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

[McLoofus 35,182]

7 minutes ago, TigerOne said:

Why do people think Steele could run a major football program and or offense.

Our offensively-minded head coach is "running" a major football program defense pretty well, isn't he? The assumption is that Steele would do what Gus has refused to, which is hire a capable OC and let him do his job.

Quote

Gus has the program stable, clean and the team doesn't quit.

So it makes sense to at least attempt some continuity in that department. Especially with the guy whose unit has shown the most tenacity. 

Quote

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.

I'll echo Barnacle's comment here.

Quote

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

On the defensive side, they are having massive success. On the offensive side, you only have one coach who could ever get the same job at another program like ours. More importantly, though, it's unlikely that you or I would know if any of them did want to leave. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

12 minutes ago, TigerOne said:

Gus will be the coach next year

This is very much in doubt.

 

12 minutes ago, TigerOne said:

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.

And losing 4-5 games a year consistently.  Yay!

 

12 minutes ago, TigerOne said:

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.

Yeah.  We shouldn't go with anyone that can't guarantee us better than average because we have average now and that's just fine for Auburn.

 

12 minutes ago, TigerOne said:

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

I wouldn't bet the house on that.

[AURealist 2,185]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

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.

 

 

What's the usual success rate for coaches who work and absorb good things from other coaches like Gus and then go on to their first real HC job at a top SEC program? 

[JBiGGiE 2,488]

5 minutes ago, TigerOne said:

Gus will be the coach next year

Why do people thing 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.

It's not so much the thought that Steele can run the program but rather that with the talent and coaching in place, any coach can get us 8 wins a year.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

39 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?"

 

"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.

For the record, moving T-Will to DC is just one option on that side of the ball.  I like Steele's track record on hiring defensive assistants.  I think if elevating T-Will is such a worry for you, we could trust Steele to hire a good experienced DC instead.

The rest is just silliness.  You're trying too hard here.

[AURealist 2,185]

3 minutes ago, bigbird said:

It'd be much more like facilitated diffusion or endocytosis

Sure, OK, but when you use that sort of terminology, folks are forced  to waste precious forum time looking them up!

[bigbird 60,573]

13 minutes ago, AURealist said:

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

To speak in absolutes is asinine

14 minutes ago, AURealist said:

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

To put a % on an unknown is foolish. What I can say is that in coaching, it's just about impossible not to learn something from the other coaches you've worked with and under. 

 

17 minutes ago, AURealist said:

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

Would you go to a doctor straight out of high school or would you rather go to him after he graduates med school?

[bigbird 60,573]

3 minutes ago, AURealist said:

Sure, OK, but when you use that sort of terminology, folks are forced  to waste precious forum time looking them up!

Well then you learned something new today. You're welcome.

[bigbird 60,573]

7 minutes ago, AURealist said:

What's the usual success rate for coaches who work and absorb good things from other coaches like Gus and then go on to their first real HC job at a top SEC program? 

From Gus, in the SEC, none have. However the success rate of those under Saban have been fairly high.

[TigerTale 357]

31 minutes ago, AURealist said:

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

Thanks.

Glad to help.

I've gotta say that "keeping this defense" and "keeping the recruits" and "hiring SEC caliber OC and DC" sounds pretty good to me though.

[AURealist 2,185]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

For the record, moving T-Will to DC is just one option on that side of the ball.  I like Steele's track record on hiring defensive assistants.  I think if elevating T-Will is such a worry for you, we could trust Steele to hire a good experienced DC instead.

The rest is just silliness.  You're trying too hard here.

So we'll be hiring a new SEC-caliber OC to run the O.

And Steele won't need to teach anyone D, because we'll have a new guy for that who will run the D.  Which strikes out the 'keeping Steele because his D is so good' argument.   

Okay, so we're going with Steele mainly to keep the recruits, then?  Well, that and his HC 'potential' which we all know is somewhere in the Super/Very Super range. 

And this isn't an interim position, right?  I mean, what sort of top SEC-caliber OC and top SEC caliber DC are going to uproot their families to come to Auburn for a short stint of interim fun and profit?  Unless we're going to do some rep rehab on some folks.  Have we been talking with Hugh Freeze?

 

[gr82b4au 5,568]

I think that KS is a good DC. Just like Gus was a good OC. No need to make him something he is not. 

[AURealist 2,185]

5 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Well then you learned something new today. You're welcome.

I  wasn't actually referring to myself.  

[DAG 33,997]

2 minutes ago, gr82b4au said:

I think that KS is a good DC. Just like Gus was a good OC. No need to make him something he is not. 

I agree. TBH it's not unheard of for a coach to come in and keep one side of the ball intact. See UF 2005 when UM got there. Kept Charlie as DC.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

2 minutes ago, AURealist said:

What's the usual success rate for coaches who work and absorb good things from other coaches like Gus and then go on to their first real HC job at a top SEC program? 

Well, Steele isn't just some average young greenhorn here.  He's coached under several successful guys, with a variety of backgrounds and philosophies.

But to answer your question (I'll expand beyond SEC to include a few other top level Power 5 programs because they are just as relevant)...

Mark Richt had a pretty good run at UGA.  It didn't end up the last few years that well, but he'd been there over a decade by then and had a better winning % than Gus.

Kirby Smart is off to a good start at UGA so far.

Ryan Day is killing it at Ohio State right now.

Dabo took a few years to get things rolling but his success at Clemson after only being a position coach is pretty hard to miss.

This goes back a ways for sure, but Vince Dooley was merely an assistant at Auburn before taking over as HC at UGA.

Philip Fulmer was the OL coach at Tennessee before taking over in the early 90s and leading UT to a national title and a string of 10-11 win seasons.

Bob Stoops went from being a DC at Florida to the HC at Oklahoma and had them winning a natty within three seasons.

