The firings were pretty momentous, and although Pry has stated who will coach in the bowl game, I'm curious what everyone thinks about how quickly we might see announcements, particularly for DC.
I mean, I would think there's kind of two opposing forces, wanting to take your time and make the right hire, find out who all might be interested, and maybe have to wait until after a bowl game, but on the other hand, wanting to make the decision quickly so we can replace any current staff with whoever the new DC wants, as well as making the best use of the transfer portal and needing to make headway with transferees early.
Also curious if we think we stick with a P4 coordinator or possibly someone who has been incredibly good at the FCS level?
And one other thing, I know most people on here think most coaches are only going to be here until a better offer (only question being how much better), but watching the Prysser, I really got the sense that, as long as he can get us where we want to be, Pry would want to stay here. Does anybody else get that sense? And if so, do you think he'd be trying to also find a DC who could be happy here long term?
Edit: I know there have been discussions on who, and I asked about things that may be geared to that, but I really am curious about the when (since there's been a lot of the who discussion elsewhere).
Comments
We must act quickly and firmly to meet our needs and to a 2nd degree when our targets are available. I don't think it's that complicated.
I think the hires need to happen with at least a few days to spare before the portal closes on the 28th.
I do think Pry wants to be here, but if he has a couple sustained years of success I think it would be hard for anyone to turn down SEC money and I could see Vandy, Miss St, USCocks paying up if they're open and Pry has us humming.
Man we have a lot a steps to get to before we even think about that. Pry has got to show us something at VT next year. Same as some people I've seen saying we can't hire Dex because if he's good then UVA will hire him away. If he were the pick and eventually got hired away by UVA as head coach, he probably did some really good things here in the meantime. And I also think there are some hard feelings there after their last coaching search.
Anyway, can't get caught up in "what ifs." Right now just need to focus on winning now. This game against Shane and SC is a must win for Pry. I feel like if he gets thumped by Shane he (and Whit) might as well start packing bags.
Didn't this come up last when everyone thought Elliot's seat may be getting warm? I thought I remember something about an interview with Dex about would he try for the HC again if Tony was replaced and he bluntly said "not interested "???
Dex was a possiblity the same cycle as Elliot and the rumors were that UVA didn't want to modernize in the way Dex suggested and passed. He stayed at PSU and instead of getting the DC role, they hired Diaz, which has people thinking he is ready to make the next step and maybe set himself up for a HC role after proving himself as a legit DC.
Basically the recollection of events as I remember it was Pry was interested when he was hired at VT in bringing in Dex as his DC before Marve. Conversations allegedly happened, UVA caught wind, and suddenly shifted directions after interviewing Elliott and brought in Dex for an interview. He allegedly told them what type of commitment they would need to make financially to football and recruiting in order to be competitive, and they basically slow played him and went back to Elliott. Got the sense he was disappointed in UVA and he just chose the path of least resistance at the time and went back to PSU.
So IMO, if he and Pry are still interested and Bud is potentially involved as well as an advisor of sorts, I think it makes a lot of sense. We need to get big time defensive players in here and think he could help do just that. He's also got a considerable amount of experience as well. Franklin just hasn't given him the chance as sole DC.
I agree, I was just saying that if we get success it might be hard to retain anyone as long as we're in the ACC in it's current form. I don't think that's something we should worry about right now.
Just win baby.
I would imagine that if Pry poaches Dex away from PSU, the announcement won't come until they are eliminated from the playoff.
Not saying that is the hire, but it fits in a lot of ways. Elite recruiter, from VA, knows the system, and a good safety coach. All needs.
Starting to really grow on this option. There's risk, but also risks in retreads like Shoop and Ash. Very high reward ceiling with Dex IMO. I also believe he is very close with Cornell Brown, so he knows people at VT as well.
Soooo....root for SMU (which we should be doing anyways) to win a low-scoring game?
Have perused around other message boards a bit, and on PSU boards there's a little chatter here and there about Poindexter potentially being a candidate for DC at VT. The general consensus from PSU fans is 'Pry better stay the hell away from Poindexter' generally. That would be an enormous blow to Franklin's operation up there no doubt.
All the more reason...
You've really sold me on this.
Make it so.
Another fucking wahoo on staff??? ughhhhh :)
I think getting the O Line coach in before the portal closes would give the Hokies a chance to snipe some OL guys.
