re: DC Hire Rant Flashback

Steele was not a great hire. He just wasn't. He had a mental breakdown in a bowl game and was run out of town at Clemson where had plenty of talent and played in the weak ACC.

We have excellent talent and excellent position coaches so I think we will be fine, but can we please stop being so incredibly biased?

Hope for the best.

Nostradamus

quote:

---

re: Don't hire Chavis (Posted on 12/1/08 at 3:01 pm to Chicken)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again......

Chavis does not recruit.

The 2001 UT defense had Albert Haynesworth, and John Henderson.

They lost to the QB-Draw of Freshman Matt Mauck and the LSU Tigers.

No thanks

---

quote:

---

Nobody was jumping through hoops when Chavis was hired around here

---

As I recall, better than 50% of our college football "experts" posting here at the time of the Chavis hire suggested that the hire sucked in some way and would spell the end for Miles.

I don't know how our new DC will turn out, but any coach hired by Nick not once but twice gets the benefit of the doubt with me cause he must have something going for him. imo

quote:

---

See I disagree with what the rant considers great and I consider great. I think a great hire means familarity with opponents(check), linguistics of scheme(check), recruiting(check), familiarity with personnel(check), and, lastly, experience with a particular position in addition to schematic duties(i.e. LB development).

So yeah he wasn't a great hire by the standards of tigerdroppings but when you break it down logistically relative to running a business or football program it was.

Steele didn't thrive at Clemson consitently but @ the time he coached there a culture was transitioning from Clemsoning to winning......He had many opposing factors going against him.

---

I don't think it will be a disaster on par with Mallveto. I just think he is average/poor with his schemes. He is a great recruiter and we have great position coaches and talent. Those 3 things will keep our defense good, but I don't see Steele pulling out incredible game plans like Chavis did against A&M/Oregon/etc. I don't see him teaching fundamentally sound, steady defense like Chavis did.

He is 'ok'. That's my stance. Without addition of Ed Orgeron to boost the DL and elevate recruiting even higher, I think we'd be in a bit of trouble.

And I was anti-Orgeron for years because of his checkered past. We needed him now though.


ETA:

To be fair, one of the reasons Chavis did well consistently was the simplicity of his scheme that relied on solid fundamentals. I think Steele will be more complex and aggressive, but I think we may get burned for more big plays.

Steele better be a home run hire.

I is confused.

This post was made in 12/08, but he's talking like we already saw the 08 season with the co-tards. Or were we looking at Chavis before Les hired the co-tards?