This whole "if we don't land a home run, we should keep Dooley" thing

#1
UTRavens

UTRavens

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
1,863
Likes
715
#1
I'm starting to see these posts, and quite a few of them, saying "if we don't land a big name coach, we should just stick it out with Dooley for another year."

Oh my lord, this is so insane.

The most ridiculous thing about this? The idea that the best response to not getting a big name coach is to let a known, surefire failure stay on board. Because it's not because Dooley is better than any of the options out there. He's one of the worst coaches in the BCS and everyone knows it. When the only argument in a coach's favor is how they inherited a bad situation, meaning they can't even find anything to compliment him about, that tells you all you need to know.

So we're supposed to keep Dooley on one pretense: after failing to get a home run hire this year, we'll just find one next year. Let me tell you what next year would look like under this scenario: one more bad/mediocre year of football, an even worse revenue outlook, diminished recruiting, and the loss of quite a few of our best players. If a big name coach isn't interested now, what makes you think he'll be interested next year? There is NO evidence to believe that scenario is realistic. It's not worth waiting for.

If it's not happening this year, you don't hold out. You just don't. Right now is the perfect time for a splash hire to be made, and if it doesn't happen, it's not like the other candidates are worse coaches than Dooley. Charlie Strong - I think he's a good hire, other don't, that's fine - no one would call him a home run. Is there any way he's not much better than what we have right now? No way. Some mid-major guy? Still an up and comer, Dooley wasn't.

There's also this fear that a failed hire will send the program into a permanent tailspin, or something. This relies on the assumption that the conditions for this "home run hire" wouldn't exist if another coach failed here (but they still will if we stick with Dooley). This relies on a few assumptions. One, that he's a flop. What constitutes a flop here? A few 7-5 seasons won't send a program falling into oblivion, and even in the harshest period in post-WWI history for Tennessee we still aren't doing much worse than that. And that's assuming the new coach fails to begin with, which isn't even close to a guarantee. There's a realistic chance that any of these coaches will be successful if they come here.

You don't let something continue to destroy the team, If it's clear that the coach is going tofail, keeping him as a lame duck is completely and utterly destructive. No positive purpose is served by doing it. If it involves compromising, taking more of a gamble, so be it. But striving so hard for the most perfect situation possible when (if) that opportunity isn't there, and making things worse in the process hoping that it somehow comes up...is a recipe for disaster.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 18 people
#2
#2
Said it before, would rather have Smokey take off the dog suit and grab the headset than have Dooley back next year. No such thing as a downgrade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3
#3
Everybody who does not agree with you is insane. Please try to understand this. I know you are drunken with Gruden love. But at least try.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4
#4
PimpVol said:
Everybody who does not agree with you is insane. Please try to understand this. I know you are drunken with Gruden love. But at least try.
Click to expand...

The people aren't insane. Just the theory.

Not sure why you mentioned Gruden, since my post was about literally every candidate but Jon Gruden.
 
#5
#5
UTRavens said:
I'm starting to see these posts, and quite a few of them, saying "if we don't land a big name coach, we should just stick it out with Dooley for another year."

Oh my lord, this is so insane.

The most ridiculous thing about this? The idea that the best response to not getting a big name coach is to let a known, surefire failure stay on board. Because it's not because Dooley is better than any of the options out there. He's one of the worst coaches in the BCS and everyone knows it. When the only argument in a coach's favor is how they inherited a bad situation, meaning they can't even find anything to compliment him about, that tells you all you need to know.

So we're supposed to keep Dooley on one pretense: after failing to get a home run hire this year, we'll just find one next year. Let me tell you what next year would look like under this scenario: one more bad/mediocre year of football, an even worse revenue outlook, diminished recruiting, and the loss of quite a few of our best players. If a big name coach isn't interested now, what makes you think he'll be interested next year? There is NO evidence to believe that scenario is realistic. It's not worth waiting for.

If it's not happening this year, you don't hold out. You just don't. Right now is the perfect time for a splash hire to be made, and if it doesn't happen, it's not like the other candidates are worse coaches than Dooley. Charlie Strong - I think he's a good hire, other don't, that's fine - no one would call him a home run. Is there any way he's not much better than what we have right now? No way. Some mid-major guy? Still an up and comer, Dooley wasn't.