Really liking the WVU OL coach Matt Moore if we look to make an outside hire. Brown is out and not yet retained by Rich Rod. Did a heck of a job with Milum and former Hokie Doug Nester.
And Zach Frazier. Rookie starting at center for Steelers.
Does Nester have any more eligibility? ;^)
Of course he does!
Hiring a DC at a P5 program doesn't work like a normal job - Pry knows everyone who is interested, and knew half the people who were interested before Marve was fired.
Also, the bowl game is a distant third priority behind portal and hires.
This also isn't really a factor... We're not missing out on a new safeties coach because with announce 3 weeks later.
This is the big one. WRT to DC, scheme matters - if Pry hires someone to run the Gap Fill & Spill, then the portal window is less important. If there's a drastic change to scheme, then we will need to portal asap to get personnel that match the scheme.
I personally expect a lot of incidental coaching shifts as a result of these openings. For one, I expect the DC to hire his own DB coach/es (if Dex he fits in nicely as DC/S and we make the decision to retain Cheetah, which I imagine we would). Then who fills Marve's spot as LB coach? (I think X could fill that role, and if Bud is truly in the fold next season in an advisor role, I bet he would love to get his hands on the LBs along with X.)
I also wonder if we could see a true QB coach be hired and Bowen go back to being OC/TE coach. Holt could just be STC and Bowen slots back in nicely with the TEs as his positional group. Rumors a possible QB coach with a lot of experience who has previously worked with Pry was on campus at VT tonight...
Isn't Brian Crist the QB Coach?
Bowen is technically the OC/QB coach. Crist is just a co-QB coach who doesn't count against the main ten assistant coaches.
There is not a limit on the on-field coaches anymore. Prior to this season, that was correct (except his title was Offensive Analyst)
My understanding is that Crist works on technique while Bowen focuses on scheme. An unusual split for sure.
I mean it makes sense. Bowen should know what his QB likes and dislikes and does well and doesn't do well so he can game plan. A QB fundamentals coach can work to refine the techniques.
Yea, Pry said as such in his presser.
I haven't read/heard anything about Bud rejoining the team in any on field capacity other than what I've read here, but if he does, I can't see him recruiting or doing stuff on game days. That stuff just requires too much commitment for health issues.
All I know is I want Jarrett Ferguson to be named actual head S&C coach instead of just of interim
No I'm not biased there is absolutely 0 reason for you to look at my profile.
Jarrett promotion sounds likely. We'll see.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall him having to wear 36" waist pants even though he was only 32" waist, just to be able to fit his thighs...
I choose to trust the process.
Count me as just glad we're actually doing the process!
I don't even really care who we hire for DC or OL, but please for the love of Frank don't let it be some lucky dude who has been at like 5 places in the past 7 years. It's pretty wild, but I'd strongly prefer a coach who knows how to coach. Not someone who has just had a lucky run of short-lived stays at places. I know that's not really how things are done nowadays as the hot commodities are always moving up quickly, but there sure is a lot of garbage that also gets moved up quickly as a result.
When I am hiring, frequent job shifts gets your application put on the bottom of the pile. I am looking for employees that want to stay and not constantly job hop.
Thankfully this way of thinking is being driven out of the job market. Employees change jobs for infinite numbers of reasons often out of their control.
Not according to pretty much any HR person I know. They might still get interviewed, but changing jobs yearly without a dang good reason is a definite strike against any candidate at most companies.
I get something like a person wants a raise so finds a new job, then winds up working for an asshole, so moves again, or something like that where there might be a couple in a short time, but 4 or 5 changes in as many years? Can you think of a GOOD reason someone would hop around that much?
My wife did 4 companies in 5 years. Two moves away from toxic environments, two moves for big raises (30%+). One was also a pivot into a new field.
But then she stayed at the fourth job for 2.5 years, and pay/benefits at the job she recently got are so stellar I think she's stuck there for a while.
Exactly everyone's circumstance is different just throwing away resumes for that reason is silly.
Often, you don't throw them out, but they get a couple of questions about it, as it's a concern.
Which is a fair middle ground. I have a stint of 3 jobs in 3 years which is pretty easily explainable and what's lead me more to the do what's best for you mindset in hiring and applying to jobs.
