CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => SEC => Topic started by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2017, 04:03:12 PM
-
Two extremes here, and the "truth" somewhere in the middle. My question is how many wins does the head coach gain if he is great versus mediocre or even bad?
Extreme One: It makes no difference at all. The ball bounces oddly, recruiting is ephemeral, midgame adjustments are over rated, coaches largely are subject to the whims of the game and 19 year olds who make mistakes. A great coach is simply one whose teams win, and vice versa, but it is just probability, random walk, nothing special.
Extreme Two: A great coach can take what would have been a 6-6 squad to 11-1 in a single year by pulling out those 3 point losses by savvy coaching into 3 point wins. Some team catches an easier schedule and beats bad teams and ends up ranked highly.
For simplicity, presume recruiting is not a factor in this. Assume the assistants are all the same. Assume the roster is the same. How well would Florida or Tennessee have fared this year with Urban Meyer at the helm? One win better? Two? Three? Is Smart suddenly a coaching genius?
"We" fire coaches who lose key games of course, but how much is their fault as opposed to their responsibility?
I am of course simplifying out of the equation keys like program culture that can take a few years to develop, S&C efforts, and recruiting, etc.
Great coaches often do well in Year Two at a program even with someone else's recruits.
-
Just guessing and theorizing obviously, but in your scenario I'll say somewhere between 2-3.
It's a bit of an exercise in fantasy to filter out program culture/mindset. That doesn't exist separately from a coach in the real world.
-
So, a great HC instills a great culture and mind set, beyond Xs and Os etc.?
I think we'd all agree with that, and you're right, it's a key component of coaching that leads to wins and not losses.
It also appears to take at least one season to change that. Year Two seems to highlight whether it has happened or not, unless the program has simply recruited poorly.
-
i'd guess somewhere between 0-2/3. i guess a great hc could come up with a better fit scheme and gameplan for players than a mediocre one.
but it's hard for me to remove some of the more important aspects of what makes a great hc great. filling out a staff, recruiting, roster management, etc. is what makes great hc great. some can be/are great x/o's, but not necessarily.
i don't think saban is some genius with x/o's, though he's likely quite good. so dropping him on uf or ut might give them 1-2 more wins, but might not.
and if you're talking them taking over right before fall camp, i'd say even smaller chance it makes a difference.
-
I think the "culture" part, which can take some time, is significant. Picking able assistants might be even more critical. Then there is recruiting and Xs and Os.
I think Saban is a master at the culture and picking assistants. He can recruit because it's Alabama, but he could recruit at other major programs almost as readily.
So, did MacElwain and Jones fall down on the culture thing? Mark Richt?
Do these coaches who do well at places like ISU and BGSU simply have the culture thing down? Is that the difference?
You can look at Urban Meyer and he has won everywhere. Interesting discussion, thanks.
-
^^^ agree
Usually when you see a team improve or decline with a new coach, it's going to mostly have to do with the other factors Cincy is equalizing. I guess he's getting at how many wins is just X's and O's worth, and ~2 is also my guess, though it depends on the season and the games. If your team is going to play in several close games--all else being equal--then you probably get 1 or 2 of those that you might not otherwise. If you're winning or losing big most weekends, meaning your games aren't close, the X's and O's factor is going to diminish significantly.
Bud Elliot at SBN has some pretty convincing data about talent acquisition. I don't know coined the phrase "It's not the X's and O's, it's the Johnny and Joes," but it definitely seems to hold up. Alabama is Alabama not because they're coached great (they are, but so are many others), but because 80% of their roster is blue chips. Unless you have a roster somewhere in the ballpark + a QB like a Vince Young or a Deshaun Watson, you're not going to beat them. Best you can hope for is they don't have a good day.
All that said, in those close games, tactics become magnified. Maybe not pivotal, but depending on the situation, ever more crucial. I believe it was the 2012 game between LSU and Arkansas when John L. Smith was the Hogs interim coach, and they lost a close one to us. John L. Smith was not a good coach. At the end of the game, down less than a score and moving the ball on us, he decided to punt on 4th and short, even though they almost surely converted, almost surely would keep moving and score, and time would run out and probably win. But even if not, you really had no choice. I don't think either team had timeouts, or enough of them, and ARK's hand was forced. Amazingly, he called punt.....because?.....I guess that's what you're supposed to do on 4th down? LSU didn't even have to pick up a first down, I don't think, and we ran the game out.
