Recent Comments
He led the country in tackles two years ago
Yea, because ODU juices their stats at home and over distributes assisted tackles.
Old Dominion has a tackling scandal hidden in plain sight pic.twitter.com/FYcz6K1HyW— Split Zone Duo (@SplitZoneDuo) August 15, 2024
That's a big unknown, right? Does Campbell's pragmatism play to his advantage if he has a GM who just tells him what numbers to run?
Here's another semi-related question: If Campbell's entire 'coaching tree' is (basically) FCS or NFL, is he more likely than other coaches to work with a GM with an NFL background/NFL system?
Rev Share hasn't even existed for 6 months yet. Definitely too soon to know what will work and what won't.
Obviously, this is all dependent on Campbell actually wanting to give up personnel management.
It's not the same, but truly felt that Marcus should have gone elsewhere (even before he enrolled at VT) to NOT have to follow Michael to Blacksburg. The Fullers were different, but with this Shane has earned and deserves his own path choices. It'll work out better for all of us.
It may be a backwards relic of how CFB was 5 years ago, but if the best coaches available prefer that dynamic, are we going to hire a lesser coach in order to adopt a modern org chart that the best coaches do not like?
BINGO! You want to hire Dan Mullen, Matt Campbell, Shane Beamer, or another established coach? And you're going to tell them someone else is going to make personnel decisions for them? They will all tell you to get fucked.
So, are you willing to hire someone unproven in order to hire this GM? Let us not forget that this GM is also unproven because no one has done this job in the college game yet. But forget that. Let's say you poach Jim Nagy from OU, and ask him to hire a coach. How unproven are you willing to settle for? Are you willing to hire Tyson Helton? Will Stein? Bob Chesney? JC Price?
I tend to agree. It just feels too incestuous/nepotistic to me.
I was really disappointed that their All American linebacker (Henderson) retired from football this season. He led the country in tackles two years ago and spent all of last season injured and played some this season before hanging it up.
The defense has still been better this year, regardless, but he was something special.
It may be a backwards relic of how CFB was 5 years ago, but if the best coaches available prefer that dynamic, are we going to hire a lesser coach in order to adopt a modern org chart that the best coaches do not like?
There's a balance here. Right now, we need the best coach possible. And while I don't disagree with your three hires, the problem we have right now is that it would take too long to hire that first hire, which would interfere with the hiring timeline for the best of the second hire. Since we didn't get a new AD in the spring, we're forced to deal with hiring the coach first right now.
I don't want him either. If he's our coach, then we missed on 10+ other coaches.
In my opinion, the search committee should be hiring a "President of Football Operations" or hire a GM that is the head of the football operations. That person then needs to be the one in charge of hiring the coach. The position would fall under AD, but is only hired and fired by the BoV and has direct reporting to the University President.
I have heard that CFB coaches want to select their own GM, so they can get player personnel that matches their scheme. IMO, that's backwards and a relic of how CFB was 5 years ago. This major shift towards paying players and signing players with an NIL deal every year needs to be performed in a capacity that can outlast a coach. It makes no sense to have the GM position to be tied to the HC.
That said, I do think there is an alternative in which their is a GM-like role that is essentially player personnel scout/manager that is selected by the coach and integrates the coach's philosophy into player personnel. In fact, I think that is important to ensure good coaching hires and that player personnel lines up schematically with the HC and coordinator philosophies.
In sum, there needs to be three hires: (1) a head of football that is long-term position, (2) HC hire, and (3) a GM-like position that is reflective of the HC. The committee should only be hiring the Head of football operations. And give any name you want to the positions, all that matters is the hierarchy.
Is a "Boy Scout" recruiter reputation really that much of a hindrance when all the below-the-table stuff is now above-the-table?
Do I think [Eddie Royal] is the best qualified to evaluate a coaches vision or plan for running a multi-million dollar operation? That's where I get concerned.
That's why there are others on the committee, and that's why these things are done as a committee, not by a single person.
Do we have someone that made a model of a few of the top programs in football to see what are critical factors in a successful operation?