That sucks she had two toxic environments she had to leave. It seems wild she could get two big raises like that in such a short time.
I've seen it from the hiring side as a federal contractor. I have a friend who jumped contracts every year for 3 or 4 years in a row (edit: for raises every time). There are a couple challenges if you're going to hire someone like that. Well, the main one being that there isn't any indication that the person would stay. That means that you have to hire a new person, so you spend a bunch of people's time looking through resumes, conducting interviews, onboarding, etc. from the business side, it means you may leave billable hours on the table trying to find a qualified candidate, so your company is losing some business. If everyone did that, that's a lot of lost revenue your company likely can't recover because of federal contracting/appropriation law. And that type of thing hurts more if it's a small company as well.
Edit: and in the world of federal contracting, a company can be hamstrung on matching a salary someone comes to you with that they were offered, by what the current contract's billable rates are.
Yea, wife and I both work in tech. As an IC, You can go in, turn things around relatively quickly, then bounce. When you can tie your work directly to revenue or cost savings, you can demand what you're worth.
Absolutely fair!
Big consulting companies also have a lot of contracts that people could move between or offer more advancement opportunities compared to smaller companies with fewer contracts, especially when the contracts are bid at certain rates for about 5 years that locks you in. And having to re-hire for a certain position a number of times can be more of an administrative burden to small companies as well.
I wonder if companies ever look internally to figure out if the reason they're having to re-hire people is because they have a toxic environment? I heard of that happening once, where a manager kept complaining about the people they were getting, and after about the third one, the company realized the manager was the problem and let them go.
I worked with a guy that was hired by the CEO 6 times over about 30 years. He never liked to stay places more than 2 years but everyone knew what they got with him so anytime he wanted to come back he made a phone call and started when ever he could.
Personally I don't care if people hop and actually encourage a lot of times because theyre learning how other places do similar things which helps make places better. If I'm looking at a very senior person the I want them in one place for some time because you need to be somewhere long enough to see your failures come to fruition and how to fix the mess you created. It's important realization for a lot of people. But being some where for 10 years or 20 years is not something that I'd ever see as positive right off the bat.
I'm not suggesting being in the same place for 10 or 20 years. You're right, there's value in getting experience in several places. But someone that hops every year, in some cases that may be okay, other times you might really need stability. And, I'd also suggest you probably aren't getting the full experience value of a place if you don't stay around 2 years.
Can you think of a GOOD reason someone would hop around that much?
If I was still working a real job, I'd hop around as much as I could to benefit me, whether it be for financial gain or the environment or whatever suited me best. My 14 years of working in the real world showed me that companies are only out for themselves and employees are totally expendable, no matter how hard they work or how loyal. HR departments lie, managers lie, CEOs lie, and the companies force you to lie when they hire you as a manager. Companies will jerk you around and then shrug and maybe apologize, at best, if they feel like it. In my experience, if a company can lay someone off for the good of the company, then an employee can go do what's best for them, as much as possible. Kinda like being in the portal or a free agent.
Sure, but it's certainly not what you want in an OL coach, where consistency and development are two of the most important aspects of the job.
I agree but look at the situation we are in. We're not a big dog football program. He may have to take a chance on another one of those coaches. We already had a one and done with Joe Rudolph. It wasn't great that he left after one season, but are you telling me Pry wouldn't hire a top flight O-line coach with the chance he leaves later? You at least have to consider hiring him.
We all know what is going on here. Pry brought himself one more year by throwing a dart at the wall and firing some coaches. Yeah, fire the strength coach.. shows you are doing something other than running it back- which was not an option for him. So if you are going to fire Crook- you better fucking bring in someone better- for 1 year or not.
I agree totally
Agree, but it better look like he's staying two years.
All you have to do to put things into perspective is flip the script. Picture you own a business and the reason you're in business is to make money; it's how you make a living. What decisions are you going to make? When business is slow/down are you going to keep the size of your workforce the same and pay them money/benefits when it puts you in the red? When things are good and you need to hire someone to work in your business are you going to look more at the person that has had multiple job changes in over a short period or are you going to look at the person that doesn't job hop as much? Do you want stability or uncertainty?
Owning a business isn't a person's god-given right. Why is the business owner's livelihood more important than the employee's who they're going to fire to preserve the bottom line? I'm not naive, I know this is how things work in the US. But it's also why people increasingly don't feel they need to be loyal to their employers.
