CC: Hackett's Narrowing Process
Hackett gave us some insight into his process today when he talked about narrowing the field of coaching candidates. He didn't seem to be opposed to hiring an outsider (progress at last) and redefined - or perhaps properly defined - the term "Michigan Man" to include a coach who is selfless, can win games, and will refuse to cut corners or engage in 'shenanigans.'
Since there are already plenty of threads on potential candidates, I think it would be interesting to approach the search for the head coach from a different perspective. If Hackett is being sincere about the way he plans to conduct his process - and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity at this point - then it sounds like he will go through the candidates by using those overarching attributes as a starting point and eliminating candidates who are the least likely to fit the mold.
There are a lot of names being discussed. Which ones would you put on the DO NOT WANT list, and why? I would be disappointed if we hire Schiano or Shaw, but reasonable minds can disagree. Basically, to use Hackett's swimming lane anaology, I'm curious to see who we as fans want to disqualify from the 400m medley. Thoughts?
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:00 PM ^
Everyone except Jim Harbaugh and Les Miles.
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:07 PM ^
your take against Shaw? He'd be in my top five, I think, maybe even my 1, given all factors (and excluding Harbaughs).
To answer your original - I would eliminate Miles (age and those 'right way' factors), and Schiano & Chryst based on my take on their full potential as head coaches.
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:18 PM ^
I like Shaw as a person, but it just doesn't seem like he could get the job done. His playcalling seems incredibly conservative and at times it appears like he plays not to lose rather than to win. I'm also not sure how much of his relative success at Stanford has been due to Harbaugh's efforts in building up the program rather than his own ability as a coach.
He's well-liked, but people said the same thing about Hoke. So I'm a little skeptical of Shaw...
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:23 PM ^
Maybe I like him for those reasons:
I remember feeling a bit fed up with a coach I liked as a person, thought his playcalling was too conservative and wasn't sure how much of his success was just built on the guy(s) before him.
7 years later, I'd take a 40 something Lloyd Carr about now!
chuckle, chuckle
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:29 PM ^
Although I will say Shaw seems more like 2007 Lloyd Carr than 1997 Lloyd Carr, which makes me more than a little leery.
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:38 PM ^
He didn't have a good season this year. The last few good years could have been from the Harbaugh framework.
December 2nd, 2014 at 10:59 PM ^
With Shaw, the trendline has been pointing downward. We don't need Hoke 2.0.
December 3rd, 2014 at 12:55 AM ^
He's Ferentz. If you gave Ferentz what Harbaugh left Shaw, I'm convinced the exact same thing would have happened. Terrible game manager, archaic offense. It works if you can absolutely destroy up front, which Ferentz has been able to do every 3 or 4 years when he develops a full O-line together, and Shaw had when he was left with what remained of the Harbaugh O-lineman, but it's not a great strategy.
Shaw isn't a bad coach, and he could probably get Michigan to be what Nebraska was under Pelini due to the slight recruiting advantage he would have over Ferentz, but I'm not thrilled about hiring a guy who probably has a ceiling of what just got Nebraska's coach fired.
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:40 PM ^
I think Lloyd left at the proper time tbh. I doubt his conservative play calling would have worked in this Spread offense revolution that we just witnessed/witnessing.
HIs offenses had a huge amount of talent that scored enough point to win (great defenses help) but I always felt like they were underused.
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:45 PM ^
Fact > Speculation
December 2nd, 2014 at 10:58 PM ^
I'm not really sure you want to talk about Carr's ability to handle the spread in 2007 when you consider what's on the opposite end of that season.
December 3rd, 2014 at 10:11 AM ^
Great! You reminded me about the horror!
December 2nd, 2014 at 11:04 PM ^
December 2nd, 2014 at 11:43 PM ^
December 3rd, 2014 at 12:57 AM ^
It wasn't all sunshine and fucking rainbows
December 2nd, 2014 at 11:21 PM ^
Getting steam-rolled makes strategy seem insignificant, no?
Les Miles isn't exactly a master of end-of-game situations. Player development and recruiting trump strategy.