I don't know, but I'm willing to bet Bruce Arians can weigh in on that.
We should be sending out the message to everyone - especially prospective candidates - that the leadership who put us into this position will no longer be part of this program moving forward.
I'm sure that message is being sent. Coaches and agents aren't unaware of what's going on here, and the infected tissue is being cut out as soon as it's possible to do so.
We, the fans, are not necessarily privy to all the inner workings of what's going on, nor do we need to be.
We turned down Mike Elmo? Amazing! I hope there were "circumstances" that we couldn't overcome/meet that led to us turning him down. Or when we did, Whit was bullish on landing Napier and by the time that fell through Elko was gobbled up.
I see flashes as well, but they gave up a lot of draft capital for those flashes while Egbuka is torching secondaries and second rounder Will Johnson has been looking stellar at CB.
He's a great coach, which is surprising that I just read in The Athletic that every team with an opening except the Braves had contacted him, thus prompting the Rangers' swift move. =^/
as a GM position was quickly becoming the norm
This is NOT true at all. There's one P4 school that has a GM hired before/in charge of hiring a coach: Stanford. Every other program with a GM - Ole Miss, OU, etc - had the coach hire the "GM"
I'm kinda annoyed that Bruce even suggested that we'd be hiring a GM first.
Not sure what your point is? Are you suggesting that since we can 'hire' players, it's less important to land the ideal coach?
FROSTY IS A BEAR
|
9 months 1 week
# | Some say the sun shines brightest the day Pawl Finebaum gets removed from ESPN And people over 60 are subject to them too. Many people live to 70 or 80. So why should they not be elected?
We probably should just drop the subthread, but my point is that it is amazing (well, actually, it doesn't amaze me at all) that we have so many people who are so bigoted against old people and think that is a good thing.
This sub-thread was locked by a moderator.
Hopefully Eddie has some inside info from interviewing coaches and players etc and can touring around programs. Arians and Bud should be able to assess scheme and competency, the other members are there to look at leadership or team building or something I assume. I get the desire for outside perspective, but I would argue that we have it with Arians and Royal who make their hay outside of VT football.
🍺MAKES "BEER" ⚗️🦃
|
9 months 1 week
# | The Argument for Matt Campbell to be the next VT Football Coach So what is he is paired with a cutthroat bulldog mentality GM? I want a coach who knows the X's, O's. Jimmie's, and the Joe's and can tell the GM "this guy would be perfect, go get him", and actually win with the guys he identifies. I don't know that the coach needs to be the sales guy anymore, but needs to be able to explain the system and the opportunity and the GM can close deals.
Heard a mention the other night that they didn't include Frank because they are looking at Shane. Can we PLEASE stop foisting this upon Shane?!!! I don't care if he wants to come back, we shouldn't even be considering it. We had our run with Frank (Which was awesome, I'm not poo pooing his tenure.) But let's let Shane have his own career outside the NRV. And if we need to ask Frank a few things, he has contacts in the football world that very few others do.
I think my problem with the committee is that we once again pulled in "the best Hokies" rather than the best people to actually evaluate candidates. I understand having to have certain parts of VT represented as token members but are the evaluators really the best in college football or just the best people connected to VT?
Do I like Eddie Royal as a frank TV analyst? Absolutely
Do I question he wants the best for VT? Absolutely not
Do I think he is the best qualified to evaluate a coaches vision or plan for running a multi-million dollar operation? That's where I get concerned.
Do we have someone that made a model of a few of the top programs in football to see what are critical factors in a successful operation?
I doubt it.
🍺MAKES "BEER" ⚗️🦃
|
9 months 1 week
# | The Argument for Dan Mullen to be the next VT Football Coach But that face is one of the most punchable in college football
Comparing Fuente's QB development history to Mullen's is kind of a joke
I didn't say that the GM hiring a coach was the norm, but that athletic departments adding a GM role is the norm. I am disappointed that Whit hasn't already determined the coach/GM power structure over the last few months.