Who should our next HC be?

[TGHusker]

5 minutes ago, THROW_DEM_BONES said:

500!!! Absolute MILESTONE. 500 to go to reach next level.

On to 600   forgot to quote you in the food post on previous page. 

[Stone Cold]

6 minutes ago, sho said:

 

Quick google search,  because I remember hearing/reading about it when it first happened.  It flared up and died almost as quickly.  Not sure how reliable this tweeter is but, there was some definitely some  chatter on message boards stating that a meeting with TA and Bieniemy took place.   

 

I re-read the quote from Moglia, you're right, he doesn't say Chadwick was contacted.  I infer he, or his people, had been contacted, but no reports of it.

Who the Hell is Mike Riley

[BIG ERN]

2 hours ago, Undone said:

 

-This year's run play percentage: 51.16

-Last year's run play percentage: 55.44

 

Now admittedly, a 4.28% difference is actually a big jump. So I guess I'd sort of agree with your pushback.

 

But I think the trajectory was trying to go more with Grant as the workhorse until it was apparent just how terrible the offensive line really was once we got to the stretch of decent opponents (meaning starting with Oklahoma).

 

No way we put up the yards & points we did against Purdue if the plan had been to just hand it off to Grant a bunch.

 

At any rate we agree that without a decent line it's all a bit moot anyway, but I still have to argue that with a good offensive line your scheme is less of a question (even in the B1G West). I think the reason teams run that scheme in this division is because they can't recruit the skill players.

 

Yeah that's fair...I think defense matters the most. Wisconsin/Iowa always seem to be good on D and Illinois turned the corner this year with defense as well. For the record I think Whip is a good OC, but almost seems like it hurts his soul to be boring and grind a game out. Hell, he somehow thought Purdy was the option over LS. Grant should of had nothing less than 30 carries last vs MN. 

[Red Five]

23 minutes ago, TonkaSker said:

 

That's fine, but I'll make a case.

 

Kentucky football has (4) 10+ win seasons: 1950, 1977, 2018, 2021. It's a hard place to win and he's made it consistently top-25.

 

Kentucky had never recruited in the top-5 in the SEC until last year, because of Stoops who's a great recruiter and because of his staff, who are also great recruiters.

 

Stoops convinced boosters to support NIL for football despite it being one of the premier basketball schools, so he's obviously a good fundraiser.

 

You can look at this season and say it's disappointing but the entire sample speaks for itself. They're also still 6-3, which I would crawl through glass for at this point. Mickey is great, but there are probably four Mickeys on Stoops' staff as far as elite recruiting and proven development go. Guy's got a network.

 

 

 

 

He's had 2 winning conference seasons in 10 years.  .400 conference winning percentage.  He has finished in the top 25 twice in 10 years.  He also plays only 8 conference games/year in the easier side of the conference.  He has 4 wins built into his schedule each year (3 cupcakes + Vandy).

 

Yes, that is much better than Nebraska the past 8 years.  But that doesn't make him a "great coach".

[TonkaSker]

32 minutes ago, sho said:

 

Quick google search,  because I remember hearing/reading about it when it first happened.  It flared up and died almost as quickly.  Not sure how reliable this tweeter is but, there was some definitely some  chatter on message boards stating that a meeting with TA and Bieniemy took place.   

 

I re-read the quote from Moglia, you're right, he doesn't say Chadwick was contacted.  I infer he, or his people, had been contacted, but no reports of it.

 

The only difference between the platinum board and here is that you pay $9.99/mo for it. 

[TonkaSker]

18 minutes ago, Red Five said:

 

He's had 2 winning conference seasons in 10 years.  .400 conference winning percentage.  He has finished in the top 25 twice in 10 years.  He also plays only 8 conference games/year in the easier side of the conference.  He has 4 wins built into his schedule each year (3 cupcakes + Vandy).

 

Yes, that is much better than Nebraska the past 8 years.  But that doesn't make him a "great coach".

 

There's a bit more to it than the overall record. Guy took over a team that went 0-8 in conference and hadn't had a winning conference record since 1977. Since getting the program stabilized he's had a solid conference record. I don't mean to cherry pick, but it's an unprecedented string of success. 

 

Also won 4 straight bowl games which is something you only see great coaches do. I'm not saying the guy's Nick Saban, but he's a great coach that's won at one of the harder places to do it, historically.