December 3rd, 2014 at 4:58 AM ^
It's one thing to be a perfect guy to take over an already successful job and keep being successful. Shaw has been able to do that at Stanford, Lloyd obviously had a lot of success taking over Michigan. And that's not an easy thing to do either, I don't want to minimize either of them.
But that doesn't mean 40 year old Lloyd would be well suited to take over a moribund program and rehab it from scratch. I have the same opinion of Shaw. And frankly, the track record of Harbaugh assistants moving to new jobs and having to build that toughness culture from scratch has been really poor.
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:36 PM ^
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:37 PM ^
Shaw is way too risky. Were his first three seasons just remnants of Harbaugh? We don't know.
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:42 PM ^
The Hoke-esque decline in his winning percentage over the last three years isn't a good omen, either: 12-2 (2012), 11-3 (2013) and 7-5 (2014).
December 2nd, 2014 at 10:06 PM ^
Okay, to disregard the first year is idiotic. To start your career 41-12, 11-2, 12-2, 11-3, and 7-5 there isn't thing Hoke-ish about that. They only lost to top 25 teams, and ended the season with an impressive UCLA win which is better than any win Hoke has.
December 2nd, 2014 at 10:20 PM ^
The decline is not irrelevant. Yeah, he had a great first year. So did Hoke. Maybe Shaw is a good coach, and this year is a blip that will be corrected with a good quarterback.
But maybe not. It would be foolish not to be concerned about it--college football history is stocked with coaches that inherited solid programs, coasted on the momentum for a few years, and burned out when the experienced players who had grown up under the old coach left.
Larry Coker is a good example of this--before they got mugged by Ohio State, that Miami team of his looked like the dominant power of the age, with a very legitimate shot at breaking Oklahoma's all-time win streak. He had won a national championship with one of the great, loaded teams of all time. They demolished every team in their path in 2002, and after their coronation over an overmatched OSU squad in Tempe, they were due to replace Ken Dorsey with highly touted transfer Brock Berlin.
But those older players left, and despite playing in a weak conference, Coker could never rebuild a great team. Decent-but-not-great seasons followed, and he was fired.
It might not be the same with Shaw. But it might be. It's a legitimate question.
December 2nd, 2014 at 10:25 PM ^
Granted, the UCLA win was impressive, but I think if you're Hackett you have to look at the trendline. That was one of the reasons Hoke got fired in the first place - the argument was that he won with Rich Rod's guys and declined from there.
Why is it different with Shaw, who started by winning with Harbaugh's guys and appears to have declined from there?
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:04 PM ^
was that Les Miles and Dan Mullen probably won't fit his requirements.
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:24 PM ^
My mind immediately jumped to Mullen there - although it's definitely possible that Hackett was making a reference to Les as well.
I'm also not convinced that Mullen is that great of a coach - he has the advantage of being able to access tons of talent and seems to be riding a wave right now. Some of his in-game decisions are mind-boggling, to say the least. I'm not sure his stock will ever be higher than it is now, so it's not surprising that he might look to cash in.
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:43 PM ^
I don't know about the access to talent. Miss St. seems like a difficult place to recruit. They are the second best program in the state and then if you look at neighboring states they have to recruit in and the programs they have to compete with it does not seem like an easy place to recruit for.
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:45 PM ^
Mullen has built his team with mostly 3-stars. He does not recruit with the rest of the SEC teams. Whether that's because he's cleaner, because he's working with a lesser program, or because he's a bad recruiter, most of his players are guys who don't get sniffs from Bama or LSU.
FWIW if you start with the premise that most of the SEC is pretty dirty (and I hold that premise), it is objectively impossible to conclude that Les Miles has somehow built a whistle-clean winner at LSU. Honestly, I think LSU is likely as dirty as any program in football, and that's not including the shady stuff that is public knowledge, like light discipline of players who have committed crimes and oversigning.
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:52 PM ^
If you're picking the easy recruits that nobody wants and are having successs with them, that is not "bad recruiting." that is very smart recruiting. It's easy to find a 5 star everyone wants and you're probably not going to get. It's a hell of a lot harder to be highly competitive while working with 2-3 star talent. Then again, we don't want a guy who can find the 3 stars that will become legends, he's working in Arizona now.
