2022 Texas Coaching/Support Staff Thread

[Elmer_Fudd 22307]

1 minute ago, closetohumping said:

If you want to go full blown “he’s already signed,” keep in mind Santiago’s flight was scheduled to depart at 0600 yet at 0100 he still hadn’t packed.  

[Schulz2.0 28993]

17 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

[closetojumping 62765]

5 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Check the tower logs for Christ sake!

We'll get to the airmen in just a minute, sir.

[South Austin 52523]

[Barbacoa 1934]

There's so much contradicting info out there about the Patterson stuff that I stopped trying to follow. At this point I've heard about half a dozen scenarios are happening. Here's what I feel is the reality based on what I know:

- CDC is just a shade above a bumbling idiot when it comes to running a big time athletic department. 

- CDC got his wings clipped after repeatedly proving himself to be unhelpful in dealing with Herman and then in dealing with replacing him. Hartzell and Eltife have been making the big decisions as a result.

- The vast majority of fans and donors think CDC is one of the best athletic directors in the country. 

- There are serious $$$ guys who really like CDC, because CDC is very good at the glad handing and dick sucking part of the AD job (and is a very nice and pleasant person in general.) These $$$ guys are the types to say things like they like how CDC "represents the University."  *insert puke sounds*

- There's a misconception out there that not only did CDC lead the charge on hiring Sark, but that he was largely responsible for landing Chris Beard. 

- A lot of our $$$ guys think very highly of Gary Patterson, and CDC was technically our entree in getting those discussions started. So CDC is getting credit there from some of our $$$ guys. I dont know how vital CDC really is in Patterson's interest, but there's a text group I'm on that is already singing CDC's praises over getting Patterson interested. 

Thats about everything I can say confidently. But speculatively, I think CDC is using Patterson as a way to get added influence back over the football program. Gary Patterson is a bulldog and would eat Sarkisian for lunch if given enough power and influence over decisions inside the building. After 5-7, I think there are plenty of $$$ guys that would be fine with that. I don't know where Hartzell and Eltife stand on this stuff, but its my guess that there are lots of politics being played here. This is what people mean when they say we are a shitshow due to too many outside influences. 

[closetohumping 17455]

22 minutes ago, Elmer_Fudd said:

[Slacks 6829]

3 hours ago, DanTheHorn said:

The main argument by folks here is that we do not need to be a learn on the job program or a risk taking program. We should be getting proven established head coaches that have shown they can win 10+ games on a consistent basis at a P5. When we got Mack I felt we could not get him but I was told I was stupid and we should be able to get coaches like Mack since We're Texas and the other folks were right. So arguments that a coach needs a couple of more seasons to learn how to be a head coach or the Sarkisian argument that we need to see what he can do as a sober mature head coach because we know only what he has been as a young drunk head coach fail. It all goes back to we should not have been in this position in the first place.

 

I hate that there is some made up perception that we are something we are not.  Here's who we've had since Royal (ie, since real integration of suspicious players.)

• Akers - was HC at big bad Wyoming. 2 SWC titles. averaged 8.5 wins per year. 3 top 5  & 4 top 10 rankings.
• McWilliams - was an Asst under Akers and Royal. 1 SWC title. averaged 6 wins per year. 2 top 20s
• Mackovic - had the type of pedigree people think we should hire...  HC at Wake Forest, Kansas City Chiefs, Illinois...   2 SWC + 1 Big 12 title.  Averaged 6 wins per season. 3 top 25 rankings.
• Brown - HC at App State, Tulane, and North Carolina... not exactly on par with Mackovic, but not a learner permit, since he had 25 years of 'coaching' experience. Averaged 10 wins per season over 16 seasons. 1 NC, 2 Big 12 titles, 5 top 5s, 7 top10s, 13 top 25s.   Mack's last 3 years were 8 win seasons... then he got fired.  Greatest Texas coach of integrated football...
• Strong - Position coach... maybe a coordinator... actually, he was a very good position coach and great defensive coordinator... and had 2 Big East titles as HC at Louisville. Averaged 5 wins per season. Terrible.
• Herman - Position coach... maybe a coordinator... but MENSA!!! and UH HC, so not really the standard...  no titles. averaged 8 wins. 1 top 10, 3 top 25. fired anyway (supposedly because he couldn't recruit, among other issues...)
• Sarkisian - Position coach... maybe a coordinator... or Pac 12 HC... first season right in line with Charlie Strong... terrible... but can (allegedly) recruit and (allegedly) coach the QB position and can (allegedly) hire a staff... he better (allegedly) do something in season 2.

