If Ed Haskins can't bring any Seattle-are prospects...

[YakiCoug]

(Seattle-area prospects) with him, either short term or long term, what is the point in hiring him? On the other hand, if he can and, at 44 years old, is the heir apparent, this move is brilliant. We do know that what Kent has done so far (14-40 in the Pac-12, the Wulffian equivalent of men's BB) is pathetic, so it's probably a "what do we have to lose?" kind of proposition.

 

[ElComanche]

I have heard that he is a very good coach ,especially on the defensive front.If he is able to recruit players,i do not care where they come from. He can really help the program if other posters here are correct in their assessment of him as a coach

 

[SaveFerris]

Agree with Ava. I just think this would be a good hire regardless of whether he has someone in his pocket. We need new ideas defensively and hopefully he can bring that to the table. I will believe Seattle is fools gold until someone proves otherwise but Haskins hopefully has contacts/relationships along the west coast.

Anyway, still some waiting to see if he is in fact hired. I also like the thought of Haskins eventually taking over the program if he shows he has that kind of ability.

 

[jourdand]

I think this would be a solid hire at this juncture. However way overstepping with the coach in waiting tab. The guy has been a varsity high school coach for like 9 years an assistant before that no college coaching experience that I'm aware of. It would be a huge jump to PAC 12 head coach. Not saying if he proves himself it doesn't happen but probably / better not be part of the deal just to get an unproven assistant with good recruiting ties.

 

[SaveFerris]

I think this would be a solid hire at this juncture. However way overstepping with the coach in waiting tab. The guy has been a varsity high school coach for like 3 years an assistant before that.It would be a huge jump to PAC 12 head coach. Not saying if he proves himself it doesn't happen but probably / better not be part of the deal just to get an unproven assistant with good recruiting ties.

Absolutely shouldn't be part of the deal. A lot of people had a problem with the Tony deal but that was a unique situation. Definitely not saying it should be part of any deal.

 

[ElComanche]

He will have about 3-4 years before Kent hangs up his tennis shoes. So hopefully he will have proven himself and Kent keeps going because his teams have proven themselves. There is no way that a HS coach is offered such a deal. Besides we do not i know who will be the other assistant coach.

 

[longtimecoug]

(Seattle-area prospects) with him, either short term or long term, what is the point in hiring him? On the other hand, if he can and, at 44 years old, is the heir apparent, this move is brilliant. We do know that what Kent has done so far (14-40 in the Pac-12, the Wulffian equivalent of men's BB) is pathetic, so it's probably a "what do we have to lose?" kind of proposition.

wullfian? I'm not ready to make that comparison

 

[Loyal Coug]

He will have about 3-4 years before Kent hangs up his tennis shoes. So hopefully he will have proven himself and Kent keeps going because his teams have proven themselves. There is no way that a HS coach is offered such a deal. Besides we do not i know who will be the other assistant coach.

We had better improve dramatically if Kent is to last 3-4 years...

 

[avabob1]

Kent has the time
If anyone really cared we would not have gotten to the point we are.

 

[CougSinceBirth]

it's probably a "what do we have to lose?" kind of proposition.

Exactly my thoughts.

 

[ElComanche]

My thoughts are "what do we have to gain" Ed Haskins seems like he is bringing a lot to the table.