Dug up after a year, for some reason: Endorsement for Steele

[TitanTiger 20,510]

15 minutes ago, WalkingCarpet said:

Can you expand on this a little? Do you mean decision makers aren't impressed with the crop of coaches out there right now? Maybe they need to aim a little higher if that's the case?

No, I was saying that if one of their HC candidates wants to let the existing defensive staff go and bring in their own guys, but we aren’t impressed with who they want to replace Steele and Co with, it might create a snafu hiring that HC. 

[WalkingCarpet 1,379]

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

No, I was saying that if one of their HC candidates wants to let the existing defensive staff go and bring in their own guys, but we aren’t impressed with who they want to replace Steele and Co with, it might create a snafu hiring that HC. 

That's what I was hoping you meant. Thanks!

[McLoofus 35,182]

What a strange conversation. I certainly understand people preferring that we move in a different direction, but the inability of several to at least acknowledge the reasons that Steele would make sense is baffling to me. 

Like, how hard is it to say, "I get what you're saying, but I don't think the reasons to promote him outweigh the reasons to hire someone else"? A modicum of critical thought or logic presents a very compelling argument to make Steele the guy. It might not be the winning argument, but the way a few of you are just dismissing it out of hand is quite bizarre. 

In other words, this conversation is exactly the same as all the rest. Carry on, fam!

[AUsince72 11,084]

18 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

What a strange conversation. I certainly understand people preferring that we move in a different direction, but the inability of several to at least acknowledge the reasons that Steele would make sense is baffling to me. 

Like, how hard is it to say, "I get what you're saying, but I don't think the reasons to promote him outweigh the reasons to hire someone else"? A modicum of critical thought or logic presents a very compelling argument to make Steele the guy. It might not be the winning argument, but the way a few of you are just dismissing it out of hand is quite bizarre. 

In other words, this conversation is exactly the same as all the rest. Carry on, fam!

 

[gr82be 14,467]

Steele being named the HC isn't the thing that bothers me. I would love to keep the defensive staff intact so it's certainly not a bad option. My distrust of Auburn in general for allowing any coach to call the shots as he sees, is the problem. What if Steele is told who to bring in as OC and the assistants are dictated who stays and who goes. If Steele is allowed to make a hire on his own okay but if he is having to appease others then would we be any better off. Probably not, different is not always better, it's just not the same. I want change but frankly I just don't have faith in the people who call the shots. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised. 

 

[boisnumber1 2,821]

20 hours ago, AUwarrior said:

I would be worried that Steeles defense would suffer if he were to take on head coaching duties. Chizik coached some amazing defenses but when he became a HC his defenses were horrible.

So you are basically saying you dont think a DC as HC can have a good defense? Ridiculous. You realize there are DCs as HCs that are successful at every level - that have excellent defenses. Chizik is the one bad example you choose to use though.

[AU64 10,122]

13 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

No, I was saying that if one of their HC candidates wants to let the existing defensive staff go and bring in their own guys, but we aren’t impressed with who they want to replace Steele and Co with, it might create a snafu hiring that HC. 

More likely any  decent HC candidate will want the authority to pick his DC and staff.     Folks keep talking about getting at TOP HC and giving him absolute authority.....well absolute except we will pick his DC for him ?   

Can't have it both ways.    KS has done well at AU...especially by comparison with the ones before him but there are a number of good or better DCs out there and a new HC will want to pick his own    The odds of eventually getting one of the "name" coaches mentioned on this site are slim at best and the quickest way to lose the candidate is to start telling him who to hire. JMO     I mean, if you really want KS as the DC, then hire someone like Clark where AU has the upper hand and can perhaps dictate terms..  

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 minutes ago, gr82be said:

Steele being named the HC isn't the thing that bothers me. I would love to keep the defensive staff intact so it's certainly not a bad option. My distrust of Auburn in general for allowing any coach to call the shots as he sees, is the problem. What if Steele is told who to bring in as OC and the assistants are dictated who stays and who goes. If Steele is allowed to make a hire on his own okay but if he is having to appease others then would we be any better off. Probably not, different is not always better, it's just not the same. I want change but frankly I just don't have faith in the people who call the shots. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised. 

That's fair. But we gotta have a football coach, so we might as well talk about the best options.

Maybe a Stoops or someone else of that stature could come in and tell everyone else to get the hell out. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, AU64 said:

More likely any  decent HC candidate will want the authority to pick his DC and staff.     Folks keep talking about getting at TOP HC and giving him absolute authority.....well absolute except we will pick his DC for him ?   

