FLounder
Think Positive and life will be Positive.
Never said that, he won't hang a coach out to dry. Let the coach find a landing place.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Official 2016 All-in-One Assistant Coaches Compendium Thread - hagan in, bernardi to te, adams ol -
- Thread starter Darth Snow
- Start date
fify
No question.
But CU football should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. You can replace both with little extra effort expended, if need be.
Pay attention if you're going to be a troll.
You're^. Don't be a stupid troll. Just like Mac 1, he'll change up his staff.
fatbuff
Member
Who said that?
pcbuff
Well-Known Member
Ask Utah! They've had a revolving door and it took Wilson from being a promising freshmen to a very average senior. I agree with you on principle, but system changes and meshing with personalities can do as much harm as good with a revolving OC.
I totally agree.
Bufffan68
Club Member
It may be true it'd be easier to make an immediate impact on ST, IDK, but I'd much rather have simply average ST and a really improved O. If an OC can have the same type of impact Leavitt had, this team should make some noise next year. But I'm not holding my breath...until there is a change at OC, I see no reason to believe anything will be substantially different next season.
somebody
Well-Known Member
It seems like your point was that there just weren't enough hours in a day to also have managed the ****ty ST coach. You're right - we'll have to just agree to disagree.
Including extending MacIntyre?Would you take the job and move your family here with no annual contract knowing hes essentially dead man walking and youll be out of work in a year?
Good luck with that.
I thought about this a bit, and here are the candidates:
- Hawaii: Final Margin- 8 points
- Didn't miss any FGs
- Kickoffs were "OK"
- Returns were "OK"
- Punt game was absolutely horrific- first punt was blocked, Hawaii took an 8-0 lead 2 plays later. Average was 36 yds, with only one inside the 20 out of 7. Lost 148 yards in field position the punting game when comparing CU's net with Hawaii's.
- Oregon: Final Margin- 17 points
- Didn't miss any FGs
- Kickoff coverage was poor- Oregon averaged 31 yards per return
- Returns were "OK"
- Punt game/coverage was good. GAINED 137 yards field position in the punt game.
- Arizona: Final Margin- 7 points
- Missed a FG
- Kickoffs were "OK"
- Returns were "OK"
- Punting was actually pretty good
- UCLA: Final Margin- 4 points
- Missed a FG
- Kickoff coverage was poor- Stephens averaged 27/return
- Returns were OK
- Punting was "OK", although CU gave up an average of 3 yards every time they traded punts for a total of 109 yards of field position lost to the punting game
- USC: Final Margin- 3 points
- Missed a FG
- Kickoffs were poor- USC averaged starting on their 30 yard line
- Kick returns were "OK", punt returns were very good- averaged 26 yards on punts that were returned
- Punting was "OK"
- Utah: Final Margin- 6 points
- Missed a FG
- Kickoffs were "OK"
- Returns were a bit substandard (one punt return for -3 yards, averaged 13.75 yds/kick return)
- Punting was very poor- averaged 36 yards per punt and 0 in the 20. Gave up 14 yards on average when traded punts with Utah, who averaged 50 yds/ punt. Punting alone cost CU 132 yards of field position.
- Special Teams lost the game:
- Hawaii (almost entirely due to the punting game; CU averaged 16.6 yards per point, so giving up 148 yards "cost" almost 9 points)
- USC (missed FG was the difference, and KOs didn't help)
- Utah (missed FG at beginning of game was a momentum killer, with it they would have only needed a FG to tie at the end, losses in the kick game and punt game cost CU big time)
- Could argue either way:
- UCLA: (missed FG meant they would have only needed a FG at the end, punt game deficiencies cost a lot of field position)
- Definitely didn't lose the game:
- Arizona (no glaring weaknesses, at least neutral)
- Oregon (STs were a bit better than neutral)
Not for a lateral move. If I' out of work or moving up from G5, of course I make the move.
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
Might be tougher to find a top flight OC, but would a young position coach take a1 year contract job in Boulder for a couple hundred grand? Yes.
I doubt we get that guy. West virginia is putting the hard sell on.Especially if it's this guy:
I agree that OC is more important but I disagree that we can afford to let Nienas skate due to some sort of triage. He has to go regardless of what else happens.
aik
Well-Known Member
The special teams is not the most important hair-splitting point about the 9th coaching spot. It's about cutting recruiting dead weight and adding someone who would be an actual asset to this venture. Being from Boulder and having rapport with the coach at your high school alma mater is not an acceptable resume highlight for a Pac-12 salaried coach.
That I completely agree with.
You can piece together special teams coordination among the staff if you need to. Hell, Tumpkin ran a successful defense at Central Michigan. I have no doubt that he could put together coverage and return teams. Adams as an offensive coach who has done OL could very much take over the blocking schemes for FG and Punt. That pretty much just leaves someone to work with the punters, kickers and snappers. CU, like most P5 programs, would bring in a consultant for that as they currently do.
What we need is to use that staff position to upgrade recruiting. It's not so much about what kind of incremental improvements can be made to special teams. If they're average and we get some more dudes signed next January with an extra mind in the offensive meetings then it's a huge win.
Just not as big of a win as OC. That's the primary coaching staff pinch point of this offseason.
