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

[caleb1633 1,418]

10 minutes ago, Texan4Auburn said:

I've heard different unfortunately. I'd like for my friend to be wrong, but the fact that discussion has turned to Steele supports what he has told me. The fans, the administration, the schedule, and the rivalry dependency isn't that attractive.

I have live footage of us approaching and offering Cristobal and his response (we tried to be sneaky and wear red hoping people wouldn't know it was us):

 

Fair assessment and could be possible. However, I do think we've been very patient with Gus; we've given the guy every chance in the world and he got paid a hefty salary in the process. With a lot of the other points, Saban could've made a lot of the same arguments when he chose to come to Bama. I guess we'll just have to see.

[AURealist 2,185]

I WhatsApped some family members to get their thoughts on Steele as HC.   

Results:   Not popular. 

Maybe someone should start a poll thread on the subject and get the AUFamily's take? 

I'd do it, but I'm biased.  

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

42 minutes ago, caleb1633 said:

Fair assessment and could be possible. However, I do think we've been very patient with Gus; we've given the guy every chance in the world and he got paid a hefty salary in the process. with a lot of the other points, Saban could've made a lot of the same arguments when he chose to come to Bama. I guess we'll just have to see.

That is fair. I will be honest and and admit that I am one of those if we make a change I want it to be a hit guys right now, not just a let's try anyone else that will take that the job.

Hell, Steele might work out. I'm sure USCw is wishing right now they would of offered Coach O after he was the interim and went 6-2.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

25 minutes ago, AURealist said:

I WhatsApped some family members to get their thoughts on Steele as HC.   

Results:   Not popular. 

Maybe someone should start a poll thread on the subject and get the AUFamily's take? 

I'd do it, but I'm biased.  

I imagine if the internet had existed in 1980, a poll would have overwhelmingly favored Vince Dooley to become Auburn's next head coach and the results for Pat Dye would have been "Pat who?"

That's not to say Steele is or would be the second coming of Dye.  It's to say that fan polls on head football coaches don't mean s***.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

This would probably be a good argument for Steele, this explanation of Coach O.

 

[bigbird 60,567]

17 minutes ago, Texan4Auburn said:

This would probably be a good argument for Steele, this explanation of Coach O.

 

Indicts Gus too

[AURealist 2,185]

7 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I imagine if the internet had existed in 1980, a poll would have overwhelmingly favored Vince Dooley to become Auburn's next head coach and the results for Pat Dye would have been "Pat who?"

That's not to say Steele is or would be the second coming of Dye.  It's to say that fan polls on head football coaches don't mean s***.

Probably carry even less meaning when they go against the prevailing establishment winds.

There's already a Gus replacement poll, but our seeming front-runner isn't on it.  Just thought it would be interesting to see if Steele polls differently online than irl.    

[TigerTale 357]

10 hours ago, ToraGirl said:

No. We won't. He or anyone would get the same grace period. The excuses we allow for Gus would actually be relevant. I doubt the grace period would be 7 years or connected to $49 million, though. 😉🦋

Are you saying we're going to fire Gus for not beating our rivals and then be OK with the next guy not beating our rivals?

I understand grace periods exist but the length of said grace periods vary. However, with the success our rivals are enjoying in general and the success they are enjoying over us specifically, I would venture to say the grace period for the next coach beating our rivals is one season and then the pitchforks are coming out.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

17 minutes ago, AURealist said:

Probably carry even less meaning when they go against the prevailing establishment winds.

There's already a Gus replacement poll, but our seeming front-runner isn't on it.  Just thought it would be interesting to see if Steele polls differently online than irl.    

I imagine he wouldn't poll that well because I don't think anyone would argue he's their top choice.  I think 90+% would have him no higher than 3rd.  But not being one of their top few choices is not the same as not being a good choice all things considered.

[AURealist 2,185]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I imagine he wouldn't poll that well because I don't think anyone would argue he's their top choice.  I think 90+% would have him no higher than 3rd.  But not being one of their top few choices is not the same as not being a good choice all things considered.

Third?  He'd be my personal 'Plan S' - to be implemented only after Plans A-R have failed.  

 

All this Steele talk:   People seem to have different ideas as to how it would work.  I think there's a lot of fantasy attached.  

I'm guessing it's a popular idea because everyone wants to save Steele's defense and to save recruits.

What do you think:

Would the school sell the Steele ascension as a temporary caretaker's role, or as a permanent change?  I'm seeing mixed messages from those promoting the idea.  I foresee problems with both approaches.