Can't have it both ways.    KS has done well at AU...especially by comparison with the ones before him but there are a number of good or better DCs out there and a new HC will want to pick his own    The odds of eventually getting one of the "name" coaches mentioned on this site are slim at best and the quickest way to lose the candidate is to start telling him who to hire. JMO     I mean, if you really want KS as the DC, then hire someone like Clark where AU has the upper hand and can perhaps dictate terms..  

You just repeated what he said back to him. Except the list of DCs better than Steele. We're all ears. 

[I_M4_AU 7,993]

9 minutes ago, AU64 said:

More likely any  decent HC candidate will want the authority to pick his DC and staff.     Folks keep talking about getting at TOP HC and giving him absolute authority.....well absolute except we will pick his DC for him ?   

Can't have it both ways.    KS has done well at AU...especially by comparison with the ones before him but there are a number of good or better DCs out there and a new HC will want to pick his own    The odds of eventually getting one of the "name" coaches mentioned on this site are slim at best and the quickest way to lose the candidate is to start telling him who to hire. JMO     I mean, if you really want KS as the DC, then hire someone like Clark where AU has the upper hand and can perhaps dictate terms..  

If Lord Saban himself were to be offered the job and was told he had to accept Steele as his DC, from what I hear, he would be OK with it. Why would any other HC candidate be upset with that demand?

[fredst 9,064]

1 hour ago, gr82be said:

Steele being named the HC isn't the thing that bothers me. I would love to keep the defensive staff intact so it's certainly not a bad option. My distrust of Auburn in general for allowing any coach to call the shots as he sees, is the problem. What if Steele is told who to bring in as OC and the assistants are dictated who stays and who goes. If Steele is allowed to make a hire on his own okay but if he is having to appease others then would we be any better off. Probably not, different is not always better, it's just not the same. I want change but frankly I just don't have faith in the people who call the shots. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised. 

 

I don’t know Kevin Steele personally but he is very experienced and well established. He ain’t gonna take the job if somebody is going to try to dictate his staff hires I don’t think. Of course, that’s just my opinion, which isn’t with much.

[gr82be 14,467]

27 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

That's fair. But we gotta have a football coach, so we might as well talk about the best options.

Maybe a Stoops or someone else of that stature could come in and tell everyone else to get the hell out. 

That's exactly what we need, not necessarily that it's Stoops but there aren't many who could have that bravado and security.

[AU64 10,122]

36 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

You just repeated what he said back to him. Except the list of DCs better than Steele. We're all ears. 

I think recently Bird posted a list of his favorite DC.....equal or better.? check it out ...and maybe Garner does not get the credit from AU fans that he should since the DL is the strength of our D whereas the overall rating of the D is about 20th give or take. ...meaning there are others out there that are as good or better. . 

Just saying....coach should have authority to hire his staff....baring any NCAA or character issues...he should have to right pick someone he knows and or wants as his key assistant and it would be a mistake for AU to dictate staff...JMO.  

[DAG 34,016]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

What a strange conversation. I certainly understand people preferring that we move in a different direction, but the inability of several to at least acknowledge the reasons that Steele would make sense is baffling to me. 

Like, how hard is it to say, "I get what you're saying, but I don't think the reasons to promote him outweigh the reasons to hire someone else"? A modicum of critical thought or logic presents a very compelling argument to make Steele the guy. It might not be the winning argument, but the way a few of you are just dismissing it out of hand is quite bizarre. 

In other words, this conversation is exactly the same as all the rest. Carry on, fam!

Nobody has said it doesn’t make sense. I have found several posters who have said they WOULDN’T like the hire and given valid reasons as to why they wouldn’t like it. But because one poster who carries a big stick felt the opposition was shallow in their argument , now they are dismissive of the other argument. It was a debate . Neither sides are dismissive .

Now for me, what I find strange is several forces have said they believe in the rumor that Stoops is interested, they believe they are gauging another prospect interests, money is not the issue, etc, etc

My question is this then: if the above is indeed truth, then why would you not do your due diligence? I think all of us on this forum agree, we would be fine with him being an interim coach , but to just give him the HC job without doing any due diligence is bizarre to me. It’s even more bizarre to me that people are okay with that because it make sense. However, I have to pushback and say there are several reasons to not fire Gus at this moment which makes sense. But that doesn’t make it the best decision. 
 

IMO: there are several things that align with KS being named the HC

1). they did do their due diligence and all the coaches said no ( which means it’s not an attracted destination that we think)

2. Money is the issue ( which goes against what many of us having being saying)

3. They want to keep a guy who knows the system, keep the recruiting intact , etc but then it is very JABA like. They did the same thing with Gus at the beginning of 2013 . The big difference is KS has more experience as a coordinator . Who knows if that experience will translate into him being an HC. Maybe it will. 
 