Anywho...  No were in this list has there been a "can't miss".  Mack Brown was the most likely to perform based on how long his history was and how good he was at recruiting.  As you can see, everyone except Akers, Brown, and Herman have been a 6 to 7 win coaches, regardless of pedigree.  Mackovic couldn't recruit. Strong and Herman couldn't get a QB. Sarkisian better get a defense... 

If we wanted an established winning coach, we should have gotten Brian Kelly, since he was getable... 

So, here are the winningest active coaches (by number of wins - which seems to be the implied indicator we seek, not win %)

1. Nick Saban
2. Mack Brown
3. GARY PATTERSON

 

So there you have it... We're getting Gary Patterson, because that is what everyone thinks we should do when you remove the actual names from the equation.

 

 

Edited December 29, 2021 by Snacks

[dcar00 14317]

11 minutes ago, Barbacoa said:

 

- There's a misconception out there that not only did CDC lead the charge on hiring Sark, but that he was largely responsible for landing Chris Beard. 

 

Well, I guess I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir

[CowtownHorn 5126]

1 hour ago, closetojumping said:

Not trying to make anyone even more despondent, but we've just finished the 12th consecutive season as fans watching Texas wander through the wilderness. I guess we can all account for 2018 as an oasis in the desert, but I don't know if any of us following it closely felt certain about that, even if it was enjoyable for the most part. Still, it's been 12 years since Texas lost less than 4 games in a non-corona season.

[LCHorn 2624]

11 minutes ago, Barbacoa said:

- There are serious $$$ guys who really like CDC, because CDC is very good at the glad handing and dick sucking part of the AD job (and is a very nice and pleasant person in general.) These $$$ guys are the types to say things like they like how CDC "represents the University."  *insert puke sounds*

I think some of ya’ll need to reorient expectations-this description IS the job.  It’s frankly what Deloss did and I think the idea that we must have some ruthless yet brilliant CEO type as AD isn’t how it typically exists out in the universe.  
 

And you know what, I’m okay with that-let the President and head of the BOR kick this thing into gear.  They are enormously more powerful anyway and I’d dispute that running some aspects of UT athletics is below their paygrade.  Let CDC raise funds for capital projects, which he’s great at.  

[Hookem2147 21345]

5 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

And you know what, I’m okay with that-let the President and head of the BOR kick this thing into gear.  They are enormously more powerful anyway and I’d dispute that running some aspects of UT athletics is below their paygrade.  Let CDC raise funds for capital projects, which he’s great at.  

That setup is fine but you need to add an associate AD solely focused on football or football only AD. That’s what Urban said he wanted because he wanted a direct line to someone so he could get what he needed and not have it be the same person who was answering fans questions on twitter about how much ice was in their cup of Dr. Pepper.

Edited December 29, 2021 by Hookem2147

[closetojumping 62765]

4 minutes ago, Snacks said:

I hate that there is some made up perception that we are something we are not.  Here's who we've had since Royal (ie, since real integration of suspicious players.)

• Akers - was HC at big bad Wyoming. 2 SWC titles. averaged 8.5 wins per year. 3 top 5  & 4 top 10 rankings.
• McWilliams - was an Asst under Akers and Royal. 1 SWC title. averaged 6 wins per year. 2 top 20s
• Mackovic - had the type of pedigree people think we should hire...  HC at Wake Forest, Kansas City Chiefs, Illinois...   2 SWC + 1 Big 12 title.  Averaged 6 wins per season. 3 top 25 rankings.
• Brown - HC at App State, Tulane, and North Carolina... not exactly on par with Mackovic, but not a learner permit, since he had 25 years of 'coaching' experience. Averaged 10 wins per season over 16 seasons. 1 NC, 2 Big 12 titles, 5 top 5s, 7 top10s, 13 top 25s.   Mack's last 3 years were 8 win seasons... then he got fired.  Greatest Texas coach of integrated football...
• Strong - Position coach... maybe a coordinator... actually, he was a very good position coach and great defensive coordinator... and had 2 Big East titles as HC at Louisville. Averaged 5 wins per season. Terrible.
• Herman - Position coach... maybe a coordinator... but MENSA!!! and UH HC, so not really the standard...  no titles. averaged 8 wins. 1 top 10, 3 top 25. fired anyway (supposedly because he couldn't recruit, among other issues...)
• Sarkisian - Position coach... maybe a coordinator... or Pac 12 HC... first season right in line with Charlie Strong... terrible... but can (allegedly) recruit and (allegedly) coach the QB position and can (allegedly) hire a staff... he better (allegedly) do something in season 2.

