forums

Travis Williams Officially Gone!

No_Fly_Zone said:
FIFY.
Your version could have been read to imply the porster you quoted has been right (and on more than one occasion). That seems highly unlikely, and I just don't think maudes should be posting something like that unless its verified.
Click to expand...
@***-e-skr, do you hate the gator? Let's find some common ground here.
 
Advertisement
AtlAtty said:
You honestly think that Manny Diaz didn’t say to Williams, ‘we would like you to coach at UM for one year”? But whether he did or did not is irrelevant because Williams, like all coaches, will answer that question in the affirmative, and then do what is best for Williams. Such is coaching and such is life.
But if you think our coach does not have even the minimal competence to request a 1 year commitment, then you my friend believe UM is coached by a re—-d. I may have to ban myself for using that word but no other word would quite capture the argument,
Click to expand...
Nice diplomatic “high road” post.
In my humble opinion some other posters might have just used the word “are,” as opposed to “my friend believe UM is coached by” ... and of course I’m not suggesting you even thought to do that.

Go Canes !!
 
Ethnicsands said:
Manny should know enough to ask for a first year commitment from someone before he hires them. At least a look me in the eye moral commitment. If they won't give you that, you should know this ain't where they want to be. The coaching profession is a network business so people wouldn't take that sort of commitment lightly.

The quit before you start thing is a real detriment to our continuity in recruiting and planning. I don't fault T Will for doing what's in his interest. I do wonder whether we were clear enough about what he wants to do.
Click to expand...

When a HC offers a position coach a job on his staff, it should be pretty obvious to everyone in the room that the commitment is for at least one season. I do not think it needs to be said in late January that the expectation is the person accepting the position will remain in that position at least until the upcoming season has concluded. He was, after all, hired to coach and recruit for a football team, whose primary purpose is to play (and win) games.

I also sincerely doubt any position coach offered a coordinator position who would otherwise accept it would be dissuaded from doing so over the use of the words -- "first year commitment". A position coach who takes his commitments so seriously that he would not take an appealing job, but only when the HC expressly asks for a one-year commitment and he agrees (instead of just inferring it given the nature of the position offered)? That seems like a strange code to live by.

And isn't it up to TWill to be "clear enough about what he wants to do" during the interview process? Not that I think this one matters much either way, but it seemed like an odd side to place the responsibility to communicate in this instance... UM needed to be clearer with TWill about TWill's future coaching goals outside the program? I guess Manny could have conceivably asked TWill something along the lines of, 'If Gus gets hired as a HC this season and comes calling with a DC position, will you leave'? But (a) what assistant coach honestly says no to that question; and (b) what HC decides not to hire an assistant coach based on that answer?

There are plenty of areas/events/instances where Manny rightfully deserves blame for the failings of the program, but this seems like one of those times where a couple of opportunities (Gus's and TWill's) happened to align against the program. It's just the nature of the game.
 
Advertisement
I take it this means Malzahn is not interested in taking Steele with him to Orlando and feeling like the honored guest at the “Red Wedding” for the next couple of years.
 
Advertisement
Maverick said:
LMAO.

Jay Valai, the future DB coach at Alabama, changed 4 jobs (Texas, Houston, Philadelphia Eagles, Alabama) in one freaking month.
Click to expand...
Wow, i I wouldn't ever hire someone like that. Pulling that once is one thing but 4 jobs in basically a month is a ******* joke.
 
Advertisement
The Franchise said:
If UCF is paying more than UM, then shut the progrum down. They don't have playoff money or NY 6 bowl money or a big TV contract. The ACC had two teams in the CFP this year. That's a huge windfall.
Click to expand...
I'd hope you're right, but if DC at UCF pays more than LB coach at UM is the only factor I'm thinking.
 
RVACane said:
Is Mang your new Dwins?





Asking for a Boricua friend in New Jersey
Click to expand...
Bruh that dude the ultimate homer and disappears after the nystateofmind incident and disappeared after Diaz got throttled by FIU. I stay regardless and I know I'm wrong but I keep it real and debate real ****. There is a group of snowflakes on here and we know that handful they don't even have to be named.
 
Advertisement
Dwinstitles said:
Bruh that dude the ultimate homer and disappears after the nystateofmind incident and disappeared after Diaz got throttled by FIU. I stay regardless and I know I'm wrong but I keep it real and debate real ****. There is a group of snowflakes on here and we know that handful they don't even have to be named.
Click to expand...
You've serious been outmoped. Keeping it real just ain't extreme enough anymore.
 
No_Fly_Zone said:
When a HC offers a position coach a job on his staff, it should be pretty obvious to everyone in the room that the commitment is for at least one season. I do not think it needs to be said in late January that the expectation is the person accepting the position will remain in that position at least until the upcoming season has concluded. He was, after all, hired to coach and recruit for a football team, whose primary purpose is to play (and win) games.

I also sincerely doubt any position coach offered a coordinator position who would otherwise accept it would be dissuaded from doing so over the use of the words -- "first year commitment". A position coach who takes his commitments so seriously that he would not take an appealing job, but only when the HC expressly asks for a one-year commitment and he agrees (instead of just inferring it given the nature of the position offered)? That seems like a strange code to live by.

And isn't it up to TWill to be "clear enough about what he wants to do" during the interview process? Not that I think this one matters much either way, but it seemed like an odd side to place the responsibility to communicate in this instance... UM needed to be clearer with TWill about TWill's future coaching goals outside the program? I guess Manny could have conceivably asked TWill something along the lines of, 'If Gus gets hired as a HC this season and comes calling with a DC position, will you leave'? But (a) what assistant coach honestly says no to that question; and (b) what HC decides not to hire an assistant coach based on that answer?

There are plenty of areas/events/instances where Manny rightfully deserves blame for the failings of the program, but this seems like one of those times where a couple of opportunities (Gus's and TWill's) happened to align against the program. It's just the nature of the game.
Click to expand...
You say it’s so clear it doesn’t need to be stated.

Atllawyerguy says he’s 1000% sure it got stated clearly.

Now you see why I wondered what was asked and said.

Personally, I don’t think it’s always stated, and I don’t think it’s always assumed. If Nick Saban asked you whether you’re willing to commit for a year and turn down other opportunities if they arise, I think most people in the business would take their answer to him seriously.

Anyhow, whatever I guess.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top