|
Hall In
Oct 28, 2017 19:01:05 GMT -8
Post by gobeavs92 on Oct 28, 2017 19:01:05 GMT -8
A different situation. Sweeney served as an assistant for several seasons at Alabama, then at Clemson was the Asst. HC the year before he was the interim. Hall started in '14 as a grad asst. at Wisky. Not similar at all IMO. Go Beavs! That was my point. Dabo didn't go straight from position coach to head coach. That was in response to Youngorst. Just replied with your post. Go Beavs!
|
|
|
Hall In
Oct 28, 2017 21:22:13 GMT -8
Post by orangeattack on Oct 28, 2017 21:22:13 GMT -8
I like Coach Hall. I like his energy, like seeing the way the guys interact with him - especially after hearing some of the comments leaking out of the program by current players about feeling discouraged, or feeling like no matter what they did, they were going to get yelled at. You can't play a good game with that kind of thing in your head, in your heart. Crazier things have happened than to take a former NFL player and make him a head coach in relatively short order. The comments during the game last night about it feeling like watching an NFL game resonated well with me. I'd prefer to see him be a defensive coordinator/assistant head coach with the Coach In Waiting tag though. Ask him to bring in a mentor that he respects with an established network to draw from to assemble a staff, but I'm not sure if that's a remotely realistic scenario. Name one D1/P5 HC hire with Hall's inexperience level? which is precisely why I was suggesting making him Coach In Waiting fwiw
|
|
|
Hall In
Oct 29, 2017 7:34:19 GMT -8
Post by nabeav on Oct 29, 2017 7:34:19 GMT -8
Ugwoegbu tweeted yesterday that he stays if Coach Hall stays. Sounds like a guy planning on being a grad transfer, and a big loss because of his versatility...but we can't be shortsighted with this coaching hire. Losing a few players off the current team, or a few recruits from what is a lowly ranked, small class doesn't really scare me at all.
I love that we're back to discussing actual Beaver football on this board. Not one person mentioned Riley barely pulled out a win vs. Purdue on the road. PROGRESS!
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Oct 29, 2017 8:18:54 GMT -8
Ugwoegbu tweeted yesterday that he stays if Coach Hall stays. Sounds like a guy planning on being a grad transfer, and a big loss because of his versatility...but we can't be shortsighted with this coaching hire. Losing a few players off the current team, or a few recruits from what is a lowly ranked, small class doesn't really scare me at all. I love that we're back to discussing actual Beaver football on this board. Not one person mentioned Riley barely pulled out a win vs. Purdue on the road. PROGRESS! But did he say he'd leave if Hall wasn't kept on? If he did, and is so short sighted that he'd leave his school without even finding out who the new head coach is, then hit the bricks. His time may be better spent working to become better, and to approach his potential as a complete football player, which I don't think he's close to. *Edit* Regarding the Huskers win, if we barely pulled out a win against anyone right now Beaver fans would go nuts. Maybe we should focus on our own problems, there's plenty to go around.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Hall In
Oct 29, 2017 10:24:27 GMT -8
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 10:24:27 GMT -8
Dabo Swinney has worked out for Clemson. And the parallel's are fairly similar, He'd never been more than a position coach prior to taking over. Dabo was assistant HC/WR coach before being interim HC en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabo_SwinneyI am aware of this, they had 2 associate head coaches at the time. He had the title for his recruiting ability. On the field he coached the WR, nothing more. Frankly the AHC title isn't all that meaningful to determining if a guy will be a head coach or not. It essentially goes to the assistant willing to do some extra administrative work or one with previous head coaching experience. But yes, he did have that title. He still had never been a coordinator prior to getting the job. And I did say "fairly similar" not identical.
