I believe there were some family issues that contributed to him stepping down at WA. Doubt he gets back to coaching this quickly and don’t think Illinois job is one that speeds him up.How about Chris Peterson?
I believe there were some family issues that contributed to him stepping down at WA. Doubt he gets back to coaching this quickly and don’t think Illinois job is one that speeds him up.How about Chris Peterson?
I love the triple option. Don’t understand how anyone can be bored by it.
When we ran it with juice from the shotgun for a bunch of big runs (especially vs Wisconsin) in the rose bowl year I don’t recall anybody complaining.
He's coached one full season after following in the footsteps of two others who started/kept the success going. Hard pass because he is too unknown. Even Klieman is still not a proven success at KSU.Here’s a new name after thinking about things and a possible surprise. Matt Entz at NDSU. They do nothing but develop and win up there. Has coached in Illinois.
Lance Leipold, Buffalo coach: Leipold has a history of winning. In six seasons at Buffalo, his overall record of 36-32 isn't impressive, but his Bulls teams have gone 23-9 the last three seasons and have won two division titles in that time. Before coming to Buffalo, Leipold spent eight seasons at Division III Wisconsin-Whitewater, winning six national titles (and appearing in a seventh title game) and going 109-6. Some will be skeptical about his ability to recruit in the Big Ten, but at some point, a coach's results speak for themselves.Betting on lance Leopold. As mentioned already, he was at Wisc. Whitewater when
JW was at LaCrosse. LL dominated division 3, but record at buffalo only 36-32 in 6 years???? Similar thinking to women's BB coach hire.
Those tablets are right next to the "It worked at The Academy, so it's a guaranteed success here" ones.I'm not prepared to argue strenuously one way or the other re: Jeff Monken's offense, but could someone point me in the direction of the stone tablets that profess "It will only get you 2* and 3* recruits" and "It will never work in the Big10"?
Here is the thing- Illinois isn’t going to out-recruit 3/4 (or more) of the Big 10. We have a long and miserable history. You may want an exciting and dynamic offense, but what we need the most are wins and a decent reputation for winning. If you want to win and know you can’t currently compete for recruits, the triple option is a proven way to compete when you can’t compete on talent. The Army/Navy offenses and the Paul Johnson Georgia Tech teams have run it with success. If we are going to pull less talent and be thrilled with 2 and 3 star guys at best, I say Monken can come in here and run the offense that has been successful for him. Nothing wrong with adapting your system to the talent you have.
Do we have sharks in Illinois?I heard rumblings about Jim McElwain. Currently in Midwest. Previously at the helm of top notch program. Thoughts?
Agree 100%. That and assistant coaches that actually know 1) How to design an Offense and Defense that can be aggressive (and until we can rise in talent - likely more unpredictable/tricky), and 2) how to actually coach kids up.Illinois can absolutely out recruit 3/4 of the Big 10 by working and not relying on 247 and rivals star rating. Example would be Sam Laporta who Iowa is leaning on at TE. He is from Highland Illinois! He only had a 3 star rating because he played 3 sports and didn't really attend camps. He had three offers. Iowa, Bowling Green, and Central Michigan. He was named to the Mackey award preseason list and he is trending for Iowa. Illinois didn't offer him. He would have chose Illinois had he been offered. There is NO way Iowa should be able to find kids like this in Illinois but the flag ship University can't. The next coach needs to get a recruiting department that actually work instead of pulling a list down from 247 or rivals. That's how you become a dominant program.
The same can be said for Nick Saban.Not a bad name. Unfortunately, he also carries the moniker "former NFL coach"
Thank you for the photo. The second most-enjoyable, in-person sporting experience I have had since watching the Illini turf OSU in Columbus in 2001 (the first was watching Ayo & Co take down Maryland in MSG in 2019) was sitting in front of the UCLA cheerleaders at a women's NCAA hoops tourney game a couple years ago.
I know I'm in the minority, but I'd love to see Nathan Scheelhaase.
1. He wants to win
2. He wants to win with excitement
3. Players love him
4. Coaches love him and respect him (Listen to what HS coaches say about him!!!)
5. He will be able to recruit
6. He can relate but still lead
7. Illini for life
8. Did it the right way as a player and will as a coach
The same can be said for Nick Saban.