Anywho...  No were in this list has there been a "can't miss".  Mack Brown was the most likely to perform based on how long his history was and how good he was at recruiting.  As you can see, everyone except Akers, Brown, and Herman have been a 6 to 7 win coaches, regardless of pedigree.  Mackovic couldn't recruit. Strong and Herman couldn't get a QB. Sarkisian better get a defense... 

If we wanted an established winning coach, we should have gotten Brian Kelly, since he was getable... 

So, here are the winningest active coaches (by number of wins - which seems to be the implied indicator we seek, not win %)

1. Nick Saban
2. Mack Brown
3. GARY PATTERSON

 

So there you have it... We're getting Gary Patterson, because that is what everyone thinks we should do when you remove the actual names from the equation.

 

 

I enjoyed the post, even if I am not quite sure I understand what you're ultimately saying, and if you're serious about it. 

I have a few thoughts that the post stirred though:

1) Texas reached out to Kelly's agent last year once Meyer was clear about moving on. He had demands they didn't want to meet and some guys had fallen in love with Seven Win Steve, so they moved on easily.

2) Herman was basically shown the door because he was an immature asshole who alienated everyone he came across. It's that simple. I've spoken to too many people who were part of his time at Texas to believe otherwise. If he had won at a really high level, that might have gotten him 8 years instead of 4, but I don't know how long it could have gone on. If Sarkisian were to have gone 7-6 this year, followed by 10-4, 8-5, 7-3 (call this 9-3 with Rice and KU being played), there would be very little doubt that he'd be returning for his 5th season. 

3) Herman's bullshit immaturity did destroy his prospects in recruiting as well. I don't know if you've had the chance to talk to anyone, but folks on the recruiting side of things fucking hated that guy by the time it was over. 

4) Herman's bowl record is 5-0 and he's never posted a losing season. It's ludicrous to me that he's not been given an HC role somewhere. I asked about this to someone on his last staff and they don't think he's interested in coaching CFB again. 

Anyway, not really your points, but tangentially interesting to me.

[Getafix 28685]

 

- If - IF - GP can be hired in some capacity to assist with defense, and they can make the whole group work together, okay.

- But this talk about GP being some sort of  program overlord who may be considered for HC if Sark implodes .... I just don't get it. 

• The guy was just fired from a place that has his statue.
• Since 2018 - after his 11-3 season - GP went 21-22. 
• Over the same period of time, Texas went 30 - 19.

- And then you add the reports of his own loathsome traits, and stuff he's done or tolerated in the program, and I can't understand why someone would want him to be an overseer, or even worse, HC.

 

[CowtownHorn 5126]

I’d love 40 year old GP. 60 year old version…not so much. 

[Barbacoa 1934]

5 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

I think some of ya’ll need to reorient expectations-this description IS the job.  It’s frankly what Deloss did and I think the idea that we must have some ruthless yet brilliant CEO type as AD isn’t how it typically exists out in the universe.  
 

And you know what, I’m okay with that-let the President and head of the BOR kick this thing into gear.  They are enormously more powerful anyway and I’d dispute that running some aspects of UT athletics is below their paygrade.  Let CDC raise funds for capital projects, which he’s great at.  

Schools like Texas dont typically have empty suit fundraisers as their athletic directors. The second I got the word on CDC during the Eyes stuff I knew he needed to be replaced, and that was before he threw out some seriously concerning ideas about who should be hired to replace Herman. If the guy is best suited to fundraising, he needs to be formally stripped of his other duties that are at this point ceremonial more than anything. I'm sure some think this would upset the apple cart with the $$$ guys that like him, but I've yet to talk to one of his fanboys about the reality of who the guy is without them pretty quickly changing their tune and just saying thats unfortunate because he's so likeable. They're all desperate for the next Mack Brown Santa Claus figure to show himself.  

