|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 4, 2010 15:22:41 GMT -8
As an Aztec relic from the ruins of Tenochtitlan I have seen a lot of Aztec football coaches,and the worst was Paul Governali.He stated publicly how demeaning it was to have to recruit.Ironically,he replaced Bill Schutte who was probably the most under rated Aztec foot ball coach.In fact, Don Coryell retained Schutte as an assistant. The hiring of Governali is similar to that of Long. Both had great credentials as players, and both had no head coaching experience. Both failed badly at SDSU, though Governali did have one winning season, his first (4-3-2). Also, I am not aware that in 1956 the AD ignored more qualified candidates as the AD did in 2001 as well as 2005. And, yes, getting rid of Schutte after one bad season was for its day as bad a call as getting rid of Claude Gilbert in 1980. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 5, 2010 7:49:11 GMT -8
The ideal situation (from my perspective) following Tollner's tenure would have been to hire a legit HC and to have then added Tom Craft as offensive coordinator. Craft could coach, and he could recruit - it was his judgment as HC in some areas that cost the progam a bit (reaching on recruits that were not as likely to actually ever make it on the field due to academic issues was a big problem). Neither Craft nor Chuck Long were ready for the gig. That much is obvious, which is why both AztecWilliam and I had considered closing the thread. There wasn't much to be gained from stating the obvious, but the arguments over the subject can and often do spill into other threads... And, yeah, Paul Governali may have been worse than either of them, so there you go. Once again the problem goes back to the hiring process. The decision makers made horrible choices. Back when everyone on this board wanted Ted Tollner fired, I warned....Be careful what you ask for. Did Ted Tollner deserve to be fired?...Yes his time was up, but were we going to make the correct hire? Many of us said we have to step up and hire a big name coach. No more experiments... Enter Tom Craft. I almost fell out of my chair when I heard that one. ___________________________________________________ When Crafts time was up, many of us urged a big name hiring. A Rick N......A Dennis Erickson....A Terry Bowden...No more experiments... Enter Chuck Long. AztecBruce called me from Vegas and told me about the hire. I said..."Are you sure Bruce? You are kidding right?". I almost passed out. ____________________________________________________ Chuck Long is fired and many of us called for a big name. A Rick N. type....A Dennis Erickson type...A Terry Bowden type. I love Brady Hoke, but in a way this is just another experiment. I like the chances of this one working. I like Brady Hoke and think he can get it done in time. But once again, we took a chance, instead of going all out for a big name coach that would put us on the map nationally. We will have one more chance when Brady Hoke leaves. Hopefully Brady leaves us in good shape. |
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Jul 5, 2010 8:08:20 GMT -8
Chuck Long is fired and many of us called for a big name. A Rick N. type....A Dennis Erickson type...A Terry Bowden type. I love Brady Hoke, but in a way this is just another experiment. I like the chances of this one working. I like Brady Hoke and think he can get it done in time. But once again, we took a chance, instead of going all out for a big name coach that would put us on the map nationally. We will have one more chance when Brady Hoke leaves. Hopefully Brady leaves us in good shape. How is Brady Hoke "in a way just another experiment" and Terry Bowden isn't? One had just got finished coaching a team to a 12-1 Record and a high ranking of #14 in the nation and the other was writing blogs for Yahoo sports and hadn't coached in a decade.  |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 5, 2010 8:16:20 GMT -8
Chuck Long is fired and many of us called for a big name. A Rick N. type....A Dennis Erickson type...A Terry Bowden type. I love Brady Hoke, but in a way this is just another experiment. I like the chances of this one working. I like Brady Hoke and think he can get it done in time. But once again, we took a chance, instead of going all out for a big name coach that would put us on the map nationally. We will have one more chance when Brady Hoke leaves. Hopefully Brady leaves us in good shape. How is Brady Hoke "in a way just another experiment" and Terry Bowden isn't? One had just got finished coaching a team to a 12-1 Record and a high ranking of #14 in the nation and the other was writing blogs for Yahoo sports and hadn't coached in a decade. Which name is more well known in college football circles nationwide....Hoke or Bowden? Terry Bowden... 122-55 overall and 47-17 at Auburn. Brady Hoke... 38-46 overall and 34-38 at Ball State. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 5, 2010 8:21:31 GMT -8
Dennis Erickson is going to be canned this year or next, Skippy has not turned around UCLA and time will tell if he can, Bowden is so untouchable he is coaching in the backwoods of Alabama in Division II. This was the right hire based on the 4 names, this year will start to tell us if it in fact was.
