Beau Baldwin hires a Super Bowl coach at Cal Poly
- Thread starter FnuLnu
- Start date
-
- Tags
- blame doba innocence
Yes, I think Sumlin would have done better than Wulff. Sumlin has proven he's, at very least, a semi-competent D1 head coach at multiple stops. Wulff can't even hold FCS position coach gigs.
Sumlin will soon be on that train . A coach takes a wrong gig and it is a long haul back if ever .
Sumlin took over more established programs and have taken them down. He had a very gifted qb in Tate and by the time he was done he was a back up. Seems to me more sizzle than anything else but we will see .
Not sure what you or others have seen that says he could have rebuilt the roster decimated by early defections in 04-08. But maybe there is something in Sumlins past says yeah he is a program rebuilder that I have missed .
One doesn't exactly need "master program rebuilder" on their resume to have done a better job than Wulff.
Again, not sure why that is the bench mark. Sumlin didn't inherit a program that had the attrition WSU had. He inherited a good Houston program and a wealthy A and M program. He now has to build Arizona, and he took a step back and clearly didnt have the right staff. His progression in terms procedure isn't all that different than Wullf's. He had two season's to evaluate and realized his staff needs a change. Another 4 win season could be his last. AD's aren't as lenient as they use to be.
Sumlin has been an ok to good D1 head coach. Wulff sucked.
I don't know that there really needs to be anymore to the analysis than that.
I disagree. While they inherited different school situations, the JOBS were/are very much the same. Successfully implement a chosen style while winning over the hearts of the existing players, while making what they are doing attractive to future recruits. Period.
And it is waaaay more intricate than that. It goes to how you interact with the donors, the press, your boss (aka the AD) but at it's core, implementation of a plan without blowing the existing infrastructure up... that's what EVERY coaches job is when they inherit a program.
I guess that is where I disagree with you. If the Bengals job opens up I see that as a very different job than say the Cowboys, or the Yankees and MArlins.
Wulff sucked as a head coach and has sucked in every role since. I assume most coaches would have done better.
Not sure that was the discussion. Based on Sumlin's track record what makes anyone think he would have been successful at WSU after Doba-that he had the recruiting cache to be successful thus Price would have been the better option.
He couldn't have been worse than Crapbag Wulff.
Price would have undoubtedly been a better choice as well.
I didn't say that....I simply said there was nothing in Hoke's or Sumlin's resume that said they were the right fit for a rebuild at a very difficult school at the time to rebuild. I think Sumlin would have lost to USC 55-6 instead of 69-0 with a knee at halftime. It would be my hope that any coach is not playing a D3 at best QB against one of the best teams in the country.
I wouldn't describe it as trust. However, I don't think going back works out very often especially when the guy your going back to has damaged his career to the extent Price had at that point. It's not like we are talking about a situation like Riley going back to OSU.
Lopina committed to K State out of high school. D3. Pfft. Dude looked D3 cause Wulff's garbage OL couldn't keep a QBs spinal column aligned.
KSU made a mistake . Lopina May have done well in an option offense but he was an inaccurate passer . I am stipulating wulff was garbage . You made your point . But you have not shown me two coaches at blue blood schools never built them to really good programs . And at the same time Sumlin with another 10 years of experience can’t seem to get Arizona off the ground and Arizona had more scholie and talent than WSU had in 2009 . The question isnt if wulff was good or not by why sumlin and hoke would have been the coach to get the ship righted. Then you have Price who would have been a coach with a proven record .
Sumlin is a terrible coach who got lucky to fall into some good QB's who made him look far better than he was. Case Keenum was the only reason that Houston was good when Sumlin was there. In 2010, when Keenum was injured, the Cougars went 5-7. They went 22-5 in the two years where Keenum played. Texas A&M went 20-6 when Sumlin had Manziel and he never finished better than 8-5 without Manziel and the team got progressively worse every year that he was there. Arizona is spiraling into the toilet under Sumlin. It's so bad now that he can't even win when he has an elite talent at QB. If anything, Dana Holgerson and Kliff Kingsbury are the only reasons that Sumlin didn't fail in the four good seasons that he had.
