It starts with the right coach

[Ethnicsands]

The good coaches have a plan of what they’re going to do. Kirby went the talent route. He was losing his first year but you could see what he was trying to build in the recruiting class he was assembling.

Riley’s plan was to implement his offense and win that way. 12-2 in his first two years.

Honestly, I have no clue what Diaz’s plan is. It’s not loading up on talent. He wants to beat you schematically but it seems the offense is a bit complicated and his defenses take a level of maturity to execute. We’ll see but I don’t have much faith.

Diaz isn’t a recruiter. Nothing in his time at UM tells you otherwise.

He clearly thought we had all the talent we needed and he could win easy with a competent offensive staff and better S&C. He probably read this site too often.

 

[Ethnicsands]

It's 4 games into his tenure as HC, how do you know what Diaz is trying to achieve?

He's had an uninspiring start, but unfortunately we have to let this play out.

You can make some inferences. It’s not a massive talent upgrade. He’s never been an aggressive recruiter as far as I can tell.

It’s not a major schematic shift to spread.

His changes were offensive staff and S&C. The new offense is more modern, but not an air assault.

So what does that leave you with? Manny thinks he can win by tweaking S&C, tweaking recruiting a bit, and updating the offense but not really changing our identity on either side of the ball.

Maybe he can.

 

[Dghustla]

Very thought provoking thread. I will say that outside of Al Golden. The Randy and Richt hires, Weren’t bad hires at the time they made. And early returns seemed favorable. The Golden hire wasn’t good for all of the reasons mentioned. And I don’t think this issue was solely getting a real DC. Ppl forget that the local coaches hated him and it was bad for recruiting.

But here is the deal. There is no exact science to this. It’s all a crap shoot. There is no guarantee that the coach you hired is going to hit. How is Jimbo fisher working out for Texas A & M? Give him time to catch up to Bama, LSU and AU right? Exactly, that’s all you have is time. Frustrated with the results Manny is putting up, sure. but the bottom line is that no matter how vocal the “i Told you so in 2019” crowd wants to be right. Everyone is just going to have to wait and see.

There are only 3 sure things in coaching right now: Saban, Meyer and the Clemson staff (I say staff cuz we don’t know what Dabo will do if he has to to start hiring new coordinators every other year).

Outside of that you are hoping based on previous results that by giving coaches like Patterson, Gundy, Leach more talent than their opponents that their win pct. will increase but you don’t know if that coach has plateaued.

Edit: What about Peterson? To me he’s plateaued at UW in the same spot he did at Boise. Very good well coached team. Stuck on the outside of the championship picture. Waiting on multiple of the top teams to lose to have a chance.

 

[TheEye]

It’s hard to say one works better than the other. Kirby was never even a head coach. Neither was Lincoln Riley. Programs like that will overcome. It’s hard for us. A real crap shoot

Exactly. Which flies in the face of the thread title. The program is what makes the coach. To say that the coach makes the program, is to say Saban could have won a National Title at Michigan State. We are no longer a National Title winning program. Our recruits are picked dry. We are not making expensive high profile hires like Michigan and UCLA did. Richt did not have the success he had at Miami that he did in Georgia.

 

[Go Canes!!]

Very thought provoking thread. I will say that outside of Al Golden. The Randy and Richt hires, Weren’t bad hires at the time they made. And early returns seemed favorable. The Golden hire wasn’t good for all of the reasons mentioned. And I don’t think this issue was solely getting a real DC. Ppl forget that the local coaches hated him and it was bad for recruiting.

But here is the deal. There is no exact science to this. It’s all a crap shoot. There is no guarantee that the coach you hired is going to hit. How is Jimbo fisher working out for Texas A & M? Give him time to catch up to Bama, LSU and AU right? Exactly, that’s all you have is time. Frustrated with the results Manny is putting up, sure. but the bottom line is that no matter how vocal the “i Told you so in 2019” crowd wants to be right. Everyone is just going to have to wait and see.

