|
|
Post by sparty on Dec 11, 2021 21:43:35 GMT -8
As easy as it is to recruit for uo, it is still quite difficult to satisfy that ‘entitled’ fan base. I look at it as we got a young OC from a successful program , the sucks got a young DC from a successful program. There was a rebuilding challenge for Smith, that is showing promise ( wins, bowl game, recruits, fans ) The new clown at uo, will not have a rebuild - but, will have to establish that he is the ‘man’, and that he knows what he is doing. That was even difficult for Mario man- boobs . Thus, the new guy will be given three years to PROVE that he can move the needle ! He will not SATISFY DUCK fans. OSU is a tough out now WSU is a tough out UCLA is a tough out UW is a tough out Utah is a tough out Stanford will be tougher ASU will be a tough out USC may be more competitive CAL is tough to call Arizona has little upside Colorado is tough to call UO will get killed in their first game next year ( Georgia ) and I don’t expect they will be any better on the offensive side of the ball And the frosting on the cake with Jonathan Smith is that he is only 42 years old and any future Oregon State AD wont have to do a coaching search for another 20 years unless Jonathan wants to retire early like Chris Peterson did at Washington. By then a succession will be all planned out internally which makes it much more seamless. That is the way to do it.
I also believe with Jonathans high integrity he can't be lured away by any amount of money. He has every thing he needs right now in his dream job.
Mark my words he will be the longest tenured coach in the Pac-12 which will be unheard of in this day and age and 20 years from now if he so chooses.
|
|
ee1990
Sophomore
Posts: 1,932 
Member is Online
|
Post by ee1990 on Dec 11, 2021 22:37:24 GMT -8
I was most concerned they would get Justin Wilcox. So, I am good with this! Yikes, I couldn't imagine anyone in the world would be concerned about that guy, he has the personality of a wooden spoon. |
|
|
|
Post by badwack on Dec 12, 2021 3:56:33 GMT -8
Seems to be a great hire for the Yucks. Flashy, splashy bright shinning star for everyone to follow. Worlds greatest recruiter for all the ego NFL for sure bull rushers and tap dancers. Bonus they all get to sell Shoes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Dec 12, 2021 7:57:08 GMT -8
As easy as it is to recruit for uo, it is still quite difficult to satisfy that ‘entitled’ fan base. I look at it as we got a young OC from a successful program , the sucks got a young DC from a successful program. There was a rebuilding challenge for Smith, that is showing promise ( wins, bowl game, recruits, fans ) The new clown at uo, will not have a rebuild - but, will have to establish that he is the ‘man’, and that he knows what he is doing. That was even difficult for Mario man- boobs . Thus, the new guy will be given three years to PROVE that he can move the needle ! He will not SATISFY DUCK fans. OSU is a tough out now WSU is a tough out UCLA is a tough out UW is a tough out Utah is a tough out Stanford will be tougher ASU will be a tough out USC may be more competitive CAL is tough to call Arizona has little upside Colorado is tough to call UO will get killed in their first game next year ( Georgia ) and I don’t expect they will be any better on the offensive side of the ball And the frosting on the cake with Jonathan Smith is that he is only 42 years old and any future Oregon State AD wont have to do a coaching search for another 20 years unless Jonathan wants to retire early like Chris Peterson did at Washington. By then a succession will be all planned out internally which makes it much more seamless. That is the way to do it.
I also believe with Jonathans high integrity he can't be lured away by any amount of money. He has every thing he needs right now in his dream job.
Mark my words he will be the longest tenured coach in the Pac-12 which will be unheard of in this day and age and 20 years from now if he so chooses.
You probably just jinxed us. While I don’t think JS would leave for just about any other college job, that doesn’t mean that if he has success, he won’t get the NFL bug. |
|
|
|
Post by shelby on Dec 12, 2021 9:05:43 GMT -8
I also often wonder if a particular coaching position is successful because of that 'COACH', or if they are successful due to the head coach and the Program history and reputation, or some other ' gimmick?
Is the GEORGIA DC, that was introduced as the new head coach, only successful because he was at a University with a strong head coach and strong recruiting, or does he merely ride on the programs coat tails ?
His write up ( from the Oregon viewpoint and PR Department ), makes it sound like he is the best DC in the history of College Football ( Oregon duck spin ), but, his actual specific accomplishments during his three years, at Georgia, don't seem to support that 'tag' !
In other words , duck PR had to dig really deep to sell their hiring of this guy.
He may, in fact, end up being 'good' , but my bet is that the guy is not going to be what the duck fans have been sold !
|
|
|
|
Post by grackle on Dec 12, 2021 9:18:52 GMT -8
$chmUck$ HAD to have been desperately misguided to hire this guy....No head coaching experience, unfamiliar with the west and Pacific NW recruiting, unfamiliar with entire PAC12 including the team he's supposed to take over.
This reeks of the last two $chmUck hires....someone unfamiliar with the territory and from a highly publicized successful program in the southeast. This hire makes no sense and appears even more of a distorted reach given that well-qualified head coaches were interested and available (e.g., Wilcox at CAL).