But this idea that one side is dismissive of the other is false. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I think recently Bird posted a list of his favorite DC.....equal or better.? check it out ...and maybe Garner does not get the credit from AU fans that he should since the DL is the strength of our D whereas the overall rating of the D is about 20th give or take. ...meaning there are others out there that are as good or better. . 

DL has been a strength, sure. So has the secondary, though. Linebackers will be the strength next year. It's very much a team effort over there, particularly with the recruiting that TWill and McGriff have done. As for our defense ranking 20th, imagine what they'd be capable of with an offense that could get first downs and stay on the field? You think other defenses being ranked higher automatically means the coordinators are better? Which of those guys will be willing to make a lateral move to Auburn next year? Which of those guys are guaranteed to replicate or exceed the success they're currently enjoying at Auburn under whoever their boss is?

Interesting. We don't want to fire our head coach because we can't guarantee we'll find a better one but we're more than happy to let our far more successful DC walk because there are plenty more guaranteed to come here and do better? These seem like contradictory notions to me. 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

17 minutes ago, DAG said:

My question is this then: if the above is indeed truth, then why would you not do your due diligence? I think all of us on this forum agree, we would be fine with him being an interim coach , but to just give him the HC job without doing any due diligence is bizarre to me. It’s even more bizarre to me that people are okay with that because it make sense. 

But who here said anything of the sort?  I know I said at least a couple of times that I'd need a hard "no" from Stoops and Cristobal before I'd consider this direction.  I'm sure others have perhaps different names or maybe a few more names before they would.  So where is this "not doing due diligence" notion coming from?

 

Quote

IMO: there are several things that align with KS being named the HC

1). they did do their due diligence and all the coaches said no ( which means it’s not an attracted destination that we think)

2. Money is the issue ( which goes against what many of us having being saying)

3. They want to keep a guy who knows the system, keep the recruiting intact , etc but then it is very JABA like. They did the same thing with Gus at the beginning of 2013 . The big difference is KS has more experience as a coordinator . Who knows if that experience will translate into him being an HC. Maybe it will. 
 

But this idea that one side is dismissive of the other is false. 

I don't know that I'd say people are being dismissive.  But I think some of the arguments here for why KS would be a terrible hire are rather weak and don't show evidence of much in-depth thought on the matter.  Then there was this bizarre implication thrown around yesterday that somehow I and others who merely argued that KS could be a decent hire and not some JABA-esque disaster were pushing some kind of agenda, which is just laughable.  A person can argue that something isn't a bad idea (and continue to respond to objections) and not be part of some weird shadowy conspiracy.

[leglessdan 1,934]

13 minutes ago, DAG said:

Nobody has said it doesn’t make sense. I have found several posters who have said they WOULDN’T like the hire and given valid reasons as to why they wouldn’t like it. But because one poster who carries a big stick felt the opposition was shallow in their argument , now they are dismissive of the other argument. It was a debate . Neither sides are dismissive .

Alot of the same people absolutely loathed the idea of Steele becoming our DC too.🙄 They said it was a D- type of hire and he would never really be successful because his D gave up 70 at Clemson a few years back. Those same people are now saying the same garbage over his HC  record at a fledgling Baylor program 20 years ago in the toughest conference in the country at the time. I'd love to keep Steele and his staff intact.  A move needs to be made, Gus just is what he is and will most likely never change and get over the hump. I would view Steele HC hire as a stopgap to keep continuity within recruiting and the team in general. The man has a ton of experience post Baylor and alot of connections and has also coached under some pretty high profile HCs. We could do much much worse in picking a HC.

That said,  I want Cristobal, but Steele wouldn't make me lose my s*** over him being named if he can bring in a good Offensive staff of recruiters and teachers.

[AURealist 2,185]

3 minutes ago, leglessdan said:

Alot of the same people absolutely loathed the idea of Steele becoming our DC too.🙄 They said it was a D- type of hire and he would never really be successful because his D gave up 70 at Clemson a few years back. Those same people are now saying the same garbage over his HC  record at a fledgling Baylor program 20 years ago in the toughest conference in the country at the time. I'd love to keep Steele and his staff intact.  A move needs to be made, Gus just is what he is and will most likely never change and get over the hump. I would view Steele HC hire as a stopgap to keep continuity within recruiting and the team in general. The man has a ton of experience post Baylor and alot of connections and has also coached under some pretty high profile HCs. We could do much much worse in picking a HC.

That said,  I want Cristobal, but Steele wouldn't make me lose my s*** over him being named if he can bring in a good Offensive staff of recruiters and teachers.

Who do you envision coming in to take the stopgap OC position?  