Buffenuf
massive tool
So that's why Strong ripped the play calling responsibility out of Watson's hands three games into UT's season! He's an "upgrade"!!!
So by that argument you fill only the OC position by promoting a position coach. And maybe you move a GA into a position coach job. But otherwise were picking from all those unemployed coaches. That doesnt solve our problems. Wasnt it Sumlin that was our WR coach for all of two weeks?
Last edited:
Why would you only fill those positions? There are over a dozen P5 staffs put in limbo by HC changes plus a lot of excellent G5 coaches plus a number of NFL guys who will be looking for work. Also, as we have seen, going from G5 coordinator to P5 position coach often comes with more salary and isn't seen as a lateral move.
You know what's really weird to me? So many of you have the attitude that no one decent would want to come to CU to coach, that no one decent would want to sign here to play, that the talent on the team is significantly sub-par compared to the rest of the Pac-12, and that the game planning/play calling/ personnel decisions are horrible... yet you still bitch and moan about how the team isn't winning more conference games and that the head coaching is bad because they're not winning close games, building an all-star staff or closing on sought after recruits.
I'd like to know what people really believe. Because you can't believe all of that stuff without contradicting yourself at every turn.
Agree with this point entirely.
By this reasoning we shouldn't have Leavitt or Tumpkins here.
CU has a lot to offer. Quality of life for the coaches family is big, the school is now putting in resources into facilities. Bigger issue is that there are a lot of quality coaches out there looking for work. This isn't like QBs in the NFL. This year like most years there are already a bunch of staffs out of work since the HC got fired or left. There are multiple guys working as coordinators at G5 schools who are worth looking at who would love to get a P5 shot (and salary.) There are multiple guys who are in other positions but doing coordinator work and ready to step up.
The idea that we can't find somebody better than a guy who has been a below average recruiter and coordinator is ridiculous.
I still think the most glaring issue, and easiest to fix is our ST coordinator but the idea that we can't upgrade other staff positions is just dumb.
CU can upgrade their staff with no problem. The belief that they all think Mac is a dead man walking holds no water with me. If Mac is truly a good coach and good coaches see an opportunity here, they will come. As Duff said, not that hard.
You look to see if you can improve every year. Sometimes, hopefully, you have enough success that your coaches get poached. You look to upgrade based on the success.
If you are in CU's shoes, you make changes and upgrade coaching or recruiting capabilities. I do not see Boulder as such a black hole that nobody would come here. P5, improving team (not as fast as we want, I get it), top flight brand new facilities, good and respected AD, tradition, etc.
Yes there are reasons it will be tougher than say Michigan or Alabama to get top coaches, there are a lot of hungry competitive coaches that would look at this opportunity and jump for it. It should not be hard to upgrade the OC, OH and ST coaches.
If you are in CU's shoes, you make changes and upgrade coaching or recruiting capabilities. I do not see Boulder as such a black hole that nobody would come here. P5, improving team (not as fast as we want, I get it), top flight brand new facilities, good and respected AD, tradition, etc.
Yes there are reasons it will be tougher than say Michigan or Alabama to get top coaches, there are a lot of hungry competitive coaches that would look at this opportunity and jump for it. It should not be hard to upgrade the OC, OH and ST coaches.
GoBuffs08
Well-Known Member
Anyone wanting Short Bus back in Boulder needs to be punched in the throat. That guy sucked and that was when we actually had good players. I can't even imagine how bad he would be today. The reason he is only at schools for 3-4 years is his offenses are so bad he is getting head coaches fired.
Exactly.
Also, let's remember the egos of coaches. (Or at least the egos of coaches that you want to hire.) They have supreme confidence in themselves. Anyone worth his salt that CU would hire will believe 100% that if he comes here that the Buffs will improve on the field next year, likely appear in a bowl game, and sign a higher-rated recruiting class than in previous years. The potential job openings will be seen as a resume builder by a lot of coaches -- and by every coach that MacIntyre would even consider giving a job to.
(Yet some of you will certainly post in the coming weeks/months of this process that so-and-so will only be coming here because he likes the mountains and quality of life in Boulder rather than him coming here because he wants to win and expects to win.)
I put a lot of stock in BnG's premise, since he's one of about 3 people among us that actually played D1 ball, that it will more difficult to attract a *high quality* assistant because the current head coach likely has one year left and everyone knows it. So, do you take this job with an annual renewal and no buyout only to move again in a year? Or do you stay in the G5 with a multi year offer that has a buyout and wait for the next chance? I guess it depends on what position your offered on the staff and wether your married and so forth.
I am sure that you are right that MM will attract *someone*. The $64,000 question is will that *someone* represent an actual quality upgrade? My suspicion is it will be some young gun like Lindgren getting to learn his job on our dime. We were extraordinarily lucky to get Leavitt and getting him had a lot to do with how things went for him at the end with the 49ers and his baggage from USF.
The coaching world likely has every bit of doubt about MM that we have and then some. Like all of you I also hope that if MM does make changes he pulls another rabbit out of his hat. He was able to get Leavitt after all. If he can upgrade the O staff and land some recruiters than should tell us he has some respect in the coaching world.