as a casual football fan who doesn't know much about the inner workings of a coaching staff and which coaches are most responsible for the results on the field, I'm curious everyone's thoughts on how involved head coaches are and how much they can delegate to and entrust in their staff. Believe me, I'm as fired up as everyone about Golden and was one of the first one's questioning why we were even giving him an extension in the first place when he had literally proven nothing on the field. as much as i want a new coach, i'm even more fearful of firing golden, making another garbage hire, and wasting another 5 years. i find myself kind of hoping that our offense completely torches opponents this year and our defense completely fails, so golden has no choice but to fire donofrio and take a hands off approach to the defense and letting a great DC come in and immediately change our defense. i think golden has done a fine job in terms of being the face of the program, PR, etc etc. if he was humble enough, which hes most likely not, to be less involved in the actual x's and o's, and he brought in a badass DC, and golden just kind of was the head coach in title only, that may be one of the better ways for this whole mess to play out. (although I must admit i personally dont think it's realistic at all because golden is clearly a believer in donofrio and this defense). so this is basically all a hypothetical, but I am just curious as to how realistic it is for a head coach who maybe isnt a great x's and o's guy to delegate coaching responsibilities and still be successful. have there been NC winners with that style? or is a HC x's and o's knowledge really just that important where that's not realistic. thanks and sorry for the long post...