I think they needed a FG, were almost in range, and were moving well and LSU had played like garbage and deserved to lose. He just made a horrible call that literally handed the game to us. Literally almost any other coach in the nation would've beaten us that day. That's an example of a bad coaching being worth a loss, where even a "below average" coach probably gets a win.
-
i guess i don't agree with most the sentiment here, not that it matters.
the buck stops at the HC. it is up to him to set the tone. as examples: it's up to him to determine if a team is practiced enough, or if they should 'run that drill a few more times'. it's up to him to approve or reject offensive strategies and tactics. it's up to him to determine if the secondary is being developed individually to a suitable component in the scheme and if component is being tactically utilized in the overall strategy. it's up to him to decide when to cut someone loose or when to push them a little more. it's up to him to know each and every component of the team and the supporting ensemble as individuals with motivations and goals, and how to leverage them for his best application, as well as how they all fit together in the overall package, anticipating the production of that package accurately, and preparing them through repetition and redundancy in such a manner that they play at the top of their abilities on game day with unwavering confidence.
i've coached sports teams- in the form of young ladies softball and peewee football. i can't say that impacted me or my opinion enough to elicit the above response- what has impacted me enough is training young Marines for a long time- prepping them for what they're about to encounter, and making certain they have both intelligence about what they're doing to the point their training suffices as 'train the trainer' (they can correct others, in short), that they understand how different moving parts interact. that their physical actions are not exactly their own, anymore, but instead muscle memory actions that happen of their own volition and due to repetitive and constant repetitive repetition- that is repeated repetitively on repetitive days weeks months... when their minds are dumbstruck- and it happens exactly like that in the 'game' i describe especially the first time- we want them to the point their bodies take over and perform without flaw while their minds may as well be counting sheep.
the age group is the same as these players, and the demands of body is roughly equivalent though the strength and conditioning tactics are drastically different. knowing what motivates them as individuals is easier than football players, i'd guess, as they're all Marines and not just a group of kids from varying backgrounds and experiences (they are delivered 'bought in' and/or 'assimilated') ... which means they generally are already 'team players' and understand there are strict and certain consequences for effing up... that is likely a helluva lot easier than dealing with often prima-donna football players.
in my line of work i can watch a kid arriving for training and determine with likely 99+% accuracy what battalion they graduated from off the island by simply observing them handle certain things. the battalions make a difference that is noticeable- slight, but there. i wager this is the same thing the retirement league (NFL) coaches thinks about players coming from one program or another... i wager they all have signatures that are unmistakable. they're all capable, don't get me wrong, but they handle different things differently or respond a certain way that gives them away. i imagine a good coach has a similar impact on players. i also imagine those players are practiced in a certain way...
i can tell you gents another thing, too- a good instructor in my line of work is stuck like chuck in the same role unless they've also demonstrated a talent in developing other trainers, though their salaries are far from stagnant. i wager this is roughly the equiv to coordinators and specific unit coaches.... but even then, those instructors are made by the tone and the 'effectiveness of leverage' by the program manager.
so... i respect y'alls opinion, but.... in my own, the HC makes ALL the difference in the world, and the results are wins- but not the goal. the goal is development.
-
Well sure, but now it seems you're getting into territory Cincy was trying to filter out.
It's a difficult line to follow. As we've said, you can't really separate the other aspects of coaching out in the real world.
I guess he's asking if literally everything were the same about this TN team, except before the season started Butch stepped down and Urban took over, how much difference does that make. Without recruiting cycles, with the same staff, same players (same off-season prep?)..... I still say maybe a couple. Mindset and mentality are huge, but a coach can't change that immediately. It comes more and more with "his" players and his restructuring of the program....coaches, off-season routines, etc.
-
i got a bit carried away, huh?
case by case scenario's- a school like UT could easily be bowl eligible. for the rest of the season i'd guess three of the four would be reasonable, and competitive in the LSU game. IF those players had a coach that believed in them and let them play instead of every play being 'safe', they'd give more effort and play a lot more 'loose' and they'd likely give more effort and attentiveness in practice.
in a case like UF, I just don't know. it's not that their O is just bad, it's that there are components missing. and it seems to me watching them on the sideline that they aren't or weren't in protest of Mcfishsandwich as they seem to be Jones. they still have some really good componentry, so it's really hard for me to guess with any reasonable accuracy.
-
I too can spot a 4th battalion Marine over any of the others nearly every time.
Off topic, we met a new couple last night and the guy, about 60, is a retired Marine officer and they had two sons go to USNA, one is a weapons officer on a destroyer off the Korean coast. He had some good stories, was never in combat, and his stories were not about him at all specifically.