I feel like people love to do this but hardly any of them will ever come close to owning a business
This.
The business owner has more in the game than the employee. Most have to invest their personal savings to get a business off the ground, and are risking losing it, if the business folds. I have friends that owned businesses that ended up forgoing their salary in tough months to make payroll, because if they didn't the business wouldn't survive.
A good business owners cares for his business because, if he doesn't, his employees aren't going to have jobs. Most of them work much longer hours than their typical employees because they have to. And if the business does fail, a lot of business owners take that failure as a reflection of themselves. And a failure might make it difficult to start another business.
The idea of employee loyalty to employers is interesting. Is loyalty really a thing? Or was it forced? Does it have anything to do with livelihoods (owners, or employees)?
401(k)s effectively destroyed "company loyalty". Before 401(k)s, companies would pay into pension plans for employees and when they retired they would get a nice pension in retirement. But, in order to get that pension, the employee had to work with the company the whole time (this trap can easily be misconstrued as "loyalty"). Then 401(k)s came along and made it effectively cheaper for companies to provide the "benefit" of retirement financial planning for employees under the mask of giving the employees more control over their retirement funds. One of the "advantages" of 401(k)s is that they can be moved around more easily so it's easier for employees to leave companies and chase higher wages with different employers. The selling point is that 401(k)s benefit the employee when in actuality the reason almost every company offers a 401(k) matching plan INSTEAD of pensions plans is because the 401(k) is substantially cheaper for the employer. Company "loyalty" never really existed. Employees just stayed with employers because they were trapped by the pension plan benefit but it was billed as company loyalty to make the employers feel better about themselves. Without the pension plans, there's no reason for an employee to stay loyal to a company. If someone else is willing to pay them more for their services they have every right to pursue those opportunities, as they should in a free market. The employees get the benefit of owning their retirement planning, providing them the flexibility to move around for higher wages, while the employers get the benefit of spending way less money on the benefit for their employees. The downsides are that the employers subject themselves to higher rates of turnover (which, could be good or bad depending on how you look at it) and the employees need to be well advised on how to manage their money (most aren't) in order to ensure they have enough in retirement without the pension.
So were people loyal to companies for loyalty's sake? Or were they loyal to companies because the needed to be in order to get their retirement benefit? And is 'loyalty' 'dead' because people suck more than they did 60 years ago or is it 'dead' because it never really existed to begin with?
There is no such thing as loyalty in the workplace. None. The moment you aren't profitable or provide a value they can find on the market for cheaper, you will be let go. Companies that sell themselves to private equity or other companies KNOW that people will lose their jobs, and they do it anyway. In terms of the employee? They are only as loyal as their next mortgage payment.
401ks didn't destroy employee loyalty. There were a number of pretty large businesses that went under and people lost their pensions. My grandfather lost his, and I remember seeing that in the news a lot in the early 80s. So, if people can't necessarily trust that a pension will be there, why be loyal? People began looking for something that would provide more security.
Yes, 401k's are cheaper than pensions, but they also protect an employee the way a pension couldn't necessarily. And even though 401ks don't tie you to a company the way a pension would, not all companies match or vest the same way either. Some vest over 5 years, some contribute a couple more percentage points than others.
Then, another benefit companies can provide is stock options or buying discounted company stock. That would incentivize employees to not only stick around, but help the business be more profitable. There are other things companies can do to increase loyalty that have nothing to do with a 401k.
TWA and the other old airlines agree. I remember when the government allowed the airlines to liquidate the pensions during re-organization. There were a lot of 60+ stewardess's going back to work.
Oh, I forgot about the airlines. My grandfather was a victim of Western Electric getting bought out by I think it was Bell Atlantic, then split into the baby Bells (can't remember what all happened, but eventually they went out of business, and I think it was the same thing, liquidate pensions to pay creditors.
As someone that owns not one, but two businesses I get making decisions based on cash flow. I'm a sole proprietor for both but if I owned businesses that required me to hire employees (I do hire subcontractors), I'm focusing on if they can do the job I need and effectively. I'm not going to knock someone's job history for jumping around for doing what is best for that person. Maybe they had the same work experiences I have that show me that an employee should put their interests first, like companies do. If said potential hire can do the job I need and effectively, I'll hire them, treat them well and do what I can to keep them. But I won't be surprised if they leave for whatever their reason is, nor do I judge them for it.