 

 

 

 

[Red Five]

19 minutes ago, TonkaSker said:

 

There's a bit more to it than the overall record. Guy took over a team that went 0-8 in conference and hadn't had a winning conference record since 1977. Since getting the program stabilized he's had a solid conference record. I don't mean to cherry pick, but it's an unprecedented string of success. 

 

Also won 4 straight bowl games which is something you only see great coaches do. I'm not saying the guy's Nick Saban, but he's a great coach that's won at one of the harder places to do it, historically.

 

 

 

 

 

What is your opinion on Matt Campbell?  He has arguably done more than Stoops at a place that I think is harder to win.

[Toe]

1 hour ago, TonkaSker said:

That's fine, but I'll make a case.

 

Kentucky football has (4) 10+ win seasons: 1950, 1977, 2018, 2021. It's a hard place to win and he's made it consistently top-25.

 

Kentucky had never recruited in the top-5 in the SEC until last year, because of Stoops who's a great recruiter and because of his staff, who are also great recruiters.

 

Stoops convinced boosters to support NIL for football despite it being one of the premier basketball schools, so he's obviously a good fundraiser.

 

You can look at this season and say it's disappointing but the entire sample speaks for itself. They're also still 6-3, which I would crawl through glass for at this point. Mickey is great, but there are probably four Mickeys on Stoops' staff as far as elite recruiting and proven development go. Guy's got a network.

 

Ah yes, he's been sorta-not-too-horrible at a s#!tty school. AKA the Mike Riley justification.

[Lorewarn]

20 minutes ago, Toe said:

 

Ah yes, he's been sorta-not-too-horrible at a s#!tty school. AKA the Mike Riley justification.

 

 

Also aka the Nick Saban at Michigan State justification.

[PasstheDamnBallGuy]

30 minutes ago, Toe said:

 

Ah yes, he's been sorta-not-too-horrible at a s#!tty school. AKA the Mike Riley justification.

I mean if coaches were winning championships at those schools they wouldn't be s#!tty schools. That's how it works 

[Toe]

15 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

Also aka the Nick Saban at Michigan State justification.

 

Saban was .588 in conference play at Michigan State, versus .400 for Stoops. Saban finished in the top ten his fifth year at Michigan State, which Stoops has never done in ten years. Good try, though, I'll give you an E for Effort!

[Lorewarn]

10 minutes ago, Toe said:

 

Saban was .588 in conference play at Michigan State, versus .400 for Stoops. Saban finished in the top ten his fifth year at Michigan State, which Stoops has never done in ten years. Good try, though, I'll give you an E for Effort!

 

 

I'm sorry I thought the metric was "sorta-not-too-horrible at a s#!tty school". Nick Saban's tenure at MSU 100% qualifies as "sorta-not-too-horrible at a s#!tty school".

 

Didn't know you would then back the goalposts up to pedantically flex they're not the 100% exact same because they don't have the exact same win percentage and one finished 9th while the other finished 11th. 

 

How about aka the Les Miles at Oklahoma State justification then?

[Toe]

@Lorewarn If you wanna pretend that a .400 conference record is as about good as a .588 record, hey, knock yourself out, buddy.

 

 

[Lorewarn]

2 minutes ago, Toe said:

@Lorewarn If you wanna pretend that a .400 conference record is as about good as a .588 record, hey, knock yourself out, buddy.

 

 

 

If you wanna pretend like Saban's tenure at MSU doesn't qualify under your metric (not mine) of "sorta-not-too-horrible at a s#!tty school" it's pretty obvious you're only trying to win an argument and not actually engaging with the real discussion.

 

I never said Stoops' UK record is as good or about as good as Saban's. I said Saban's qualifies as "sorta-not-too-horrible at a s#!tty school". The point being that coaches doing ok at low-resource programs aren't fated to not being able to do any better than that. Sometimes that's the best they can do, and other times they do better with a better opportunity. 

[Nebhawk]

Who ever had the Deboer analogy, could use the same for Lance Leipold.  If you can build programs, you can build programs, RIGHT!  Not saying I want Leipold, but every arguement for and against any coach, on anyone's list can be reversed or made to make some sense in some way or another.

 

I like Troy Calhoun some because he would make this running game almost unstoppable.  He would beat most non-con teams and the likes of Minny, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers, Michigan ST, Maryland and Iowa.  Those would be wins.  We would have to recruit elite talent and then start competing against Penn ST, Ohio ST and Michigan.