[bigbird 60,567]

1 minute ago, AURealist said:

Third?  He'd be my personal 'Plan S' - to be implemented only after Plans A-R have failed.  

I haven't read through the last few pages so forgive me if you've already said, but what exactly bothers you the most about Steele potentially taking over?

 

[ToraGirl 5,498]

40 minutes ago, TigerTale said:

Are you saying we're going to fire Gus for not beating our rivals and then be OK with the next guy not beating our rivals?

I understand grace periods exist but the length of said grace periods vary. However, with the success our rivals are enjoying in general and the success they are enjoying over us specifically, I would venture to say the grace period for the next coach beating our rivals is one season and then the pitchforks are coming out.

7 years.

[AUsince72 11,084]

All the talk of Steele, wouldn't the prevailing presumption be that it would be on the interim?

If the season were over then I'd think this wouldn't even be a discussion.

I have zero problem with Steele as the interim HC.....not that it matters what I think.

[AURealist 2,185]

56 minutes ago, bigbird said:

I haven't read through the last few pages so forgive me if you've already said, but what exactly bothers you the most about Steele potentially taking over?

 

His resume doesn't have "successful head coach" at any level on it.  People always strike off other candidates because they have only been successful at small schools, or not in the SEC, or not long enough.  Somehow, with Steele, successful head coaching experience is irrelevant.  We gambled on Chiz.  We gambled on Gus.  I was sort of hoping we'd try to play it straight this time around.

This proposed Steele decision sounds like it's been strung together around a beer keg.

"If it worked for the lowly corndogs, it'll work for us."

"Can't lose this Defense."

"Can't lose the recruits."

"Steele can run the entire show and teach the new SEC-caliber DC."

"Steele can use the money saved to hire a real SEC-caliber OC."

"Steele will be a better HC than Gus Malzahn because, uh....  Well, who couldn't be?"

"Hiring Steele will be quick and easy!"

 

Just looks like the typical too-cute squirrel-scurrying JABA decision we always make to me.

Of course, I could be missing something.  I'm still in shock that this is being presented as a serious plan. That seriousness scares me because other bad ideas started out this way and we paid (are paying) dearly for them.

[Butthead 525]

I have never hired a head coach, but I have hired a ton of people on the business world.  Seems to me a successful head coach must have these 4 attributes:

Leadership -- can they lead?  i have no idea how steele is as a leader.  and the organization he would lead is much bigger than just the players.

Recruiting -- can you recruit both sides of the ball?  again, i have no idea about steele.  dynamic personality would not hurt either.

Coaching -- we know the guy can coach.

Hyper organized -- seems to me in the age of multiple signing periods and the thousands of other details (like roster management) you need someone uber organized.  again, no clue about steele.

i am glad i am not the AD.

 

[BJCrawford 1,568]

6 minutes ago, AURealist said:

His resume doesn't have "successful head coach" at any level on it.  People always strike off other candidates because they have only been successful at small schools, or not in the SEC, or not long enough.  Somehow, with Steele, successful head coaching experience is irrelevant.  We gambled on Chiz.  We gambled on Gus.  I was sort of hoping we'd try to play it straight this time around.

This proposed Steele decision sounds like it's been strung together around a beer keg.

If it worked for the lowly corndogs, it'll work for us.

Can't lose this Defense.

Can't lose the recruits.

Steele can run the entire show and teach the new SEC-caliber DC.

Steele can use the money saved to hire a real SEC-caliber OC.

Steele will be a better HC than Gus Malzahn because, uh....  Well, who couldn't be?  

Just looks like the typical too-cute squirrel-scurrying JABA decision we always make to me.  

Of course, I could be missing something.  I'm still in shock that this is being presented as a serious plan. That seriousness scares me because other bad ideas started out this way and we paid (are paying) dearly for them.

Who couldn’t be better than Gus? A ton more who won’t than will.  I’m in the middle here. Ok if he stays or goes but acting as though he is a colossal failure is simply wrong. It would actually be easier to make the move if he was.

[TigerTale 357]

6 minutes ago, AURealist said:

His resume doesn't have "successful head coach" at any level on it.  People always strike off other candidates because they have only been successful at small schools, or not in the SEC, or not long enough.  Somehow, with Steele, successful head coaching experience is irrelevant.  We gambled on Chiz.  We gambled on Gus.  I was sort of hoping we'd try to play it straight this time around.

This proposed Steele decision sounds like it's been strung together around a beer keg.

If it worked for the lowly corndogs, it'll work for us.

Can't lose this Defense.

Can't lose the recruits.