Bret Bielema may have failed at Arkansas, which is at a severe disadvantage in the SEC West compared to Auburn, Alabama, LSU and A&M.  But he became a head coach at Wisconsin after being the DC for years and had multiple 10-12 wins seasons there in his seven-year run.

Lloyd Carr at Michigan had no HC experience before he became Michigan's HC, reeled off multiple 10+ win seasons and a national title.

I could name a few more, but it's not like this is some rarified phenomenon.  

 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

10 minutes ago, AURealist said:

So we'll be hiring a new SEC-caliber OC to run the O.

Um, yes.  Why is that such a hard thing to fathom?  If we hired Pete Carroll tomorrow, he'd still have to do that.  Why is this part of a rebuttal?

 

Quote

And Steele won't need to teach anyone D, because we'll have a new guy for that who will run the D.  Which strikes out the 'keeping Steele because his D is so good' argument.   

Steele wouldn't have to "teach" T-Will defense either.  Quit saying silly things.  Him being HC when T-Will took that role would merely be as support and input - perhaps a little more than he'd give an experienced DC, but he's not "teaching" D to him. 

But if T-Will taking the reins at this point in his career is just too much for you, hiring an SEC quality DC is also an option.  That's all.  It would be more like how Saban or Tuberville hired DCs - you trust that when it comes to that coaching slot on the staff, they know what they are doing and how to identify good ones to hire.  Plus they have a defensive background and can offer valuable input.

Nothing you're saying here is a devastating counter argument.  It's mostly silly exaggerations of other people's arguments.

 

 

[bigbird 60,573]

Just now, AURealist said:

I  wasn't actually referring to myself.  

[Mikey 16,640]

Keeping Steele allows the PTB to cherry pick a bunch of assistants who will stay in place. Hiring a coach from outside means that the new guy will want to put his own assistants in place. No coach worth having will take the Auburn job under the condition that he'll be dictated to about who his assistants will be.

People griped about Gus meddling in details. Hiring Steele simply allows the PTB to meddle in things that should be left to the new head coach. If you don't want to keep Gus and you don't want Steele, then get ready to dump all of the assistants. It's what normally happens.

 

[gr82b4au 5,568]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I could name a few more, but it's not like this is some rarified phenomenon.  

You have made some great points, but how many of those guys had been a head coach before and failed? Other than the ogre at LSU I can’t think of many assistants that were terrible head coaches previously that went back to a coordinator position only to become good head coaches later in life. 
im not saying he can’t do it now...

[AURealist 2,185]

11 minutes ago, bigbird said:

To speak in absolutes is asinine

To put a % on an unknown is foolish. What I can say is that in coaching, it's just about impossible not to learn something from the other coaches you've worked with and under. 

 

Would you go to a doctor straight out of high school or would you rather go to him after he graduates med school?

I agree that it's very hard to put a number to just how much a coach can learn./ has learned from a HC.  The amount learned can be anywhere between 0% and 100%.  To be seriously considering Steele for the HC position, one would have to think the % is pretty high, though right?  I mean, while you can't know, you have to be willing to guess, or assume, or hope or something.  Especially when he's had no time on training wheels at a compass campus or similar. 

You got me on the analogy.  I'd prefer to see the doctor than to see his nurse who thinks she's learned enough working for my doctor to make serious decisions for my health.

I'm not saying Steele won't be a smash hit.  I can't say that any more than I can say he'll fail miserably and set the program back to smoking crater status.  I'm just saying if it were my decision Steele would be a stop gap measure only if Gus left and I couldn't immediately find a replacement.  Which is a place we don't get to.  

[bigbird 60,573]

4 minutes ago, AURealist said:

I'm not saying Steele won't be a smash hit.  I can't say that any more than I can say he'll fail miserably and set the program back to smoking crater status. 

I agree.

For me, when trying to determine future success as a HC, the most important characteristic is pedigree/coaching tree. Steele's is impressive but that isn't a sure fire determining factor.

[EagleEye67 1,940]

17 hours ago, WalkingCarpet said:

I get it, but I prefer to frame it in my mind that the QB we got from a JUCO brought home a natty.

fyp

[WalkingCarpet 1,379]

Just now, EagleEye67 said:

fyp

That's just like... your opinion man. 

[AURealist 2,185]

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Um, yes.  Why is that such a hard thing to fathom?  If we hired Pete Carroll tomorrow, he'd still have to do that.  Why is this part of a rebuttal?

 

Steele wouldn't have to "teach" T-Will defense either.  Quit saying silly things.  Him being HC when T-Will took that role would merely be as support and input - perhaps a little more than he'd give an experienced DC, but he's not "teaching" D to him. 

But if T-Will taking the reins at this point in his career is just too much for you, hiring an SEC quality DC is also an option.  That's all.  It would be more like how Saban or Tuberville hired DCs - you trust that when it comes to that coaching slot on the staff, they know what they are doing and how to identify good ones to hire.  Plus they have a defensive background and can offer valuable input.

Nothing you're saying here is a devastating counter argument.  It's mostly silly exaggerations of other people's arguments.

 

 

All I have to go on is other people's arguments, thoughts, beliefs.  

Is this Steele thing supposed to be interim or a permanent position?

Since we're talking hiring a new OC, it's permanent, right? 

I don't need to convince anyone hiring Steele as HC is a bad decision.  The onus is on those  who are selling it to sell it to me.

 

And on that note, I must admit that the vociferousness with which this particular idea is being pushed from so many big players here on AUFamily has me worried that this is already a done deal and my posts are being used as a foil to sell it.  

 

[AUsince72 11,084]

46 minutes ago, bigbird said:

It'd be much more like facilitated diffusion or endocytosis

...and THIS ^^^^ man would know!!!