There are only 3 sure things in coaching right now: Saban, Meyer and the Clemson staff (I say staff cuz we don’t know what Dabo will do if he has to to start hiring new coordinators every other year).

Outside of that you are hoping based on previous results that by giving coaches like Patterson, Gundy, Leach more talent than their opponents that their win pct. will increase but you don’t know if that coach has plateaued.

Very, very few coaches win beyond their talent level.

 

[Ethnicsands]

Very thought provoking thread. I will say that outside of Al Golden. The Randy and Richt hires, Weren’t bad hires at the time they made. And early returns seemed favorable. The Golden hire wasn’t good for all of the reasons mentioned. And I don’t think this issue was solely getting a real DC. Ppl forget that the local coaches hated him and it was bad for recruiting.

But here is the deal. There is no exact science to this. It’s all a crap shoot. There is no guarantee that the coach you hired is going to hit. How is Jimbo fisher working out for Texas A & M? Give him time to catch up to Bama, LSU and AU right? Exactly, that’s all you have is time. Frustrated with the results Manny is putting up, sure. but the bottom line is that no matter how vocal the “i Told you so in 2019” crowd wants to be right. Everyone is just going to have to wait and see.

There are only 3 sure things in coaching right now: Saban, Meyer and the Clemson staff (I say staff cuz we don’t know what Dabo will do if he has to to start hiring new coordinators every other year).

Outside of that you are hoping based on previous results that by giving coaches like Patterson, Gundy, Leach more talent than their opponents that their win pct. will increase but you don’t know if that coach has plateaued.

See, you’re using a logical three card monte trick.

Just because there are not ‘guarantees’ in life doesn’t mean there aren’t better and worse decisions. Probabilities matter, even if outcomes are uncertain.

Randy was not a good hire. He was an awful hire. The DC from a failed staff, no head coaching experience, hired because UM connection. Why is anyone surprised that didn’t work? Maybe Diaz is smarter and better organized and will work harder. But the narrative is the same. DC from failed staff, hired because UM connection. Or Miami connection. Or something.

Richt was a lazy, cover your **** hire, IMO. There was zero reason to think he was going to change this program. UM connection and ceo theory are complete bunk rationales. Once you eliminate them from his resume, you have a tired old stubborn guy who got fired from his prior position despite looking the part and talking religion like Bowden. Not an innovator. Not high energy or high drive/expectation. Basically a likeable empty straw hat who refused to even fill the roster.

The program needs to be clear in what it is looking for. What is the situation assessment. What do we need. Who can be reliably assessed as likely to provide it. No magical pixie dust theories of UM connections or ‘fail upwards’ ceo delegator blah blah. CFB is competitive. We haven’t been remotely clear on what we are working with, imo.

 

[Insanecane]

This thread completely ignores the fact that there simply aren't a slew of good head coaches out there—as proven across the college football landscape—nor does it touch on the situation a new coach takes over.

Let's be honest, how good of "coach" is Lincoln Riley at Oklahoma—or was he just the right guy at the right time taking over a program that had been elite for over 15 years before his arrival? What does Riley look like if he's coaching somewhere else? Same to be said for a Ryan Day—who took over a loaded program Urban Meyer left him.

Dabo Swinney doesn't fit into either of your two boxes above—as he didn't have a Clemson connection, outside of being a positions coach and holdover from a failed Tommy Bowden regime. He also was no CEO, having never even held a coordinators position before becoming interim head coach and eventually the main guy. Talk about a "risky hire".

Took Swinney almost a decade to get Clemson to what it is today—with a lot of setbacks along the way; winning the division year one, backsliding to 6-7 year two, winning the conference year three—but getting smoked in the Orange Bowl (77-30 loss to West Virginia). Looking like a contender year five; getting rolled by No. 5 Florida State, 51-14 at home (the Tigers were No. 3). Had unruly Clemson fans had their way, Swinney would've been canned a few times over those first five or six years.

