Is a much better offensive coordinator than head coach? This is not meant to be critical of Mike just an observation. Some people are destined to be CEO's and some are destined to be the CFO for example. Comparing coach to Saban, Miles or any number of top tier coaches would be unfair in my opinion but I think my initial observation has some merit, at least in some circles.
Has anyone other than myself, had feelings/thoughts that Mike Leach
- Thread starter nicenez
- Start date
There are outstanding coaches, great coaches, above average coaches, average coaches below average and so forth. In terms of being the conference champion one or more times in the Big 12 as an indicator, for example of an above average to great leader, I might be inclined to declare CML as slightly above average as a Head Coach and a great offensive coordinator. Just my humble opinion.
Would being ranked in the top 25 five out of the last six years count for being above average? Would going to ten bowl games in ten years qualify for above average?
With almost this entire team coming back next season, I predict that WSU will go bowling next season. If that occurs, would you say that going to a bowl game two times in four years at WSU (especially we all know where WSU was before he took over) is above average?
We may have different definitions of above average and that is OK.
I think Leach is a very good coach. Not a great coach, but a very good coach. Like Mike a Price, he has a lot of weaknesses, but you can't ignore his record at Tech and call him average. Average would be a .500 coach. He won 84 games, 47 in conference. There is no way he's an average head coach.
I commented that in my opinion Mike is a slightly above average coach not just average. Don't have the numbers in front of me but just look at his overall win/loss record from Tech forward. Again, I like CML and wish him nothing but the best while at WSU but questions about Mike as a head coach persist in my mind after three years in.
I would think that would be a reasonable question after all of Wulff's recruits are gone, so I think it's a little too early. In a couple of years, we'll know. But as said before, look at Tech now.
I agree chinook for various reasons....but that is just what I was told by person who is decently well connected to the program. Said they are looking for an offensive guru first and foremost. This person also said there will probably be some big changes to the defensive staff but that seems like a no brainer.
Being a Head Coach isn't easy, and being an OC is much easier. You just focus on 1/3 of the game instead of all of it.
Leach's issues with the other 2/3 really come from staff issues which is correctable by bringing in better staff.
Leach was brought in because he has a system that works for smaller teams with a talent/resource disparity.
And it has worked here already putting up NCAA records leading the country in some stats taking us to a bowl game for the first time in 10 years in year 2. He's made tremendous progress, and even against ASU we were a team that could compete. We just made some mistakes, but we were competitive.
We were competitive in just about every single game this year except maybe a couple which is a far cry from the getting blown out there is no way we are gonna win times 4-5 years ago.
We've seen great comebacks like Leach's Apple Cup, Utah this year. We've seen games where we've walked in Oregon State, USC, and Arizona's own house and won.
We're a program that is getting better. It's very clear we are getting better, but we aren't quite there yet. It was a razor thin margin for a lot of our games this year, and really that's how close we are to turning the corner.
When you are a Coach who can turnaround a small school like us and make us win against the teams with better resources then you are most certainly a good head coach. Leach is on his way to doing that. Took price over a decade to do it and Alabama came calling to get him. Ericson did it in 2 and Miami called.
The reason they were sought after is because.. it's not easy to win here, and if you can build a winning tradition here you can do it anywhere, and Leach is a head coach who will get us there as is indicative of what progress he's already made.
This post was edited on 11/23 6:40 PM by Cougatron
Leach's issues with the other 2/3 really come from staff issues which is correctable by bringing in better staff.
Leach was brought in because he has a system that works for smaller teams with a talent/resource disparity.
And it has worked here already putting up NCAA records leading the country in some stats taking us to a bowl game for the first time in 10 years in year 2. He's made tremendous progress, and even against ASU we were a team that could compete. We just made some mistakes, but we were competitive.
We were competitive in just about every single game this year except maybe a couple which is a far cry from the getting blown out there is no way we are gonna win times 4-5 years ago.
We've seen great comebacks like Leach's Apple Cup, Utah this year. We've seen games where we've walked in Oregon State, USC, and Arizona's own house and won.