Back ON topic, yes, I was trying to filter out some things and ponder how much a coach can impact a specific game after everything else is DONE. I think Spurrier was a master at the Xs and Os, for example, with few rivals.
The culture comments are very on target even though not related to the game day environment thing. I also ponder the "tone" of practices - practice hard with a lot of tackling and risk injury or the opposite, limit live tackling in practice and stay healthier.
I've watched UNC a few times over the past two years and their defense CONSISTENTLY tackles poorly. Some of it is positional but a lot is the old "wrapping up" thing. Runners seem to bounce off their tacklers and always fall/surge for 3-4-5 more yards. That YAC thing is big when you change a 2 yard gain into 6 on first down. I suspect this is a lack of live tackling in practice, but that is conjecture. I SUSPECT Smart is more of a "tough practice" guy than Richt, and aside from technique, this also changes culture. A team can come out all jazzed up and get smacked in the mouth if they come off delicate practices and try and remember what football is really about. Do you practice kickoffs at full speed?
Then there is adapting your scheme to your personnel. Do you have a dual threat QB? A great passer who is not very mobile? Do you have a young QB who is a gamer but kind of lacks all of the above to a degree? Is your FB really good, or your TEs, or do you have a lanky 6'5" WR who perhaps is not that fast? Just about every team has quality running backs with varying levels of speed of course.
How do you leverage your strengths?
-
Was it Bum Phillips that said about a great coach - he can beat yours with his and beat his with yours - ?
Not a lot of guys that's true for. 90s Spurrier, sure. Saban. I wouldn't say that about Fulmer or Miles or Stallings...just the really elite. Meyer, probably. Richt? Probably not.
It's mostly an attitude thing - you can have "let's play our best and we'll win" vs "let's win the game, and if you don't play your best, I'll find someone who will" kind of thing. Not in a mean way, necessarily, just matter-of-fact. It's the difference between being a dick and being a motivator.
-
"It's not the X's and O's, it's the Johnny and Joes"
Pretty sure that was Lou Holtz.
I know for sure he said "We had too many Mary's and not enough William's" when he was the coach at William and Mary.
-
My model for a coach who can get great recruits and fall short is Mark Richt. UGA has as many top 100 players in the NFL as anyone (tied with Bama) and yet they would lose each year once or twice to Florida and somebody else. He had championship level talent 4-5 times in his tenure and they never made the "playoffs". (They would have under the current system a couple or three times.)
A mark of a great coach in my mind is not being upset by a much less talented team, ever. You may get beat on occasion by a lesser talented team, but not one that is really quite a bit down in talent. Turnovers happen in rashes at times. Dooley almost never lost to bad teams, and his UGA teams often were spotty in talent.
I like this "culture" idea, and I think it may start at practice of course, a tough culture, no excuses. Hiring good coordinators can make a huge difference if the HC is not great a calling plays obviously.
My idea of a "great coach" today includes Dantonio who seems to do more with less than most coaches out there. Wisconsin is also a great model in that regard, tough teams that are painful to play. Programs like OSU get so much talent is gets harder to assess but UM did well at Utah and BGSU of course.
I was a bit impressed with South Carolina yesterday. I thought Muschamp was a bad hire, one bad call away from losing it entirely an assaulting a ref. He seems to have calmed down a bit and his team was tough as nails.
-
It's about motivation - that's why Saban goes off on the media all the time. He knows he has the most talent, so any loss is an upset loss, but he doesn't want his team to act like or know they're the most talented. That's why he's gone so long without a loss to an unranked team. I recall Spurrier went something like 8 years between losses to unranked teams, something like that.
You beat who you're supposed to, you play your game and worry about your job - who is on the other sideline shouldn't matter. That's the challenge of these top-end coaches with the top-end talent - they're 20 year olds, so they get up for LSU, USC, Texas, etc and they play like crap against Vandy or Middle Tennessee, etc.
Great coaches motivate - through playing time, mind games, bulletin board material, quotes - whatever it takes. You scare your team if that's what they need, inspire them, joke with them, or whatever the tone dictates, you have to do it.
Saban's assembled the most talented teams since pre-scholly limit days, yet Bama still gets upset (by very good teams), still has their lethargic games against whoever tech, etc. Look at OSU yesterday - got the doors blown off by Iowa. Huge talent disparity between the 2 teams, but OSU had nothing for them.
A great head coach's ultimate goal is, honestly, boredom. The knowledge that each player is like a machine and gives 100% attention and effort to every play vs every opponent, and because you're more talented, you win every game. A foregone conclusion without anyone acting like it's a foregone conclusion.
