In your OPINION, is Dooley the answer?

[WoodsmanVol]

Man, I set myself up for that one.

It's all in good fun, good man, just good fun.

 

[carrythefight14]

Well, we cant really evaluate him that much yet,but so far he sure has made a GREAT impression on us.I couldn't ask for a better coaching staff.Good group of guys with some Southern Hospitality,not that Hollywood Hype that Kiffin brought. Cant Wait til season starts!
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

You mean when he led them to their best season in 33 years?

No. The FACT that he was on the verge of being fired before that season and would have had to repeat it the next year to avoid being fired then. He was on an extremely hot seat before taking a job that wasn't all that attractive at LSU. He made LSU an attractive job. He is a great coach... but he WAS in big trouble at MSU.

Regardless, any Alabama fan that was "second-guessing" the Saban hire after the first year is an absolute moron which may go hand in hand.

Agreed. I'd say the same thing about anyone who would question the Dooley hire after the first year considering the situation he inherited. That doesn't mean I am convinced he's the guy... just that it isn't reasonable (much less helpful) to say one way or the other right now.

 

[Jerry]

what reputation lol

apparntly youve never listened to vol calls on mondy nights. i call in often...bob kesling knows me by name. not saying im a local celebrity but ppl hav heard of me

 

[sjt18]

First of all, it's Vincent Dallas. Second, just because he's looked good in his first spring practice doesn't mean we should crown him all SEC. That might say more about our D as much as it does about Dallas. Zach Fulton may very well turn out to be a great player but don't you think it's a LITTLE early to declare it so? Besides, you're going to find exceptions to the rule at every program. That still is not what wins championships.

Talent, development, and coaching wins championships. Not stars.

There are ALOT of exceptions. D Moore was a 3* as was Stocker. Arian Foster was a 3*.

For that matter, there is a big chunk of circular reasoning in the recruit rankings. Once a coach proves he can recognize talent his recruitment of a kid influences the evals. A kid that plays in one of the states known for blue chip talent will get the nod over a kid from a lesser state. Politics plays in... as does the lack of resources of the recruiting svcs.

The point is that the ranking and rating system is NOT precise enough to say that the #4 class is more than maybe 10% more likely to win a championship than the #15 class.

Auburn caught lightning in a bottle by aquiring Cam Newton who was a once in a lifetime game-changer of an athlete. He was a Herchel Walker type player in this day and age. They also had the good fortune of aquiring Nick Fairley, also a game changer on defense. BESIDES Auburn, look at the Nat'l Champions from the last 10 years and see what their average recruiting rankings were the 3 years prior. I'm telling you, there ARE exceptions to the rule of course but by and large the teams that win are the teams that finish high in recruiting.

What was Fairley's rating?

"High" is relative. Averaging #10 is likely to be high enough if you develop your guys and keep them eligible.

Auburn probably did catch a break with Newton. That doesn't explain Oregon who dominated the #1 "star" team- USC.

Bama won their NC.... after averaging #6 for the 4 previous years. The DID depend on significant contributions from former 3* players. He got some contributions out of the young guys from highly rated classes but about half the starters were 3* players (Arenas, Maze, McElroy, Cody...).

For that matter, Bama just had a #10, #1, #1, and #5 rated classes... and couldn't beat Auburn's one guy.

Again, stars mean "something" but not everything.

 

[Orange Bison]

apparntly youve never listened to vol calls on mondy nights. i call in often...bob kesling knows me by name. not saying im a local celebrity but ppl hav heard of me

I'm sure Kesling is thrilled to know you by name.

 

[dw0731]

Cannot be determined at this time, IMO. Dooley should be evaluated on year 3...not his first 2.

If he goes 6-6 this year it would certainly be viewed negatively given that our non conference schedule is weak this season. I think we have a good chance of being in the top half of the SEC in offense. If we somehow manage a top half SEC finish in defense and beat two team we are underdogs to, then I think CDD is taking the program where we need to go. Until, we beat a ranked team CDD will still be questioned about his potential to lead us to an SEC title. If he beats an SEC team that has more talent than we have, then some questions will be answered about his potential for the future.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

Talent, development, and coaching wins championships. Not stars.

There are ALOT of exceptions. D Moore was a 3* as was Stocker. Arian Foster was a 3*.

For that matter, there is a big chunk of circular reasoning in the recruit rankings. Once a coach proves he can recognize talent his recruitment of a kid influences the evals. A kid that plays in one of the states known for blue chip talent will get the nod over a kid from a lesser state. Politics plays in... as does the lack of resources of the recruiting svcs.

