What proof is there that Dorsey would be a good OC?
What proof is there that Dorsey would be a good OC?
What proof is there that Dorsey would be a good OC?
Easy tiger, it was a legitimate question, not a rhetorical one
To get inducted in to the UM HOF, along with Rusty Medearis and Jon Vilma. Sean Taylor in memoriam.
Congrats, maybe while here they can go Expendables-style on the coaching staff and cuckhold them.
What proof is there that Dorsey would be a good OC?
There is none. But a lot of the time, finding the next great thing is about finding a great football mind and putting him in place to succeed. Dorsey is on the fast track to a big time gig in the NFL right now. I think he has always shown a great grasp of the game and fully understands the "get the fast guy the ball and let him do something with it" concept.
What proof is there that Dorsey would be a good OC?
There is none. But a lot of the time, finding the next great thing is about finding a great football mind and putting him in place to succeed. Dorsey is on the fast track to a big time gig in the NFL right now. I think he has always shown a great grasp of the game and fully understands the "get the fast guy the ball and let him do something with it" concept.
Why do we always have to be reading the tea leaves trying to find the next up and coming guy? How has that philosophy worked out for us the past 10 years?
Why can't we go hire someone who is already proven?
What proof is there that Dorsey would be a good OC?
There is none. But a lot of the time, finding the next great thing is about finding a great football mind and putting him in place to succeed. Dorsey is on the fast track to a big time gig in the NFL right now. I think he has always shown a great grasp of the game and fully understands the "get the fast guy the ball and let him do something with it" concept.
Why do we always have to be reading the tea leaves trying to find the next up and coming guy? How has that philosophy worked out for us the past 10 years?
Why can't we go hire someone who is already proven?
We've simply hired the wrong up and coming guy 2 times. Because we base our decisions on the wrong factors. Mostly, it seems, reactionary behavior. We could have gone after Gary Patterson instead of Randy. We could have gotten Kevin Sumlin instead Al Golden. The philosophy isn't wrong. The execution is broken.
We're not going to go out and hire a 4M/year coach. That's fantasy land. We don't even need that, honestly.
What proof is there that Dorsey would be a good OC?
What proof is there that most QB coaches who rise to be OCs are going to be good? Also, he's an NFL QB coach employing NFL concepts. He's not even a college QB coach. Are you saying we should only hire people who have a proven track record as a coordinator? If so, we're likely ****ed. Those are in short supply and quite expensive. Also, it matters what "area of specialty" the HC has in his past.
What proof is there that Dorsey would be a good OC?
There is none. But a lot of the time, finding the next great thing is about finding a great football mind and putting him in place to succeed. Dorsey is on the fast track to a big time gig in the NFL right now. I think he has always shown a great grasp of the game and fully understands the "get the fast guy the ball and let him do something with it" concept.
Why do we always have to be reading the tea leaves trying to find the next up and coming guy? How has that philosophy worked out for us the past 10 years?
Why can't we go hire someone who is already proven?
We've simply hired the wrong up and coming guy 2 times. Because we base our decisions on the wrong factors. Mostly, it seems, reactionary behavior. We could have gone after Gary Patterson instead of Randy. We could have gotten Kevin Sumlin instead Al Golden. The philosophy isn't wrong. The execution is broken.
We're not going to go out and hire a 4M/year coach. That's fantasy land. We don't even need that, honestly.
What proof is there that Dorsey would be a good OC?
There is none. But a lot of the time, finding the next great thing is about finding a great football mind and putting him in place to succeed. Dorsey is on the fast track to a big time gig in the NFL right now. I think he has always shown a great grasp of the game and fully understands the "get the fast guy the ball and let him do something with it" concept.
Why do we always have to be reading the tea leaves trying to find the next up and coming guy? How has that philosophy worked out for us the past 10 years?
Why can't we go hire someone who is already proven?
We've simply hired the wrong up and coming guy 2 times. Because we base our decisions on the wrong factors. Mostly, it seems, reactionary behavior. We could have gone after Gary Patterson instead of Randy. We could have gotten Kevin Sumlin instead Al Golden. The philosophy isn't wrong. The execution is broken.
We're not going to go out and hire a 4M/year coach. That's fantasy land. We don't even need that, honestly.
Point 1: I don't disagree with that, but if Ken Dorsey didn't play at UM nobody would be talking about him for OC (talking about him as a quarterbacks coach is not realistic.... he has that job right now in the NFL).
Point 2: If we're going to hire a quarterbacks coach from the NFL, why, if you're being objective, are you going to hire the guy from Carolina? It's not a terrible path to take, but I say hire someone from one of the better offenses in the NFL.
Point 3: Hire someone who comes from a good coaching tree, working under an OC who is having a ton of success. That approach at least has some evidence to back it up.
What proof is there that Dorsey would be a good OC?
There is none. But a lot of the time, finding the next great thing is about finding a great football mind and putting him in place to succeed. Dorsey is on the fast track to a big time gig in the NFL right now. I think he has always shown a great grasp of the game and fully understands the "get the fast guy the ball and let him do something with it" concept.
Why do we always have to be reading the tea leaves trying to find the next up and coming guy? How has that philosophy worked out for us the past 10 years?
Why can't we go hire someone who is already proven?
We've simply hired the wrong up and coming guy 2 times. Because we base our decisions on the wrong factors. Mostly, it seems, reactionary behavior. We could have gone after Gary Patterson instead of Randy. We could have gotten Kevin Sumlin instead Al Golden. The philosophy isn't wrong. The execution is broken.
We're not going to go out and hire a 4M/year coach. That's fantasy land. We don't even need that, honestly.
What proof is there that Dorsey would be a good OC?
There is none. But a lot of the time, finding the next great thing is about finding a great football mind and putting him in place to succeed. Dorsey is on the fast track to a big time gig in the NFL right now. I think he has always shown a great grasp of the game and fully understands the "get the fast guy the ball and let him do something with it" concept.
Why do we always have to be reading the tea leaves trying to find the next up and coming guy? How has that philosophy worked out for us the past 10 years?
Why can't we go hire someone who is already proven?
We've simply hired the wrong up and coming guy 2 times. Because we base our decisions on the wrong factors. Mostly, it seems, reactionary behavior. We could have gone after Gary Patterson instead of Randy. We could have gotten Kevin Sumlin instead Al Golden. The philosophy isn't wrong. The execution is broken.
We're not going to go out and hire a 4M/year coach. That's fantasy land. We don't even need that, honestly.
Al?
Kehoe must be the only OL coach you people can name.
He's not a good coach. The game has passed him by.
There is none. But a lot of the time, finding the next great thing is about finding a great football mind and putting him in place to succeed. Dorsey is on the fast track to a big time gig in the NFL right now. I think he has always shown a great grasp of the game and fully understands the "get the fast guy the ball and let him do something with it" concept.
Why do we always have to be reading the tea leaves trying to find the next up and coming guy? How has that philosophy worked out for us the past 10 years?
Why can't we go hire someone who is already proven?
We've simply hired the wrong up and coming guy 2 times. Because we base our decisions on the wrong factors. Mostly, it seems, reactionary behavior. We could have gone after Gary Patterson instead of Randy. We could have gotten Kevin Sumlin instead Al Golden. The philosophy isn't wrong. The execution is broken.
We're not going to go out and hire a 4M/year coach. That's fantasy land. We don't even need that, honestly.
Al?
Sheeit. Tremendous insult. I'm talking about hiring approach.