There's also this fear that a failed hire will send the program into a permanent tailspin, or something. This relies on the assumption that the conditions for this "home run hire" wouldn't exist if another coach failed here (but they still will if we stick with Dooley). This relies on a few assumptions. One, that he's a flop. What constitutes a flop here? A few 7-5 seasons won't send a program falling into oblivion, and even in the harshest period in post-WWI history for Tennessee we still aren't doing much worse than that. And that's assuming the new coach fails to begin with, which isn't even close to a guarantee. There's a realistic chance that any of these coaches will be successful if they come here.

You don't let something continue to destroy the team, If it's clear that the coach is going tofail, keeping him as a lame duck is completely and utterly destructive. No positive purpose is served by doing it. If it involves compromising, taking more of a gamble, so be it. But striving so hard for the most perfect situation possible when (if) that opportunity isn't there, and making things worse in the process hoping that it somehow comes up...is a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...

Good post. To continue with Dooley is suicide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#7
#7
People gave me hell last time I said it. I would seriously rather see George Quarles on the sideline if it meant Dooley coming back. At least we know George can coach a winner at SOME level.
 
#8
#8
Unless the University is willing to lay out the BIG bucks for a BIG NAME like Bob Stoops, Will Muschamp, Tommy Tuberville or any of the other BIG names, I don't want another dud. If all we can afford is another dud, I see no reason to change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#9
#9
bbeacham said:
Unless the University is willing to lay out the BIG bucks for a BIG NAME like Bob Stoops, Will Muschamp, Tommy Tuberville or any of the other BIG names, I don't want another dud. If all we can afford is another dud, I see no reason to change.
Click to expand...

None of the candidates we would be considering are duds. Some could potentially be duds, but all of them have positive attributes that give them the potential to be successful coaches who win at Tennessee.

The only surefire dud is already here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#10
#10
bbeacham said:
Unless the University is willing to lay out the BIG bucks for a BIG NAME like Bob Stoops, Will Muschamp, Tommy Tuberville or any of the other BIG names, I don't want another dud. If all we can afford is another dud, I see no reason to change.
Click to expand...

So if all you can Afford is a dud then keep a dud????

I don't understand some posters on here.
 
#12
#12
Keeping Dooley one more year is still better than bringing in another up and comer assistant. There is a short list after Gruden but if none ate interested it's not worth the buy outs to bring in a Kirby Smart or an equivalent.

DD made a huge mistake hiring Sal and switching to the 3-4. Every aspect of the offense has made huge strides this year. Whether you want to admit it or not, hanging with FL, UGA, and SC is an improvement. If the defense was halfway decent we would be no worse than 6-2 right now.

I'm all for letting DD go if there is a sure fire proven HC coach out there willing to take the job who can go toe-to-toe on the recruiting trail vs Saban. If not then we do t need to waste time and money for a new DD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#14
#14
bbeacham said:
Unless the University is willing to lay out the BIG bucks for a BIG NAME like Bob Stoops, Will Muschamp, Tommy Tuberville or any of the other BIG names, I don't want another dud. If all we can afford is another dud, I see no reason to change.
Click to expand...

Will Muschamp was Kirby Smart just a couple years ago. Tubberville only makes 2 million a year at his current position. I think 3 would get him to Knoxville. Stoops would require 5 million at least as he is paid over 4 now. Petrino would listen to anything over 2.5, there are alot of options out there. Coaches with winning records are not hard to find. ANY of them would be an inprovement and a smarter choice than just riding it out with a career loser. If no Gruden, then just keep Dooley is a response from fans who have been brain washed by all the losing. It's ok guys, winning is alright. I promise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#16
#16
bbeacham said:
Unless the University is willing to lay out the BIG bucks for a BIG NAME like Bob Stoops, Will Muschamp, Tommy Tuberville or any of the other BIG names, I don't want another dud. If all we can afford is another dud, I see no reason to change.
Click to expand...

Half the current SEC coaches had no head coaching experience before they took the job. Most of the others came from mid-majors. A homerun hire only comes along once ever 5 or 6 years. TN just cant afford to wait that long while Dooley drives the program into the ground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#17
#17
UTRavens said:
I'm starting to see these posts, and quite a few of them, saying "if we don't land a big name coach, we should just stick it out with Dooley for another year."

Oh my lord, this is so insane.

The most ridiculous thing about this? The idea that the best response to not getting a big name coach is to let a known, surefire failure stay on board. Because it's not because Dooley is better than any of the options out there. He's one of the worst coaches in the BCS and everyone knows it. When the only argument in a coach's favor is how they inherited a bad situation, meaning they can't even find anything to compliment him about, that tells you all you need to know.