We're a program that is getting better. It's very clear we are getting better, but we aren't quite there yet. It was a razor thin margin for a lot of our games this year, and really that's how close we are to turning the corner.
When you are a Coach who can turnaround a small school like us and make us win against the teams with better resources then you are most certainly a good head coach. Leach is on his way to doing that. Took price over a decade to do it and Alabama came calling to get him. Ericson did it in 2 and Miami called.
The reason they were sought after is because.. it's not easy to win here, and if you can build a winning tradition here you can do it anywhere, and Leach is a head coach who will get us there as is indicative of what progress he's already made.
This post was edited on 11/23 6:40 PM by Cougatron
What a great post. I agree 100% with everything here.
An Apple Cup win and this season might jumpstart the program in similar fashion 2000 did.
Q
Moos really needs to give this program a hand with our out of conference schedule. Rutgers and Nevada should have been Idaho and New Mexico State in Pullman. Get us some bowl games, change the swagger of this program. Stop trying to get that quality OOC opponent, at least until the program is up on it's feet. This is really the difference between our year and UW's year. If we had their schedule, we'd be looking at a bowl game right now. All would be OK considering the loss of Halliday. Unfortunately, Moos continues to have a different attitude towards our OOC schedule.
It took Mike Price more than a decade?
Interesting. I suggest you research the topic a little better.
We went 9-3 in 92 which was his 4th yr. We won 8 games in 94. We won 10 games in 97.
Interesting. I suggest you research the topic a little better.
We went 9-3 in 92 which was his 4th yr. We won 8 games in 94. We won 10 games in 97.
Hawaii and Nevada are both 3-4 in the MWC. We just need to play better against mid-level teams from lower rated conferences.
Please stop the "cult of personality" nonsense. In the ten years before Leach arrived at TT they were 62-53. They improved under him, no doubt (10%). Since he left they have fall to 33-29, a winning record still. You suggest that TT was crap before and after him. Improvement here???? Compared to the worst coach in school/P-12 history we have improved, but to a whopping .300 winning percentage (against non FCS teams). In recruiting, 12-10-12 sums it up. Compare to Doba, Price, Erickson and Walden we haven't, either in wins or recruiting. Will he?? Who knows, but until he does, his claim to fame is making a winning program 10% better. If he wants to make a real name for himself and be deserving of adulation he needs to turn the steaming pile that is Cougar football into a 8-4 or 9-3 team, just once. Walden did it, Erickson, Doba and Price to within 4 years.
I know, I know... you can't expect that from of the "great leader," we are still recovering from the imperilist dog Paul Wulff and his reactionaries.
Agreed.
More generally, as re Leach as a HC, I think he's far above average. At the risk of being overly terse, his core tenets (in particular, graduating kids, and toughness, discipline, and fortitude) flow through the entire program. I don't see why anyone would suggest that he's an OC any more than any other HC with a focus on a particular side of the ball, and who functions as a coordinator, should only be a coordinator. Sure, it's tempting to look at any HC who also functions as a coordinator and think that he might be "best" at that, since that's his core "tactical" competency, but that doesn't mean it's all he can do.
This post was edited on 11/24 9:11 AM by 425cougfan
So, you point out a "10% win increase" for Leach at TT, to dismiss that work, but fail to give a corresponding increase for the work he's done over his predecessor here- can't imagine why. Price took over an Aloha Bowl team. Doba took over a Rose Bowl team. Leach took over a bowel team.
This post was edited on 11/24 9:11 AM by wulffui
So, you point out a "10% win increase" for Leach at TT, to dismiss
that work, but fail to give a corresponding increase for the work he's
done over his predecessor here- can't imagine why. Price took over an
Aloha Bowl team. Doba took over a Rose Bowl team. Leach took over a
bowel team.
You might say it was a small bowel team.
that work, but fail to give a corresponding increase for the work he's
done over his predecessor here- can't imagine why. Price took over an
Aloha Bowl team. Doba took over a Rose Bowl team. Leach took over a
bowel team.
You might say it was a small bowel team.
