Ok...you must be his dad.Quote:
Originally Posted by DownwardDawg
Printable View
Ok...you must be his dad.Quote:
Originally Posted by DownwardDawg
He was our backup plan 10 years ago. Only because of the boosters pushing him and because our program hasn’t really grown to where we are today. We don’t have to settle for Hud now. The guy has been coaching for two decades and has never been a P5 head coach. That says a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
He had 7 years at Lafayette, and yes they had a miserable program prior, but all he had to show for it was some New Orleans Bowls and vacated wins...and he had three losing seasons in a row to finish. We have people wanting to blame Joe for tutorgate yet want to give Hud a free pass for vacated wins.
Any decent coach can win 6+ games a year at State now. We set them up with a positive schedule and with the 12th game, it’s not that hard. Hud is such a false legend here for some reason. And no one has anything to support the fact he’d be a great SEC coach. He got fired at his only big school shot. And I constantly hear about ego on here in reference to Moorhead. Guess what, you haven’t seen ego until you get Hud here. Then you get the swapping blood deal and weight lifting competitions at ULL. I have no doubt he could win 6 games here. But so could the guys with a better job history. Hud is the cheap and easy route.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
So regardless of all his other championships, you're stuck on that and don't believe people can evolve and learn from their mistakes?Quote:
Originally Posted by CovertDawg
Do you think his downfall at ULL was more about his coaching ability or the NCAA investigation?
I don't think you're wrong for being concerned about that but you have to decide if you think it's a deal breaker
I don't.
So did Vick Schaffer. Was an assistant at A&M for goodness sakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooterpoot
It's valid point but there are numerous reasons people never get opportunities other than their ability.
Vic failed at Sam Houston State before going to Arkansas then to A&M as an Asst. before striking gold with MSU.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
Hud career winning % (on field): 66.9%
Moorhead career winning %: 68%
I don't see the allure other than him being the easy choice and everyone loves the hometown boy story. Just get the best coach/fit available. If a guy leaves after 5 years that's okay. That means you got 5 good years out of an upwardly mobile employee. Everyone is so freaked out about having to hire someone. It's not that big of a deal. Happens every year. Napier is a guy on the way up. His team this season is the best in their school history and it's by a WIDE margin over one of Hud's teams. He can recruit (back to back number 1 classes in the Sun Belt) and runs the same power spread that everyone loves so much. Give me the guy on the way up over the guy that has the cinderella story. Narratives are for movies. Just get the best coach available. Don't overcomplicate it.
Well there you go. Even better. He failed at a mid major first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coursesuper
Good coaches learn. Nobody knows everything the first. There is some trial and error in coaching.
My thing with Hud is that he wins everywhere he's gone. He's won championships
When people start winning at different schools, it tells me that they are really good at implementing a culture and plan. They aren't just living off past successes.
This is so incredibly shallow and irrelevant that it's not even worth debating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pipedream
So records are now irrelevant? You can't be successful without winning. That's literally the determining factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
If you really believed that's all there is to it, you wouldn't be for firing Joe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pipedream
By the way, I'm with you on Napier over Hud, but think both could be successful here.
I don't, but it's the best barometer. I think incorporating the spread and cross referencing the w/l is the best way to track a coach because its performance with added perspective. Hud has only coached the power 5 for 2 years, both at State. He's never been a P5 coordinator. I just think his resume is a little short on diversity and big game/stakes experience. I think he's a fine coach, but there's easily 3,4,5 guys that should get hired in front of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverCityDawg
Napier has had a decent season and a good season as head coach. That's not much of a track record. I'm not opposed to Napier. The way the market has evolved MSU is going to have to take a G5 coach with a short track record, a P5 coordinator, or a retread unless the stars align like they did with Howland. But Napier doesn't have much of a track record and it's foolish to think that two good seasons means he's a great coach. Lots of coaches have two good years and then flame out. Lot's of coaches have down years and go on to be really good. There is more luck to it than people like to admit. One Dak can completely change a coach's tenure since most tenures don't last that long now. A couple of team leaders that are leaders in the wrong direction, but not so bad that a coach can cut them loose, can derail a couple of seasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pipedream
I don't disagree with the general idea here, but this is the most interesting thing/stat about Napier-ULL has been in what is now called FBS since 2001. There's a metric called SRS which evaluates teams historical strength with 0 being a historically average team. Since that time, ULL has fielded 2 teams that were above 0 in SRS. One of them was Hud's 2012 team at +3.45, which at the time was the best team that program has ever had. ULL this year under Napier is currently at +10.4. Not only has he put together their best team ever, but this team is nearly 3X as good as the 2nd best team they've ever had. I find that pretty amazing and impressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnson85
That's a really good point in Napier's favor. I am just nervous about getting too excited about what a guy does two years and giving a guy a contract based on what might prove to be an outlier for him. Again, probably not something we're going to be able to avoid unless there is a Satterfield out there that hasn't come up yet or unless we're willing to go with a guy with a longer track record that also has some blemishes. Norvell has an unblemished four year track record but of course also took over a program that was humming along. Still, seems to have held steady or improved over 4 years, which is something. Outside of him, everybody is either potentially a flash in the pan, a coach with some significant blemishes, or a coach with no real blemish but that hasn't taken off where he is. But that's the nature of a coaching search if you're not a blue blood and to an extent even if you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pipedream
The only drawbacks I have for Norvell are his defense, which during his tenure has been downright bad-78th avg ppg/60th avg ypp and whatever skeletons he has in the closet of his personal life. His recruiting probably isn't as strong as Napiers. Napiers defense in year 1 was horrendous, but they're quite good this year-14th in ppg, 35 in ypp. Full disclosure, Norvells 19 D is by far his best-they're 48th in ppg and 33rd ypp-so there's been some improvement there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnson85
Actually, this makes the most sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
In early October, I mentioned Hud as a possible replacement to Joe and most thought that was a crazy idea. On Friday, we will see who was crazy.
As it was said in "The Wire", we all have a role to play: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLa5Bfw2cnA
You mentioned it where?Quote:
Originally Posted by DelBocaVista