So we're supposed to keep Dooley on one pretense: after failing to get a home run hire this year, we'll just find one next year. Let me tell you what next year would look like under this scenario: one more bad/mediocre year of football, an even worse revenue outlook, diminished recruiting, and the loss of quite a few of our best players. If a big name coach isn't interested now, what makes you think he'll be interested next year? There is NO evidence to believe that scenario is realistic. It's not worth waiting for.

If it's not happening this year, you don't hold out. You just don't. Right now is the perfect time for a splash hire to be made, and if it doesn't happen, it's not like the other candidates are worse coaches than Dooley. Charlie Strong - I think he's a good hire, other don't, that's fine - no one would call him a home run. Is there any way he's not much better than what we have right now? No way. Some mid-major guy? Still an up and comer, Dooley wasn't.

There's also this fear that a failed hire will send the program into a permanent tailspin, or something. This relies on the assumption that the conditions for this "home run hire" wouldn't exist if another coach failed here (but they still will if we stick with Dooley). This relies on a few assumptions. One, that he's a flop. What constitutes a flop here? A few 7-5 seasons won't send a program falling into oblivion, and even in the harshest period in post-WWI history for Tennessee we still aren't doing much worse than that. And that's assuming the new coach fails to begin with, which isn't even close to a guarantee. There's a realistic chance that any of these coaches will be successful if they come here.

You don't let something continue to destroy the team, If it's clear that the coach is going tofail, keeping him as a lame duck is completely and utterly destructive. No positive purpose is served by doing it. If it involves compromising, taking more of a gamble, so be it. But striving so hard for the most perfect situation possible when (if) that opportunity isn't there, and making things worse in the process hoping that it somehow comes up...is a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...

might be "insane" as you say but that's the mindset of the AD office.

Running a business vs being a fan are two different things

Be ready for a big name or more orange pants
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#18
#18
GreveHaller said:
might be "insane" as you say but that's the mindset of the AD office.

Running a business vs being a fan are two different things

Be ready for a big name or more orange pants
Click to expand...

Because...you said so? There is no evidence indicating that's the AD office's mindset. If basically every rumor has any credence, that's the exact opposite of what they're thinking.
 
#19
#19
Why is it insane to pay the buyouts for Dooley and company and then hire Dooley 2.0? Then repeat the same cycle in three years.

THAT is bad business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#21
#21
UTRavens said:
I'm starting to see these posts, and quite a few of them, saying "if we don't land a big name coach, we should just stick it out with Dooley for another year."

Oh my lord, this is so insane.

The most ridiculous thing about this? The idea that the best response to not getting a big name coach is to let a known, surefire failure stay on board. Because it's not because Dooley is better than any of the options out there. He's one of the worst coaches in the BCS and everyone knows it. When the only argument in a coach's favor is how they inherited a bad situation, meaning they can't even find anything to compliment him about, that tells you all you need to know.

So we're supposed to keep Dooley on one pretense: after failing to get a home run hire this year, we'll just find one next year. Let me tell you what next year would look like under this scenario: one more bad/mediocre year of football, an even worse revenue outlook, diminished recruiting, and the loss of quite a few of our best players. If a big name coach isn't interested now, what makes you think he'll be interested next year? There is NO evidence to believe that scenario is realistic. It's not worth waiting for.

If it's not happening this year, you don't hold out. You just don't. Right now is the perfect time for a splash hire to be made, and if it doesn't happen, it's not like the other candidates are worse coaches than Dooley. Charlie Strong - I think he's a good hire, other don't, that's fine - no one would call him a home run. Is there any way he's not much better than what we have right now? No way. Some mid-major guy? Still an up and comer, Dooley wasn't.

There's also this fear that a failed hire will send the program into a permanent tailspin, or something. This relies on the assumption that the conditions for this "home run hire" wouldn't exist if another coach failed here (but they still will if we stick with Dooley). This relies on a few assumptions. One, that he's a flop. What constitutes a flop here? A few 7-5 seasons won't send a program falling into oblivion, and even in the harshest period in post-WWI history for Tennessee we still aren't doing much worse than that. And that's assuming the new coach fails to begin with, which isn't even close to a guarantee. There's a realistic chance that any of these coaches will be successful if they come here.