[Hookem2147 21345]

Give me Jimmy Lake as an analyst at this point over GP and whatever title he might have.

[futureman 22510]

[Js1 85449]

6 minutes ago, Barbacoa said:

Schools like Texas dont typically have empty suit fundraisers as their athletic directors. The second I got the word on CDC during the Eyes stuff I knew he needed to be replaced, and that was before he threw out some seriously concerning ideas about who should be hired to replace Herman. If the guy is best suited to fundraising, he needs to be formally stripped of his other duties that are at this point ceremonial more than anything. I'm sure some think this would upset the apple cart with the $$$ guys that like him, but I've yet to talk to one of his fanboys about the reality of who the guy is without them pretty quickly changing their tune and just saying thats unfortunate because he's so likeable. They're all desperate for the next Mack Brown Santa Claus figure to show himself.  

He was not being replaced after Herman, The Eyes, or anything.  Our fandom lives in a weird ass fantasy land. 

[JOSEYWALES66 1805]

I've met CDC and he really is very personable.

No clue on his qualifications though. 

[HenryJames 66135]

Patterson as head coach and Sarkisian as offensive coordinator.

[Hookem2147 21345]

13 minutes ago, Getafix said:

 

- If - IF - GP can be hired in some capacity to assist with defense, and they can make the whole group work together, okay.

- But this talk about GP being some sort of  program overlord who may be considered for HC if Sark implodes .... I just don't get it. 

• The guy was just fired from a place that has his statue.
• Since 2018 - after his 11-3 season - GP went 21-22. 
• Over the same period of time, Texas went 30 - 19.

- And then you add the reports of his own loathsome traits, and stuff he's done or tolerated in the program, and I can't understand why someone would want him to be an overseer, or even worse, HC.

 

A lot of Texas fans just remember that he always beat Texas. Nevermind the fact he didn't have much luck beating anyone else his last 4-5 years.

[Slacks 6829]

7 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I enjoyed the post, even if I am not quite sure I understand what you're ultimately saying, and if you're serious about it. 

I have a few thoughts that the post stirred though:

1) Texas reached out to Kelly's agent last year once Meyer was clear about moving on. He had demands they didn't want to meet and some guys had fallen in love with Seven Win Steve, so they moved on easily.

2) Herman was basically shown the door because he was an immature asshole who alienated everyone he came across. It's that simple. I've spoken to too many people who were part of his time at Texas to believe otherwise. If he had won at a really high level, that might have gotten him 8 years instead of 4, but I don't know how long it could have gone on. If Sarkisian were to have gone 7-6 this year, followed by 10-4, 8-5, 7-3 (call this 9-3 with Rice and KU being played), there would be very little doubt that he'd be returning for his 5th season. 

3) Herman's bullshit immaturity did destroy his prospects in recruiting as well. I don't know if you've had the chance to talk to anyone, but folks on the recruiting side of things fucking hated that guy by the time it was over. 

4) Herman's bowl record is 5-0 and he's never posted a losing season. It's ludicrous to me that he's not been given an HC role somewhere. I asked about this to someone on his last staff and they don't think he's interested in coaching CFB again. 

Anyway, not really your points, but tangentially interesting to me.

My points were:

1. there is no template for getting the right guy based on his history... We don't know until they get here, and even when they get here and seem to be ok, they can find a way to fuck it up. We are not some special place. We're just rich.  Either way, we have to have players (mainly OL, DL, QB) to win, so Sarkisian seems to have a shot at that.

2. there seems to be an alignment (accidental, perhaps) between what fans keep saying we should have (a proven coach) and what you are hearing about Gary Patterson (a proven coach who made our current AD into what he is.)

I'm not involved and have zero conversations, but it seems to me, that Gary Patterson will be the Assistant AD for Football or some shit like that... I don't know how that fixes the defense, though.

[Barbacoa 1934]

16 minutes ago, Js1 said:

He was not being replaced after Herman, The Eyes, or anything.  Our fandom lives in a weird ass fantasy land. 

Of course not. 

[Michael Knight 12989]

Does anyone know the AD of Alabama and what it is he does?

[Hookem2147 21345]

1 minute ago, Michael Knight said:

Does anyone know the AD of Alabama

Nick Saban

[ClubWhatever 12154]

2 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

Does anyone know the AD of Alabama and what it is he does?

