

Definitely Mario of those two. I still say that if we can get Sark, we need to go for it. 100% behind him and if we don't do this, someone is going to get a damn good coach( if he wants it)...I do view his sobriety as being more important than being a head coach, and that should be his first and only priority

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, chizhead said:

Definitely Mario of those two. I still say that if we can get Sark, we need to go for it. 100% behind him and if we don't do this, someone is going to get a damn good coach( if he wants it)...I do view his sobriety as being more important than being a head coach, and that should be his first and only priority

If we could have this bama offense for one freaking game, then it would be worth hiring Sark, lol. 

[chizhead 618]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

If we could have this bama offense for one freaking game, then it would be worth hiring Sark, lol. 

It is absolutely mind blowing to watch it. Its on the level of LSU last year. So damn precise and his play calling is beautiful

[McLoofus 35,182]

9 minutes ago, chizhead said:

It is absolutely mind blowing to watch it. Its on the level of LSU last year. So damn precise and his play calling is beautiful

Devonta Smith has my Heisman vote. Which totally counts. 

[Barnacle 9,064]

18 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I can't think of any issues with Freeze in terms of game day coaching.

Personally, I loved Freeze's game day style when he was at Ole Miss. The man likes to play aggressive football on both sides of the ball. His guys play HARD. The turnaround in the attitude of the football team at Ole Miss switched immediately when he arrived. Even before they had the talent to compete, I thought he was getting the most out of the team he had. 

He also developed a lot of talent at Ole Miss. There were lots of guys, like Evan Engram, who were not highly recruited out of high school, who turned into stars under Freeze. I really think he's an excellent football coach, and I'm also impressed with his ability to develop talent. What he's doing with Liberty is further confirmation, IMO. 

23 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I'm still not sure if he can build a stable program for long term success

Me either - but my concerns have more to do with Hugh Freeze the person. Hugh wants to win, and he wants to win big. He'll bend the rules if it means winning. He's not immune to scandal - personally or professionally. That worries me. That said, I actually think being around someone like Pearl would be a good thing for Hugh. That's assuming a lot though. 

27 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I really, really do not "like" Freeze. Wouldn't want to hang out with him. 

I don't like the car salesman, televangelist thing that Hugh puts out there. I don't know if he's toned it down recently or not. Auburn, I'm afraid, would encourage some of it. There were also some rumors about Freeze that run back to his high school coaching years that bother me.

Ultimately, I think Freeze would come here and win. I really do. I think we'd be happy with him. He knows how to recruit, and he knows how to coach. 

That said, I also question whether he could provide long-term stability. Even if he avoided compromising himself personally, or our program, I still have questions about whether he would remain committed to a place like Auburn long-term. 

[DAG 33,955]

13 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Personally, I loved Freeze's game day style when he was at Ole Miss. The man likes to play aggressive football on both sides of the ball. His guys play HARD. The turnaround in the attitude of the football team at Ole Miss switched immediately when he arrived. Even before they had the talent to compete, I thought he was getting the most out of the team he had. 

He also developed a lot of talent at Ole Miss. There were lots of guys, like Evan Engram, who were not highly recruited out of high school, who turned into stars under Freeze. I really think he's an excellent football coach, and I'm also impressed with his ability to develop talent. What he's doing with Liberty is further confirmation, IMO. 

Me either - but my concerns have more to do with Hugh Freeze the person. Hugh wants to win, and he wants to win big. He'll bend the rules if it means winning. He's not immune to scandal - personally or professionally. That worries me. That said, I actually think being around someone like Pearl would be a good thing for Hugh. That's assuming a lot though. 

I don't like the car salesman, televangelist thing that Hugh puts out there. I don't know if he's toned it down recently or not. Auburn, I'm afraid, would encourage some of it. There were also some rumors about Freeze that run back to his high school coaching years that bother me.

Ultimately, I think Freeze would come here and win. I really do. I think we'd be happy with him. He knows how to recruit, and he knows how to coach. 

That said, I also question whether he could provide long-term stability. Even if he avoided compromising himself personally, or our program, I still have questions about whether he would remain committed to a place like Auburn long-term. 

All I know is if you look at Hugh Freeze resume and every single coaching stint he has, he has taken over bad programs and essentially lead them to their pinnacle, every program. Could he do that here? I have no clue. But I would put his resume against anybody. Obviously the off field Ole Miss stuff is an issue.

 

Mario seems to be a good recruiter. The problem is he has annual bad losses and this year specifically, he has two in back to back weeks.  I think that is glaring. What I will say is I believe fit is more important and I do think he would fit well. My only criticism is he definitely needs to hire top tier coordinators. I don't trust him in terms of game management and scheme. I can't based on what I've seen. But if he learned anything from CNS, he should know to build the best staff possible and be the face of recruiting. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

14 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Personally, I loved Freeze's game day style when he was at Ole Miss. The man likes to play aggressive football on both sides of the ball. His guys play HARD. The turnaround in the attitude of the football team at Ole Miss switched immediately when he arrived. Even before they had the talent to compete, I thought he was getting the most out of the team he had. 

