Football Coaching Staff / Coaching Carousel Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
We're only allowed to bash a coach after they are fired. Then 7-10 years after they're gone, we get the takes on whether firing them was a mistake (see Zook + Weber)
Sorry to jump this into another thread, just fits better here. I agree people often think some coaches should've been retained, but I really challenge someone to find an illini HC in either basketball or football that was fired too soon. We might have a lot of problems, I don't think that is one of them. Honestly can't name one off the top of my head.

The problem is, going 6-6 for three years straight now looks like a big accomplishment here. Same with just making the NCAAT. Of course I'd like to be at that level, but both programs were very much so mediocre towards the end of Zook and Weber, and neither coach was showing any sort of momentum, which is something you always want in a program. Optics are widely important, and often forgotten when talking about previous HCs, heck even current HCs.
 
Is there anybody who could put together a short list (or long one) of potential DC hires? It seems the silence
here is so deafening that maybe no one is hired? Maybe filled from within (Lovie) and position coaches hired?
I sure hope not....

This is the single most important hire in Lovie's tenure. We succeed or fail on this one.
 
Is there anybody who could put together a short list (or long one) of potential DC hires? It seems the silence
here is so deafening that maybe no one is hired? Maybe filled from within (Lovie) and position coaches hired?
I sure hope not....

This is the single most important hire in Lovie's tenure. We succeed or fail on this one.
Lovie and Whitman don't let anything slip and there is a reason for that. No one knows but those 2.
 
Likes: illinifan4249
Seems you're the insider here, do we know if they are leaning toward a DC or Lovie assuming the role?
does that depend on who is available?
likely hood of Lovie handling the play calling is very high....now they will probably have someone with the DC title but Lovie will actually be calling the D.
 
I agree with Gritty on this one. Let me put it this way. If we were playing Russian roulette and the gun was pointed to your head and I said, "You've been lucky a couple times already, want to try again?" would you agree to play one more time? 90% of the best candidates are off the board. Is it still possible to find a great hire? Sure. But our odds get less and less every week. (Ya, I know that was dramatic, but it helps make it very clear for some).
 
I agree with Gritty on this one. Let me put it this way. If we were playing Russian roulette and the gun was pointed to your head and I said, "You've been lucky a couple times already, want to try again?" would you agree to play one more time? 90% of the best candidates are off the board. Is it still possible to find a great hire? Sure. But our odds get less and less every week. (Ya, I know that was dramatic, but it helps make it very clear for some).
Your analogy confuses me. I am not sure what you are saying. I would say we have shot ourselves a few times so far and now we are due for some good luck...
 
Just my thoughts for our new DC . He needs to be a teacher , organizer , understand the college game both modern offenses and the defensive schemes needed to off set these new O schemes , and be an established recruiter with upper Midwest connections ( Ohio , Mich , and yes even Chicago where we seem to have lost all connections ) . Of the names that I have found that is now available that checks all the boxes I have listed is Brady Hoke . Yes or no ? Any better alternatives ?
 
Just my thoughts for our new DC . He needs to be a teacher , organizer , understand the college game both modern offenses and the defensive schemes needed to off set these new O schemes , and be an established recruiter with upper Midwest connections ( Ohio , Mich , and yes even Chicago where we seem to have lost all connections ) . Of the names that I have found that is now available that checks all the boxes I have listed is Brady Hoke . Yes or no ? Any better alternatives ?
I think Lovie wants another guy with Texas ties so they can get even more entrenched there. They want 2 more great recruiters on the defensive side.
 