-
An interesting difference between Saban and Spurrier is recruiting. Saban wants the biggest and best - his 5* might not be any better than your 5*, but he's bigger. Saban likes size, and for all of the underdog Rocky-types, size matters. You have 2 LB recruits who run a 4.6 and tackle everything in sight, Saban takes the guy who is 6'4", 250 and the other team gets the 6'1", 215 kid. Saban knows size matters - there's a reason there are weight classes in physical, individual sports.
Spurrier hated recruiting -
a - it cut into his golf time
b - he didn't want to woo anyone to play for him, either you did or you didn't
He had the confidence that a 3* who wanted to be a Gator was just as good as a 5* you had to persuade to come.
Now I doubt Saban enjoys recruiting, but he sees how important it is, and that having the most talented squad possible gets him to that pinnacle boredom-level of greatness in coaching.
Spurrier figured he could beat yours with his and beat his with yours. Saban works hard so as to not have to deal with that proposition. He doesn't want to beat his team with your inferior team - he wants to go to battle with the team he worked so hard to assemble.
-
How was Spurrier on motivation?
I think he was a great CFB coach. His record against UGA in games where UGA had clearly better talent is probably 8-3 or something.
In no order:
recruiting
organizational skills
culture
motivation
game day planning and adjustments
The first three can't change over night, but can change in a couple of years or so.
-
"It's not the X's and O's, it's the Johnny and Joes"
Pretty sure that was Lou Holtz.
I know for sure he said "We had too many Mary's and not enough William's" when he was the coach at William and Mary.
It was Dandy Don on MNF in the early 70's, saying it was an old expression in Texas.
-
football is a team sport- a fully developed mechanism of different components with different jobs moving in differing ways and being managed by someone in a position to see the entire effort. the 'team' aspect is what draws me to the game unlike other major sports.
the whole thing i think most casual observers miss about the game is the competition isn't but 50% at worst against your opponent. if a team plays like a team and executes to perfection every single time, they are hard to stop. they'll win a few games.
the comment made "beat them with your players; beat them with mine" is a nice concept, but i think the application is misdirected. i think saying that to the media gave it life it wasn't intended for- if it was said to a group of coaches, i think they interpret it differently- and i think Urban Meyer later said something that indicates he interpreted the comment as it was intended: Meyer said "the better prepared team usually wins"(paraphrased). Then "a good coach can beat you with his players or your players"(again, paraphrased), to me read: 'a good coach understands the requirement for playing the game, knowing the components, and knowing his opponents and their opponents' and meant: that coach is better prepared, and to the point he knows 'your' team as well as 'you' do, making the two paraphrases mean about the same thing. it's grown a life all of it's own since it was said a long time ago... and i know i heard bobby bowden say it, but don't know if that is where it started. (in that form, anyway)
the tuna is the only pro coach who could handle LT. he knew how to make connection with players and did so, and he challenged LT in such a way that LT responded- likely knowing exactly what Tuna was doing, but... playing along for the competition of it.... Ol' half sleeves in NE demands assimilation and full purchase into the vision. He couldn't be having LT problems... i offer this as two drastically different approaches to gain same ends. Parcells was a person-manager who engaged the individual team components to convince them to play his way, where bellechic sells players on an idea and demands everyone's efforts to realize or maintain that idea. one gets quicker results, one is more sustainable.
Gundy has players that want to play for him. he can bring great players in based on his style than any other.. he'll ride those players like borrowed mules during prep, but those players know beyond doubt Gundy has their backs... obviously i don't know, but i wager gundy is like: "good job- now you have the fundamentals of the scheme, now.. you wanna have some fun with it?" and the players respond... Saban, on the other hand "DO IT LIKE THIS... THE PROCESS... PUSH YOURSELF HARDER... YOU WANT TO BE A CHAMPION? YOU MUST EARN IT"... both of these tactics work. one player will emerge on the other end saying "man, i loved playing the game for that man" and the other will emerge wearing a puff in the chest knowing they were part of something that transcended just a game boys play- they can take lessons learned elsewhere- both those players can, but their outlooks are quite different.
i reckon i'm drawn to this conversation as it involves developing people- which means reaching people- and making them something they aren't- and the means used. it's at least 33% psychology and 33% method and 33% something else that is hard to nail down.
-
Spurrier did 2 things for motivation - playing time and taking all the blame.
Backups under Spurrier KNEW they'd play if the guy ahead of them messed up, and the starters knew, too. And it wasn't in a threatening way, it was just matter-of-fact.