Did you see The Cleaner?

[NoName 16364]

21 minutes ago, Snacks said:

My points were:

1. there is no template for getting the right guy based on his history... We don't know until they get here, and even when they get here and seem to be ok, they can find a way to fuck it up. We are not some special place. We're just rich.  Either way, we have to have players (mainly OL, DL, QB) to win, so Sarkisian seems to have a shot at that.

i would say re: #1 everyone we have hired with the exception of Mack (14 years of head coaching, 10 P5 coaching) has basically been a bad hire, so as an organization, we have a long history of picking the very clearly wrong guy for the job - at this point we are what? 1/6 with coaching hires since DKR. Drop out Akers and we have exactly 2 coaches who won even 60% of the games they played (Mack at 76% and Tom at 64%) - i am excluding Sark from this list based on 1 year.

we very, very, very, very clearly have a shitty hiring process and protocol - lots of orgs do. i am not asking for us to be as lucky as OU with Stoops --> Riley or the luckiest team in the history of CFB when it comes to hiring coaches (tOSU and it isn't even close) - i just want the team to go through an actual hiring process and actually hire the right guy.

since Mack, we are probably 1/3 on hiring the "best" candidate for the job that year - and that one was a monumental asshole (Herman) who if he was like 10% less of an asshole would have coached Texas this year.

the hiring process for head coaches - and coaches in general - at Texas has been pretty, pretty fucked since Mack left. look at the shitshow that was Strong's coaching staff (buddy hires, shitty hires like Watson, etc), then Herman (buddy hires, not quick to make staff changes) and now Sark (hiring that many defensive coaches before you have a DC is going to result in failure. then turning around and not making any changes on that side of the ball is also a recipe for failure)

the entire process by which we hire head coaches since about 1987? fucked, with one exception (a 16% hit rate is abysmal)

i have no clue what the process SHOULD be. but i know that whatever the shitshow hiring process we have followed is wrong and has been for about 45 years at this point.

[Ricky Butler 2731]

25 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

Does anyone know the AD of Alabama and what it is he does?

Of course they do. Lots of smart guys on here, just ask them. 

[burdine 522]

Sark is probably most comparable to Mackovic.

Solid offensive mind that will likely get that side of the team going in the right direction.

With this type of hire, the DC is the most important position.

Mackovic failed at this part of his job but he left Mack some great pieces to work with.

Sark is off to a pretty rough start.

One last thought:  Maybe the question to ask is not "Is Sark the guy?" but "Can Sark be the guy if we get him the right DC?"

I will feel better if big changes are coming to the defensive staff.  However, the tea leaves show disappointment I guess.

 

[Tex-19 2872]

Bottom line is that if Sark wins games and is sober, GP ain’t taking his job. Sark is young and an actual likeable human so he’s not getting usurped if successful. 

If GP helps win games by fixing the defense and freeing up more of Sark’s time to coach offense, it should be a good development for all. If he comes in with some useless responsibilities to just wait in the wings, that’s no bueno.

I find it hard to believe most of the big money sees GP as an ideal HC candidate though. More likely we’d be chasing the newest shiny object. 

[MAGS® 400]

1 minute ago, Tex-19 said:

newest shiny object. 

its sweaty not shiny...  

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

18 minutes ago, NoName said:

i would say re: #1 everyone we have hired with the exception of Mack (14 years of head coaching, 10 P5 coaching) has basically been a bad hire, so as an organization, we have a long history of picking the very clearly wrong guy for the job - at this point we are what? 1/6 with coaching hires since DKR. Drop out Akers and we have exactly 2 coaches who won even 60% of the games they played (Mack at 76% and Tom at 64%) - i am excluding Sark from this list based on 1 year.

we very, very, very, very clearly have a shitty hiring process and protocol - lots of orgs do. i am not asking for us to be as lucky as OU with Stoops --> Riley or the luckiest team in the history of CFB when it comes to hiring coaches (tOSU and it isn't even close) - i just want the team to go through an actual hiring process and actually hire the right guy.

since Mack, we are probably 1/3 on hiring the "best" candidate for the job that year - and that one was a monumental asshole (Herman) who if he was like 10% less of an asshole would have coached Texas this year.

the hiring process for head coaches - and coaches in general - at Texas has been pretty, pretty fucked since Mack left. look at the shitshow that was Strong's coaching staff (buddy hires, shitty hires like Watson, etc), then Herman (buddy hires, not quick to make staff changes) and now Sark (hiring that many defensive coaches before you have a DC is going to result in failure. then turning around and not making any changes on that side of the ball is also a recipe for failure)

the entire process by which we hire head coaches since about 1987? fucked, with one exception (a 16% hit rate is abysmal)

i have no clue what the process SHOULD be. but i know that whatever the shitshow hiring process we have followed is wrong and has been for about 45 years at this point.

