forums

Venables on why he’s stayed a DC for 9 years

yeyo

yeyo

Sophomore
Premium
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
1,028
I saw the talk about culture on the board - you think we can ever be a place like this?

 
Advertisement
Our problem is we want to fire everyone that does not win a conference title or a Natty in 2-3 years. We are so short sighted it is not funny. It takes 5-10 years to build a program, yet we want to fire everyone after a bad loss. Some are warranted (DC), be cautious about this as it only decays the program. Boy, I can sure speak out of both sides of my mouth, eh? DC is the only change I would make right now.
 
Advertisement
troyskiles said:
Our problem is we want to fire everyone that does not win a conference title or a Natty in 2-3 years. We are so short sighted it is not funny. It takes 5-10 years to build a program, yet we want to fire everyone after a bad loss. Some are warranted (DC), be cautious about this as it only decays the program. Boy, I can sure speak out of both sides of my mouth, eh? DC is the only change I would make right now.
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t take 5-10 years to build a program. Sit your *** down.
 
troyskiles said:
Our problem is we want to fire everyone that does not win a conference title or a Natty in 2-3 years. We are so short sighted it is not funny. It takes 5-10 years to build a program, yet we want to fire everyone after a bad loss. Some are warranted (DC), be cautious about this as it only decays the program. Boy, I can sure speak out of both sides of my mouth, eh? DC is the only change I would make right now.
Click to expand...
There are levels to this tho, it takes 5/10 to build Clemson, OSU and Alabama, but it should be year one to build a program that doesn't lose to Duke, FIU and CMU in the same season. Diaz defense is in year 6 so there's no reason to be embarassed like last saturday
 
troyskiles said:
Our problem is we want to fire everyone that does not win a conference title or a Natty in 2-3 years. We are so short sighted it is not funny. It takes 5-10 years to build a program, yet we want to fire everyone after a bad loss. Some are warranted (DC), be cautious about this as it only decays the program. Boy, I can sure speak out of both sides of my mouth, eh? DC is the only change I would make right now.
Click to expand...
Cmon dude. You know **** well “hasn’t won a title” isn’t on anyone’s list of reasons to fire manny.
 
Advertisement
yeyo said:
I saw the talk about culture on the board - you think we can ever be a place like this?

Click to expand...

Only two reasons:

1) He is smart enough to know his role is destined as DC and not successful HC

2) See #1.

Kudos to him, far too many executives "succeed" at being surbordinates, but when they get their time in the seat, flame out miserably.

He likely enjoys the stability of being in the #2 slot and pays the qualitative and quantitative premium to stay in that lane.

Good for him.
 
Last edited:
Offers have probably been fewer over the years since he’s rejected all of them. He hasn’t ruled out moving up to HC, he mentioned the possibility in another recent interview (posted here somewhere), but feels no urgency. He played at Kansas State and it was once assumed he wanted that job. KS has a new HC doing well so far, so not an option.

His current situation matches his values, and more power to him.
 
Advertisement
Venables is a psychotic weirdo who doesn’t want any more responsibilities. He is the best at what he does and he gets paid way too much to ever stop doing it. How many times does it have to be repeated? He is the exception not the rule.
 
Empirical Cane said:
Only two reasons:

1) He is smart enough to know his role is destined as DC and not successful HC

2) See #1.

Kudos to him, far too many executives "succeed" at being surbordinates, but when they get their time in the seat, flame out miserably.

He likely enjoys the stability of being in the #2 slot and pays the qualitative and quantitative premium to stay in that lane.

Good for him.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Venables is a rare Bud Foster-type; knows his role and does it well. Same as a good sideman in a rock and roll band—Mike Campbell was fine being Mike Campbell; never aspired to be Tom Petty, which is why it worked.

Venables had a green thing going at Oklahoma for years—parting ways when Bob Stoops brought brother Mike back from his failed head coaching stint at Arizona. Paved the way for Venables to land with Dabo in Clemson—just after the Tigers were rolled 70-33 in the Orange Bowl by West Virginia.

Guys like Charlie Strong and Will Muschamp are two that should take a page from Venables book and stick to the DC-lifer thing as neither are head coaching material. Bo Pelini got that message and is back to coaching defenses instead of trying to run programs.

Same to be said for our old Randy Lennard Shannon .... and Manolo will be back in that same boat if he doesn't right the ship in the next year, or so.
 
Advertisement
skyman said:
Oklahoma got that boy jaded, years later still taking shots?
Click to expand...

He had some bad games at Oklahoma. I remember his zones getting roasted.

He’s been a better coach at Clemson.

At OK he was a very good coordinator but not on the level we’ve seen at Clemson
 
wushah said:
Saw some stat today.

Pre-Venables, Dabo was was 29-19.

Post-Venables, Dabo has been 112-10 (something along those lines).
Click to expand...
How closely does that align with pre- and post- Watson-Sunshine? I’d say having two generational QBs back-to-back had a little more to do with that record.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top