re: What I’m hearing (coaching search)

quote:

---

I dont see durkin as a no brainer. But if he can turn around the team over the next few games and is given the ability to hire a good offensive staff then why not? We aren't getting a lanning or Ryan day type coach at this point. The other names being thrown around, summeral, Kelly, jimbo...I would rather take a chance with durkin than hire a lateral transfer and lose half the roster.

---

Because this is a stupid argument.

Auburn's last two hires both lasted less than 3 seasons.

When you look at the next hire, the expectation is that you are trying to find a coach who is going to succeed and therefore be here as the HC for 6-8+ years at minimum. Ideally this next hire is here for ~10 years. This is the ultimate goal in every coaching search.

The players you are talking about retaining have 1-2 years of eligibility remaining. Many of them are draft eligible next season (eg: Xavier Atkins). So you are taking what should be a long-term, forward thinking decision and choosing to focus on a parameter that is extremely short-term (retaining players).

If DJ Durkin turns out to simply be ill-suited as a HC and bad, then it won't matter one lick that he retained a few players because those players are going to be off the roster before Auburn can even replace Durkin. You will have to live with a bad HC for a longer period of time than the benefit you are going to enjoy from retaining a Sophomore or Junior player from the current roster.

Does this make sense? The player retention argument is moronic. Your first and only priority is to identify and hire the best HC that you can find. In no scenario are you better off by choosing to hire someone who you think is a lesser HC, but he brings the added bonus of retaining current players. The current players don't have infinite eligibility.

No way in hell DJ would work under Dilly.

If we get Dilly we get the entire ASU staff. Not saying that's good or bad.

Pretty strange Lashlee isn't mentioned I know he's making bank but if Charles Kelly is a contender you would think golden boy Lashlee would be.


Give me DJ over Kelly all day everyday

quote:

---

Your first and only priority is to identify and hire the best HC that you can find. In no scenario are you better off by choosing to hire someone who you think is a lesser HC, but he brings the added bonus of retaining current players. The current players don't have infinite eligibility.

---

meta coming in hot with logic and common sense

quote:

---

Why did they hire Elko away from mighty Duke football instead?

---

Because he was a lot more than Duke.

He was a previous coordinator at A&M who had great success, similar to what Durkin is doing now.

No brainer for Elko because of previous success experience at A&M as a defensive coordinator.

quote:

---

Because he was a lot more than Duke.

He was a previous coordinator at A&M who had great success, similar to what Durkin is doing now.

No brainer for Elko because of previous success experience at A&M as a defensive coordinator.

---

But Durkin was also a previous coordinator for then. In fact, he was their CURRENT defensive coordinator.

They hired Elko because they evaluated that he was a better HC'ing candidate.

So you are essentially arguing that Auburn isn't good enough to find someone more qualified than Durkin. They just need to default to him. But this wasn't the case for Texas A&M, otherwise they themselves would have defaulted to Durkin when they had the opportunity to do so.

I dont foresee Auburn hiring anyone thats an ultimate home run. See the past two coaching hires. They will bring in a retread Coach that held a clipboard for pat dye in 1986 because he has "Auburn ties". They seem to refuse to hire anyone with a decent background unless they played for ,against or with something attached to the SEC. There were several available coaches during the last hire (rhule, cignetti, etc) that would have been much better hires but leave it to Auburn to Bring in a guy that beat Saban 15 years ago. I dont have a dog in the fight but if you think Auburn is bringing in some juggernaut coach.....prepare thy anus for disappointment

quote:

---

hen you just took him away from the role that made the only good part of the team good in the first place.

---

No, you are betting (that is all) that at least one side of the ball will be taken care of for good. You are betting that he will always at least have heavy influence over the defense. Doesn't mean that will happen, but assumptions have to made in every scenario. You are asking what is likely to happen.

quote:

---

No, you are betting (that is all) that at least one side of the ball will be taken care of for good. You are betting that he will always at least have heavy influence over the defense. Doesn't mean that will happen, but assumptions have to made in every scenario. You are asking what is likely to happen.

---

Yes, you are betting. You are saying: "if we promote him, the defense will continue to be good, so now all we have to do is find an offense".

But that isn't guaranteed to work out that way at all, so it is a silly way to prioritize your coaching search. Your search should look to identify who you think will be the absolute best HC long-term. Because this is the only path to consistent success. If you think that Durkin is the best HC candidate, then it should be him.

But this logic of "well our defense is great and he is the DC, so just promote him and change nothing there and go find a great OC and ta-da now we have an amazing football team" is a terrible idea. You can't just compartmentalize football like that. If that was the case then building a dominant team would be easy as shite: just hire an elite recruiter as the HC and then find the best OC and best DC and theoretically you will be elite. That sounds easy and logical, but it rarely works that way.

quote:

---

well our defense is great and he is the DC, so just promote him and change nothing there and go find a great OC and ta-da now we have an amazing football team"

---