Find whatever the hell Ohio State is doing with their hiring process and copy that.

[Bevo14 8355]

Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

Find whatever the hell Ohio State is doing with their hiring process and copy that.

Step 1) burn couch

Step 2) see whose face gets outlined by the flames

[Codaxx 5806]

8 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Find whatever the hell Ohio State is doing with their hiring process and copy that.

OSU has been changing coaches with loaded rosters. That is the key to success. Riley and Day are considered great coaches, but I have my doubts either could have come in after Strong or Herman and come close to the success they are having now. In today’s CFB picking the right job is probably more important than being a great coach. Urban talked about that when he turned down his “dream job” at ND and picked Florida 

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

Just now, Codaxx said:

OSU has been changing coaches with loaded rosters. That is the key to success. Riley and Day are considered great coaches, but I have my doubts either could have come in after Strong or Herman and come close to the success they are having now. In today’s CFB picking the right job is probably more important than being a great coach. Urban talked about that when he turned down his “dream job” at ND and picked Florida 

Yeah but they're choices go back to post ww2. They literally don't miss and if they do miss it's not by much

 

[Codaxx 5806]

12 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Yeah but they're choices go back to post ww2. They literally don't miss and if they do miss it's not by much

 

Oddly, it turns out firing coaches at their peak for shady shit works out well. OSU has mostly asked new coaches to keep the machine running. Texas has asked coaches to turn this shit around. Out of Mack, Strong, and Herman, I think Charlie is the only one that left more talent at Texas than when he took the job. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

I seriously doubt Sark will make it.  Just like after Strong hired Watson I knew he was an idiot.  But I also thought Herman was a homerun.

So I hope I am as wrong about Sark as I was on Herman.

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

Oddly, it turns out firing coaches at their peak for shady shit works out well. OSU has mostly asked new coaches to keep the machine running. Texas has asked coaches to turn this shit around. Out of Mack, Strong, and Herman, I think Charlie is the only one that left more talent at Texas than when he took the job. 

About a wash.  5 Longhorns were drafted after Strong's first year.  He could not win regardless.  And was too stupid to consider maybe going and getting a transfer QB since we had nothing.

[Pato del Muerto 52535]

50 minutes ago, NoName said:

i would say re: #1 everyone we have hired with the exception of Mack (14 years of head coaching, 10 P5 coaching) has basically been a bad hire, so as an organization, we have a long history of picking the very clearly wrong guy for the job - at this point we are what? 1/6 with coaching hires since DKR. Drop out Akers and we have exactly 2 coaches who won even 60% of the games they played (Mack at 76% and Tom at 64%) - i am excluding Sark from this list based on 1 year.

we very, very, very, very clearly have a shitty hiring process and protocol - lots of orgs do. i am not asking for us to be as lucky as OU with Stoops --> Riley or the luckiest team in the history of CFB when it comes to hiring coaches (tOSU and it isn't even close) - i just want the team to go through an actual hiring process and actually hire the right guy.

since Mack, we are probably 1/3 on hiring the "best" candidate for the job that year - and that one was a monumental asshole (Herman) who if he was like 10% less of an asshole would have coached Texas this year.

the hiring process for head coaches - and coaches in general - at Texas has been pretty, pretty fucked since Mack left. look at the shitshow that was Strong's coaching staff (buddy hires, shitty hires like Watson, etc), then Herman (buddy hires, not quick to make staff changes) and now Sark (hiring that many defensive coaches before you have a DC is going to result in failure. then turning around and not making any changes on that side of the ball is also a recipe for failure)

the entire process by which we hire head coaches since about 1987? fucked, with one exception (a 16% hit rate is abysmal)

i have no clue what the process SHOULD be. but i know that whatever the shitshow hiring process we have followed is wrong and has been for about 45 years at this point.