I've hired 10 subcontractors for my art business so I have a small bit of experience in hiring, but I'm not hiring full time employees. I will say that I pay them an exorbitant amount of money for what they are hired to do because I want them to do a good job. Most of them have come and gone for various reasons and I just understand it's the name of the game.
Do you want stability or uncertainty?
Absolutely nothing with owning a business is stable. There are constant changes, problems, frustrations, etc, even from the most seemingly dependable things.
If a company wants loyalty then they should sign me to a 20 year contract. No company has offered me that yet.
And that's all well and good, but if there is a pattern of changing jobs every year, I am not likely to hire them. Hiring and training new employees is time consuming and expensive (I've done it numerous times), so someone with a pattern of leaving jobs after a year or two is going to get passed over, because they will not likely stay and I will have wasted the time, money and effort to train them.
And it's very likely that no matter what I offer or the environment they are in, they will become dissatisfied. Some people are not wired to stay in the same place for very long (and that's ok).
I work as a PM at a civil engineering firm. Where there is a lot of training on how to do the job right.
I was asked to review a resume for fellow engineer. The 10 year history showed changing jobs about every 18 months on average. This led me to the following thoughts:
1. He is constantly chasing that next promotion and/or raise. Not likely to stay long term.
2. He couldn't get along well with others.
3. Doesn't know what he is doing and can only blow a smoke screen so long.
I said, I wouldn't hire him. Unfortunately the senior VP said we just hired him to be the new VP over my department. Unfortunately it was all three and we managed to get out of at least one of the disastrously bad contracts that he wrote.
Damn dude, sounds like you haven't ever worked for a good manager. I've worked for some shitty bosses, so I've learned the value of working in a place where I have a good manager. I've worked for a couple that were willing to give me more responsibility, let me work on different things to expand my skill set, work more directly with senior management for exposure, etc. AND understand the importance of your family/home life and understand if you need to take leave suddenly. To me, those types of managers are worth sticking around for, even if you aren't getting paid as much as you might if you hopped around, because you can add a lot to your resume and it's usually actually nice to work in an environment like that.
Granted, sometimes working someplace a long time raises just as many questions - like you were developing skills and broadening experience.
But sometimes, you have a family member with a long term health challenge, so something that is a kind of light workload and not a lot of responsibility is a good place to be awhile.
I've had a several good managers. Regardless, companies still took advantage at every single stop at the four "real" jobs I had. My experience taught me to go make money for myself, so I did. Some folks are cut out to be a company man, I much prefer being an entrepreneur.
100% this. I had a very nice manager at my first job out of college that acted like she would help me get ahead, but looked to strong arm and nickel and dime me at every turn when negotiating salary. (I was being paid way below people with similar experience). Come to find out she was giving new hires with less experience, but a few years older up to 20k more than they asked for at the exact same time, most of them making 40-80% more than me. They were all one or two titles higher than me but several reported to me on projects. (She also hired a younger guy with less experience and no degree to make 25k more than I did).
Only you will have your best interests in mind no matter how nice your manager is or how many promises they make.
Then that's not a good manager. I had a manager who actively did the things I said. I don't know how rare they are, I imagine pretty rare because in my 20 plus years working, I've had one or two who were pretty good, but none others like him.
I have good managers where I work now but salary is negotiated with upper management. Even when my managers want to pay me more they have to get approval and budget to do it. (I have a similar issue of being below the mean.) It's possible with good managers too. And at good companies
My old company the raises were minor unless you were the bosses favorites. But I liked my co-workers, was making good income for the area, and loved the hours. Eventually, my company got bought by a different firm. The first year after my company got bought out my salary stayed roughly the same. After a full year under new management, I got a 34% raise, I get between a 5-8% raise every year since. It has been nice.
Oh, I am working towards entrepreneurship also. I'd much rather have a say in what I do and not limit my income.
Do it. This is the way.
I hear you, I do. This is not the world of pensions and working for GM for 30 years. I get it. But you are free to hop jobs every year, I am free to not consider that particular resume/person.