I don't give a crap about how the Wulff part of this discussion, but anyone who thinks that Sumlin is a good coach is an idiot. Don't be an idiot.
How are they different?
At it's base, the core of what you need to do as a new coach or leader (Yankees or the Royals. Alabama or Akron) is implement YOUR plan, whatever that is. Do that AND win the hearts of the current team. Then you have to make that entity desirable to future recruits, so you can keep the hopeful success (or building) rolling. But if you don't do those 3 things, you will not be successful as a coach. Period. Those are basic, foundational elements to me.
You can be an incredible teacher but if you haven't won the hearts of the players, it won't matter. You can inherit the Yankees but if you don't win them over, they won't play to their potential. You can throw all the money in the world at Alabama but if you don't have a coach the players (current and future) believe in, they won't play well.
Now as an example, you can be a sucky teacher but you can surround yourself with teachers art the assistant level.
Your plan may or may not be a good one! But that can only be assessed down the road when the team actually plays to it's full potential.
There are other examples, but you get the idea.
You can only get talent once you show them the program is worthy of signing an LOI there, right? Look at UCLA. They have talent! And then the Baby Blue rubs off, they turn into softies and the talent strangely goes away. WHY? All the coaches at UCLA have sucked over the past several decades? Or did they fail in either implementing their plan, win the hearts of the current players or fail to recruit the players they needed?
F off Flatland. Make your point without calling me an idiot.
Last edited:
I'm sure that you were just trying to mess with Ed....but don't be an idiot in your pursuit of trying to make CougEd look like an idiot. Sumlin sucks donkey balls.
Flat several things... maybe I am an idiot cause I don’t believe that is what Fab is trying to do. I think he is presenting an opinion . I will say this about Fab is he makes me think. I don’t always agree with his opinions or conclusions but he presents me an angle I may have not considered . And he may really believe Sumlin has it in him to turn around the program with no head coaching experience .
I just think there was better options than Sumlin , Hoke and Wulff.
If he really believes in Sumlin........well......I've said what I think about that at this point. The evidence speaks for itself. You can argue that Sumlin isn't a terrible coach like others that we've seen, but he has not shown that he builds programs over time. At Texas A&M, the program declined from 11 wins in year one to 9 wins in year two, a few years flat at 8-5 before getting canned in 2017. Arizona has regressed both years under his watch. Again....Sumlin isn't what I would consider a good coach to build a program. His performance at Arizona suggests that he isn't even good at taking over middle of the road programs anymore.
I don't disagree with you that there were better options out there than those you listed. That said, I actually think that Wulff was a good choice for WSU at the time and I don't blame the administration for making the choice. The big mistake was the nonsense that the program needed to be burned to the ground and rebuilt with no specified expectations for success and a failure to understand that a reasonably short timeline for improvement was necessary to avoid losing our fanbase. I talked with Wulff and he felt that he was expected to tear the team down and start over from scratch. Even in late 2010, he felt that 2-9 (before the AC) was enough improvement to justify his management of the program. It was a foolish directive from the AD and an even worse execution by Wulff. They effectively gave our program the death penalty in 2008.
EDIT: I said that I think Wulff was a good choice at the time in 2008 and I don't blame anyone for the hire. I do find it idiotic that Brand X (and some others) felt that Wulff deserved to be retained after the 2011 season. Everyone who was at the Oregon State game in Seattle in 2011 should have known that Wulff was never going to build a program that was going to be a contender for a north division title....yet alone a conference title.
Last edited:
Whatever. The guy is 95-58 as a HC. But I didn't go deep dive on him to find out what his record was without his starting QBs for some reason.
Glad you've got 6 paragraphs ready to go on Kevin Sumlin though.
I used to be very excited about Sumlin. I wanted him in 2008 and his initial success at Texas A&M reinforced that. I didn't completely sour on Sumlin until this year. Arizona sucking last year was a surprise......failing even more this year was unforgivable. His team's win totals since 2011 are: 12, 11, 9, 8, 8, 8, 7, 5, and 4. A disturbing trend to say the least.