What's blinkered about the "Michigan Man" idolatry among UM partisans is that Bo Schembechler was not a Michigan man in 1968. He was an Ohio man, born, bred and trained at Miami and OSU. He took what had been a soft, useless Michigan team and pulled off one of the biggest upsets in 20th Century college football when OSU came to town in Nov. 1969.I didn't mean to argue against you per se, but in general to the Illinois fans that demand an alum every opening. You're post lent itself nicely as UM fans also do the "NEED TO FIND A MICHIGAN MAN" schtick. It was more piling on in my mind...
That said, I do not think you should EVER tell a new head coach who to keep or who they should hire as assistants. That's their job, you should trust them to do a huge aspect of the job, and any coach worth a damn is going to push back on demands like that. Also, I'm still bitter as Illinois missed out on Dana Altman because Guenther demanded he keep McClain...
However, if you are hiring an offensive guru as Head Coach, I could get behind seeing if they'd consider / Whitman making a suggestion about Scheelhaase as an OC. I'd be less enthusiastic about it if you hired a defensive guy (please don't hire a defensive guy).
I get he's a fast rising guy and he's definitely not as out there as those that suggest Holecek, J Leman etc. If you said he was coming in as OC - cool. I just cannot comprehend a 30 year old with no coordinator experience fixing this program from the HC spot.
This always confuses me a little. I've seen a number of people use this as an argument for Nate. I work in a desk job and know exactly 0 HS football coaches, and I would assume the vast majority of this board has 0 connections to HS coaches. How are we able to find out what they said?I know I'm in the minority, but I'd love to see Nathan Scheelhaase.
1. He wants to win
2. He wants to win with excitement
3. Players love him
4. Coaches love him and respect him (Listen to what HS coaches say about him!!!)
5. He will be able to recruit
6. He can relate but still lead
7. Illini for life
8. Did it the right way as a player and will as a coach
I don't think anyone is saying "guaranteed", and the problem with a blanket statement about recruiting is it treats it like some monolithic thing... like we can't get highly rated defensive players, or QBs from that sort of system in HS, or RBs, or OL, etc.Those tablets are right next to the "It worked at The Academy, so it's a guaranteed success here" ones.
The push to use the triple option is very often predicated on a team not having superior talent, so you use an offense not normally played against to gain advantage. Much like Syracuse's zone D, teams don't see that often, so they are not used to executing against it.
So I guess I would twist the argument around and say that it is used because you don't feel like you CAN get higher level talent- which is an argument (that Illinois can not) I am seeing more in this discussion. I don't agree with it and other quazi-football schools around us seem to be doing pretty well in the Big 10 - with a good coach and excellent execution. And I would suggest common sense would suggest kids like flash and bang, not plod, plod, plod. I think a good, complex offense can cause just as much confusion on the D. Just need a good OC to get that going - sigh.
Props. Just... props for the embed.If that is what you all want me to do, you'll have to wait a few years. If I leave this position before earning tenure here, then my tenure clock likely resets and I have to start fresh. At that point, industry would be looking pretty tempting.
And yet...
I agree. The Zook method was a 1 shot. You'll never get that again. The new coach's offense has to be primary run attack. Weather conditions in Big 10 don't permit being an air raid spread team. It'd never work with the wind in Memorial Stadium either. Gotta be heavy run, o line centric, with a coach that has a defensive background. A coach that already had HS coaching relationships in the midwest. That's why my choice is Bielema. I actually think he's going to get the job because he was rumored to be the front runner for Southern Miss, and pulled out at the last minute. Makes me believe another better offering was in the works and I think it's Illinois. Whitman said this would be a quick process. Have to believe he already has his guy lined up.
This link was a great read/listen. I agree with the analyst who said that Josh Whitman's trademark (the hiring of both Lovie & Underwood) is to swing for the fences. As such, he'll need to get a hard NO from Luke Fickell before he moves on to candidate #2.Lance Leipold, Buffalo coach: Leipold has a history of winning. In six seasons at Buffalo, his overall record of 36-32 isn't impressive, but his Bulls teams have gone 23-9 the last three seasons and have won two division titles in that time. Before coming to Buffalo, Leipold spent eight seasons at Division III Wisconsin-Whitewater, winning six national titles (and appearing in a seventh title game) and going 109-6. Some will be skeptical about his ability to recruit in the Big Ten, but at some point, a coach's results speak for themselves.
Illinois coaching candidates: Luke Fickell, Lance Leipold lead nine candidates to replace Lovie Smith