Steele can run the entire show and teach the new SEC-caliber DC.

Steele can use the money saved to hire a real SEC-caliber OC.

Steele will be a better HC than Gus Malzahn because, uh....  Well, who couldn't be?  

Just looks like the typical too-cute squirrel-scurrying JABA decision we always make to me.  

Of course, I could be missing something.  I'm still in shock that this is being presented as a serious plan. That seriousness scares me because other bad ideas started out this way and we paid (are paying) dearly for them.

It's being presented as a serious plan because:

The big names (Meyer, Stoops, Cristobal, etc.) aren't coming.

The little names (Clark, etc.) keep burning us.

Hiring Steele is quick and easy.

[AURealist 2,185]

1 minute ago, TigerTale said:

It's being presented as a serious plan because:

The big names (Meyer, Stoops, Cristobal, etc.) aren't coming.

The little names (Clark, etc.) keep burning us.

Hiring Steele is quick and easy.

Should have added quick and easy to my reasons.  I think I will! 

Thanks.

[bigbird 60,567]

17 minutes ago, AURealist said:

His resume doesn't have "successful head coach" at any level on it.  People always strike off other candidates because they have only been successful at small schools, or not in the SEC, or not long enough.  Somehow, with Steele, successful head coaching experience is irrelevant.  We gambled on Chiz.  We gambled on Gus.  I was sort of hoping we'd try to play it straight this time around.

This proposed Steele decision sounds like it's been strung together around a beer keg.

If it worked for the lowly corndogs, it'll work for us.

Can't lose this Defense.

Can't lose the recruits.

Steele can run the entire show and teach the new SEC-caliber DC.

Steele can use the money saved to hire a real SEC-caliber OC.

Steele will be a better HC than Gus Malzahn because, uh....  Well, who couldn't be?  

Just looks like the typical too-cute squirrel-scurrying JABA decision we always make to me.  

Of course, I could be missing something.  I'm still in shock that this is being presented as a serious plan. That seriousness scares me because other bad ideas started out this way and we paid (are paying) dearly for them.

Fair points.

Would you concede that in the 20 years since his stint at Baylor he has worked and learned under some really successful organizations and head coaches?

If so, would you agree that he potentially learned a great deal from those highly successful organizations and coaches?

If you agree to those, wouldn't it be logical to assume that he isn't the same coach he was 20 years ago and therefore shouldn't necessarily have his current coaching abilities and potentiality be judged by those previous results?

[TigerOne 1,148]

Gus will be the coach next year

Why do people think Steele could run a major football program and or offense. Gus has the program stable, clean and the team doesn't quit.

I mean he's just and average coach sure but don't think Auburn wants to go through the upheaval and expense a new coach (probably unproven) would bring.

It would be interesting though to know what the assistant coaches think, none seem to be wanting to leave at least right now.

[AURealist 2,185]

Just now, bigbird said:

Fair points.

Would you concede that in the 20 years since his stint at Baylor he has worked and learned under some really organizations and head coaches?

If so, would you agree that he potentially learned a great deal from those highly successful organizations and coaches?

If you agree to those, wouldn't it be logical to assume that he isn't the same coach he was 20 years ago and therefore shouldn't necessarily have his current coaching abilities and potentiality be judged by those previous results?

Assuming Steele has learned to be a HC by osmosis? 

I notice the words like "potentially" keep popping up in these arguments. 

What % probability do you personally assign to him absorbing enough HC skills to run a top SEC program?  From Gus or before?  

Bird, IMO, that is some high grade JABA thinking which, in its purest form, is 98% wishful thinking. 

Do running backs make good QBs because they've played next to QBs their entire careers?    

[Barnacle 9,064]

4 minutes ago, TigerOne said:

I mean he's just an average coach sure but don't think Auburn wants to go through the upheaval and expense a new coach (probably unproven) would bring.

Not flaming, but I legitimately don't know if this is meant as satirical or not. 

[bigbird 60,567]

2 minutes ago, TigerOne said:

none seem to be wanting to leave at least right now.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

7 minutes ago, AURealist said:

Assuming Steele has learned to be a HC by osmosis? 

Is there some other process where coordinators like Kirby Smart, Dabo Swinney, Dan Mullen, Jimbo Fisher, Mario Cristobal, Ryan Day,  and others learn to be head coaches before taking their first HC job?  It's always by watching and learning from head coaches they've worked for.

 

 

[bigbird 60,567]

11 minutes ago, AURealist said:

Assuming Steele has learned to be a HC by osmosis? 

It'd be much more like facilitated diffusion or endocytosis