BTD, Change the Approach Not the Coach

and how is he going to go back to the very beginning Marty? Don't you see,  the time machine doesn't go back to the point in time when he started ripping the Riley program to shreds!

seriously, CGA thought the best approach was to baseline the program. New system, new players, new everything.  Lots of board geniuses now crying folly about that, but mostly after the fact when the product on the field cratered because of this approach. Most people  thought the program needed an overhaul. 

Perhaps! it would have made more sense to re purpose as much of the good Riley stuff as possible, stick with the passing game, try to retain players, use the 4-3 etc. And maybe if Anderson didn't agree to that approach seriously look at other candidates. Maybe think about doubling back to Riley after he bolted and ask him who would be good to hand off the program to.  Who would that have been?  Would it have been wholly successful? Partially successful?  Doesn't matter now.  Maybe the ship will right itself with the current coaches and plays etc. Or maybe GA's only legacy will be that he flatlined the program. 

Sitake was the very first to throw players under the bus, in the very first pre season calling the hold over players soft, comments after games, as if his reputation as a defensive genius was at stake. He certainly didn't get immediate results and who knows if he had bought in where we would be at. I wasn't very impressed with his efforts at OS.  And we will see how far BYU gets with their 10 points a game offense. 

But at least the Beavs aren't easily scouted!

I tend to group coaches largely into 2 groups.

There is the group of young, up-and-coming types that innovate, work with what they have, build on the situation they come into, etc. etc. This type of coach is usually at a smaller (i.e. less prominent football program) school. This kind of coach might hone a system, develop it over time, and then graduate to the big leagues. In the process, they might also bring their school's program into prominence. The key here is the coach doesn't come in preaching a specific approach or system, and cobbles together their approach based on the circumstances they inherit and come into. "Gimmicks" get invented to create opportunities for the best players available to contribute, rather than force fit the players to an over-arching system. The fan base usually has lower expectations, and hope the 'fit the players to an invented system' yields more than "flash in the pan" success, but also realizes their program might be a stepping stone for the coach to move to a more prominent program (especially if the coach evolves a system).

Then there are the "system" coaches - proponents of a specific approach. This kind of coach is more old-school, they revamp the program they take over into their system. This kind of coach usually is the product of a 'coaching tree', has honed their system over the years, and is usually at a more prominent school (read - at a school where they have less challenges recruiting recruits that fit the system). This coach does well almost immediately because the school usually has really good athletes to begin with, even though there may be some "down" years while the system pieces get assembled. The track record and standing/reputation of this coach allows for them to rebuild the system, the fan base is held in abeyance by this fact. Likely this coach is not going anywhere, since they are at a prominent program and have "arrived", NFL notwithstanding.

Overly simplistic? Probably. Complete wrong? Perhaps.
But if you allow for my model of the world for a moment, I can at least explain my concern.
I am not sure we have decided which camp we are in. This coach has exhibited behaviors of both sorts here, and I can't figure out which model we think we are in.....

Go Beavers!!!

Sitake was asked to coordinate a defense that he had never run before.  Why in the hell would a rational person spend all of the money that CGA threw on a flight risk like Sitake and then ask Sitake to try and reinvent the wheel?  If he wanted to run a 3-4, he should have hired someone who knew what the hell he was doing.  

He did about the same thing to Baldwin.  He hired someone who has had success in the past not running spread option and then asked him to run spread option.

It was like he hired Michael Phelps and told him to run a 100 and hired Usain Bolt and told him to pole vault.

Sitake leaving after one year is entirely on CGA.  In fact, this is all on CGA.  Nothing that was done the first year was a good decision.  And CGA has been trying to dig his way out from that hole ever since.

CGA is Dave Kragthorpe or Jerry Pettibone.  He had success at a small program and has now risen above the level of his own incompetence.  He needs a hand-to-God OC and he needs to ditch the 3-4.  What is currently happening is not working.  Any momentum he had at the end of last year was squandered by chasing off McMaryion.

Andersen needs to show confidence in his choices of asst. coaches. Right now, it seems like he's just calling in randoms and then critiquing! How about you critique the process of the hire and only hire someone if they're exactly what you want?! If not, don't hire them. As I have said before, I think there are too many hands in the pot; "run game coordinator", "pass game coordinator", I don't even know what the eff that means?! Does that clear the "O" coordinator bc you have some GA (grad Assist.) helping or what? Hold somebody accountable for Eff sake!

Go Beavs!