quote:So are we still saying that there is an 80% chance of getting Muschamp, Venables or Foster?
Not saying hes the guy but theres more to it than random postings on a VT mssg board.
Why all of the Bud Foster rumors?
18,198 Views |
58 Replies |
Last: 9 yr ago by ntxVol
quote:So what your saying is they do have influence. My experience is anyone who is paying the bill has a voice no matter what they say in public.
The BMAs are watching the DC search/hire VERY closely, and are involved to the extent that money is needed to pay for said coach, but make no mistake- this is Sumlin's hire. He gets to put together his staff. BMAs may influence a HC hire, overstepping the AD, but they don't tell the HC (at least this one) WHO to hire as his DC. They do, however, pull the ultimate rip cord on that HC, if needed, and this hire will be very telling as to just what kind of HC Sumlin is. His track record to date in this area is not something they have been impressed with.
quote:
Why all the Bud Foster rumors?
Because he is not coming here and if the new DC underperforms then people on here can claim that their pick of Foster was a better pick than the actual DC that does get hired, even though Foster isn't coming here and would likely only talk to us to get a raise at VT.
Joe Dirt: "Well, huh, might as, might as well ask why is a tree good? Why is the sunset good? Why are boobs good?"
quote:Agreed, it will tell us what kind of coach Sumlin is.
The BMAs are watching the DC search/hire VERY closely, and are involved to the extent that money is needed to pay for said coach, but make no mistake- this is Sumlin's hire. He gets to put together his staff. BMAs may influence a HC hire, overstepping the AD, but they don't tell the HC (at least this one) WHO to hire as his DC. They do, however, pull the ultimate rip cord on that HC, if needed, and this hire will be very telling as to just what kind of HC Sumlin is. His track record to date in this area is not something they have been impressed with.
So far he is the kind of coach (at both A&M and UH) that needs a seriously bad ass QB to cover his ass. With a player like JM, you can scoop a lot of dog turds under the mat and no one will protest too much.
If no one is brought in to seriously upgrade our defense, I think it will be pretty clear Sumlin continues to rely on a bad ass QB. This is the SEC, it is almost doable but not totally doable without several other components on the team.
Not only that, we desperately need a new O Line coach.
Is that going to happen?
Is that going to happen?
^ Offense is also a major concern. I think they've made it known that there isn't a lot of product coming from something that is theoretically driving a large portion of that $5M salary. He can't simply sweep that away as being a coordinator's fault. If a public change isn't made on this front, Sumlin is likely taking a much more hands on approach next year in this arena. But with the Beaty departure, there's room to bring in a heavy hitter on that side of the ball, as well. Just as much attention is being placed there; even though TexAgs and the "media" aren't following this as closely.
quote:They have a voice so far as "coach X is worth $Y"...not "hey Sumlin, we want you to go hire coach X". It's far more important to find out if the head of your program can really run a program than to dictate what DC to hire, when that DC could likely be moving on to a better gig in a year or two.quote:So what your saying is they do have influence. My experience is anyone who is paying the bill has a voice no matter what they say in public.
The BMAs are watching the DC search/hire VERY closely, and are involved to the extent that money is needed to pay for said coach, but make no mistake- this is Sumlin's hire. He gets to put together his staff. BMAs may influence a HC hire, overstepping the AD, but they don't tell the HC (at least this one) WHO to hire as his DC. They do, however, pull the ultimate rip cord on that HC, if needed, and this hire will be very telling as to just what kind of HC Sumlin is. His track record to date in this area is not something they have been impressed with.
mpaggie06 your "BMAs" are about to create another Emory Bellard fiasco if what you are saying is true and they do not watch their mouths. That event nearly sent our Football program into oblivion. Our only salvation was money whipping Jackie Sherrill.
Are we doomed to endure former students who meddle with success because its not as fast or exactly as they like it for eternity? Do any people here study history? Do they watch other programs who give relatively successful head coaches time?
Are we doomed to endure former students who meddle with success because its not as fast or exactly as they like it for eternity? Do any people here study history? Do they watch other programs who give relatively successful head coaches time?