He took blame publicly for all errors and screw-ups. Even something as physically plain as fielding a punt cleanly, he'd say "is coaches need to coach that better I guess..."
-
Btw, Belichek was the D.C. under Parcells with LT there.
-
I'm back to pondering how many wins a great coach gets in a season that a mediocre coach doesn't get. I think the suggestion of 2-3 is about right. That's the difference of course between 11-2 and 8-5 or 9-4.
And I'm thinking after he's had 3 years or so.
-
Was it Bum Phillips that said about a great coach - he can beat yours with his and beat his with yours - ?
Not a lot of guys that's true for. 90s Spurrier, sure. Saban. I wouldn't say that about Fulmer or Miles or Stallings...just the really elite. Meyer, probably. Richt? Probably not.
It's mostly an attitude thing - you can have "let's play our best and we'll win" vs "let's win the game, and if you don't play your best, I'll find someone who will" kind of thing. Not in a mean way, necessarily, just matter-of-fact. It's the difference between being a dick and being a motivator.
Saban doesn't go in that list, by his own admission. He told the Alabama AD when he was hired flat out "You can outcoach me, but nobody will out-recruit me." He wins because he has better players than everyone else. Any time we see Alabama come up on a team in their ballpark with a good QB, those are the games they either lose or win in a toss-up. It rarely ever happens because there are no teams on par with them, very few in the ballpark, and of the ballpark teams, only a few of them have a really good QB capable of overcoming the difference. And of those teams, very few of them are going to play Alabama.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you since you later went on to talk about how Saban has the most talented teams. And I'm definitely not saying he's inferior in the X's and O's department in some way. Just that he's no better than the average guy out there. There's nothing complicated about Alabama, they're just more talented than you. The closest they got to "creative" or "guru" in the schematic department was Lane Kiffin, and that's 3 out of Saban's 10+ years there.
I don't know that Meyer belongs in that category either. He brought an offense that was a bit innovative to the SEC at the time, but that's not exactly something rarely seen. He's never been an OC, so I'm not sure where his "offensive genius" moniker comes from. There's always been a marked difference in Meyer's offenses from coordinator to coordinator. I'd put Mullen in that group before Meyer. MSU doesn't recruit any better than they ever have under him, but he's winning at a better clip than his predecessors because he's got the gift of finding a weakness and attacking it. Spurrier for sure goes at or near the top of that list. You could mostly say the same thing about his tenure at South Carolina as Mullen at MSU.
-
I'm back to pondering how many wins a great coach gets in a season that a mediocre coach doesn't get. I think the suggestion of 2-3 is about right. That's the difference of course between 11-2 and 8-5 or 9-4.
And I'm thinking after he's had 3 years or so.
I still would caveat that with if you have the talent to land in enough close games for it to matter.
If you have little talent, and your roster is worth consistent 17 point losses, then all your X's and O's wizardry isn't going to matter much. If you have a better roster and you can scrap to some close games or an overtime or two against a few teams with a "lesser" coach, then a better coach's X's and O's acumen is going to have a greater impact.
-
Good point, I guess I'm thinking more about more talented programs like UF and Tenn and LSU. Imagine LSU for example is 8-4 or 7-5 this season, gets Wonder Coach from somewhere, and how much better are they in Year Two?
Some of this is random chance of course. I think UGA had a decent team last year with a very bad OL. The OL this year has shored up somehow and the team is better. Of course, they were 10-3 when Richt was fired (or about to be after the bowl win) and sitting on some talent.
A great coach who takes over a 4-8 program will get poached if he shows promise before they get to 11-1.
-
i watched a ESPNU show last night with the 'head ball coach' which chronicled his life and career- it was hosted by kenny chesney of all people... it was a pretty good watch.
and.... i'm even more cemented after that show that the HC makes all the difference in the world. that is actually said a couple times in the show, and then followed by examples. the only place spurrier didn't do well was in washington and to a degree tampa bay (USFL). he made comment to the fact that professional players are harder to manage than college- some saw him as a leader where others simply a manager. from that (and i'd heard it before) i extrapolated that his 'style' requires his players become emotionally attached and bought in to his vision- that is first evident in his presentation of himself, the trust established and then backed by actions. his mantra 'go out and be better today than yesterday' is well known, but that he actually lived and coached, established and excelled his career by applying those words is evidence enough to how good he was and which made his getting people/players to 'but in' even easier.