Poaching Brent Venables from Oklahoma was also a game changer for him in 2013—as Venables is proving to be Bud Foster-like in digging a defensive coordinator role and staying put, opposed to making that head coaching leap. Venables did 13 years in Norman, to leave for the same gig at Clemson? That's an anomaly as most guys don't do that. Would've expected him to stay at OU or to take a head coaching gig—but he's become Swinney's defensive staple and Clemson has had little staff turnover—another shocker as the offensive guys have stuck around, too.

Countless intangibles going into what makes a "good coach"—timing, circumstances, getting enough good brakes to not get run out of town, players staying healthy, more recruiting hits than misses, minimal staff turnover, etc.



Fact remains, Manny is a good fit for Miami in the sense that he gets the program and culture, he wants to be here and he appears to be an up-and-comer type that proved his worth revamping the defense. Not a lot of guys are lining up to take the UM gig and most that do would be using it as a stepping stone to go somewhere else.

Based on all that alone, he's a less risky hire than Swinney was at Alabama—and is more in like with Riley at OU, with the exception that Riley inherited a program that had been a well-oiled machine for almost two decades while Diaz was Miami's fifth head coach in 14 seasons and UM football has been a full blown disaster, leaving it in need of a full-blown rebuild.

Here's the rub, the successful head coaches made changes when their team was not performing to their standard. Dabo fired his DC, fired his OC, and hired guys who were proven. Same with Riley, and Saban. Diaz's hires have been somewhat suspect. His defensive staff is very inexperienced and unproven. His offensive staff the same. He'll have to show that he's willing to make changes, unlike Golden and Richt.

 

[Dghustla]

Very, very few coaches win beyond their talent level.

That’s my point. Outside of the 3 coaches I’ve named. Excluding guys like Day and Riley who inherited juggernauts. Show me the CIS
Approved coaches list of guys who’ve never lost to an inferior opponent?

The way these coaches are spoke of on this board is that at Miami they’ll easy be able to create death machines that would never lose to lessor talented teams. When they haven’t proven that this far.

Do I believe Miami has as high a ceiling as ever team in the country yes. My person preference was Mike Gundy. I’d have settle for Dino Babers but again we are going off of the past and hoping they recreate that results.

 

[Ethnicsands]

Very, very few coaches win beyond their talent level.

That is only half the issue. How do you get better talent? You need a competent program, good recruiting, win an extra game or two, continue to improve recruiting based on better results, continue to win based on better recruiting. It’s a process.

We have the ability to get great talent. We have to evaluate way better, and sell like heck, and win more and show kids they can look good at UM, and win at UM.

 

[Ethnicsands]

Here's the rub, the successful head coaches made changes when their team was not performing to their standard. Dabo fired his DC, fired his OC, and hired guys who were proven. Same with Riley, and Saban. Diaz's hires have been somewhat suspect. His defensive staff is very inexperienced and unproven. His offensive staff the same. He'll have to show that he's willing to make changes, unlike Golden and Richt.

This is a great observation.

 

[TruCane81]

You didn’t ask me, but “success” at a lower tier program must be scrutinized to see if it’s actually success or not. Winning 8 games at a lower tier program at this point is fairly easy.

If you’re going to look at a lower tier guy see if he’s dominating at that level like Brian Kelly did at several stops and like Urb did. Don’t get sucked in by the “he won 8 games at Temple, so he’ll win 30 games a year at UM” model. It doesn’t translate that way.

It’s easy to take a terrible program and make it respectable; it’s incredibly hard to take a good program and make it elite. A guy like Folden could have won 8 or 9 games almost every year here. He didn’t have what it took to take it to the next level.

Also, pay attention to the material a guy had to work with at his last stop. If he was at a lower tier but had access to as good or better talent than other teams in his conference but still didn’t dominate that’s a huge red flag. Conversely, if he was at a P5 program with much less material and regularly beat teams with much better material he’s a guy to look at. That’s where a Matt Campbell or Dino Babers is intriguing. Used to be Gary Patterson and Art Briles.