People who give money think they should call the shots. This is what leads to bad football programs. Until there is recognition that people are giving money to the program for others to make decisions, the football program will struggle with the 'good ol' boy' problems.
quote:head coaches who hire under qualified staff and don't believe both offense and defense are important also lead to bad football programs.
People who give money think they should call the shots. This is what leads to bad football programs. Until there is recognition that people are giving money to the program for others to make decisions, the football program will struggle with the 'good ol' boy' problems.
Him going after Muschamp not good enough for you? Should he go after Belichick?
quote:It is an unfortunate fact of life. Put yourself in their shoes, would you blindly fork over big bucks or would you want to know where your money is going? The AD has to sell it to them, so it is natural for them to have some input.
People who give money think they should call the shots. This is what leads to bad football programs. Until there is recognition that people are giving money to the program for others to make decisions, the football program will struggle with the 'good ol' boy' problems.
Whiffing on Narduzzi, not having a backup plan and ending up with Snyder, and hiring 3 different OCs who each had about 4 years of true college coaching experience prior to that position far outweigh him making a run at Muschamp (who just happens to be available at the same time that we finally pull the cord on that original ****ty DC hire) when there are a number of other programs that would probably be better options for Muschamp (from his point of view).
If you haven't noticed, Offense hasn't been our problem. And having a OC hired way for a HC job is not Sumlin's fault. This shows me that you have no real interest in a legit discussion. You'll find any last thing to nitpick Sumlin over and therefore should be ignored.
mpaggie06 I've seen you posting this stuff and most of it is either not true or from a highly nuanced point of view. I think most people would have agreed that Kingsbury was a very good OC. You have denigrated him by implication in multiple posts. He moved on to a Head Coaching position which no one blames him for, who wouldn't? Was he ready to move up? That is a good question.
Now there are concerns about McKinney's play calling but his numbers were pretty good (I know Manziel). Spavital by everyone's account is an up and coming QB coach. His debut year was not the best offensive showing but according to Football Outsiders the adjusted ranking for the A&M offense was 20th. Considering everything that's not terrible. I bet if he is the OC next year you see a much better offense.
For your point about whiffing on Narduzzi, Bill Byrne essential confirmed it was money that cost us Narduzzi. Now if true who's fault is that? I think some "BMAs" need to look in the mirror on that one.
I agree with aTmAg you seem to have a highly nuanced view of certain events. It seems as if you are talking with "BMAs" who share that nuanced view. Reality is not so clear cut.
Now there are concerns about McKinney's play calling but his numbers were pretty good (I know Manziel). Spavital by everyone's account is an up and coming QB coach. His debut year was not the best offensive showing but according to Football Outsiders the adjusted ranking for the A&M offense was 20th. Considering everything that's not terrible. I bet if he is the OC next year you see a much better offense.
For your point about whiffing on Narduzzi, Bill Byrne essential confirmed it was money that cost us Narduzzi. Now if true who's fault is that? I think some "BMAs" need to look in the mirror on that one.
I agree with aTmAg you seem to have a highly nuanced view of certain events. It seems as if you are talking with "BMAs" who share that nuanced view. Reality is not so clear cut.
quote:KK had 2 years of real experience prior to being named our OC (he had 2 as a QC grad assistant, and 2 as QB coach/co-OC). I guess you give him the benefit of the doubt because he was coming along with Sumlin and at least already (co)held a title of OC, but that's very, very little experience calling plays, and absolutely none calling plays against real competition (i.e., SEC). If you remember back to the beginning of that year, our offense looked like ****. Then they turned Manziel loose and suddenly we were world-beaters. Tech (his alma-mater) being blinded by their teen girl/movie star crush and hiring him does not prove he was a great OC. Look at their offense there...at they're playing against garbage Big 12 teams right now.
mpaggie06 I've seen you posting this stuff and most of it is either not true or from a highly nuanced point of view. I think most people would have agreed that Kingsbury was a very good OC. You have denigrated him by implication in multiple posts. He moved on to a Head Coaching position which no one blames him for, who wouldn't? Was he ready to move up? That is a good question.