December 2nd, 2014 at 10:10 PM ^
You didn't read my post. I explicitly said that there are multiple possible reasons why his Mississippi State recruiting classes aren't as strong as those of neighbors to his west or east. Not all reflect badly on him. But the fact that his recruits are not typically as shiny-looking as those that are flooding to Tuscaloose, Baton Rouge, Gainesville, et al is inarguable.
December 2nd, 2014 at 10:05 PM ^
Mullen also oversigns, and has JUCOs. And his recruiting his around 30th in the nation on average which is between where Nebraska and MSU recruit.
So if you can recruit like Nebraska (and my contention is a 3 star from LA or FL is better than a 3 star from Iowa) but sign 31 a year, "cut 6" a year, and offset with 3-4 JUCOs a year you are going to do pretty darn well.
And it still took him 6 years to build 1 solid team. If he was an offensive guru he'd have been losing to Bama Auburn LSU and the like 45-32 in years 4-5 at Miss State in a Mike Leach way. He did not, he had a lot of mediocre teams. He did not have a single win in year 3-4 of his program over a >.500 power 5 conf team. He just beat cupcakes.
Mullen of 2014 is Sumlin/Shaw of 2013. Give it a year and I think his star will be down to where those guys are. One year wonders are dangerous.
December 2nd, 2014 at 10:33 PM ^
December 3rd, 2014 at 1:31 AM ^
neither could Les Miles?
December 2nd, 2014 at 10:02 PM ^
Access to talent? He would have a far easier time recruiting highly rated guys to Michigan than to Mississippi State.
December 3rd, 2014 at 1:30 AM ^
every
single
word
of
this
applies
equally
to
les
miles
only
he
is
twenty
years
older
December 3rd, 2014 at 2:52 AM ^
no it doesn't. They are saying Mullen could be a 1 year wonder and Shaw could be riding Harbaughs players to early wins.. those do no apply to Miles. We get it, you hate Miles and don't want him to be the coach here. You don't have to post it multiple times in every thread. You're turning into another section 1 here man.
December 3rd, 2014 at 3:04 AM ^
Reading comprehension, do you has it?
I replied to a poster whose reasons for not wanting Mullen were SEC recruiting tactics and poor in-game decision making. Say what you want about being a one year wonder or about Les' winning percentage... the guy had an ESPN special picking apart the ethics of his recruiting tactics and he is well known for his baffling coaching decisions (he's Lesticles for a reason).
I'll stop posting about not wanting Les when people stop posting about wanting him, k? I'm just as entitled to post my negative opinions as others are to their positive ones.
PS. boycott the Freep XD
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:52 PM ^
Those were my thoughts as well. And fits with the report this morning.
Look I dont want a dirty coach here but 95% of guys have some warts. If its just choir boys its like we are looking for some unicorn again.
December 2nd, 2014 at 10:00 PM ^
December 2nd, 2014 at 10:07 PM ^
.810 career winning percentage
100% graduation rate
Churns out multiple theology majors
3.4 team GPA
Never has had player with a DUI
Most players sing in choir. Those who do not staff the humane society.
December 2nd, 2014 at 10:50 PM ^
In the end all those things matter but they all together mater less than winning.
December 2nd, 2014 at 10:08 PM ^
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:04 PM ^
monkey rodeo yet
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:13 PM ^
As we have seen numerous times in liveblogs, it is difficult to phrase things in such a manner that Monkey Rodeo would not be at least a strong competitor, so I don't think there is too much to worry about in this regard. Monkey Rodeo may not be hired in the end, but the track record seems to dictate that they will at least be considered.
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:05 PM ^
Anyone else would be unacceptable.
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:05 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:08 PM ^
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:06 PM ^
What I am most curious about is what's considered a conservative timeline to get some kind of feel. How long should we assume is situation normal?
December 2nd, 2014 at 10:03 PM ^
The timeline will surely be dictated by when Harbaugh says yes/no, and I assume he won't have an answer before January.
December 2nd, 2014 at 9:07 PM ^