Such a (respectful) dichotomy in the above. Thanks to all for the lively discussion.
As previous posts of mine have stated, I am no fan of Lovie and never was. His tenure and results on the field were exactly what I expected. The nepotism and other stuff was worse than expected. He was only here for a (big) paycheck, IMO (I know others, including Robert, feel differently). But that should not take away from Whitman's success here.
Nobody wanted to coach here at that time. Nobody. We were getting a preemptive 'no' from multiple potential candidates. Lovie's hire brought the name recognition, respectability, and hoped-for improvements in Chicago-area recruiting. Real out-of-the-box thinking by Josh.
So I was simultaneously ticked that Lovie was the choice, and happy that we had an AD that could make such a thing happen.
I was thrilled at Lovie being hired, and unhappy about the BB hire, so I'm not expecting to be picked up as an AD anytime soon. But as other posters have said, Josh salvaged a death spiral with the Lovie hire, and ultimately he left the program better than he found it. The wins didn't improve, but the program improved, and it gave Josh time to think ahead.
The two best moves Josh has made as AD, in my opinion, were hiring Lovie when he did, and firing Lovie when he did. If Freeman, LL and BB were Josh's short list, then we were going to be in good hands. But BB is like winning the lottery, because he appears to be doing what I thought Lovie was going to: prove that his way of running a football program is a recipe for winning, and stability. BB takes the whole FamILLy thing seriously, because he daoesn't want his daughters to move six more times before they reach high school. BB learned from Alvarez and Belichick what the real coaching opportunity is; to settle down somewhere and build something lasting. He wants a staff willing to grow roots, locally, work with people they enjoy, and do their passion year after year. Like a real job.
BB is going to be the Illini's Alvarez. And DC Walters sees that, and might want another year of stability before rushing off to whatever 'not ideal' situation he'll be offered in the meantime. Low turnover among assistants should indicate that what happens on the field and in recruiting, is sustainable. I like it.