Now there are concerns about McKinney's play calling but his numbers were pretty good (I know Manziel). Spavital by everyone's account is an up and coming QB coach. His debut year was not the best offensive showing but according to Football Outsiders the adjusted ranking for the A&M offense was 20th. Considering everything that's not terrible. I bet if he is the OC next year you see a much better offense.
For your point about whiffing on Narduzzi, Bill Byrne essential confirmed it was money that cost us Narduzzi. Now if true who's fault is that? I think some "BMAs" need to look in the mirror on that one.
I agree with aTmAg you seem to have a highly nuanced view of certain events. It seems as if you are talking with "BMAs" who share that nuanced view. Reality is not so clear cut.
McKinney had 5 years of college experience before taking over as OC (our most experience candidate yet, and it was all position experience, unlike GA or QC work). He worked out so well we demoted him after one year. He also had Manziel...and still got demoted after just one season. You quoted some big things from McKinney...why is he not calling plays anymore?
Spavital comes to us after 2 years of true college coaching experience (none calling plays), and a couple more as a GA. "By everyone's account" is an up and coming QB coach? OK, let him coach the QB's. And I don't just sit back and take the Looch spin on whoever is going to be calling plays for us.
Play calling has been an issue for us in all 3 years. Yes we have had some prolific offensive numbers from time to time. But in all 3 cases, we get in our own way so much more than we should. Do experienced coaches get everything right all the time? No way- but they've seen so much more than a guy who was a GA 2 years ago that I trust their ability to make adjustments a lot more.
You can continue to buy into whoever the "media" tells you is going to be the "next great offensive mind", and I'll continue to think we ought to have someone with a few years under their belts. Not just for play calling, but for being able to handle the team- I think you saw the whole thing fall apart this year mid-season, and it's on the head of each group (plus the HC) not to let that happen. I doubt a more experienced OC encounters the same epic collapse that we saw this year. But then again, me and my buddies are just "highly nuanced".
quote:
we ought to have someone with a few years under their belts.
This is true.
Spav may have the talent to be a good OC someday. However, it was clear at the end of the ULM and Mizzou games that he was in over his head.
I would love to know why Sumlin did not take over the play-calling after the ULM game and tell Spav to work exclusively with his true fish QB.
I hope for ****'s sake that the influential BMAs and decision makers are absolutely nothing like mpaggie. If so, we are completely ****ed as a program.
quote:Just to reiterate for 300th time, UH was top 15 in offense with a 4th string QB after Keenum got hurt. No argument that Johnny covered up some deficiencies on defense, but his offenses have had great numbers with just decent QBs.quote:Agreed, it will tell us what kind of coach Sumlin is.
The BMAs are watching the DC search/hire VERY closely, and are involved to the extent that money is needed to pay for said coach, but make no mistake- this is Sumlin's hire. He gets to put together his staff. BMAs may influence a HC hire, overstepping the AD, but they don't tell the HC (at least this one) WHO to hire as his DC. They do, however, pull the ultimate rip cord on that HC, if needed, and this hire will be very telling as to just what kind of HC Sumlin is. His track record to date in this area is not something they have been impressed with.
So far he is the kind of coach (at both A&M and UH) that needs a seriously bad ass QB to cover his ass. With a player like JM, you can scoop a lot of dog turds under the mat and no one will protest too much.
If no one is brought in to seriously upgrade our defense, I think it will be pretty clear Sumlin continues to rely on a bad ass QB. This is the SEC, it is almost doable but not totally doable without several other components on the team.
I do agree, however, that we need to become a more complete team on both sides of the ball to truly compete in the SEC.
Anyone with any lick of sense can tell that what we've been doing isn't working, for a variety of reasons. Offense is a little easier to hide when you have a once-in-a-lifetime, Heisman-winning QB to save you. Defense isn't as obvious, and isn't Sumlin's forte. Thus, we're getting a new DC.
Everyone on here *****ed and moaned about how ****ty our play calling was last year...so we made a change. I mean we had a ****ing Heisman trophy winner as QB, and we had a fairly high-rated offense (given raw stats). How well did that change work out for us, exactly?