He also developed a lot of talent at Ole Miss. There were lots of guys, like Evan Engram, who were not highly recruited out of high school, who turned into stars under Freeze. I really think he's an excellent football coach, and I'm also impressed with his ability to develop talent. What he's doing with Liberty is further confirmation, IMO. 

Me either - but my concerns have more to do with Hugh Freeze the person. Hugh wants to win, and he wants to win big. He'll bend the rules if it means winning. He's not immune to scandal - personally or professionally. That worries me. That said, I actually think being around someone like Pearl would be a good thing for Hugh. That's assuming a lot though. 

I don't like the car salesman, televangelist thing that Hugh puts out there. I don't know if he's toned it down recently or not. Auburn, I'm afraid, would encourage some of it. There were also some rumors about Freeze that run back to his high school coaching years that bother me.

Ultimately, I think Freeze would come here and win. I really do. I think we'd be happy with him. He knows how to recruit, and he knows how to coach. 

That said, I also question whether he could provide long-term stability. Even if he avoided compromising himself personally, or our program, I still have questions about whether he would remain committed to a place like Auburn long-term. 

Appreciate all this info. I know you had a closer up look at it. It supports some of my thoughts but is also illuminating on other aspects. 

I view Sarkisian's past issues much differently than Freeze's. They don't concern me nearly as much. But Freeze very well might be better equipped to turn the program around. 

Man. Longest coaching search in history. Started a full two years ago at least and might continue on another full calendar year. 

[Barnacle 9,064]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

I view Sarkisian's past issues much differently than Freeze's. They don't concern me nearly as much.

Ditto

[Tiger 8,818]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

I can't think of any issues with Freeze in terms of game day coaching. I'm still not sure if he can build a stable program for long term success, and I think we've seen with Bruce the danger of hiring a guy the NCAA has it out for. Obviously Bruce has been nothing but a godsend for us, but the undue scrutiny is actually causing problems for us beyond bad press. Does Freeze bring such a massive improvement as Bruce has that the juice is worth the squeeze? I dunno. Of course, it would make Fathead Forde go apoplectic, so that's a plus.

As for Cristobal and any in-game blunders he's made, how many of them are there? Honest question. He's still fairly young, in age and in the profession, so if he's made a few high profile mistakes and learned from them, then I can live with it. Of course, I assumed that Gus would make a lot of mistakes *and learn from them*, but I was only right about the first part. 

I think every coach except Bill Belichick makes game day mistakes. I think the great coaches just build teams that are so damned good that the mistakes don't lose games and people forget about them or don't even really realize they were made to begin with. Can Cristobal do that at Auburn? Who knows. 

Back to Freeze vs Cristobal, I have to be completely honest. I really, really do not "like" Freeze. Wouldn't want to hang out with him. I "like" Cristobal. I'd want to hang out by his pool and drink beers and eat Cuban food. And that totally colors how I look at them as coaches. It's a personal flaw.

I think these are all valid points. Nobody knows if Freeze can build a sustainable and solid program -- which is something that I personally feel is important to know about hiring a HC at a place like AU. As far as his NCAA issues, I'm more worried about his transgressions than Bruce's. Freeze was literally dropping the bag on kids, Bruce's issue was the lying about a BBQ then trying to cover it up at a time when the perception was the NCAA's rules actually meant something. But I'll be the first to admit I'm a Bruce/AU Hoops homer so I'm not pretending to be objective there lol.

Great point about Cristobal/mistakes/learning from them. I think I just need a break from having HCs learning on the clock lol and that's a shame because that's not fair to Cristobal that Gus' inability to progress is de-valuing my opinion of his ability to improve as a coach.

Yeah I get what you mean about having preconceived notions about a guy and it affecting your opinion on them, I'm the same and I think most are that way even if they don't recognize it. But winning will cure all of that IMO. Back in 13-14 nobody cared or talked about Gus' boring personality or terrible press conferences.  Now that we're losing it's mentioned after every media appearance....and yeah I get it, getting handies in a strip mall while pretending to be a righteous individual is a different kind of vibe than just being a boring dude lol

[casatiger 513]

2 hours ago, chizhead said:

Definitely Mario of those two. I still say that if we can get Sark, we need to go for it. 100% behind him and if we don't do this, someone is going to get a damn good coach( if he wants it)...I do view his sobriety as being more important than being a head coach, and that should be his first and only priority

A lot has changed in 30 years.  Back in the day we just hoped Pat Dye would wait till after the Auburn Review Show to get drunk. We were never concerned about his sobriety cause we knew he was probably drunk most of the time. 

[Beaker 2,457]

5 minutes ago, casatiger said:

A lot has changed in 30 years.  Back in the day we just hoped Pat Dye would wait till after the Auburn Review Show to get drunk. We were never concerned about his sobriety cause we knew he was probably drunk most of the time. 

Sorry man.   This is way out of the park - an exaggeration.   I was there 84-88 and  to say P Dye was a drunk or drunk most of the time is  grandstanding.  

I am not saying he didn't drink.  He was not drunk most of the time.  

 

[casatiger 513]

It was meant to be humorous.   Sorry if it offended you.