Coach Candidates Thread (OP Updated 12/22)

[AUFriction 1,179]

6 minutes ago, PoetTiger said:

IMO That’s way too soon... they need to vet, interview and get this hire right. 

I actually disagree. Whenever coaches leave, players transfer and commuted prospects start rethinking their decision. Signing day is this week. They better have a plan and execute it quickly. If we haven’t named a coach by Wednesday morning, the next coach’s chances of success will be drastically reduced. Our prospects and some of our commits will decide to sign somewhere that they know who they’ll be playing for. We will end up with an empty class and a lot of players transferring out. In other words, we’ll have an empty roster. 

[TigerPAC 965]

7 minutes ago, PoetTiger said:

IMO That’s way too soon... they need to vet, interview and get this hire right. 

And you know they haven’t done this already?   Come on man, logistics 

[PoetTiger 1,896]

3 minutes ago, AUFriction said:

I actually disagree. Whenever coaches leave, players transfer and commuted prospects start rethinking their decision. Signing day is this week. They better have a plan and execute it quickly. If we haven’t named a coach by Wednesday morning, the next coach’s chances of success will be drastically reduced. Our prospects and some of our commits will decide to sign somewhere that they know who they’ll be playing for. We will end up with an empty class and a lot of players transferring out. In other words, we’ll have an empty roster. 

I think that’s why Steele is in place. I see him still being the DC or being highly suggested to the new coach. Also I think kids can still sign in January. So a new coach can have some time to pull a class together. It may not be highly rated but it will not be empty. Whether the higher is sooner or later...it has to be right. 

[AURex 1,994]

What a POS article that is. Barf-o-Matic!

 

[PoetTiger 1,896]

9 minutes ago, TigerPAC said:

And you know they haven’t done this already?   Come on man, logistics 

Yeah it’s possible they have. Especially if it’s an unemployed coach...who knows.

[ellitor 33,091]

Posted in the Gus is out thread but I guess it goes here too. So one of the better insiders on any AU site, JHead called in on the Brain Drain & gave what he's hearing on candidates. The video starts there...

 

[AUght2win 6,834]

Here's a pretty huge stat.

There are very few coaches in history who can boast a major championship (power 5 conference title or national title) before being hired by a Southeastern Conference team. Unless I am missing someone, these are the only men to ever do it:

Spurrier (Duke)
Saban (LSU)
Bryant (Kentucky)
Majors (Pitt, NC as Independent)
Sherril (TAMU)
Petrino (Louisville)
Lou Holtz (Notre Dame, NC as Independent)
Rich Brooks (Oregon)

Fisher (FSU)

Mario would join that group. Pretty rare air. I say we pull the trigger.

[AUFriction 1,179]

3 minutes ago, PoetTiger said:

I think that’s why Steele is in place. I see him still being the DC or being highly suggested to the new coach. Also I think kids can still sign in January. So a new coach can have some time to pull a class together. It may not be highly rated but it will not be empty. Whether the higher is sooner or later...it has to be right. 

It isn't that simple. Prospects want to know who they are playing for, and a new coach could clean house with the coaching staff or they could in theory retain everyone. Until we name a coach and until that coach starts making decisions on new coaches, players will have no idea who they will play for scheme wise, head coach-wise, or position coach- wise. So, a lot of people are going to be hesitant to sign without a head coach in place. This same thing happened a few years ago to Florida when they signed McElwain. They ended up only signing like 10 players or something like that. 

[AUFriction 1,179]

1 minute ago, AUght2win said:

Here's a pretty huge stat.

There are very few coaches in history who can boast a major championship (power 5 conference title or national title) before being hired by a Southeastern Conference team. Unless I am missing someone, these are the only men to ever do it:

Spurrier (Duke)
Saban (LSU)
Bryant (Kentucky)
Majors (Pitt, NC as Independent)
Sherril (TAMU)
Petrino (Louisville)
Lou Holtz (Notre Dame, NC as Independent)
Rich Brooks (Oregon)

Mario would join that group. Pretty rare air. I say we pull the trigger.

But not all of these coaches turned out to be good coaches over the whole of their careers either. 

[Zeek 16,649]

14 minutes ago, ellitor said:

Posted in the Gus is out thread but I guess it goes here too. So one of the better insiders on any AU site, JHead called in on the Brain Drain & gave what he's hearing on candidates. The video starts there...

 

First I've heard Napier brought up by someone in the know. Elliott is pretty inexperienced. 

I think the decision has already been made. 

[AUTigersfan89 256]

Some are saying the Steele talk could be a smokescreen to keep attention off of what is really happening behind it.

Some have sounded confident it will be MC, and some have even said the deal is done.

[AUght2win 6,834]

4 minutes ago, AUFriction said:

But not all of these coaches turned out to be good coaches over the whole of their careers either. 

I would argue every single one had great careers. Spurrier, Saban, Bryant, Fisher, and Majors are indisputable. 

Context is important with the others. Brooks and Holtz went to second tier SEC schools in the twilight of their careers, after literally 40 years in coaching, with NFL stints. They were on downward trajectories, and not in it for the long haul. It's similar to Mack Brown's return to UNC right now.