|
|
|
Post by snohobeav on Oct 29, 2017 10:34:59 GMT -8
I am aware of this, they had 2 associate head coaches at the time. He had the title for his recruiting ability. On the field he coached the WR, nothing more. Frankly the AHC title isn't all that meaningful to determining if a guy will be a head coach or not. It essentially goes to the assistant willing to do some extra administrative work or one with previous head coaching experience. But yes, he did have that title. He still had never been a coordinator prior to getting the job. And I did say "fairly similar" not identical. Dabo had ~14 years of DIA coaching experience compared to Hall's 2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 10:48:01 GMT -8
I am aware of this, they had 2 associate head coaches at the time. He had the title for his recruiting ability. On the field he coached the WR, nothing more. Frankly the AHC title isn't all that meaningful to determining if a guy will be a head coach or not. It essentially goes to the assistant willing to do some extra administrative work or one with previous head coaching experience. But yes, he did have that title. He still had never been a coordinator prior to getting the job. And I did say "fairly similar" not identical. Dabo had ~14 years of DIA coaching experience compared to Hall's 2. I understand. I made the argument (and stand by it) that playing in the NFL for 6 years is a very similar level of experience to being a position coach in college. NFL players spend tons of time watching film and game planning for the team they will be defending that week on their own. I am not going to argue anymore. Someone asked for a similarity and Swinney is about as close as I could find without spending hours on google. Another comparison might be to Harbaugh. Played in the NFL, spent 2 seasons as a position coach in the NFL, got a head coaching job in a lower division, and when Stanford hired him he had no FBS coaching experience. Again, not a perfect comparison but an example of a non-traditional route to an FBS head coaching position. The big point is that not everyone has to take the traditional GA, position coach, coordinator, G5 HC, P5 HC route. Maybe Hall makes a great HC, maybe he doesn't but I don't think he needs to be a coordinator, AHC, or HC at a small school first. If he has the temperament, football IQ, and management skills needed to be a HC he doesn't need to hit every checkmark on the traditional sheet.
|
|
|
Hall In
Oct 29, 2017 11:01:02 GMT -8
mb likes this
Post by greshambeaver on Oct 29, 2017 11:01:02 GMT -8
That was my point. Dabo didn't go straight from position coach to head coach. That was in response to Youngorst. Just replied with your post. Go Beavs! Results are what count, not what one or two players have to say, although I can understand how some might feel at this point. They respect him and he has them playing very, very competitive football. Colorado dominated yesterday, Stanford clobbered the ducks a couple weeks ago. OSU should have won the Stanford game and had a good shot at winning the Colorado game. On the other hand we should have lost to Portland State and had not played another competitive game all season, for whatever reason. If we were to consider hiring Hall on a "somewhat permanent" basis, I think it would take a couple of wins. If he wins two including the Civil War I don't see how you couldn't consider giving the guy at least a 3 year contract at maybe half or 60% what Anderson was making with an option for the school to renew for another 3 years. Just my thoughts. Obviously that idea is just an example, but we obviously have done worse in the past. Hall has these players believing in him, it he can hire some good coordinators and a couple good recruiters, who knows what he could do?
|
|
|
Post by korculabeav on Oct 29, 2017 11:09:19 GMT -8
That was in response to Youngorst. Just replied with your post. Go Beavs! Results are what count, not what one or two players have to say, although I can understand how some might feel at this point. They respect him and he has them playing very, very competitive football. Colorado dominated yesterday, Stanford clobbered the ducks a couple weeks ago. OSU should have won the Stanford game and had a good shot at winning the Colorado game. On the other hand we should have lost to Portland State and had not played another competitive game all season, for whatever reason. If we were to consider hiring Hall on a "somewhat permanent" basis, I think it would take a couple of wins. If he wins two including the Civil War I don't see how you couldn't consider giving the guy at least a 3 year contract at maybe half or 60% what Anderson was making with an option for the school to renew for another 3 years. Just my thoughts. Obviously that idea is just an example, but we obviously have done worse in the past. Hall has these players believing in him, it he can hire some good coordinators and a couple good recruiters, who knows what he could do? “.....who knows what he could do”. That is a perfect statement around putting A TON of faith in a coach Hall who has no track record, little experience and is a complete unknown on how he would run a P5 program. That is too big a risk to take with the downside being if he failed because his lack of leading a significant organization or group reared its head then people will say that was a bad gamble. When choosing a leader you have to find someone with some sort of track record and experience that lends itself to a level of probability they will succeed. We have NONE OF THAT here with Hall. To big a risk for the future of this program to bank on that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Hall In