yes, @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) , i'm aware of Parcell's staff- but Belichick wasn't the one LT regarded. this came from interviews/programs offered up at different times too... Parcell's is who LT played for... He actually rebelled against Belichick... he gave a lot of grief to every coach he ever played for, apparently, and the Tuna was the only one who actually challenged him to the point of loyalty according to the reporting.
back on point: when spurrier arrived at UF after leaving Duke, by his own words he was astounded by the size, strength, and speed of the roster. Unlike Duke where he sold the kids "we're gonna compete" before and during his 'air raid' attack, he was so impressed he told the UF roster "we're gonna win championships", and while there fun-n-gunned his way right to the top and hardly ever gave a loss. it's about motivating people to give you 100% 100% of the time, and Spurrier excelled at that. So does Saban and Meyers and Stoops and Franklin and Gundy Miles yada yada blah... the right coach is everything- and worth at least 3 more games a year if not 5 (if the team was competitive at least prior to the coaches arrival).
-
Mike, while Saban doesn't make it his goal, he may be selling himself short.
But yeah, Saban's style of running a program is like a boxing match with no weigh-ins. Saban bulks up as heavy as he can, and then he just leans on you. No sweet science, no magical combos to stun you, just thud, thud, thud until you give way.
He coaches that way because he can. If he was at a South Carolina, I believe he'd do things very differently (because he'd have to, in order to win).
But yeah, at Bama, he has no desire to beat his with yours, because he's set it up so that it'd be impossible.
-
Spurrier is still beloved more than Urban because of his attitude - if you want to play for me and you earn it, you'll play. I heard an old story about him recently from a former UF LB - James Bates:
Bates is hosting Darryl Bush (who ended up being an AA LB @ FSU) on a recruiting visit, and Bates, Bush, and his parents run into Spurrier. One of Bush's parents say he's always worn #44 and would like to wear that if he signed with Florida. Spurrier turns to Bates, "Hey Batesey, you wear #44, don't ya?"
"Yes coach"
Spurrier whips back around to the parents, "Welp, doesn't look like Darryl's going to wear #44 with the Gators" - and goes on his merry way.
He wasn't going to cater to the 5* recruit or the star player. He was so confident in his coaching ability and ball plays, that he'd take the 3* and win anyway.
What he really benefited from when he came to Florida was the defense that was already in place. It was amazing - and so that, coupled with his offense, made for an immediate new level of Florida football.
-
Mike, while Saban doesn't make it his goal, he may be selling himself short.
But yeah, Saban's style of running a program is like a boxing match with no weigh-ins. Saban bulks up as heavy as he can, and then he just leans on you. No sweet science, no magical combos to stun you, just thud, thud, thud until you give way.
He coaches that way because he can. If he was at a South Carolina, I believe he'd do things very differently (because he'd have to, in order to win).
But yeah, at Bama, he has no desire to beat his with yours, because he's set it up so that it'd be impossible.
I don't think he's bad at it by any means. I just don't see where he distinguishes himself from other coaches. I think he'd have done better at Michigan State if he could do things differently and get more out of less than most. The primary reason he cited for taking the LSU job was researching how many players in the NFL came from Louisiana. DiNardo had instituted "building a fence around the state" and he thought he could build and capitalize on that. Which he did.
DiNardo left him a team of over 20 future NFL players, but still Saban took a few years to get going while he really stocked the pantry to what we think of as LSU now. Some of that is changing the culture....LSU was used to losing for a decade and that had to be changed. But considering some of the players on those early teams, I think he'd have done better there as well if he were markedly better than the average guy at X's and O's.
Then at Alabama, in the games they lose or get played close, especially with us since it we play every year and they seem to consider us their biggest consistent threat, you'd think he'd drum something up to not wind up in close scrapes or losses if he could. The fact he doesn't tells me Alabama is pretty much what you see, they're not sitting on other aspects they can pull out if they need to.
There may be counter-examples I'm not thinking of that give evidence against my opinion. What I do manage to think of makes me think Saban is great at establishing culture, is the greatest recruiter of all time, and is married to a program that spends a massive amount of $ to get results (srsly...their football team budget is more than our entire Athletic Dept. budget, no kidding, and they have an obscene amount of ghost coaches and consultants), but that he's not a X's and O's wizard along the lines of Spurrier and some others.
-
Yeah, you could even whittle the Saban model as an attempt at boring. No upsets. No hijinks. No trick plays, just be more talented, do your job, execute, and go home with a W.
Spurrier's way was more fun, and yielded results....not 5 NC results, but results nonetheless. He literally would make up plays during the game on the sideline.