Oh sure there's definitely a down fall, I'm just finding in my experience that its much less common than say when my parents were my age. My dad's been doing HR for the same company for 30 some years now. Even from the time I graduated 10 years ago to now his advice has shifted drastically from basically the "don't leave anywhere" mentality to "leaving is often the only way to make a substantial career advancement"
Ive never been a job hopper. Unless its a crazy deal, I will stay at a place 4-5-6 years or more. My dad's head exploded when I changed jobs ONCE. lol. He was very old school.
First company I worked for out of college got bought out < 3 years into working there. Watching what the purchasing company did to not only employees but an entire town of people changed my perspective quickly. Luckily I came out ahead there and had no ties to the area but I did end up with a stint of quick job hops as a result. More or less settled in at my current company now though for the past 3 years
INCLUDING the jobs I worked in high school and during summers of college and EXCLUDING the 6 months I was doing temp job or on unemployment (after losing my job in restaurant mgt shakeup one month before my daughter was born-THAT was a rough time), I've only worked for 4 companies in my life- 1 grocery store during HS and some summers; two restaurants during college summers and immediately post grad; and my current company (in large bank) for 32 years come next March, At each stop I've done many different positions across the entire spectrum of restaurants(from utility cleaning/dishwasher to assistant general manager and in most every aspect of mortgage banking and data governance) . Every job I've past my initial hire was for someone who ASKED me to come work in their area.
In restaurant work, there is a lot of turnover but you do have to have SOME way to winnow 100 applications for say 3-5 open positions; so if there are typos or logical inconsistencies on the application/resume(like saying you currently live here in VA and have been here 2 years but ALSO say you're currently employed as a line cook in Phoenix now, your application will go in the folder without a second glance (you have to keep all applications for 13 months regardless).
But there is also definite value in "tribal/corporate" knowledge which is why my value at my current company is way higher than it would be at a competitor- I know the ways we have done things in the past vs. now, I know where the bodies are buried, and I know who to ask when I need an answer that I can trust. I can't always tell you all the things I know because they only come to the forefront of my mind when they apply to a situation. My largest single talent is to recognize patterns and anomalies (e.g. "this happened 10n years ago and THIS was the issue" and turns out the issue reoccurred; or "this only happens when it rains on Tuesday afternoons") .Thankfully my peers, and management from my level up 3-4 levels KNOW my reputation and value me as an employee.
Phil Elmassian was that guy, and he worked out pretty well for us. But I don't think we have a Bud Foster waiting in the wings to take over after he leaves, so maybe not.
Really hoping we move on at least two of the vacancies this week. Lots of portal targets going off the board and with an incomplete staff I can't imagine we're an easy sell
My thoughts are drifting towards "this is taking too long"
Rest assured Whit Babcock has a very private and state of the art/comprehensive coach finding and interview process. Very thorough.
I'm hoping it's because one or more replacements are still coaching in a bowl this week or playoff game. But the worst case scenario I can't get out of my head is that Quinn is going to be our new DC.
Any lazy/down the hall hire at VT would not surprise me in the least, sadly. But Pry is coaching for his job and career in the P4 as a head coach. The more he over-clubs here- i.e. not an internal promotion- the less heat he gets from fans and boosters. He better get this right or it will be a long time before he gets a head coaching job at a decent program.
Even the strength coach? If this is the case, it is putting us behind the chains with the portal guys.
That one makes no sense, but I honestly think J Ferguson is going to get it. So no need to rush with that one if that's the case.
My personal hopes are that OL is Matt Moore from WVU and they just finished their bowl last night, so an announcement is imminent. And Dex is the DC, so we will start hearing leaks this weekend maybe even during the PSU/SMU game. But if we get through Saturday and nothing, I'm worrying.
As long as we don't bring the worst strength coach ever- Hilgart - back, we should be OK.
who found this picture of me?
is this from an EXUM music video?
The "Dark Kept Secret?" He skips leg days.
Personally I really enjoyed that song
Oh I wasn't saying it was bad. Just TIC. It's a Hokies jam and has produced some epic gifs.
I am the reverse
I think Ferguson would be great. He's had many many years of assistant experience and is a Gentry disciple so no doubt he knows what to do to get VT back on the S&C front. But yeah, if we get through this weekend and no leaks or announcements on OL and DC, color me worried that we may go internal for those hires. Wouldn't be super upset with Davis at OL but it's an important hire and we should look at top external candidates too. If we just holler down the hall and hire Quinn as DC I'm going to be livid.