Oct 29, 2017 11:18:05 GMT -8
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 11:18:05 GMT -8
Results are what count, not what one or two players have to say, although I can understand how some might feel at this point. They respect him and he has them playing very, very competitive football. Colorado dominated yesterday, Stanford clobbered the ducks a couple weeks ago. OSU should have won the Stanford game and had a good shot at winning the Colorado game. On the other hand we should have lost to Portland State and had not played another competitive game all season, for whatever reason. If we were to consider hiring Hall on a "somewhat permanent" basis, I think it would take a couple of wins. If he wins two including the Civil War I don't see how you couldn't consider giving the guy at least a 3 year contract at maybe half or 60% what Anderson was making with an option for the school to renew for another 3 years. Just my thoughts. Obviously that idea is just an example, but we obviously have done worse in the past. Hall has these players believing in him, it he can hire some good coordinators and a couple good recruiters, who knows what he could do? “.....who knows what he could do”. That is a perfect statement around putting A TON of faith in a coach Hall who has no track record, little experience and is a complete unknown on how he would run a P5 program. That is too big a risk to take with the downside being if he failed because his lack of leading a significant organization or group reared its head then people will say that was a bad gamble. When choosing a leader you have to find someone with some sort of track record and experience that lends itself to a level of probability they will succeed. We have NONE OF THAT here with Hall. To big a risk for the future of this program to bank on that. Wouldn't the 6 games he will get to coach now be part of the "track record"? Andersen had the track record everyone on this board seems to dream of and he was garbage. An unwillingness to take a risk is far worse than taking a risk and failing.
|
|
|
Hall In
Oct 29, 2017 11:35:04 GMT -8
Post by korculabeav on Oct 29, 2017 11:35:04 GMT -8
“.....who knows what he could do”. That is a perfect statement around putting A TON of faith in a coach Hall who has no track record, little experience and is a complete unknown on how he would run a P5 program. That is too big a risk to take with the downside being if he failed because his lack of leading a significant organization or group reared its head then people will say that was a bad gamble. When choosing a leader you have to find someone with some sort of track record and experience that lends itself to a level of probability they will succeed. We have NONE OF THAT here with Hall. To big a risk for the future of this program to bank on that. Wouldn't the 6 games he will get to coach now be part of the "track record"? Andersen had the track record everyone on this board seems to dream of and he was garbage. An unwillingness to take a risk is far worse than taking a risk and failing. You are correct GA turned out to be a bad hire in the end. That is a common result in the employment world where someone on paper looks like the right fit, interviews well and says all the right things. Down the road it becomes apparent the person was not the right hire because the issues that arose were not apparent. There was a probability of success OSU put on hiring GA from his track record at Utah State and Wisky. But they made an informed decision based upon that evaluation of interviewing GA, checking references and his resume. Yeah, he failed but it was still a measured probability they went in with. The difference with Coach Hall is there is very little to go on to make an informed and measured assessment of probability of success.
The six games he is coaching now will become part of his "track record". But to say he is "the one" off of half season after a coaching termination has to be considered carefully. As others have mentioned on this board, the Beavers are playing better likely as a result of the stress, chaos and rumors around GA's future during the first half of the season being eliminated. The players feel a freedom and having nothing to lose going forward for this season. They are playing loose and stress free. Some of that is on Hall's energy. But you cannot anoint Hall immediately as HC material purely on this situation.
Any successful organization when choosing succession in leadership has to weigh multiple factors such as experience, history of performance, personality, proven leadership traits and skills, ability to manage others, ability to lead an organization, ability to delegate, ability to resolve challenge in the face of adversity, ability to recruit, possessing values that match the organization's, etc. Coach Hall, awhile showing promise with SOME of those traits, has no body of work to evaluate that would make him a feasible candidate to take on the responsibility of running a major college football program.