You don't let something continue to destroy the team, If it's clear that the coach is going tofail, keeping him as a lame duck is completely and utterly destructive. No positive purpose is served by doing it. If it involves compromising, taking more of a gamble, so be it. But striving so hard for the most perfect situation possible when (if) that opportunity isn't there, and making things worse in the process hoping that it somehow comes up...is a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...

I love this post. I mean I really do. I want to take this post behind the Krispy Kreme and get it pregnant.

Yeah, I don't get the "let's keep Dooley if we can;t get a big name" crowd. Getting a big name would be great, but you know what else would be great? Getting someone who isn't a proven loser. Dooley was never an up and comer. He's not getting better. Look at his record. He doesn't build anything. He actually does worse as he goes.

Are they slightly improved this year? Yeah, our freshmen starters from 3 years ago are now juniors with tons of experience. Anyone should be at least a little improved in that situation. But are they improved in any way that matters? No. They still haven't won a single game that matters. IN. THREE. YEARS.

Sure, I think it would be bad to replace Dooley with someone like Cutcliffe, because we need something better than average for the next 4 years. But even average would be better than incompetence, which is what Dooley's record suggests.

There are so many mid major coaches out there who would be giant upgrades over Dooley. Guys like Butch Jones who can actually point to a record that shows that they've won everywhere they have been. That's an actual "up and comer".

Dooley's record never showed that he could do anything more than the bare minimum. His 17-20 record over 3 seasons at La Tech virtually duplicated the previous coach's record (16-20) over his final 3 years. That coach was fired. Dooley's last season at La Tech was his worst, going 4-8. This wasn't a guy anyone, save Mike Hamilton, wanted to hire.

And at UT, Dooley has continued his losing ways, posting back to back losing records at UT for the first time in over a hundred years. The problem isn't what he inherited. The problem isn't the job. The problem is him. Statistically, he's the worst coach we have ever had at UT. Even with a little "improvement" (which would be assuming alot) in the next couple of seasons, he'll still be the worst. It's time to end it.

There are so many coaches out there. Even the average ones could give us some hope. With Dooley, there is none.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#22
#22
UTRavens said:
Because none of these candidates are Dooley 2.0

They're all far more qualified than he ever was.
Click to expand...

Who are all "these" candidates? Seriously. A candidate is someone seeking a position. Who is seeking this position that is a home run?

A lot of folks thought Gruden and Lovie were candidates last time. I'll be celebrating like everyone else if Gruden is hired, but, with respect, I'll believe it when I see it.

Go big or go home. Don't change just to make a change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#23
#23
UTRavens said:
I'm starting to see these posts, and quite a few of them, saying "if we don't land a big name coach, we should just stick it out with Dooley for another year."

Oh my lord, this is so insane.
Click to expand...

Not a single option has guaranteed results. Kirby Smart is "the next Will Muschamp" so you fire Dooley and get Smart. Then maybe it turns out he's a product of the system and not really a skilled coach (see Sunseri). Then you've spent the money to buy out Dooley and committed your resources to another bad hire for years to come. You either get "the" coach or conserve your resources until you can. Once the decision is made to do something have the patience to get it right or you're just a kid in the Walmart toy aisle - you want something new no matter what it is.
 
Last edited:
#24
#24
tnktm said:
Not a single option has guaranteed results. Kirby Smart is "the next Will Muschamp" so you fire Dooley and get Smart. Then maybe it turns out he's a product of the system and not really a skilled coach (see Sunseri). Then you've spent the money to buy out Dooley and committed your resources to another bad hire for years to come. You either get "the" coach or conserve your resources until you can. Once the decision is made to do something have the patience to get it right or your just a kid in the Walmart toy aisle - you want something new no matter what it is.
Click to expand...

Actually Dooley's results are pretty much guaranteed at this point.
 
#25
#25
tnktm said:
Not a single option has guaranteed results. Kirby Smart is "the next Will Muschamp" so you fire Dooley and get Smart. Then maybe it turns out he's a product of the system and not really a skilled coach (see Sunseri). Then you've spent the money to buy out Dooley and committed your resources to another bad hire for years to come. You either get "the" coach or conserve your resources until you can. Once the decision is made to do something have the patience to get it right or your just a kid in the Walmart toy aisle - you want something new no matter what it is.
Click to expand...

It doesn't work that way. The resources we have now are as attractive as they ever will be with Dooley. Otherwise, you have no idea what it is you're holding out for.

And Kirby Smart is more likely to be a good coach here than Dooley. Anything is better than 0%. We'd almost certainly have better options than Smart anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top