Still, Brooks guided UK to one of the best seasons in school history while Holtz inherited a 1-10 team in 98, turning them around to 8 wins in 2000, and 9 in 2001.

Sherrill also came to the conference on a downward trajectory. His prime was behind him after he got busted for recruiting violations at TAMU.

Petrino won the most games at Arky over a two year period (10 games in 2010, 11 games in 2011) in 50 years. He was derailed because of personal issues.

All these dudes were legit winners. Brooks is maybe the only iffy guy in the group, but his highs were still impressive at Oregon and UK.

[SphyNxXx 96]

One interview with someone connected indicated that the ones in charge would prefer a coach that will keep Steele as DC. Apparently multiple top candidates have worked with Steele before.

[fasttimes 356]

seems like maybe not the best idea to dictate who the new guy should have for their DC.

[tbone4jc 2,241]

2 minutes ago, SphyNxXx said:

One interview with someone connected indicated that the ones in charge would prefer a coach that will keep Steele as DC. Apparently multiple top candidates have worked with Steele before.

I like a lot of our current coaches. The CJBJ and Caddy on offense. I think most of the coaches on defense should stay ...

[PigskinPat 2,579]

26 minutes ago, AUFriction said:

It isn't that simple. Prospects want to know who they are playing for, and a new coach could clean house with the coaching staff or they could in theory retain everyone. Until we name a coach and until that coach starts making decisions on new coaches, players will have no idea who they will play for scheme wise, head coach-wise, or position coach- wise. So, a lot of people are going to be hesitant to sign without a head coach in place. This same thing happened a few years ago to Florida when they signed McElwain. They ended up only signing like 10 players or something like that. 

You might want to start looking things up before you post. They signed 21 players, including two 5 stars and 6 ESPN 300 commits.

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/football/recruiting/school/_/id/57/class/2015

[AUFriction 1,179]

1 minute ago, PigskinPat said:

You might want to start looking things up before you post. They signed 21 players, including two 5 stars and 6 ESPN 300 commits.

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/football/recruiting/school/_/id/57/class/2015

Then who was it? There was some program that really got hurt by this. I could've sworn it was Florida. 

[AUFriction 1,179]

8 minutes ago, PigskinPat said:

You might want to start looking things up before you post. They signed 21 players, including two 5 stars and 6 ESPN 300 commits.

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/football/recruiting/school/_/id/57/class/2015

Nope. I was right. It was Florida. It looks like they eventually filled out their class... with a ton of three stars, and ended up with a really low rated recruiting class. They landed 2 5 stars and 2 4 stars, but everyone else in the class was lower ranked 3 stars. So, they did fill up their team, but definitely took a hit from it. At the end of NSD, they only had like 10 signees. That was the last I heard of it. They must have scrounged to fill up their class with whatever they could find. . 

[ellitor 33,091]

24 minutes ago, Zeek said:

First I've heard Napier

Was brought up yesterday by JGT & relayed in the novel that is Insiders Hearing Anything thread...

[PigskinPat 2,579]

10 minutes ago, AUFriction said:

Nope. I was right. It was Florida. It looks like they eventually filled out their class... with a ton of three stars, and ended up with a really low rated recruiting class. They landed 2 5 stars and 2 4 stars, but everyone else in the class was lower ranked 3 stars. So, they did fill up their team, but definitely took a hit from it. At the end of NSD, they only had like 10 signees. That was the last I heard of it. They must have scrounged to fill up their class with whatever they could find. . 

So...they didn’t end up only signing 10 recruits like you said, but you were right?

[bigbird 60,513]

Weird, Cristobal...Napier... Elliot

Who's ever heard those names together. 😂

[AUwent 3,748]

12 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Weird, Cristobal...Napier... Elliot

Who's ever heard those names together. 😂

Those are the three most likely? I don't hate Napier, meh on Elliot.

[AUFriction 1,179]

29 minutes ago, PigskinPat said:

So...they didn’t end up only signing 10 recruits like you said, but you were right?

The purpose of my post was that they took a hit in recruiting. They did take a hit. They ended up with a really weak class. Almost all their top targets had been picked up by other programs, and, at the end of signing day, they had a really small class. My memory was correct. I just didn't hear the end of the story. 

Quit sweating semantics. You knew what I meant by the original post, and that premise held up. 

[PigskinPat 2,579]

6 minutes ago, AUFriction said:

The purpose of my post was that they took a hit in recruiting. They did take a hit. They ended up with a really weak class. Almost all their top targets had been picked up by other programs, and, at the end of signing day, they had a really small class. My memory was correct. I just didn't hear the end of the story. 

Quit sweating semantics. You knew what I meant by the original post, and that premise held up. 

I never said you were wrong about them struggling that year in recruiting, just that you were factually wrong about them only ending up with 10 recruits signed.

[AUFriction 1,179]

7 minutes ago, PigskinPat said:

I never said you were wrong about them struggling that year in recruiting, just that you were factually wrong about them only ending up with 10 recruits signed.

Okay. Not the point though. I was using that statement to support the idea that we need to hire quickly. What really happened still supports my statement. If we don’t hire soon, this class will turn into crap.