Everyone on here *****ed and moaned about how ****ty our play calling was last year...so we made a change. I mean we had a ****ing Heisman trophy winner as QB, and we had a fairly high-rated offense (given raw stats). How well did that change work out for us, exactly?
quote:
Just to reiterate for 300th time, UH was top 15 in offense with a 4th string QB after Keenum got hurt. No argument that Johnny covered up some deficiencies on defense, but his offenses have had great numbers with just decent QBs.
I do agree, however, that we need to become a more complete team on both sides of the ball to truly compete in the SEC.
Just to reiterate for the 299th time, UH is in C-USA.
I'm not saying Sumlin's offense can't work- we've seen it work. But something is not translating from scheme to on field result. I think over 100k people can see that play calling kept us out of several games. Sumlin was getting it done as a play caller at OU at a higher level. I'm not his offense doesn't work. I am saying it hasn't worked like it should have here, so far, outside of what Manziel did himself.
quote:Never claimed any different, just making the point that you can't pin the offensive success at UH on a stud QB.quote:
Just to reiterate for 300th time, UH was top 15 in offense with a 4th string QB after Keenum got hurt. No argument that Johnny covered up some deficiencies on defense, but his offenses have had great numbers with just decent QBs.
I do agree, however, that we need to become a more complete team on both sides of the ball to truly compete in the SEC.
Just to reiterate for the 299th time, UH is in C-USA.
I'm not saying Sumlin's offense can't work- we've seen it work. But something is not translating from scheme to on field result. I think over 100k people can see that play calling kept us out of several games. Sumlin was getting it done as a play caller at OU at a higher level. I'm not his offense doesn't work. I am saying it hasn't worked like it should have here, so far, outside of what Manziel did himself.
Like you said, we'd all agree the playcalling (as well as the run game) needs to see some adjustments for us to be as successful as we'd like on the field. And if we can all see that, I'd imagine the guys getting paid to coach this team do too.
quote:quote:It is an unfortunate fact of life. Put yourself in their shoes, would you blindly fork over big bucks or would you want to know where your money is going? The AD has to sell it to them, so it is natural for them to have some input.
People who give money think they should call the shots. This is what leads to bad football programs. Until there is recognition that people are giving money to the program for others to make decisions, the football program will struggle with the 'good ol' boy' problems.
That's the concern, though. The AD must sell the boosters on the fact that they should give the department money and let the department make those decisions. If you have boosters making calls on who the coaches are, then they should be running the athletic department.
That is why the AD's most important thing is raising money for the athletics department, and most importantly, football. He has to garner trust from big time boosters that he has their best interests (winning) at the forefront. If he can't gain that trust/respect, then you have the bosters calling the shots which, in my opinion, leads to problems.
quote:A good salesman can lead the buyer in the direction he wants while allowing the buyer to think he is making the decision all on his own.quote:quote:It is an unfortunate fact of life. Put yourself in their shoes, would you blindly fork over big bucks or would you want to know where your money is going? The AD has to sell it to them, so it is natural for them to have some input.
People who give money think they should call the shots. This is what leads to bad football programs. Until there is recognition that people are giving money to the program for others to make decisions, the football program will struggle with the 'good ol' boy' problems.
That's the concern, though. The AD must sell the boosters on the fact that they should give the department money and let the department make those decisions. If you have boosters making calls on who the coaches are, then they should be running the athletic department.
That is why the AD's most important thing is raising money for the athletics department, and most importantly, football. He has to garner trust from big time boosters that he has their best interests (winning) at the forefront. If he can't gain that trust/respect, then you have the bosters calling the shots which, in my opinion, leads to problems.
Featured Stories
See All
24:46
16h ago
28k
'The Other Kid': A&M dismantles Mizzou in Weigman's return, 41-10
by Olin Buchanan
22:57
18h ago
17k
12 Key Statistics: Texas A&M 41, Missouri 10
by Luke Evangelist
1:21
15m ago
377
2025 wideout pledge Kelshaun Johnson reacts to Texas A&M's big win
by Cade Draughon