Bring back Stiney as OL coach?
I would be happy with that. Tons of mid-atlantic connections and experience, loves VT, knows a little about OL coaching, and oh yeah, fantastic recruiter.
This wouldn't be the worst idea... he is a good OL coach and better than average recruiter. Don't know if his "22" personnel/man blocking stuff jives with Bowen though
Can't imagine going back to a fanbase that created a domain/website devoted to firing me.
to be fair, they just didn't want him to be calling plays
Yep. But Reassign Brian Stinespring just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Speaking of reassigning Stinespring, the TSL podcast last week said that Pry firing Marve was the first actual coordinator firing at VT since 1992. Stiney got reassigned (demoted) from OC to TE coach when Loeffler came onboard. That is absolutely crazy. No wonder a lot of VT fans (myself included) simply didn't think coaching changes were coming. VT is just very reactive vs proactive historically and not prone to making changes.
Damn, Gina! I knew just anecdotally that it had been a looooong ass time. But I didn't realize it had been that long. Seeing it in black and white hits hard. On one hand, it doesn't surprise me that it's been that long. On the other, GODDAMN!!!
it's one of the main reasons I was skeptical it would ever happen - for some weird reason, it just seems like VT doesn't fire assistant coaches for football. We haven't done it in over 30 years. Call me jaded.
Important distinction- coordinator - not simply coach - is the metric... Bud was 1 of 2 coordinators on staff for - 30 years....
Did we fire some other coach? I don't remember any coach being fired. I remember a number leaving, but not because they were fired (other than when we transitioned to a new HC, which clearly doesn't count).
I believe Beamer fired some coaches (maybe a coordinator) after the '92 season.
Did a bit of googling - Beamer dismissed the TE coach (a former teammate), reassigned (and eventually dismissed) the DC and the secondary coach. The OC also left the program, too.
This paved the way for hiring Elmassian, Stiney and Ricky Bustle promotions among several other coaching hires.
If I recall correctly, there was the 'fire some coaches or be fired' ultimatum. At least that was the hot rumor at the time.
I thought that was with Tech coming off sanctions. Hard to imagine mandating firings when you've been hamstrung until about then.
Edit: read that the sanctions were 10 less scholarships for 3 years, presumably running from 87-90. 92 would then only be 2 years after the sanctions, so still like a difficult place to be in. And yes, Dooley was successful, and maybe they wanted to get back to that, but part of his success may have been because he was giving scholarships above the maximum (why Tech got sanctions).
The stark parallel here is that in 1992 VT was in every game. Played a tough schedule and lost many 4th Q leads. Dave Brain- an ex football player and coach, BTW- told Beamer that his coaches weren't good enough so hire better ones or leave yourself. It had nothing to do with sanctions- it had to do with seeing that the talent was getting better, the team just couldn't win close games. Beamer was forced to do it, and made the right moves- starting a 20 plus year bowl streak the following year. The chief culprit was Mike Clark- a terrible DC that Beamer brought with him from Murray State. Sound familiar? That had to be tough for Beamer, but he made the right call. He also decided not to fire some dude named Mike Gentry, not buying into the logic that the team got tired at the end of games. 2 brilliant decisions.
It wasn't just who he fired - he found better coaches/coordinators. He brought Elmassian who was known to be a tough disciplinarian (read asshole) but instilling discipline as exactly what was needed.
Pry has to find the right replacements, too (obviously).
Mike ended up doing pretty well at D3 Bridgewater...
"Fan" is short for fanatic. That basically means unrealistic. It means that texas oil men give 20 million dollars in hopes that SMU beats Wake for no other return. What VT "fanatics" were slinging at stinespring was a result of unrealistic and sophomoric logic. "Bud's defense is great, and the only reason we aren't back to back national champions is because of Stinespring"... why yes of course. No nuance, no football knowledge. When Cav got stiney good players, the offense was good. When Beamer allowed scumbag Danny Pearman to be on staff and essentially not recruit at all - that hampered the "offense"... Now to be fair, plus 100 offense in 3 of 5 years, yeah you take a hard look at the OC and what you are trying to do. But Andy Reid would run into problems when you add one fucking Olineman in a 3 year recruiting cycle.