Just my thoughts for our new DC . He needs to be a teacher , organizer , understand the college game both modern offenses and the defensive schemes needed to off set these new O schemes , and be an established recruiter with upper Midwest connections ( Ohio , Mich , and yes even Chicago where we seem to have lost all connections ) . Of the names that I have found that is now available that checks all the boxes I have listed is Brady Hoke . Yes or no ? Any better alternatives ?
I like this post and actually had similar thoughts earlier in the offseason. When Jon Hoke was brought up, it got me thinking of Brady. And actually now that it's somewhat assumed that Lovie will call the defense, it actually makes some sense. Brady was never much of a DC, but I believe he's been considered a good, or at least decent recruiter, and definitely knows the college game and midwest. He also has a ton of experience coaching D Line, which happens to be where we have our most inexperienced coach. I don't see it happening but it could make a lot of sense to bring him on as DC in name only, let him recruit and help develop Clark and the D Line. Bring in a great recruiter LB coach and you might have something.
 
How about Todd Orlando??? Never coming here, and honestly never heard of him before searching for def coordinators from Texas. But good read on defensive philosophy.
https://athlonsports.com/college-fo...dd-orlando-cutting-edge-defensive-coordinator
Never coming here as DC, but kind of an interesting guy if we're in the market for a head coach sometime soon. Played for Barry Alvarez at Wisconsin, I bet he'd be interested.

He's traveled an interesting road as a DC. He was the DC for that good Randy Edsall UConn team that won the Big East, but didn't get taken along to Maryland, so he landed with Mario Cristobal at FIU where that staff ended up getting fired for no reason, and then he replaced the much-celebrated Dave Aranda at Utah State and maintained the dominance there, and then he caught on with Tom Herman at Houston.
 
So Wisconsin would be better off having let Don Morton coach there forever? Kansas State should have stuck by Stan Parrish for the long haul? What Northwestern needed was to just to keep investing resources and patience into Francis Peay? Washington State was pointed in the right direction with Paul Wulff? Purdue was on the verge of big things with Darrell Hazell? Iowa State needed the fans to really get behind Paul Rhoads?

Oh no, of course not, THOSE are ridiculous examples, THOSE ones were obvious. It's THIS situation that's completely different. Of course, how could I be so silly?
Please NOTE: I never said that Wisconsin should have kept Morton, or that K-State would be better off keeping Parrish... Or any of your OTHER examples. So you can stop PRETENDING that is what I said.... My only point is that the continuing scenario of re-starting an athletic program every few years, because of fan expectation of instant success isn't met must STOP.
To use your own hyperbolic logic, I could easily ask if you're suggesting that we should fire a coach immediately after their first loss... Or perhaps after the first time the team fails to make a first down.... No, of course not. These examples are ridiculous, and this situation is completely different... How could I be so silly.... /s...
 
I agree with Gritty on this one. Let me put it this way. If we were playing Russian roulette and the gun was pointed to your head and I said, "You've been lucky a couple times already, want to try again?" would you agree to play one more time? 90% of the best candidates are off the board. Is it still possible to find a great hire? Sure. But our odds get less and less every week. (Ya, I know that was dramatic, but it helps make it very clear for some).
If this is true, and I'm not saying it isn't - why is there so much change again after a couple of years. Is there a stat that compares those 'best' candidates you mention to what job they have the following year, and the year after ... or even 5 years later.... Seems to me that these coaches 'move around' a LOT... and their 'shine' has worn off after a couple of seasons. Shouldn't the goal be to find a more 'LONG-TERM' answer ????? Not just hire the 'coach-de-jour' ???
 
To use your own hyperbolic logic, I could easily ask if you're suggesting that we should fire a coach immediately after their first loss... Or perhaps after the first time the team fails to make a first down....
But that isn't the implication of my logic at all. The correct implication is all the Barry Alvarez stuff, and if you can find a plausible Lovie comp where it worked out please let me know because I have looked extensively.

Well, technically you can't say that all those schools wouldn't have been better off keeping those coaches. There's no way to say for sure since they were ultimately all fired.
This is the more challenging response.

And yet, name a coach who a school really missed out on something by firing too early. Northwestern and Denny Green maybe? SMU and Hayden Fry perhaps? Though he'd already been there over a decade.

You would think there would be more examples. I find the fact that there aren't quite telling, really.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.