Also, there is huge gulf between hiring a juco head coach or an offensive coordinator and that of a guy with D1 head coaching experience
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 5, 2010 8:25:02 GMT -8
How is Brady Hoke "in a way just another experiment" and Terry Bowden isn't? One had just got finished coaching a team to a 12-1 Record and a high ranking of #14 in the nation and the other was writing blogs for Yahoo sports and hadn't coached in a decade. Which name is more well known in college football circles nationwide....Hoke or Bowden? Terry Bowden... 122-55 overall and 47-17 at Auburn. Brady Hoke... 38-46 overall and 34-38 at Ball State. Terry Bowden was a huge success at Auburn in the 90s, the question is why have 120 D1 schools, how ever many D1aa schools there are continually pass on the guy even as he lobbied for a job the past couple years? Dude can coach, but what makes him so replant to a couple hundred schools? |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 5, 2010 8:26:17 GMT -8
Dennis Erickson is going to be canned this year or next, Skippy has not turned around UCLA and time will tell if he can, Bowden is so untouchable he is coaching in the backwoods of Alabama in Division II. This was the right hire based on the 4 names, this year will start to tell us if it in fact was. Brady should do well this year. He has Chuck Longs upper classmen, an experienced team and some depth. Six wins should be the very least for this team with this schedule. And they probably should win 7 games. Lets Hoke so. |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 5, 2010 8:27:56 GMT -8
Which name is more well known in college football circles nationwide....Hoke or Bowden? Terry Bowden... 122-55 overall and 47-17 at Auburn. Brady Hoke... 38-46 overall and 34-38 at Ball State. Terry Bowden was a huge success at Auburn in the 90s, the question is why have 120 D1 schools, how ever many D1aa schools there are continually pass on the guy even as he lobbied for a job the past couple years? Dude can coach, but what makes him so replant to a couple hundred schools? Very similar to the reason Steve Fisher was out of college coaching for a few years, despite being one of the most successful head coaches in college basketball. How has Steve Fisher worked out for us? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2010 8:30:20 GMT -8
What I wanted most at the time was a quality staff and in particular, quality coordinators. Bob Elliott had a great pedigree and I was pleased with him as Chuck's first hire but through no fault of anyone, the cancer Elliott had suffered from while at K-State returned soon after and there's no way anybody can perform to their capabilities under such circumstances. Then Chuck erred badly in not kicking in some of his own money to get the OC he really wanted, with whom he had worked at Oklahoma, and settled instead for Dull Miller. Then there was the non-retention of Craft's best position coach, Andy Buh, in favor of the scary guy, the hiring of Billy Bob Joe Somebody to be the D-line coach, etc. From everything I heard, those hires were not Elliott's decision, but Chuck's.
Anyway, like Steve, I wanted somebody like Terry Bowden because I was sure he would bring in a top-notch staff. Although I was initially unsure about the Hoke hire because of his record the first four years at Ball State, when I looked closer I realized there were legit reasons for that and his hiring of Al Borges and Rocky Long convinced me he was a good hire. Props to Steve Weber and the committee of former players who brought him in. (Zero props to Schemmel, who I heard was thankfully shuffled aside and did little more than sign Brady's contract.)
