Why not more discussion of big name coordinators?

Submitted by nucegin60 on January 8th, 2011 at 2:38 PM

First of all, I want to say that I have by no means have combed through every single post or comment on the board, but it does seem to be a prevailing theme that all of the possible coaching canidates are head coaches at the college level already, and I'm just wondering why haven't we been discussing some of the big name coordinators out there more? I mean I understand that going with a head coach is a safer bet because you have a better idea of how they might do as a head coach, but if the options seem to be slim there, like they are, why not open up to considering some of the better coordinators, since they might turn out better? It happens all the time in college football and seems to work out well. Another interesting item for thought would be if we could get a big name d coordinator to be our head coach, say someone with a lot of success in the past like Bud Foster, we might, just maybe, be able to retain some of our offensive assistants and not kill our offense, especailly considering some are saying Coach Rod might take a year off.



January 8th, 2011 at 2:58 PM ^

Couldn't agree more.  Give Kirby a chance...lets be honest the program his not brimming with talented players.  Hire Kirby and let him build the program up again.  He is one hell of a recruiter and he comes from the Saban coaching tree.  Coming form Bama he knows the pressure  to coach at a big time program,


January 8th, 2011 at 3:00 PM ^

Because DB basically said he would be hiring an experienced HC. Then again, one might reasonably argue that DB doesn't know what he's saying. So...

No reason to limit the pool. There are some very good coordinators out there. Think of how many schools scored by going that route: Washington, Oklahoma, Neb, Miss State. Both FSU and Fla jumped at coordinators. Is Kirby Smart untouchable? Why hasn't anyone gone for Bud Foster? How come nobody poaches from OSU? 

Speaking of coordinators-turned-HCs, I can't understand why Charlie Strong isn't getting more play here. Seems ideal to me, except for the Midwestern thing, which is overplayed. And, although this obviously shouldn't be the primary goal, it would be nice if M finally hired a black person for once. More than half the players are black. It ain't 1971 anymore. Modernize!


January 8th, 2011 at 3:08 PM ^

i've half-seriously suggested jim heacock a couple of times, but in our era of no voting, everybody is too busy talking to themselves to respond to anybody else. he's a proven winner as a B1G DC, and he had years of head coaching experience prior to becoming a big time DC. (disclaimer: i can't find illinois state records from the time he was there, so i don't know how he did).


January 8th, 2011 at 3:42 PM ^

that's pretty bad. but the move from 1-10 his first year to basically a perennial 5-6 team might actually be good depending on circumstances. he seems to have been the 3rd in a string of 4 coaches that saw ISU improve through the years: http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_iaa/missourivalley/illinois_st…

not saying that looks good, just that it looks unconclusive. thanks for finding the data!


January 8th, 2011 at 3:35 PM ^

There are many excellent coaches out there. And I'm aware DB may or may not have contacted Fitz. But if it turns out that DB largely limited the pool to the three Michigan Men -- either in practice or in his heart -- that would tell you everything you need to know about DB. I really hope he's smarter than that. 


January 8th, 2011 at 4:14 PM ^

I have pretty strong ties to Virginia Tech-- nearly everyone in my family besides me went to VT, and I worked at VT for a while. I've met Bud Foster a couple of times, and I've had the opportunity to watch him coach at practices and scrimmages. There are two issues that are consistently brought up whenever Foster is mentioned for as a candidate for a head coaching job.

1)Most coordinators that get hired for head coaching jobs have plied their trade for more than one head coach. Therefore, they have better connections(i.e., more people in the profession willing to recommend them). Foster has never worked for anyone other than Frank Beamer. He's turned down more than one opportunity that would have paid him more and given him a better chance at a head coaching job down the line.

2)Having seen Foster coach, I can tell you that the image of the gruff, no-nonsense defensive coordinator he projects is entirely accurate. That's great for a coordinator, but a head coach has to be more outgoing and diplomatic at times, and there are questions as to whether that's a game Foster really wants to play. He's not known as a particularly great recruiter, although by all accounts he's worked hard to improve in this area. His tough demeanor has been considered a hindrance in recruiting in the past.

My personal feeling: I think he's a great guy, and he's obviously a tremendous defensive coach(he had the least talented and experienced front seven he'd had in seven years this year, and still managed to field a respectable defense). He's said he'd want to run the Oregon offense if he ever were to be a head coach, so he'd run something the current offensive talent at Michigan could manage. I think he deserves a chance at a head coaching job. I think he could even be a success at Michigan. But after twenty-four seasons in Blacksburg, it'd be asking a lot of him to have him pull up his roots and come into the turmoil in Ann Arbor. He'd have no base of support among the alumni. He'd be coaching in a league he doesn't know, in an area in which he has no recruiting ties. He'd jump at the chance-- he even mentioned during Michigan's last search that he wasn't interested in moving "unless Michigan calls." But this would be a tough first assignment for him, and it'd be a tough sell for David Brandon.


January 8th, 2011 at 3:38 PM ^

I am frustrated by the requirement of HC only . Obviously the more successful HC experience the better, but let's not be too picky.  Florida, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Ohio State all  hired people who weren't head coaches at major programs.  And I think they've done okay.

I'm not sure what other names to offer, but there have to be some out there worth discussing besides the usual candidates of the best head coaches in the country.  A coordinator has more risk to him, but maybe they'll bring a new look and work their tail off since this is their first big shot (see Mullen & Strong).