The point is that the ranking and rating system is NOT precise enough to say that the #4 class is more than maybe 10% more likely to win a championship than the #15 class.



What was Fairley's rating?

"High" is relative. Averaging #10 is likely to be high enough if you develop your guys and keep them eligible.

Auburn probably did catch a break with Newton. That doesn't explain Oregon who dominated the #1 "star" team- USC.

Bama won their NC.... after averaging #6 for the 4 previous years. The DID depend on significant contributions from former 3* players. He got some contributions out of the young guys from highly rated classes but about half the starters were 3* players (Arenas, Maze, McElroy, Cody...).

For that matter, Bama just had a #10, #1, #1, and #5 rated classes... and couldn't beat Auburn's one guy.

Again, stars mean "something" but not everything.

I'm not saying stars are everything. Of course development and coaching play a part. However you have to be in denial if you don't think there is a direct relationship between nat'l championships and highly ranked recruiting classes.

 

[FlVolDoc]

How many years did it take Fulmer to get us there?

4?

 

[Vercingetorix]

How many years did it take Fulmer to get us there?

4?

Fulmer took over a team that had lost six games in three seasons.

 

[1SmokinVol]

Is your friend stupid or just ignorant? Does he realize that OSU plays in a second rate conference, bowl record aside look at the scores of the games they played against SEC top tier. Last year they barely beat the 3rd best team in the SEC?

 

[brookfieldvol]

apparntly youve never listened to vol calls on mondy nights. i call in often...bob kesling knows me by name. not saying im a local celebrity but ppl hav heard of me

What a coincidence!
I frequently call into "Swap Shop" to hock used lawnmowers and bicycles.
Man, being a radio celebrity is tough.

 

[sjt18]

I'm not saying stars are everything. Of course development and coaching play a part. However you have to be in denial if you don't think there is a direct relationship between nat'l championships and highly ranked recruiting classes.

There is a "general" relationship but as long as you have Oregon showing up... it is not a "direct" relationship.

But you still have to answer, what qualifies as "highly ranked recruiting classes"? Averaging a top 10 IMO is "highly ranked" enough if a staff knows how to get some top shelf, college ready talent and knows how to recognize players that can be developed. On the same token, I wouldn't expect to see a team that avg'd 20th or lower to be there very often (Oregon avg'd 19th for the four years prior to their appearance in the NC game).

Another sidenote: Scout and others have been less accurate than Rivals over the years. Since Rivals was bought by Yahoo their service has been more about the bottom line and less about the quality of the product. They cut staff and expenses so they may no longer be the gold standard they once were.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

There is a "general" relationship but as long as you have Oregon showing up... it is not a "direct" relationship.

But you still have to answer, what qualifies as "highly ranked recruiting classes"? Averaging a top 10 IMO is "highly ranked" enough if a staff knows how to get some top shelf, college ready talent and knows how to recognize players that can be developed. On the same token, I wouldn't expect to see a team that avg'd 20th or lower to be there very often (Oregon avg'd 19th for the four years prior to their appearance in the NC game).

Another sidenote: Scout and others have been less accurate than Rivals over the years. Since Rivals was bought by Yahoo their service has been more about the bottom line and less about the quality of the product. They cut staff and expenses so they may no longer be the gold standard they once were.

It's like I said before. If Tennessee is in any other conference in the nation, I would be fine with where the last couple of recruiting classes ranked. However if you finish 10th in the nation in recruiting, yet only 6th in your own conference, that's where it becomes a problem.

 

[Volfan8282]

No. The FACT that he was on the verge of being fired before that season and would have had to repeat it the next year to avoid being fired then. He was on an extremely hot seat before taking a job that wasn't all that attractive at LSU. He made LSU an attractive job. He is a great coach... but he WAS in big trouble at MSU.

I don't know if he would've had to repeat that season to stick around in Lansing. Considering where they had been in the previous 30+ years on top of coming off of sanctions, I would bet that they were quite pleased with Saban... but you may be right about his time there pre-1999. You may be right about the other part too, but those are pretty lofty expectations for a program that was in the pits.

On the LSU topic, I wouldn't say that Saban made that an attractive job. He simply was able to utilize the built-in advantages that LSU has. They're really close to 5 great recruiting bases in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas. LSU had quite a history before Saban ever set foot on campus. Having said all that, it still takes a heck of a coach to do well in the SEC even with those resources. You put Saban in a place like Alabama, and it's another no-brainer... which goes back to my original point that there was no reason for Alabama fans to panic or even remotely question the hire given their resources.

 

[dw0731]

Fulmer took over a team that had lost six games in three seasons.

Actually, it was 8 losses and 2 ties in three years. But the point is he had more talent than when CDD took over.