Walden took over program that had three different head coaches in the preceeding 3 years and won in year 4. Erickson recruiting was so bad we started 7 freshmen on D in 1991, for non-injury related reasons, i.e. lack of talent. In 1992 we won 9 games those those kids. Admittedly, Erickson and Doba's big seasons were cheap, both inherited very talented offense and defensive teams, respectively Yes you are right Leach has 9 wins against D1 teams. That is a 50% increase in only 3 years over Wulff in 4 year, the worst Pac-12 coach ever. Praise those 9 wins the "great leader" has provided us. That is awesome, amazing, the best coaching performance ever. Tell me when you stop clapping, I don't want to be seen as the first to stop.
We are heading into year 4 with no clear turn around in sight.
Except for last year, when they were in a bowl game. I admire your overreacting, but you're busy comparing coaches who got to start from a way better position than Leach, and discussing their year four success before the end of Leach's third year. Why do people who are comfortable acknowledging that Wulff was the worst coach in PXII history behave like he left behind a Erickson/Price level program? Also, your very astute "12-10-12" analysis of our recruiting is solid, since there's only 12 college football teams in all of America.
Also, read your above sentence about Erickson's recruiting- couldn't you plug in Wulff's name, change the date, and have the exact same info?
This post was edited on 11/24 1:15 PM by wulffui
Also, read your above sentence about Erickson's recruiting- couldn't you plug in Wulff's name, change the date, and have the exact same info?
This post was edited on 11/24 1:15 PM by wulffui
What are you talking about? Tech is no where near what they were under Leach. Leach had one losing season in conference play his entire career at Tech. Tech hasn't had a winning record in the Big 12 since then. Tubberville went 9-17, Kingsbury is 6-11, Since Leach left Tech is 15-26 in conference games in 5 years. Leach lost a total of 33 in 10, how can you sit there and say Tech hasn't fallen off? Leach never won less than 3 conference games, Tubberville and Kingsbury have both won 2 conference games.
I guess I feel during the mid 2000's the Big 12 South is nothing compared to the Pac-12 North with Oklahoma, Texas, Tech and Oklahoma State. When Leach won 11 games, Texas won 12, OU won 12, Okie State won 9. He picked a hell of a time to have his best team.
Mike Price went 4-7 in his third year, won three conference games, don't know how that is really different from us maybe going 4-8, but yes, let's jump up and down and cry because Leach who took over the WORST program in Power Five history isn't at 9 wins in year three. This crying fest sounds just like Furness, Moore and Puckett who for some reason thought Wulff recruited and left Leach 9 win teams and we are just totally underachieving with Leach.
I'll be fair, in analysis, early 80's Northwestern, the worst 15 year stretch at Oregon State- probably late 70's to early '90's, and early aughts Duke were further down than Wulff. That next level up, though- the Kansases and Baylors, the Vandys and Rutgers- the program was on that level when Leach took over, and he's built a young team that's been largely competitive by year three, with a bowl game ahead of schedule.
The QB a lot of people thought would be the biggest question mark going into next year has gotten unexpected gametime, and looks to be a good piece going forward. You've got a great majority of your talent returning at a time when your conference peers will be losing a great deal more of their talent than you do. An incremental defensive upgrade, just based on a standard experience curve should be the very least you see next year, new DC or not, and special teams is an easy enough fix- not to great, but anything above wet noodle level would be at least a one game swing.
I think a turnaround is pretty visible. A real, 9-10 win turnaround- you've moved onto the OSU/Cal level of this division, and could bring the UW down into that pack with a win. Stanford is starting to trend downward as post-Harbaugh decay starts to set in. You're in a lot better position as a program, and have improved your standing when viewed through the scope of your peers. You might also see some more coach shuffling among programs who've overachieved at the top of the conference this year.
The QB a lot of people thought would be the biggest question mark going into next year has gotten unexpected gametime, and looks to be a good piece going forward. You've got a great majority of your talent returning at a time when your conference peers will be losing a great deal more of their talent than you do. An incremental defensive upgrade, just based on a standard experience curve should be the very least you see next year, new DC or not, and special teams is an easy enough fix- not to great, but anything above wet noodle level would be at least a one game swing.