This is a myth. A HC, first and foremost, has to be a great leader of men to be elite. Rickety regularly had top coordinators at UbaGA and still couldn’t do anything significant.

HC’s number one job is pushing buttons and getting his guys to play at a fever pitch every week. That’s where Sabag’s genius lies.

ALL. OF. THIS!

People get way too caught up in X’s and O’s versus Jimmy’s and Joe’s. These are important components, but they are just structures of success, not the foundation.

The foundation of an elite or consistently overachieving team is the morale/mentality that the head coach creates in his staff and players.

Football is an emotional game. Their is a reason that they have rituals of cadences and mantras designed to stir the team emotionally to perform at its highest levels in practice or games. It is just like the military. You can’t go into a combat situation like a Sunday stroll in the park. You have to prepare yourself emotionally and psychologically.

That leadership is the bedrock and concrete that you build a successful football team on. It doesn’t matter if the coaches are smart and players are talented, if you don’t get the leadership that inspires confidence, tenacity, and resilience, you got a house built on sand and are doomed to collapse into underachievement.

 

[Go Canes!!]

That is only half the issue. How do you get better talent? You need a competent program, good recruiting, win an extra game or two, continue to improve recruiting based on better results, continue to win based on better recruiting. It’s a process.

We have the ability to get great talent. We have to evaluate way better, and sell like heck, and win more and show kids they can look good at UM, and win at UM.

Agree 100%.

 

[Ethnicsands]

That’s my point. Outside of the 3 coaches I’ve named. Excluding guys like Day and Riley who inherited juggernauts. Show me the CIS
Approved coaches list of guys who’ve never lost to an inferior opponent?

The way these coaches are spoke of on this board is that at Miami they’ll easy be able to create death machines that would never lose to lessor talented teams. When they haven’t proven that this far.

Do I believe Miami has as high a ceiling as ever team in the country yes. My person preference was Mike Gundy. I’d have settle for Dino Babers but again we are going off of the past and hoping they recreate that results.

Since when is the expectation that someone has never lost a game they shouldn’t have lost?

You keep making these wild overstatements.

How about let’s get a coach who can run a solid, tough, competitive program. Evaluate and recruit reasonably well, execute well, limit penalties, good special teams. Is that too much to ask?

 

[OldhamA]

You can make some inferences. It’s not a massive talent upgrade. He’s never been an aggressive recruiter as far as I can tell.

It’s not a major schematic shift to spread.

His changes were offensive staff and S&C. The new offense is more modern, but not an air assault.

So what does that leave you with? Manny thinks he can win by tweaking S&C, tweaking recruiting a bit, and updating the offense but not really changing our identity on either side of the ball.

Maybe he can.

What isn't a massive talent upgrade? He hasn't brought in a single recruiting class yet - we just don't know how he's going to do there.

Our defence under Diaz has been very good, I'm happy that he didn't change anything there (although Baker needs to stop rushing 3 down linemen).

What was our identity on offence last year?

 

[Ethnicsands]

This is a myth. A HC, first and foremost, has to be a great leader of men to be elite. Rickety regularly had top coordinators at UbaGA and still couldn’t do anything significant.

HC’s number one job is pushing buttons and getting his guys to play at a fever pitch every week. That’s where Sabag’s genius lies.

Richt was not a leader.

If we knew that leadership was an essential ingredient to success, and particularly to program building, we wouldn’t have hired him.

Sadly, we didn’t know that, because we aren’t good at hiring decisions. It is transparently obvious that he was hired under the theory that any old boob could win at UM if he just kept out of his own way, and Richt was our old boob, in any case, and good looking and Jesus talking too.

 

[OBLIVION]

Miami needs a hot name and the funds to allow him to make the right hires. Herman would've been that type of hire. Provided the funds were there for him.