You gotta' wonder who's calling the shots in $chmUckville...the athletic director or the weirdo who's contributed more than $1 billion to SchmUck athletics.
|
|
|
|
Post by easyheat on Dec 12, 2021 9:20:41 GMT -8
Lanning was hired because he can recruit in the southwest and southeast. UO can't win with west coast players exclusively - they have to compliment that with players from the south. Team speed is critical and that resides in Texas-Georgia and Florida.
|
|
|
|
Post by beavs6 on Dec 12, 2021 9:30:55 GMT -8
Lanning was hired because he can recruit in the southwest and southeast. UO can't win with west coast players exclusively - they have to compliment that with players from the south. Team speed is critical and that resides in Texas-Georgia and Florida. Agreed. And he has Nike, uo, and uncle phil $$$ to offer in NIL signings. This could be trouble. I hope not. |
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Dec 12, 2021 12:42:03 GMT -8
Lincoln Riley is only 38. Ageist! And, you have no idea who said no to them other than Cristobal. The age was only part of what I said, the other part was no HC experience and only a very limited time as a coordinator to build a lot of strong coaching relationships which are very helpful when it comes to assistant hires. Young with a solid track record and a good pool of will assistants is one thing. Young, or any age for that matter, with small pool of assistants willing to follow and no track record to look to, is the proverbial shot in the dark. Lincoln Riley was younger when he became a HC however he was an Associate HC and coordinator the preceding 8 years. Every HC hire comes with varying degrees of risk. One measure almost universally accepted as a yardstick to mitigate against said risk is the preceding resume of work and accomplishments. Another, is being able to isolate a coaches success as an individual from a program, schedule, and the other coaches around him. Think GA and Wisconsin. Some of us questioned how much of their success was in fact due to GA and how much of it was the product of a program already built to win with a strong AD who watched over the program like a hawk. In other words, is there a way to determine to what degree the coach influenced and improved the situation he was in as opposed to merely being in a peach of a situation and enjoying success without actually contributing much impact to the success? |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Dec 12, 2021 13:02:37 GMT -8
Lincoln Riley is only 38. Ageist! And, you have no idea who said no to them other than Cristobal. The age was only part of what I said, the other part was no HC experience and only a very limited time as a coordinator to build a lot of strong coaching relationships which are very helpful when it comes to assistant hires. Young with a solid track record and a good pool of will assistants is one thing. Young, or any age for that matter, with small pool of assistants willing to follow and no track record to look to, is the proverbial shot in the dark. Lincoln Riley was younger when he became a HC however he was an Associate HC and coordinator the preceding 8 years. Every HC hire comes with varying degrees of risk. One measure almost universally accepted as a yardstick to mitigate against said risk is the preceding resume of work and accomplishments. Another, is being able to isolate a coaches success as an individual from a program, schedule, and the other coaches around him. Think GA and Wisconsin. Some of us questioned how much of their success was in fact due to GA and how much of it was the product of a program already built to win with a strong AD who watched over the program like a hawk. In other words, is there a way to determine to what degree the coach influenced and improved the situation he was in as opposed to merely being in a peach of a situation and enjoying success without actually contributing much impact to the success? Chipper was only a coordinator for 2 there prior to taking over. He was internal, but he did not exactly have a lot of FBS experience. I agree that he’s going to need to hire some experienced coordinators. It’s a bit of a risky hire, but he’s an excellent recruiter and that seems to be their focus. |
|
|
|
Post by alwaysorange on Dec 12, 2021 13:22:18 GMT -8
A couple years ago a young, great recruiter, highly regarded defensive coordinator was promoted to be the head coach of a nearby school. Here is hoping this Lanning dude is the next Jimmy Lake.
|
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Dec 12, 2021 13:38:24 GMT -8
Chipper was only a coordinator for 2 there prior to taking over. He was internal, but he did not exactly have a lot of FBS experience. I agree that he’s going to need to hire some experienced coordinators. It’s a bit of a risky hire, but he’s an excellent recruiter and that seems to be their focus. I think you're right about recruiting aspect playing a huge part and many green clad folk seem to prefer seeing their logo in the top 10 for recruiting rankings over just about anything else. Not all, because I know some duck fans thought their games were terribly boring this season under Cristobol and yearned for a more exciting brand of football even if it meant getting a coach who didn't recruit as well. You aptly point out a key difference with CK, he was internal and a known quantity to a much larger extent then the current hire. No HC track record, however they had a good look at his innovation, organization, preparation, and other attributes close up and didn't want to shake things up at the time either. I could be wrong as I "try" not to follow what goes on in duckville, but between the local media and duck friends it's tough to do, didn't almost the entire staff stay intact when CK took over? That would seem to be a dream transition into a HC position if ever there was one. Certainly a much different situation than building and entirely new staff from ground up for the first time. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Dec 12, 2021 14:13:29 GMT -8
It appears that Wilcox turned them down. Ouch.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverintheberg on Dec 12, 2021 15:52:25 GMT -8
It appears that Wilcox turned them down. Ouch. Loyal to his kids, I'm thinking. |
|
ee1990
Sophomore
Posts: 1,932
Member is Online
|
Post by ee1990 on Dec 12, 2021 17:00:14 GMT -8
I also often wonder if a particular coaching position is successful because of that 'COACH', or if they are successful due to the head coach and the Program history and reputation, or some other ' gimmick? Is the GEORGIA DC, that was introduced as the new head coach, only successful because he was at a University with a strong head coach and strong recruiting, or does he merely ride on the programs coat tails ? His write up ( from the Oregon viewpoint and PR Department ), makes it sound like he is the best DC in the history of College Football ( Oregon duck spin ), but, his actual specific accomplishments during his three years, at Georgia, don't seem to support that 'tag' ! In other words , duck PR had to dig really deep to sell their hiring of this guy. He may, in fact, end up being 'good' , but my bet is that the guy is not going to be what the duck fans have been sold ! Fair question. There are also people put in tremendous position to succeed, who then fall on their faces(Mark Helfrich). It does mean something that he's had success, period, but the questions around him are valid. I don't think anyone is denying that he's a risk. |
|
