Why do some coordinators fail as head coaches.

[37620VOL]

1. Trust issues with coordinators
2. Poor Evaluation of hires
3. Network is too small.

This plus...
4. In game management
5. Recruiting and evaluations
6. Vision: you have to have plan to win now, and in the future

 

[99gator]

I think a lot of times, it’s ego. Some also (as crazy as this sounds) forget that the whole team matters and worry only about their side of the ball. Buddy Ryan, Will Muschamp and several other defensive guys truly think that the job of the offense is to give the defense a rest.

Spurrier was like that in terms of caring only about offense, but he gave his defensive coordinator complete control.

But, Orgeron is a great example with regard to ego. Is anyone going to give him credit for this season or call him a great coach? Does he care? Some do and can’t let it go. They have to prove how smart they are.

 

[gsb0824]

It looks like Pruit will turn out good. But why do some do bad? Why is Smart good at uga. Why did Mullen do good at MSU? Why did Strong fail at his stops? Why did Sarkisan fail? There seems to not be a correlation to offense or defense.

It is just like some people are great at doing a job, but fail at management. When you are in management, you have to manage people. Some people can. some can't and some prefer not to.

 

[VolPack22]

Some of it has to do with fit and the AD allowing the head coach to bring in his guys and his system and allowing him to actually be the head coach instead of micromanaging. But more times than not, most coordinators just can’t lead a group of men. They’re great at Xs and Os and teaching fundamentals but there’s a lot more to running the entire team. You’re basically the CEO of a company and there’s a lot of responsibility that comes with that. A lot of guys just can’t handle that and perform better in their comfort zone as coordinators.

 

[05_never_again]

Yes. Fulmer's tenure at UT had two distinct segments.... with Cut and without Cut. The O's with Cut were excellent and often exceeded the level of talent UT had like the year UT had one of the best passing O's in the country with Lucas Taylor as their best WR... and a very weak OL.

In the 16 seasons from '93 to '08, UT scored over 400 points in a season 7 times (remember the 12th game was added in '06). Six of those O's were coached by Cut. The outlier was 2001 when UT scored exactly 400 points. A Cutcliffe UT O never scored less than 362 points in a season.

In the years without Cut, not only did Fulmer's teams fail to score over 400 save that one year... they scored UNDER 300 points 3 times. That includes 205 points and 208 points on either side of Cut's last two years at UT when UT scored 362 and 455.

Without Cut, Fulmer consistently underperformed his offensive talent.

Ding ding ding. One of the most overlooked aspects of Phil's tenure here. What Cut was able to do in 2006 and 2007 with Ainge is still impressive. Phil was a great coach here overall, but he very rarely was able to squeeze all of the juice out of the orange.

Defense was never really a problem (even during the 2005 and 2008 losing seasons), although I think Chavis did underachieve occasionally given the talent he had as well. He was never able to make the defense be more than the sum of its parts. If he had elite players, the defense was sometimes elite, other times it was just pretty good. If he had good players, the defense was sometimes good, occasionally mediocre.

 

[05_never_again]

I think a lot of times, it’s ego. Some also (as crazy as this sounds) forget that the whole team matters and worry only about their side of the ball. Buddy Ryan, Will Muschamp and several other defensive guys truly think that the job of the offense is to give the defense a rest.

Spurrier was like that in terms of caring only about offense, but he gave his defensive coordinator complete control.

But, Orgeron is a great example with regard to ego. Is anyone going to give him credit for this season or call him a great coach? Does he care? Some do and can’t let it go. They have to prove how smart they are.

After the South Carolina loss this last season, I thought Kirby made a very telling remark in the postgame press conference. He strolled up to the mic and the very first thing he says is that the difference in the game was Georgia not creating enough turnovers to even up the turnover margin, which went 4-0 in favor of South Carolina. Notice he didn't say that the difference in the game was that the offense, specifically Jake Fromm, was responsible for 4 turnovers, but that the defense didn't generate enough themselves to make up for it. I thought that was a really stupid and myopic way to look at the game as a head coach. After a loss in which his offense turned the ball over 4 times, rushed for only 4 YPC, and scored only 17 points, his first thought was about how the defense didn't do anything to make up for offensive mistakes.

IMO, that is classic "coordinator, not coach" thinking. That's fine for a DC to think that, in fact, that's how a DC should think. If your offense isn't helping out in any particular game then the defense does need to try and make spectacular plays to compensate. But Kirby is the head coach now. If that statement is an indication of his philosophy and how he thinks about the game as a head coach, that would worry me as a Georgia fan.

 

[KINGSVOL]

Three things;
TEACHING
TEACHING
TEACHING

1. Teaching coordinators and position coaches what you want and how you want it but allowing them the space to be BETTER than you were when you were in the same position.

2. Teaching the University and the fan base what we need to accept and enjoy about the program (politics, lowering expectations in order to over achieve)

3. Teaching the players how to be men, students, and elite football players.

The HC has to be a master at teaching every age the appropriate information at the appropriate time to get the desired outcome.

Lastly, fitment! I love Cut but he would not have survived at UT as the head coach. Harbaugh, Smart, would not survive here either. I hope CJP is the one!

 

[BigOrangeLoyalist]

You don't consider a coach who is 44-12 successful yet but Pruitt is 12-12 and he is the answer? Orange Kool-aid by the gallons being served at your house? Smartt's record and coaching ability is about right on part with Fulmer's through this point in their career.

Right in line with sjt's responses, I just think Smart has underperformed with the talent he inherited and has recruited. I would be thrilled if Tennessee had Georgia's record over the past three years, and I credit CKS for doing a good job. . . But I've also been saying since the blown National Title that Smart was going to be Richt 2.0. So really, maybe I took successful out of your original contextual meaning - Yes, he has been successful, but I do not think he has that IT factor to lead Georgia to a natty.

 

[99gator]

After the South Carolina loss this last season, I thought Kirby made a very telling remark in the postgame press conference. He strolled up to the mic and the very first thing he says is that the difference in the game was Georgia not creating enough turnovers to even up the turnover margin, which went 4-0 in favor of South Carolina. Notice he didn't say that the difference in the game was that the offense, specifically Jake Fromm, was responsible for 4 turnovers, but that the defense didn't generate enough themselves to make up for it. I thought that was a really stupid and myopic way to look at the game as a head coach. After a loss in which his offense turned the ball over 4 times, rushed for only 4 YPC, and scored only 17 points, his first thought was about how the defense didn't do anything to make up for offensive mistakes.

IMO, that is classic "coordinator, not coach" thinking. That's fine for a DC to think that, in fact, that's how a DC should think. If your offense isn't helping out in any particular game then the defense does need to try and make spectacular plays to compensate. But Kirby is the head coach now. If that statement is an indication of his philosophy and how he thinks about the game as a head coach, that would worry me as a Georgia fan.

yeah, muschamp said several things like that at Florida and I originally thought he was trying to protect certain players from criticism or deflect from the offense. Then, I realized that was him.

i mentioned Spurrier being like that and caring only about offense and that’s true. But, I forgot to mention....if the defense wasn’t doing it’s job, it would irk him. Bad defense meant less possessions. Less possessions meant less “ball plays“. Less ball plays and Spurrier was not a happy man. So, even though he gave a defensive coordinator free reign and didn’t really care about defense, he held them to a standard. He didn’t settle for mediocre defense just because he was an offensive guy.