I would truly question our AD's competence if they selected Hall and take on the MAJOR risk Hall pans out as some sort "out of the box" solution. There is a reason there is little comparative history to a major program hiring someone in a similar situation to this.
|
|
|
Hall In
Oct 29, 2017 11:40:50 GMT -8
Post by baseba1111 on Oct 29, 2017 11:40:50 GMT -8
“.....who knows what he could do”. That is a perfect statement around putting A TON of faith in a coach Hall who has no track record, little experience and is a complete unknown on how he would run a P5 program. That is too big a risk to take with the downside being if he failed because his lack of leading a significant organization or group reared its head then people will say that was a bad gamble. When choosing a leader you have to find someone with some sort of track record and experience that lends itself to a level of probability they will succeed. We have NONE OF THAT here with Hall. To big a risk for the future of this program to bank on that. Wouldn't the 6 games he will get to coach now be part of the "track record"? Andersen had the track record everyone on this board seems to dream of and he was garbage. An unwillingness to take a risk is far worse than taking a risk and failing. Other than the inherent risk in the hiring process and having it work out, we already took too big of risk in "handing" GA the job and wasted (3) years. We did not hold a search, vetted no other candidates, and held no interviews other than GA (and seemingly references... some who may have had other reasons to say great things!?). So other than the built in chance of success/failure with any new hire OSU can not in any way short change this hire and add to the risk level with an unproven candidate. Saying that, Coach Hall in no way has the credentials to be on any search firm's hiring list, let alone get more than the cursory "thank you for your service in a tough situation" interview. So, the "real life" facts of how D1 HC searches are done, even at our current level of success, Coach Hall will not be on the list. Win or lose any of our remaining games, the list/contacts will be made long before our season is completed. I hoping thru suggestions and recommendations OSU gets enough quality candidates that are anxious to get going to have him on board by Dec 20th. IMHO if Coach Hall is even on the long list Prez Ray wasted money on a search firm. However, if Coach Hall is making recruiting connections and keeping/gaining interest he should be kept on staff. Either by the new HC or by the AD's office. Just as Brennan served as a liaison between coaching staffs, Coach Hall would be even better in that role.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Hall In
Oct 29, 2017 11:42:50 GMT -8
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 11:42:50 GMT -8
Wouldn't the 6 games he will get to coach now be part of the "track record"? Andersen had the track record everyone on this board seems to dream of and he was garbage. An unwillingness to take a risk is far worse than taking a risk and failing. You are correct GA turned out to be a bad hire in the end. That is a common result in the employment world where someone on paper looks like the right fit, interviews well and says all the right things. Down the road it becomes apparent the person was not the right hire because the issues that arose were not apparent. There was a probability of success OSU put on hiring GA from his track record at Utah State and Wisky. But they made an informed decision based upon that evaluation of interviewing GA, checking references and his resume. Yeah, he failed but it was still a measured probability they went in with. The difference with Coach Hall is there is very little to go on to make an informed and measured assessment of probability of success.
The six games he is coaching now will become part of his "track record". But to say he is "the one" off of half season after a coaching termination has to be considered carefully. As others have mentioned on this board, the Beavers are playing better likely as a result of the stress, chaos and rumors around GA's future during the first half of the season being eliminated. The players feel a freedom and having nothing to lose going forward for this season. They are playing loose and stress free. Some of that is on Hall's energy. But you cannot anoint Hall immediately as HC material purely on this situation.
Any successful organization when choosing succession in leadership has to weigh multiple factors such as experience, history of performance, personality, proven leadership traits and skills, ability to manage others, ability to lead an organization, ability to delegate, ability to resolve challenge in the face of adversity, ability to recruit, possessing values that match the organization's, etc. Coach Hall, awhile showing promise with SOME of those traits, has no body of work to evaluate that would make him a feasible candidate to take on the responsibility of running a major college football program.
I would truly question our AD's competence if they selected Hall and take on the MAJOR risk Hall pans out as some sort "out of the box" solution. There is a reason there is little comparative history to a major program hiring someone in a similar situation to this.