Since Mack left?  I’m pretty sure tie process in 1997 landed on Gary Barnett.  And a certain someone stepped in and said no you will hire Mack brown. 

[futureman 22510]

7 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

Out of Mack, Strong, and Herman, I think Charlie is the only one that left more talent at Texas than when he took the job. 

the cake was baked. 

[Codaxx 5806]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

About a wash.  5 Longhorns were drafted after Strong's first year.  He could not win regardless.  And was too stupid to consider maybe going and getting a transfer QB since we had nothing.

My statement had nothing to do with Strong’s coaching abilities, just his recruiting and evaluations. I believe Strong left 19 players that went on to NFL rosters. 

[SuckitKevin 920]

I don’t doubt GP could add something defensively to help. He’s been a great defensive coach for a number of years but so has PK. As bad as Texas was this year, they finished ahead of TCU and Kansas in total defense. I don’t think GP is a magic solution. 

[Reynolds Woodcock 4788]

Just now, Codaxx said:

My statement had nothing to do with Strong’s coaching abilities, just his recruiting and evaluations. I believe Strong left 19 players that went on to NFL rosters. 

It’s an imperfect measurement for a variety of reasons (particularly because it doesn’t take transfers into account), but Charlie Strong’s 2014 team had a 60% Blue Chip Ratio (top 10). Tom Herman’s 2017 team had a 46% Blue Chip Ratio (well outside of the top 10). Sark’s 2021 team had a 66% Blue Chip Ratio (back inside the top 10).

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

It’s an imperfect measurement for a variety of reasons (particularly because it doesn’t take transfers into account), but Charlie Strong’s 2014 team had a 60% Blue Chip Ratio (top 10). Tom Herman’s 2017 team had a 46% Blue Chip Ratio (well outside of the top 10). Sark’s 2021 team had a 66% Blue Chip Ratio (back inside the top 10).

You're not accounting for the "but Charlie Strong is a nice guy and good man" disclaimer.

[Codaxx 5806]

11 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

It’s an imperfect measurement for a variety of reasons (particularly because it doesn’t take transfers into account), but Charlie Strong’s 2014 team had a 60% Blue Chip Ratio (top 10). Tom Herman’s 2017 team had a 46% Blue Chip Ratio (well outside of the top 10). Sark’s 2021 team had a 66% Blue Chip Ratio (back inside the top 10).

I agree it’s imperfect and only good for a guideline. It has no understanding of composition and distribution of talent. I certainly wouldn’t use it when we both have intimate knowledge of the rosters and play over the last decade. Charlie proved that Texas was not an anomaly, but he inherited a dog shit roster. I think most Texas fans would agree with that. Just off the top of my head the only player I can remember from the Herman era that was really good and committed to Herman was Sam Cosmi. 

Edited December 29, 2021 by Codaxx

[TexasRenegade 2460]

39 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Since Mack left?  I’m pretty sure tie process in 1997 landed on Gary Barnett.  And a certain someone stepped in and said no you will hire Mack brown. 

That certain someone also hand picked David McWilliams so I love Coach Royal and all....but his 1st at bat was a disaster...

[Pato del Muerto 52535]

Nobody has suggested that it went or will go down this way, but from a purely dramatic sense I think it’s great if sark was looking to hire GP as kwiatkowski insurance, only to lose him to his boss who hires GP as sarkesian insurance. 

[Pato del Muerto 52535]

1 minute ago, TexasRenegade said:

That certain someone also hand picked David McWilliams so I love Coach Royal and all....but his 1st at bat was a disaster...

Post was more about the Barnett side than the Mack/royal play.  Deloss and his search team got it wrong that time as well, at least based on barnett’s performance at Colorado. 

[Foosters 17858]

When I was reading this thread this morning, I thought to myself "you look at this thread right here and what you need is some Charlie Strong talk."

So thanks guys.

[Barbacoa 1934]

6 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Nobody has suggested that it went or will go down this way, but from a purely dramatic sense I think it’s great if sark was looking to hire GP as kwiatkowski insurance, only to lose him to his boss who hires GP as sarkesian insurance. 

I dont think this GP stuff has much to do with Sark, and I'd imagine he knows it could potentially be a snake in the hen house.