Another question to ask . and answer

[Turbine]

Should you consider whether a specialty offense will make it harder to find the next-next coach in a half dozen years or so?

I have other related questions for later.
igeaux.mobi

[CajunRed]

No offense, Turb.but if Scott and David are thinking of that while trying to complete the most critical hire in UL footbal history, they are. 1) out thinking themselves.and 2) taking their eye off the ball.


igeaux.mobi

[NOCajun]

_ No offense, Turb.but if Scott and David are thinking of that while trying to complete the most critical hire in UL footbal history, they are. 1) out thinking themselves.and 2) taking their eye off the ball.


igeaux.mobi _

Well, you know what happens when you do #2.

[CajunRed]

You see! I TOLD you!!

igeaux.mobi

[Turbine]

_ No offense, Turb.but if Scott and David are thinking of that while trying to complete the most critical hire in UL footbal history, they are. 1) out thinking themselves.and 2) taking their eye off the ball.


igeaux.mobi _

I wouldn't think the current administration would concern itself with some unknown future administration.

I as a fan however, am concerned with perpetually starting over.

I know "sounds nuts" but if you go out and sign all small quick linemen you are forcing a future coach to start from scratch once again.

[Gumbeaux]

Although I agree with your point about recruiting Turb, I think that shortchanges your current HC search.

When you have a change in regime (90% of the time anyway), you're simply going to have upheaval in schemes/personnel needs/etc. That's the nature of the beast. Are we, as fans and as a university, willing to give someone some time to get things set up correctly? At a school of this size, I think you HAVE to give at least 3-4 years before deeply scrutinizing where the program is and where it's going (unless it's plain-as-day obvious we've hired another Jerry Baldwin)

This is frankly already going to be a bit of a reclamation project as it is.

JMHO.

[CajunRed]

I have a gut feel that it will not be Sewak.and all will be forgotten.

igeaux.mobi

[03cajunalum]

I don't think any school is above a philosophy/personnel change. Nebraska, Florida, and even UL has changed offensive philosophies in the last 10 years. I remember a UL quarterback throwing for 500 yards against Arkansas, and just a few short years later we had a top 5 national ranking in rushing only to return to the pass the last couple of years when we couldn't replicate those results. We have no philosophy when it comes to offense here and that was part of my frustrations with the now previous regime. The one constant over the last 15 or so years is that we don't have a defense. That's what i want more than anything else. UL has proven it has the personnel to do whatever they want to on offense as long as they plan for it. I would love to have the offense we had with Desormeaux and Fenroy and have the defense we had when we competed for the Big West championship, IMHO.

I'll take any offense that our new staff has planned as long as we have a plan to stop the other guys.

[03cajunalum]

P.S.

How many vicodin does it take a 40-year old to get over a tremendous nutbustin' shot like that and still start on Sunday?

[Turbine]

_ I don't think any school is above a philosophy/personnel change. Nebraska, Florida, and even UL has changed offensive philosophies in the last 10 years. I remember a UL quarterback throwing for 500 yards against Arkansas, and just a few short years later we had a top 5 national ranking in rushing only to return to the pass the last couple of years when we couldn't replicate those results. We have no philosophy when it comes to offense here and that was part of my frustrations with the now previous regime.

That is pretty much my point.

Bustle was able to take Baldwin’s O-line and receivers and with Babb pass for 460 yards. Then the next year with most of the same line produce a 1000 yard rusher.

However, if you change to the triple option and the line gets small and quick there will be no ability to change philosophies after that.

Now if the style is super succesful there would be no need, except then you would be locked in, to the type of coach you can hire.

Just looking far down the road.

[Hooj_Cajun_Fan]

_ That is pretty much my point.

Bustle was able to take Baldwin’s O-line and receivers and with Babb pass for 460 yards. Then the next year with most of the same line produce a 1000 yard rusher.

However, if you change to the triple option and the line gets small and quick there will be no ability to change philosophies after that.

Now if the style is super succesful there would be no need, except then you would be locked in, to the type of coach you can hire.

Just looking far down the road. _

Being that we haven't had a winning season since the mid 1990's, I'd say that we have to focus on building a culture of winning immediately. If we can do that while still recuiting the type of players that will still be viable the next time we make a coaching change then that's great. However, I don't think we should be worrying about the next coaching change just yet. I'd say it's not a priority.

[03cajunalum]

_ That is pretty much my point.

Bustle was able to take Baldwin’s O-line and receivers and with Babb pass for 460 yards. Then the next year with most of the same line produce a 1000 yard rusher.

However, if you change to the triple option and the line gets small and quick there will be no ability to change philosophies after that.

Now if the style is super succesful there would be no need, except then you would be locked in, to the type of coach you can hire.

Just looking far down the road. _

I don't think we'd be stuck on the type of coach, but maybe the players. In the teams i mentioned in Nebraska and Florida they changed philosophies because they made coaching changes. But other than that, their offense/defense stayed the same while that coach was still there, enabling them to focus on certain types of recruits. That's where we need to get. In UL's case, we had the same coach but different offenses every year based on what they stumbled on in the 3rd game or so. I'm tired of guessing.

[rhineaux]

_ No offense, Turb.but if Scott and David are thinking of that while trying to complete the most critical hire in UL footbal history, they are. 1) out thinking themselves.and 2) taking their eye off the ball.


igeaux.mobi _

Disagree. If you are spending this amount of money and the hire is as critical as people say it is, then you had better look at every possible effect that could come as a result of this hire. I don't know that I would consider this a determining factor in who to hire right now, but I also don't think you can accurately criticize them for "out thinking themselves" and "taking their eye off the ball" for doing so.