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 5, 2010 8:55:07 GMT -8
What I wanted most at the time was a quality staff and in particular, quality coordinators. Bob Elliott had a great pedigree and I was pleased with him as Chuck's first hire but through no fault of anyone, the cancer Elliott had suffered from while at K-State returned soon after and there's no way anybody can perform to their capabilities under such circumstances. Then Chuck erred badly in not kicking in some of his own money to get the OC he really wanted, with whom he had worked at Oklahoma, and settled instead for Dull Miller. Then there was the non-retention of Craft's best position coach, Andy Buh, in favor of the scary guy, the hiring of Billy Bob Joe Somebody to be the D-line coach, etc. From everything I heard, those hires were not Elliott's decision, but Chuck's. Anyway, like Steve, I wanted somebody like Terry Bowden because I was sure he would bring in a top-notch staff. Although I was initially unsure about the Hoke hire because of his record the first four years at Ball State, when I looked closer I realized there were legit reasons for that and his hiring of Al Borges and Rocky Long convinced me he was a good hire. Props to Steve Weber and the committee of former players who brought him in. (Zero props to Schemmel, who I heard was thankfully shuffled aside and did little more than sign Brady's contract.) Well said; I agree on every point. The big problem now is not Brady Hoke and his staff. The big problem now is that, due to a series of head coaching picks that range from questionable (Stolz) to very shaky (Scovil, Luginbill) to downright horrible ones (Craft, Long), the program has little room for error. Hoke must change the course of Aztec football in less time than it took him to do the same at Ball State. That's why the late season collapses last year caused us to miss a great opportunity to jump start the program. Imagine how many more fans would show up for the first game (2,000? 5,000? Even more?) had the Aztecs finished 6-6 in '09. The publicity campaign could have lead with the slogan: "Aztec football is back!"I have faith in Hoke, but that faith must be justified by a .500 or better finish this year. I know, many think I'm alarmist when I express fears that SDSU might drop the sport. Still, we can't go on year after year this way, not with the economy of California (and therefore the financial health of the CSU system) in such bad shape. Let's get 'er done! AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 5, 2010 8:57:34 GMT -8
Terry Bowden was a huge success at Auburn in the 90s, the question is why have 120 D1 schools, how ever many D1aa schools there are continually pass on the guy even as he lobbied for a job the past couple years? Dude can coach, but what makes him so replant to a couple hundred schools? Very similar to the reason Steve Fisher was out of college coaching for a few years, despite being one of the most successful head coaches in college basketball. How has Steve Fisher worked out for us? Fisher was out of coaching for maybe a year before he was an assistant at the Sacramento Kings and then was promptly hired after 1 or 2 years by SDSU. One wasn't a head coach for 3 years and coached in the Association for a year; the other has been out of coaching all together for a dozen years. They are apples and skeletons, and Bowden must have some or is just an unholy prick (likely both). |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 5, 2010 8:59:46 GMT -8
Very similar to the reason Steve Fisher was out of college coaching for a few years, despite being one of the most successful head coaches in college basketball. How has Steve Fisher worked out for us? Fisher was out of coaching for maybe a yea before he was an assistant at the Sacramento Kings and then was promptly hired after 1 or 2 years by SDSU. One wasn't a head coach for 3 years and coached in the Association for a year; the other has been out of coaching all together for a dozen years. They are apples and skeletons, and Bowden must have some or is just an unholy prick (likely both). Of course Bowden has skeletons. As did Fisher. As did Erickson. As did Skippy. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 5, 2010 9:04:01 GMT -8
Fisher was out of coaching for maybe a yea before he was an assistant at the Sacramento Kings and then was promptly hired after 1 or 2 years by SDSU. One wasn't a head coach for 3 years and coached in the Association for a year; the other has been out of coaching all together for a dozen years. They are apples and skeletons, and Bowden must have some or is just an unholy prick (likely both). Of course Bowden has skeltons. As did Fisher. As did Erickson. As did Skippy. That is where they are similar, where they are vastly different is the other 3 all got D1a head coaching positions shortly after scandals, bowden didn't, he's been out now for a dozen years and at least the last few years was openly lobbying for positions. How many teams have not hired a new coach in the past dozen years, i can think of Va Tech and Penn State, (maybe Fresno?) I'm sure there are a couple more, but there have been literally hundreds of jobs open up, lots of jobs opened up again this year, but dude is in D2, with that coaching record? |
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Jul 5, 2010 9:14:23 GMT -8
Brady should do well this year. He has Chuck Longs upper classmen, an experienced team and some depth. Six wins should be the very least for this team with this schedule. And they probably should win 7 games. Lets Hoke so. This is the exact reason why he may not do well this year. All of the supposed depth that Chuck Long left, with a few exceptions, hasn't shown to be not much more than warm bodies for the roster. Maybe after another year of Hoke/Wellman and Co. that will change. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 5, 2010 9:39:33 GMT -8