I think a turnaround is pretty visible. A real, 9-10 win turnaround- you've moved onto the OSU/Cal level of this division, and could bring the UW down into that pack with a win. Stanford is starting to trend downward as post-Harbaugh decay starts to set in. You're in a lot better position as a program, and have improved your standing when viewed through the scope of your peers. You might also see some more coach shuffling among programs who've overachieved at the top of the conference this year.
No Wulff left the program with four wins (not 9), several NFL players
and returning 9 and 9 players a side, two NFL QB's, and two plays from being 6-6. And the team that went 6-6 last year was done mostly with PW recruits. So yeah, while Leach inherited a 4-8 team, it was a young 4-8 team, close to being 6-6 with everyone returning, including your two year starter who missed 2011. And to think 4-8 was coached by the worst coach in history you would expect an improvement.
and returning 9 and 9 players a side, two NFL QB's, and two plays from being 6-6. And the team that went 6-6 last year was done mostly with PW recruits. So yeah, while Leach inherited a 4-8 team, it was a young 4-8 team, close to being 6-6 with everyone returning, including your two year starter who missed 2011. And to think 4-8 was coached by the worst coach in history you would expect an improvement.
W-Fui...I just wanted to make sure I read what you wrote correctly...
With the improved DB play, with a more lenient schedule, and with some of our opponents losing some good players, you think this team will win between 9-10 games? Or did you mean they would improve by three to four games and go 6 and 6 or 7-5?
With the improved DB play, with a more lenient schedule, and with some of our opponents losing some good players, you think this team will win between 9-10 games? Or did you mean they would improve by three to four games and go 6 and 6 or 7-5?
Re: W-Fui...I just wanted to make sure I read what you wrote correctly...
No, I think they get back to bowl eligibility, but I see a lot of well performing freshmen and sophomores, compared to what the rest of the division has, and a lot of outgoing talent from other teams. They're building in the right direction, and a 9-10 win future is probably a couple years out, but I like what I've seen from a lot of the youth, and I feel like the fixes that separate this team from getting to a bowl are reasonable ones to expect.
Breske the DC who might be OK, isn't good enough to beat Breske the DB's coach, whose young corners have the worst ball skills I've seen- at finding the ball in the air, this is sub-Wulff level, and the kids have the athleticism that if someone can coach them to have some idea what to do when the ball is in the air, your youth in the front seven has shown that they can get after the QB. Merely below average DB and ST play would have this team in a bowl- I think they get to That level next year on both accounts.
No, I think they get back to bowl eligibility, but I see a lot of well performing freshmen and sophomores, compared to what the rest of the division has, and a lot of outgoing talent from other teams. They're building in the right direction, and a 9-10 win future is probably a couple years out, but I like what I've seen from a lot of the youth, and I feel like the fixes that separate this team from getting to a bowl are reasonable ones to expect.
Breske the DC who might be OK, isn't good enough to beat Breske the DB's coach, whose young corners have the worst ball skills I've seen- at finding the ball in the air, this is sub-Wulff level, and the kids have the athleticism that if someone can coach them to have some idea what to do when the ball is in the air, your youth in the front seven has shown that they can get after the QB. Merely below average DB and ST play would have this team in a bowl- I think they get to That level next year on both accounts.
Great post 'Tron..... I too, agree with all you said and look forward to a very competitive Coug team in the next few years to come! Go Cougs! Plus, I'll be at the Apple Cup yelling my brains out !!!
Mike Leach needs to start winning all the games he should ( our non conference schedule this year), and at least 4 more per year. He is a grumpy old coach that wants everything his way. This Schtick will work if he wins. If he doesn't this will grow old.
The Pac 12 is a tough conference to win in, and he has proven that he can put together an offensive team, but by the same measurement he has proven that he has not done much with the defensive side.
That has to be fixed next season. 4th year, his recruits are here, it needs to happen now.
The Pac 12 is a tough conference to win in, and he has proven that he can put together an offensive team, but by the same measurement he has proven that he has not done much with the defensive side.
That has to be fixed next season. 4th year, his recruits are here, it needs to happen now.
Similar threads