-
Smart is trying to make "Alabama East" in Athens and it will be interesting to see how that plays out. The recruiting looks to be even better than what Richt did overall (thus far, not much data yet of course). The "culture" aspect is TBD.
Most think UGA is not there yet of course and that is very reasonable, but headed there? We'll see. Georgia has a larger population obviously and a lot of HS football players at a high level. That means freshmen can come in considerably ahead in technique and understanding of what might be the case in some other states with less funded HS coaching and facilities.
Some Dawg fans note that Fromm is from the top level of HS football while Eason was from a middle level in Washington state and that is one reason Fromm is better prepared, don't know if that is real or not.
-
this is going to be severely unpopular in this forum, but....
it's my opinion UGA is playing above their station right now. that isn't to say they aren't in the group of four... that isn't to say they don't have flat out the best backfield in the game... that isn't to say their defense isn't playing 'lights out'- all those apply. it is to say that much of their success is based on chemistry of that team. whatever the source of the alchemy from Richt's components to Smart's, that team has responded as a team, and that cohesion- however delicate or tough- is the source of their performance this season. i'm purely jealous of what they've achieved i'll be quick to say, but i'll also be quick to say that w/o whatever that element is, they're just another tOSU or Auburn or LSU- teams with the ponies but lacking that magic gel that takes them into contention.
it'll be at least three or four season's before UGA, even if not knocked off it's present course, will be comparable to Bama imHo- because that kind of program takes time and consistency. i've not witnessed it, but in my minds eye i can see Saban being approached by his coordinators and them reporting "ready for review, sir" and Saban watching a drill and saying "nope- come back when you have it right" or "good job, let's see it again"... in Smart's case, he's there watching and coaching at every interval until his staff and players fully understand the culture he is creating (which may have the goals of being saban'esque). that takes time.... motivating a team to play 'above their station' doesn't necessarily- it just takes players that believe.
it's almost like interaction of the sexes... it's the lust that kindles the full out mad sex that binds early, and lasts long enough to build a relationship outside of just physical. Smart is banging that team and that team is banging him back- where as Saban is in a marriage built to last.
-
It kinda got away from you there at the end.
-
someone a few years back on b1g board was comparing saban and kelly (oregon) and had an interesting take.
they put it on a scale of chaos.
on one side, you want to limit chaos, control everything. run game, defense, los, mistakes, turnovers, efficient offense, clock, everything. problem is chaos will happen. you need to account for that with the best possible players to overcome that. this is obviously saban's approach. and he's mastered it.
on the other side, you want to invite chaos. explosion, up and down field, throwing left and right, scoring quick and often, make the ball bounce, etc. mistake will happen, but so will a ton of big plays. it's ok if something goes wrong, we'' be back out to try again in no time. and if you can be the one instigating the chaos, you can feed from it, build it, until the other team breaks from it. high octane, fast pace and the other hunh teams lean this way, with kelly being best at it at that time.
wish i could go back and get that. they put it much more eloquently than i did.
as far as x's and o's, i generally think almost all hc's are pretty good at that. otherwise they wouldn't have made it up the coaching ranks to be a coord, much less a hc.
-
It kinda got away from you there at the end.
well, he does keep bringing us rings, so...
-
I like the comparison between coaches who thrive on chaos versus those who want "A Plan". Very nice.
I learned more about pitching one week in Florida from Bruce Dal Canton that I learned from any baseball coach I ever had, and it's not even close. That has nothing to do with anything except that Bruce was a fine fine individual and coach.
Smart clearly is the "Plan" kind of coach. I don't know if we have many chaos coaches in the SEC at all, at least by intent.
The Chaos coach can win games he shouldn't and lose others he should have won. Can you beat Bama playing Bama's game?
-
malzahn and sumlin both seem to lean that way, though both have also seemed to moved more toward middle last few years.
but both were willing to take on a lot of risk for chance of huge reward. both had some success with it for a while too.
-
i like that chaos thing too... it's a lot more intuitive a label than the 'program manager' or 'tactician' type descriptors i've thrown around in the past...
butch jones was sold as a chaos, and turned out to be not the least bit chaotic. he tries to be safe and methodical but lacks the ponies... and that is about that
-
well, he does keep bringing us rings, so...
If he keeps bringing jewelry after you're already married, he's cheating.
-
It was fun watching Les Miles at LSU at times.
It's not much fun being a UK fan though.
I think Ole Miss fans do it right.
-
I always am thinking "That should be "fewer miles" though.
-
It's not much fun being a UK fan though.
I think Ole Miss fans do it right.
