Would O be like Archer post-Arnsparger?

nope

No

Well Mike Archer wasn't qualified or ready to be the HC at LSU. Neither is O. He's faced one true test against bama and failed. O looked lost and couldn't make any adjustments in the game.

Any coach who is completely dependent on his assistants to be successful will run into major problems. It's hard enough to hire one great coordinator, having two great coordinators all the time is a must for O and that will be near impossible to pull off.

No. Archer was very young and inexperienced when he got the LSU job (youngest HC in D-1 football at the time). O is in his 50's and was previously a HC at a major college program. He has MUCH more experience now than Archer did when he was named LSU's HC

Stovall is a better example

We already know what O is like as our head coach.

I'm all in.

quote:

---

We already know what O is like as our head coach

---

you have no idea how the immediate injection of enthusiasm is like infatuation......it will fade and you better hope the foundation of a solid marriage is there.

Also, while he is a good recruiter, he is NOT responsible for the bulk of the talent currently. That said, I don't question he recruiting skills (skills that Archer lacked but he did have Jenkins on staff as well as others like Sam Nader).

I'm not saying O would fail. I am saying LSU doesn't need to gamble on it and should look for a safe bet.

quote:

---

No. Archer was very young and inexperienced when he got the LSU job

---

I had forgotten about that.

And I agree on the recruiting front.

Yeah, it's not really a comparison, so thanks for the info.

No, and not even close.

quote:

---

This X 1,000. People need to take their coon arse glasses off

---

The argument for O is that he becomes somewhat like LSU's Dabo Swinney. A guy that has never been a coordinator, but someone that can delegate, recruit and be the face of the program. There's no question that O would be dependent on his assistants moreso than someone like Fisher or Herman, but you could argue that so was Miles. What O has in his favor is his ability to recruit. I don't care how good of a coach you are. If you don't have the players in the SEC, you aren't winning consistently. I don't think anyone doubts O's ability to bring in talent.

The Ole Miss stint is definitely worrisome. However, if you really believed that he learned from his mistakes, then you can get over that. If I'm Alleva, I'm trying to find out how O is perceived in the college football coaching world in order to gauge his ability to bring in quality assistants. Would top notch coaches be willing to work under him? If the general consensus is "probably not", then I think you have to stay away from him.

Alleva has to be able to see into the future when it comes to O. Would he have the same mentality as the permanent head guy vs. the mentality he has now as the "intern" so to speak? Right now he's trying to not make any mistakes and put his best foot forward. People can change once they are fully in charge. Also, would O's message quickly become stale? The "one team, one heartbeat" mantra is a bit gimmicky. It's good for 8 games, but can it resonate for 8 years?

It's not an easy decision because you would like to retain O even if he isn't the HC. However, I think you make Herman, Fisher, and even a guy like Fedora tell you no before you seriously consider O.