[DAG 34,016]

6 minutes ago, leglessdan said:

Alot of the same people absolutely loathed the idea of Steele becoming our DC too.🙄 They said it was a D- type of hire and he would never really be successful because his D gave up 70 at Clemson a few years back. Those same people are now saying the same garbage over his HC  record at a fledgling Baylor program 20 years ago in the toughest conference in the country at the time. I'd love to keep Steele and his staff intact.  A move needs to be made, Gus just is what he is and will most likely never change and get over the hump. I would view Steele HC hire as a stopgap to keep continuity within recruiting and the team in general. The man has a ton of experience post Baylor and alot of connections and has also coached under some pretty high profile HCs. We could do much much worse in picking a HC.

That said,  I want Cristobal, but Steele wouldn't make me lose my s*** over him being named if he can bring in a good Offensive staff of recruiters and teachers.

Yeah I wouldn’t hate it either. Like you said , I just think it is funny how the narrative can change so quick like people forgot what they wrote just months ago. Guess what? I can be wrong and be the first person to say I am wrong about KS being HC. However, I feel it is very Cyclical to when we got Gus in 13 and 14. I just read the KS is hired thread and most of the comments are saying “we just got to find an average defense because our offense is good.” Several years later..

I also agree he is a stopgap. Perfect description of it. 

I just hope Auburn does their due diligence .

[TitanTiger 20,510]

2 minutes ago, DAG said:

Yeah I wouldn’t hate it either. Like you said , I just think it is funny how the narrative can change so quick like people forgot what they wrote just months ago.

What narrative?  And who has changed it?

[DAG 34,016]

On 11/19/2019 at 2:17 PM, AUght2win said:

Assuming the multitude of rumors are true, with Gus being out and Steele being promoted, I understand people's negative reaction. It does seem like another JABA move of keeping everything within the family. But I actually like the move. Let me sell you on it.

If it's Steele, I am assuming he will be given the kind of contract that coaches should have - a short term, low pay, prove-it deal. He won't have much of a buyout because, like Coach O at LSU, nobody is gonna want to steal him away from us. This will free up money for a real-deal offensive coordinator. 

The Steele promotion would also keep the ship somewhat stable, and maintain our great defense. We have the pieces to win RIGHT NOW, so I think it's good not to totally rock the boat if you don't have to.

Steele is a CEO. Steele is a true coach and developer. Steele is the embodiment of Auburn's fearless, tough attitude. If he isn't the answer, then we can take a ride on the coaching carousel next year. We and Coach Steele both know he isn't the long term solution, but he could help the organization he's been a part of building reach its potential before he retires.

Didn’t even get a chance to see the original post but I think the content itself is real, accurate and fair assessment on it. Don’t understand the dislikes of the post itself .

I think you answer most of my reactive questions in the OP. My bad 

[leglessdan 1,934]

41 minutes ago, AURealist said:

Who do you envision coming in to take the stopgap OC position?  

That I can't answer. I don't think anyone can. The same could be said for any HC hire though. A compromise will be made one way or another unless Steele's D staff is retained. My wish is hire Cristobal and hopefully he'd retain the D staff. I don't think it's that farfetched of an idea considering the consistency the D has been playing at. IMO 

[AURealist 2,185]

1 minute ago, leglessdan said:

That I can't answer. I don't think anyone can. The same could be said for any HC hire though. A compromise will be made one way or another unless Steele's D staff is retained. My wish is hire Cristobal and hopefully he'd retain the D staff. I don't think it's that farfetched of an idea considering the consistency the D has been playing at. IMO 

I believe there's a difference between a 'stopgap OC' and one hired by a new HC that will be given 4 or 5 years to succeed or fail as HC. 

No?  

[leglessdan 1,934]

Just now, AURealist said:

I believe there's a difference between a 'stopgap OC' and one hired by a new HC that will be given 4 or 5 years to succeed or fail as HC. 

No?  

Sure there is. Like I said I can't answer that. But....all you want to do is be condescending and argue about something none of us have any idea of what will happen. Good luck with that. 

[AURealist 2,185]

17 minutes ago, leglessdan said:

Sure there is. Like I said I can't answer that. But....all you want to do is be condescending and argue about something none of us have any idea of what will happen. Good luck with that. 

Not trying to be condescending.  Sorry if it comes off that way.  

I just keep seeing the the CKS stop gap hire being conflated with a new permanent HC situation and in some ways they are different. 

If CKS is given the job as a stop gap measure, it may be very hard to find a SEC-level OC that will come in until whatever time he's let go.  So I personally don't see how that's much better than having Gus.

If the idea is to give CKS the HC position, we'd better just give it to him for real with a 4 or 5 year contract and watch it play out.  This will be a harder sell to the fanbase, but at least it's (IMO) an honest sale.