After firing Crook, (and what Pry said in the presser about recruiting), I started wondering if the reason we're not bringing in more linemen isn't because there isn't a desire to, it's because Crook is doing a shit job recruiting, so there's only a small number to, so the rest of the team are taking recruits they can bring on board (including the skill positions - despite what someone said about how the line should be top priority).
And I remind people about that bit about fan being short for fanatic. I think it does really apply to some other schools more so than us. Like you say, when people are willing to dump huge sums of money into a program just because of how much they love the game (true fanatics).
I honestly have no idea how wealthy our donor pool is, or whether an IPTAY would work here, especially if the school did a good job a socializing/promoting that (or 20 or 50 or 100 a year).
Don't think there's much to wonder about... Pry was *quite* straightforward about it.
Oh, I agree, I meant more along the lines the lines of wanting to bring in like 4 or 5 in a class so you have to target 7 or 8, assuming you won't get all of them and Crook not having recruited enough candidates. That vs something like Crook decided his strategy was he only wanted to bring in 3 in a class and develop them over time, and really targeting those 3, but missing out on 1, or something like that. Hopefully that made sense. Or maybe Crook wanted to bring in 5, but instead of targeting 7 or 8, he only targeted 5, thinking if he tried hard enough, he could bring them all on board. I don't know -my brain is kind of fried from work.
I believe a supportive unicorn actually bought the domain "firebryanstinespring.com", so there ended up being a whole lot of competing offshoots.
firebryanstinespring.blogspot.com
https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/firestiney
http://firestinespringnow.blogspot.com/
I would think if he was going to choose Ferguson, he would have made that announcement already. Unless he's giving him through the bowl game to see how things go...?
All season we needed to fire someone. I wonder if someone has told Pry, now that that's donewe also need to hire someone.
My tinfoil hat theory is that Strength Coach thing was a manufactured story to redirect fans away from poor coaching/time management.
It's a nice, neat explanation for why we went 0-5 or whatever this season in one-score games.
Seemed like it was a problem with those losses, but maybe not the primary one.
I thought in the presser that he attributed the second half defensive meltdowns to conditioning.
Come to think of it, in most games, I think we scored the majority of our points in the first half as well (in the unresearched memory banks, for whatever that's worth).
The fact that no lead was safe in the 4th quarter because we just knew the defense was gassed every game was a real thing. To be fair, some of that could be blamed on the offense struggling so much to start that the defense used up all their energy going up and down the field in the first quarters.
I generally agree with you here. Although S&C I think was an issue (we simply don't as big compared to other rosters and didn't come out physically prepared more times than not), I do think there was a bit of misdirection here from Pry to gloss over the coaching/game management issues.
I also think defensive fatigue in the fourth had a lot to do with, again Pry was silent on this, a lot of 3 and outs and stalled drives from our offense down the stretch in games, leading to the defense being on the field a lot. Bowen's offense can be explosive, but it has certainly struggled with being efficient in moving the chains. That needs to hopefully be addressed with the OL coach hire - we have to get a way better conventional run game going so we can run clock and grind out wins. That was the classic Beamer/Foster blueprint - play championship defense, offense that could generate explosive plays at times but also RTDB and control the clock.
I will say that the team seemed stronger than under Hilgart, with maybe the exception of the OL and (that might just be a blocking scheme or skill issue) but it wasn't good enough - and perhaps conditioning was neglected for strength #'s. Step in the right direction but many more steps needed.
My thing with Hilgart was, the players looked physically good with all those before and after photos, but they did not do much lower body at all which is critical for football. And we seemed to focus more on being lean and fast over strong and explosive, which I would argue is also critical for being in football shape. There wasn't much applied strength, it was just gym numbers as you mentioned. I think we got very soft in that regard.
It's not as much about endurance like a track race or soccer match but being able to do extremely explosive movements in short bursts repetitively. That I feel like was our MO back in the day - we may not have been the most athletic or fastest team every time we lined up, but our guys were strong and tough, and you as the opponent were going to leave bruised and sore, win lose or draw each game.
This is a results business. Under Hilgart opposing running backs had record days, Pitt ran for 12 yards a CARRY in a game, WRs had record days... and we could never convert a short yardage play on offense that wasn't a QB keeper. He sucked. We were soft and on roller skates.
but the shower pics were totally cool and not weird at all