Had Riley and Day been brought in while they were still OC. I don't think they would be the hits here. That they are now. After taking over for two top coaches.

Problem is. We are always shooting ourselves in the foot with extensions for just showing up to coach. When that should come when the coach has actually won something. Which in return puts us up a creek with no paddle when a talent comes along. We don't want to pay for that dumbass buyout we just bent over for. Along with buying out a new coach and competing with other suitors.

Diaz needs Enos to be this ultimate OC that he thought he was and put his foot down on opposing teams throats instead of his own ****. As of right now. Enos isn't walking the talk.

 

[Dghustla]

See, you’re using a logical three card monte trick.

Just because there are not ‘guarantees’ in life doesn’t mean there aren’t better and worse decisions. Probabilities matter, even if outcomes are uncertain.

Randy was not a good hire. He was an awful hire. The DC from a failed staff, no head coaching experience, hired because UM connection. Why is anyone surprised that didn’t work? Maybe Diaz is smarter and better organized and will work harder. But the narrative is the same. DC from failed staff, hired because UM connection. Or Miami connection. Or something.

Richt was a lazy, cover your **** hire, IMO. There was zero reason to think he was going to change this program. UM connection and ceo theory are complete bunk rationales. Once you eliminate them from his resume, you have a tired old stubborn guy who got fired from his prior position despite looking the part and talking religion like Bowden. Not an innovator. Not high energy or high drive/expectation. Basically a likeable empty straw hat who refused to even fill the roster.

The program needs to be clear in what it is looking for. What is the situation assessment. What do we need. Who can be reliably assessed as likely to provide it. No magical pixie dust theories of UM connections or ‘fail upwards’ ceo delegator blah blah. CFB is competitive. We haven’t been remotely clear on what we are working with, imo.

It’s easy to play the results. Because we know ultimately those guys failed and again if you hated the randy/Richt hire from the jump that is your stance.


And yes there are less risky hires. And guys that could have been less risky maybe had higher floors. But at the end of the day if We hired Dan Mullen or Mike Leach or Gary Patterson and those guys were 8-9 wins a year coaches we’d have run them out of town. (At this point if you can win 9 game consistently that'll prolly get you at least 7-10 years).

Do I agree that there is no way Manny Diaz should have been the only candidate yes. Richt gave us a golden ticket. In this era of spots you always end up paying your above average coach to leave. And he hooked up us. That opportunity should have fully realized and if u lost out on Diaz so be it.

 

[Dghustla]

Since when is the expectation that someone has never lost a game they shouldn’t have lost?

You keep making these wild overstatements.

How about let’s get a coach who can run a solid, tough, competitive program. Evaluate and recruit reasonably well, execute well, limit penalties, good special teams. Is that too much to ask?

It’s not too much to ask and I agree. We are looking for signs of a well coached team and we haven’t seen them.

Having said that I can say it’s equally as wild to write Diaz off as a failure 4 games into tenure.

 

[Ethnicsands]

What isn't a massive talent upgrade? He hasn't brought in a single recruiting class yet - we just don't know how he's going to do there.

Our defence under Diaz has been very good, I'm happy that he didn't change anything there (although Baker needs to stop rushing 3 down linemen).

What was our identity on offence last year?

Diaz had his first partial class, and we’re nearly through his first full class. So you have more evidence now then we had when he was hired, and yet it just confirms what we knew or should have know. Heck, I and others wrote about it back then.

Diaz didn’t prioritize recruiting when he was DC. There was no reason to think his strategy would be a massive talent upgrade. He simply isn’t a hot **** recruiter. He told us what his strategy was, moreover. Culture. It’s important, don’t get me wrong, when you’re coming from a place where culture was deficient. But you need an identity to have a culture, and his identity was swag and glitz. The turnover chain is Manny’s cultural innovation. We ain’t winning titles that way.

 

[TruCane81]

You’re sick of our players?

****......