forums

Taylor Stubblefield

Advertisement
The Franchise said:
My conclusion is based in fact. The guy got fired by the only good program he’s worked for for being an abominable recruiter.

He’s been coaching a long time. This isn’t a young guy who’s been coaching for 3 years. He’s close to 40 and has been coaching for about 15 years. His career trajectory is trash, and he’s never been responsible for acquiring any big time talent in all those years.

This isn’t jumping to conclusions. It’s making a conclusion based on a lot of facts. Same reason you wouldn’t hire Doritos to coach the defense here today, and it’s the same reason Applebag got himself fired for hiring Doritos to coach his defense.

Not every coach deserves a completely clean slate where people are precluded from forming opinions about them. Some guys with a a long track record of insignificant accomplishments and devout failure like Stubblefield don’t deserve to be hired here.
Click to expand...
What do you want me to say? That I know much about this guy? I came into this thread to chime in on technical vs recruiter hypocrisy. You stated WR coaches basically don't have to coach. Come on. It's not unreasonable to challenge that point of view.
 
Tad Footeball said:
Ohhhhhh, that is RICH. South Florida High School Corches want to talk about slaps in the face now?!

The term "Eat a ****" sounds appropriate here.
Click to expand...
Tad and Willy:

I got you bro’s:

12817FE7-3346-4263-A453-6B3982A381B7.gif
 


Swagger. Hopefully he can recruit the west coast. Also keep in mind when you pay a coordinator 1.5 mil you expect him to not only coach the players but coach the coaches who work form him. Bottom line Enos will run the show on offense with complete autonomy. Hired a recruiter today. We good.
 
Advertisement
mossmadness said:
Or maybe there isn't a common denominator because one poster isn't another poster so the logic one poster used isn't the logic of another? I don't know, I guess that might be stretch, but it's what I usually employ when quoting a specific post and responding to that specific post.

And my point is relatively simple. That yes, by and large, WR is a position coach that should lean towards recruiter. If you didn't know anything else about a staff. My point would also be that, knowing specifically about this staff, the WR coach needed to be a home run recruiting hire.
Click to expand...
I really have no idea what you're talking about. You responded to a post I made in response to another dude on here. It follows a thread. If you wanted to reply to me on an unrelated topic or with separate logic, I'd have answered accordingly. Anyway, I really don't care to judge this hire because I don't like jumping to stuff I don't know about. I asked if the guy was technical. And, I said if he is, I don't see anything wrong with choosing that type over a "recruiter."
 
LuCane said:
I really have no idea what you're talking about. You responded to a post I made in response to another dude on here. It follows a thread. If you wanted to reply to me on an unrelated topic or with separate logic, I'd have answered accordingly. Anyway, I really don't care to judge this hire because I don't like jumping to stuff I don't know about. I asked if the guy was technical. And, I said if he is, I don't see anything wrong with choosing that type over a "recruiter."
Click to expand...

I asked you, on the whole, which positions tend to lean towards recruiting? You apparently don't have a view on that at all, it's all context. Which is fine. That can be true. But I'm really seeing you provide any context to this staff.

Your position seems to be: Look, WR coaches don't need to be the recruiters on the staff, they can be really good technical coaches and other people recruit. I also have no idea if this guy is a technical coach or if this staff, as constructed, needed the WR to be one of the prime recruiters.

Fair enough.
 
Advertisement
Notsince1985 said:
Because Jon had 12 years experience as a position coach before being hired?
Click to expand...

I can't tell if this is meant to make the Stubblefield hire look better or worse?

Jon had no experience, but at least one could then argue he hadn't proved he wasn't very good. You had to take the "wait and see" approach others are arguing in this thread.

Stubblefield has years of experience, but I'm not sure one can point to anything to show he's accomplished something or made a name for himself with those years.

I'd almost rather have the unknown than the known.
 
To my mind, the need for a "technical" coach applies to the line and QB play. Those are the only positions that need to be technical, with recruiting a plus. For the others, the ideal is to have a staff full of guys that can do both. The reality of the situation is that's not possible, so you want a good mix of coaches that can cover for the others' weaknesses. If this WR coach is really a technical guy, that's okay in my mind because we have Fields who is more known for his recruiting, and from different accounts, Hicks is competent there as well.
 
Advertisement
Quick question if anyone knows and also SIAP...

Back to his playing days I always thought Stubblefield was mixed race? That is the case right? Only if you know please.
 
There is no doubt in my mind this hire was made because Enos recommended it to Manny. If you like the Enos hire you will have to ride with the authority he is being given by Manny and the ability of Enos to hire the right guys he thinks can teach his system. It is what it is.

Looking at some of the HCs this wr coach has worked under you have :

Bob Davey
Ron Zook
Jim Grobe
Dan Enos
Troy Calhoun
Kyle Whittingham

All pretty accomplished coaches with D1 college and NFL experience. I guess they thought he was good enough to work for them. Anyway it's all a moot point. That's who Enos wants.
 
Advertisement
Mr. Dynasty1 said:
So pretty much the scheme run can make anyone look good or bad
Click to expand...
No one is reinventing the wheel at this point as a WR coach. There are thousands of guys out there who all know the same stuff from a coaching standpoint at the WR spot. What differentiates guys at this level is the ability to recruit.

Enos is going to scheme it up and tell his position coaches what he needs from them. Enos will make the offense click. We need dogs to go out there and get him players.
 
mossmadness said:
I asked you, on the whole, which positions tend to lean towards recruiting? You apparently don't have a view on that at all, it's all context. Which is fine. That can be true. But I'm really seeing you provide any context to this staff.

Your position seems to be: Look, WR coaches don't need to be the recruiters on the staff, they can be really good technical coaches and other people recruit. I also have no idea if this guy is a technical coach or if this staff, as constructed, needed the WR to be one of the prime recruiters.

Fair enough.
Click to expand...
Don’t really have anything of substance to offer here. Merely jumped in the thread because I’m exhausted by staffs filled with so-called recruiters. Actually, came to thread to see any critiques about this guy’s technical background and resume. Have seen decent convo and challenges to his trajectory. Still seeking any info on whether the guy is a good teacher or not. If he is, I’m supportive.
Always appreciate the dialogue.
 
Cooney can do the recruiting. What worries me is that write up where it looks like he gets on kids nerves. Gotta find the right path between hard *** and mommy with the prima donnas.
 
Barboni said:
We brought in Barry who also coached with Enos at CMU, which was the only other place where Enos likely got to choose his staff. He's coached a bunch of schools, but the only guys that he brings back with him are 2 that coached with him at CMU. Really hoping that this doesn't mean that he wants to run the CMU offense.
Click to expand...
#MeToo
 
Advertisement
Back
Top