Brady should do well this year. He has Chuck Longs upper classmen, an experienced team and some depth. Six wins should be the very least for this team with this schedule. And they probably should win 7 games. Lets Hoke so. This is the exact reason why he may not do well this year. All of the supposed depth that Chuck Long left, with a few exceptions, hasn't shown to be not much more than warm bodies for the roster. Maybe after another year of Hoke/Wellman and Co. that will change. JYP has always been really good at this, of setting up an either/or where there is no way to win; either Hoke won because Long was such an outstanding recruiter, or Hoke lost because he's a bad coach. There are almost always more than two options |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 5, 2010 11:41:34 GMT -8
Of course Bowden has skeletons. As did Fisher. As did Erickson. As did Skippy. That is where they are similar, where they are vastly different is the other 3 all got D1a head coaching positions shortly after scandals, bowden didn't, he's been out now for a dozen years and at least the last few years was openly lobbying for positions. How many teams have not hired a new coach in the past dozen years, i can think of Va Tech and Penn State, (maybe Fresno?) I'm sure there are a couple more, but there have been literally hundreds of jobs open up, lots of jobs opened up again this year, but dude is in D2, with that coaching record? Monty, we could go around and around for 12 more pages on this. I don't think the MOD would like that. In my opinion, Terry Bowden would have come in here, put butts in the seats (a minimum of 25,000 per game and probably more) his first year. He would have won 6 games last year and followed it up with our best recruiting class this University has ever seen. That is the impact we needed. I love Brady Hoke, but attendance went down again, and we won 4 games with our weakest schedule we have ever had. Recruiting seems fairly good, but certainly not the best in our history. That is the difference between Brady Hoke and Terry Bowden in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 5, 2010 11:46:19 GMT -8
Brady should do well this year. He has Chuck Longs upper classmen, an experienced team and some depth. Six wins should be the very least for this team with this schedule. And they probably should win 7 games. Lets Hoke so. This is the exact reason why he may not do well this year. All of the supposed depth that Chuck Long left, with a few exceptions, hasn't shown to be not much more than warm bodies for the roster. Maybe after another year of Hoke/Wellman and Co. that will change. And here is our (me and you) difference of opinion on this subject. -You don't believe any of Chuck Longs recruits are any good. -I think many of Chuck Longs recruits are better than avg. and some very good. We will just have to agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Jul 5, 2010 12:27:58 GMT -8
That is where they are similar, where they are vastly different is the other 3 all got D1a head coaching positions shortly after scandals, bowden didn't, he's been out now for a dozen years and at least the last few years was openly lobbying for positions. How many teams have not hired a new coach in the past dozen years, i can think of Va Tech and Penn State, (maybe Fresno?) I'm sure there are a couple more, but there have been literally hundreds of jobs open up, lots of jobs opened up again this year, but dude is in D2, with that coaching record? Monty, we could go around and around for 12 more pages on this. I don't think the MOD would like that. In my opinion, Terry Bowden would have come in here, put butts in the seats (a minimum of 25,000 per game and probably more) his first year. He would have won 6 games last year and followed it up with our best recruiting class this University has ever seen. That is the impact we needed. I love Brady Hoke, but attendance went down again, and we won 4 games with our weakest schedule we have ever had. Recruiting seems fairly good, but certainly not the best in our history. That is the difference between Brady Hoke and Terry Bowden in my opinion. In YOUR opinion, becuase everything you just said in that statement is pure conjecture with absolutely zero evidence to support it. |
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Jul 5, 2010 12:31:26 GMT -8
And here is our (me and you) difference of opinion on this subject. -You don't believe any of Chuck Longs recruits are any good. -I think many of Chuck Longs recruits are better than avg. and some very good. We will just have to agree to disagree. Please find where I said NONE of Chuck Long's recruits are any good. There are a few really good ones, a few solid guys and a lot of guys that will have gone four/five years here with very little contributed (Oline especially) on the field. |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 5, 2010 12:34:17 GMT -8
Brady should do well this year. He has Chuck Longs upper classmen, an experienced team and some depth. Six wins should be the very least for this team with this schedule. And they probably should win 7 games. Lets Hoke so. This is the exact reason why he may not do well this year. All of the supposed depth that Chuck Long left, with a few exceptions, hasn't shown to be not much more than warm bodies for the roster. Maybe after another year of Hoke/Wellman and Co. that will change. I got the impression from this post of yours that you don't think any of Chuck Longs recruits are any good (as well as the 100 or so other times you have told me on the previous boards). |
|
