re: Great assistants aren't always great head coaches

i'll take my chances with a DC versus a Dline coach

Yep the Kirby Smart hire at UGA was a disaster.

Totally agree. Aranda is a great dc but unproven as a hc. Again not saying he would not be a good hc but there needs to be a search for the best available at the time. People on here think they gave him that large raise cause he is the next hc are just wrong. They gave it to him to keep him here. O low salary makes it possible to pay him the 2.5 per year.

Some people are trying to read something thats not there.

you can say the same thing with head coaches also, rich Rod West Virginia vs. Rich Rod Michigan .

He’s a detail oriented defensive coordinator. It’s not like we are talking about a d line coach or anything......oh wait

agreed, and I'd much rather go with a proven head coach, even if he's from a lesser school.

Of course, all head coaches started as an assistant, but few of them turn into great head coaches. The skill set for a head coach and an assistant (preferably a coordinator) are far different.

So skip the "head coach in waiting" concept and go get (when it's time) the best proven head coach we can get.

For every Dabo, there's a far longer list of failures.

quote:

---

Great assistants aren't always great head coaches

---

this is true;

and the following is also true:

bad assistants don't move up the ladder, good ones do.
(except of course O , but he has his own selling points, rah rah recruiter extraordinaire, so they say).

You don't know what you have until you have him.
And we happen to have Aranda right now, so there is probably some idea of how good he might be.

quote:

---

Great head coaches don't make great head coaches always.

---

true too.

quote:

---

True or False?: All redheads are geniuses. Bob is a genius. Therefore Bob must be a redhead.

---

In what way did that invalidate my point, or really address?

The fact that being a great assistant does not automatically make one a great HC ought not be looked at as some negative for hiring great assistants, because I'd bet dollars to donuts that if you were to make a list of the greatest coaches they were probably pretty solid assistants somewhere in their past. Or are we now at the point that being great at your job before becoming LSU's head coach is seen as a negative?

Essentially, acting as if you're just as likely to get solid results if you tap a great assistant coach as you are a lousy one is silly. There are never guarantees, but I'll always side with the best available and take my chances.

Other than Saban or Meyer there is not a single coach out there who would not be a risk. Even Harbaugh is underwhelming at Michigan.

I understand that with guys who have been a coach before you get a somewhat apples to apples look at how he would do for you in that role, but so many outside factors can complicate it.

A better idea is to look for the qualities that make a coach a good fit for your program in both head coaches and well thought of assistants. You don't want to exclude someone who would be great for you just bc he's not a HC