It is during basketball season. Sometimes baseball too.
How the hell can Ole Miss fans be doing anything right when their tailgates are catered?
-
i like that chaos thing too... it's a lot more intuitive a label than the 'program manager' or 'tactician' type descriptors i've thrown around in the past...
butch jones was sold as a chaos, and turned out to be not the least bit chaotic. he tries to be safe and methodical but lacks the ponies... and that is about that
It would never work with the way he treats his OL. That's where it starts.
-
If he keeps bringing jewelry after you're already married, he's cheating.
when you're a gold digger, you don't care.
and last i checked, we're in the sec, if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'.
-
Ole Miss TGs are AWESOME, catered or not. And yes, they are catered. We tried to donate some bucks and they wouldn't hear of it. They said someone sets it all up Thursday night and then brings in the food and booze and TVs (plural) and generators Saturday morning very early. They must have an enormous business down there doing this as all the TGs appeared to be professionally set up.
After the game, 4-5 Ole Miss players showed up at the tent we were at and sat and watched and ate. My guess is we were being hosted by a "Big Donor" kind of person.
And the Ole Miss fans don't really care if the team loses, they are doing to party down anyway.
-
If you're that impressed with Ole Miss, you'll lose your mind at Tiger Stadium.
Tailgating...just one more thing We're Better At Than Everyone Else.
And of course, the food wins hands down, but that's never really been in question.
-
Was it Bum Phillips that said about a great coach - he can beat yours with his and beat his with yours - ?
Not a lot of guys that's true for. 90s Spurrier, sure. Saban. I wouldn't say that about Fulmer or Miles or Stallings...just the really elite. Meyer, probably. Richt? Probably not.
I would argue that is not true in the case of Saban. Spurrier? Yup. Bill Snyder? Absolutely. Urban? Yup.
Saban's entire career at LSU and then Alabama was built around talent acquisition and running simple schemes on offense and defense and just out-talenting everybody. They don't run anything innovative- they are pretty basic. They just have more NFL talent than anybody. His rosters in his first stint at LSU was insane. His rosters at Alabama have been even more insane. Especially defensively. His roster is 90% blue-chip recruits.
At MSU he was an OK coach, in the NFL he was a horrible coach. At LSU he was a great coach. At Alabama he's been an all-timer.
I think the guy is obviously an all-time great college coach, right up there with the best who have ever done it. Can't argue with the results. It's really impressive to me that he convinces 5* and 4* kids to be back-ups or bide their time when most coaches are probably promising them starting jobs as freshman. More impressive is that he always gets them ready to play. You rarely if ever seen Alabama lose games they shouldn't. Every other team in college football loses games they have no business losing. Except for Alabama.
-
I think that a good head coach can make a difference in one or two games a season. (That's in comparison to just an average, solid head coach. Against a bad coach, the difference may be three or four games.) I do think that a "program" coach will be more consistently successful than a "chaos" coach...though a chaos team will both win and lose some games they shouldn't.
One of my neighbors wanted to play QB at Alabama, but wasn't good enough. He was recruited by some of the smaller schools: Troy, Jacksonville State, North Alabama, Samford. But he had his heart set on going to Alabama, and his parents could pay his tuition, so that's where he went. He tried out for football as a walk-on, but...in his words...was invited to walk off. They did ask him if he would be willing to help the team out in another way, and he ended up putting in some work-study hours in the recruiting office. Like all large universities, Alabama has alumni all around the country. And whenever Alabama is interested in a player somewhere, they get some of the local alumni there to go to the player's games and send in little notes about the player's performance. My neighbor's job was to take those notes and add a player-specific note to an otherwise generic "keeping in contact" letter. He might write something like: "I'll bet that linebacker's ears are still ringing from the block you put on him in the third quarter that sprung your tailback for the 68 yard touchdown. Please save a few of those, because we sure do hope to see you throwing blocks like that here in Tuscaloosa in a couple of years!" Someone would review it, and then stick it in a big pile for Coach Saban to sign and mail. A lot of times the player would think that Coach Saban had actually flown up to Pennsylvania just to see his game that night. And you can imagine how that made a high school kid feel.
He also told me that one of Coach Saban's sayings was that...if you can get the 4 & 5-star linemen, you can win with the 3-star skill positions. I believe that, but I also believe that Alabama gets the 4 & 5-star skill players, too.
I like Kirby Smart, and I think he'll be a very good coach for us. Mark Richt had some strengths...very good recruiter, said the right things, and represented the university well in the public eye...but he also had some weaknesses.