 

[sjt18]

It's like I said before. If Tennessee is in any other conference in the nation, I would be fine with where the last couple of recruiting classes ranked. However if you finish 10th in the nation in recruiting, yet only 6th in your own conference, that's where it becomes a problem.

Good grief! It is NOT a problem if you are getting talent and coaching it up. All that proves is that there is a lot of talent in the SEC and alot of teams are getting their share of it.

The disparity STILL isn't great enough to draw some kind of ironclad conclusion over.

 

[sjt18]

On the LSU topic, I wouldn't say that Saban made that an attractive job. He simply was able to utilize the built-in advantages that LSU has. They're really close to 5 great recruiting bases in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas. LSU had quite a history before Saban ever set foot on campus. Having said all that, it still takes a heck of a coach to do well in the SEC even with those resources. You put Saban in a place like Alabama, and it's another no-brainer... which goes back to my original point that there was no reason for Alabama fans to panic or even remotely question the hire given their resources.

LSU had 10 losing seasons in the 20 years prior to Saban taking over.

 

[Vercingetorix]

Actually, it was 8 losses and 2 ties in three years. But the point is he had more talent than when CDD took over.

If you count Fulmer as taking over in 1992, which for all intents and purposes he did, then in the previous three years:

1989 11-1 (SEC co-champion)
1990 9-2-2 (SEC champion)
1991 9-3

Six loses and two ties in three seasons. Fulmer certainly didn't have any rebuilding to do.

 

[tvolsfan]

An OSU vote of no confidence is all I need to know..

They kept Cooper for 12 years then hired this no class ******* to lead them into the ditch

It's not like he was an awful coach.

 

[tvolsfan]

If you count Fulmer as taking over in 1992, which for all intents and purposes he did, then in the previous three years:

1989 11-1 (SEC co-champion)
1990 9-2-2 (SEC champion)
1991 9-3

Six loses and two ties in three seasons. Fulmer certainly didn't have any rebuilding to do.

Not to mention 2 SEC championships.

 

[Volfan8282]

LSU had 10 losing seasons in the 20 years prior to Saban taking over.

I didn't realize that LSU's football history only went back to 1979.

You may want to take a gander at the coaches they hired during that period. There's a reason that Gerry DiNardo and Curley Hallman aren't coaching anywhere right now. But, who knows, maybe the XFL will start up again and Dinardo gets another shot.

 

[sjt18]

I didn't realize that LSU's football history only went back to 1979.

You may want to take a gander at the coaches they hired during that period. There's a reason that Gerry DiNardo and Curley Hallman aren't coaching anywhere right now. But, who knows, maybe the XFL will start up again and Dinardo gets another shot.

Anything prior to 1980 is nice for nostalgia purposes but the game really began to evolve then. If the better FCS schools could travel back to the 70's, they'd win the major conferences and dominate the national scene. Football schemes are more complex now. Training/development is more complex and effective. Sports medicine is night and day better. The better FCS schools now have OL's that are athletic and avg around 300 lbs. A "big" OL from the 70's might avg 270 or so. FCS schools run O's with option routes, sight adjustments, automatics, line options, etc... in the 70's they ran "veer option right... on 2".

Let's bring this back to your point... and why you are wrong. I said Saban made LSU an attractive situation. He simply did. The coaches you mentioned were inconsistent. The program was up and down. They were leaking talent out to other schools. Saban clamped that down. He brought them a modern SEC and BCS championship When he got there, LSU was nobody. When he left, they were considered an elite program. Their facilities improved. Money flowed in.

There is simply no question that he made LSU an attractive situation.

 

[UGADawg4Life]

Only time will tell. I would have thought that Richt would have a NC by now. Dooley will have his ups and downs. Recruiting in the SEC is a brutal undertaking (unless you have a payroll system like Auburn). I think Dooley will get the right kids if he's given time.

 

[sjt18]

I think Dooley will get the right kids if he's given time.

He won't be. UT cannot afford to give a guy too much time. I think he's a class act and hope that he wins BUT... If he isn't seriously competing for the SEC in '12 then his seat will be hot and rumors will start about his impending dismissal. Recruiting will suffer... The predictions become self fulfilling.

UT has a unique problem among the SEC's top half programs- no instate talent. UGA has it as do UF, Bama, Aub, LSU. Each of those schools can afford to leave a guy on a hot seat for a couple of years because enough great instate players will sign anyway. UT doesn't have that luxury. Once recruits start listening to "he's going to be gone soon" or "he isn't a winning coach"... that coach is done.

Your last class proves that isn't true for UGA's HC. Zook more than demonstrated it at UF.