The reason is risk aversion. That said, you probably can't find many interim head coaches with such limited experience so we are already heading down the rabbit hole. Frankly this board won't accept anyone that doesn't have a resume like Andersen's (which had red flags all over the place that OSU ignored) so it really won't matter. My own opinion, the program needs to take a major risk. Doesn't have to be Hall but if they hire a Tedford type of "proven commodity" I'd bet my life savings on it being a massive failure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Hall In
Oct 29, 2017 11:48:11 GMT -8
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 11:48:11 GMT -8
Wouldn't the 6 games he will get to coach now be part of the "track record"? Andersen had the track record everyone on this board seems to dream of and he was garbage. An unwillingness to take a risk is far worse than taking a risk and failing. Other than the inherent risk in the hiring process and having it work out, we already took too big of risk in "handing" GA the job and wasted (3) years. We did not hold a search, vetted no other candidates, and held no interviews other than GA (and seemingly references... some who may have had other reasons to say great things!?). So other than the built in chance of success/failure with any new hire OSU can not in any way short change this hire and add to the risk level with an unproven candidate. Saying that, Coach Hall in no way has the credentials to be on any search firm's hiring list, let alone get more than the cursory "thank you for your service in a tough situation" interview. So, the "real life" facts of how D1 HC searches are done, even at our current level of success, Coach Hall will not be on the list. Win or lose any of our remaining games, the list/contacts will be made long before our season is completed. I hoping thru suggestions and recommendations OSU gets enough quality candidates that are anxious to get going to have him on board by Dec 20th. IMHO if Coach Hall is even on the long list Prez Ray wasted money on a search firm. However, if Coach Hall is making recruiting connections and keeping/gaining interest he should be kept on staff. Either by the new HC or by the AD's office. Just as Brennan served as a liaison between coaching staffs, Coach Hall would be even better in that role. You are probably right and whoever that search firm tells them to hire will likely be a massive disaster. But at least the AD will be able to claim he used a thorough process and the guy had a stellar resume. I'd argue the search firm is a waste of money, great coaches aren't found by reading resumes.
|
|
|
Hall In
Oct 29, 2017 12:02:08 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by baseba1111 on Oct 29, 2017 12:02:08 GMT -8
Other than the inherent risk in the hiring process and having it work out, we already took too big of risk in "handing" GA the job and wasted (3) years. We did not hold a search, vetted no other candidates, and held no interviews other than GA (and seemingly references... some who may have had other reasons to say great things!?). So other than the built in chance of success/failure with any new hire OSU can not in any way short change this hire and add to the risk level with an unproven candidate. Saying that, Coach Hall in no way has the credentials to be on any search firm's hiring list, let alone get more than the cursory "thank you for your service in a tough situation" interview. So, the "real life" facts of how D1 HC searches are done, even at our current level of success, Coach Hall will not be on the list. Win or lose any of our remaining games, the list/contacts will be made long before our season is completed. I hoping thru suggestions and recommendations OSU gets enough quality candidates that are anxious to get going to have him on board by Dec 20th. IMHO if Coach Hall is even on the long list Prez Ray wasted money on a search firm. However, if Coach Hall is making recruiting connections and keeping/gaining interest he should be kept on staff. Either by the new HC or by the AD's office. Just as Brennan served as a liaison between coaching staffs, Coach Hall would be even better in that role. You are probably right and whoever that search firm tells them to hire will likely be a massive disaster. But at least the AD will be able to claim he used a thorough process and the guy had a stellar resume. I'd argue the search firm is a waste of money, great coaches aren't found by reading resumes. Well... its pretty in-depth these days. Most of it is networking with known HCs and making connections with quality individuals based on recommendations/interest, then after vetting/narrowing the pool to "actual" candidates, the firm does a lot more specific "digging" to form the list going to Barnes and Ray. This is a big time/ well thought of search firm. As with any HC hire there is no guarantees, but you're paying them for the extensive legwork college administrators do not have time to do as in-depth as it should be. When the pool is narrowed the admin can then go to work with their connections/vetting.
|
|