Everything about this man screams middle school football. His demeanor, his personality, his attitude, his delivery, everything. He is not anywhere near a BCS level head coach. Amazing he gets a check as a college coach. There are a zillion guys better than him.
Jonathan Smith is not OSU’s Paul Wulff..
- Thread starter Cougarmatt90
- Start date
Everything about this man screams middle school football. His demeanor, his personality, his attitude, his delivery, everything. He is not anywhere near a BCS level head coach. Amazing he gets a check as a college coach. There are a zillion guys better than him.
It does take you back. He couldn't come up with one regret. He was all over the place. He took over a 5-7 program and left it at 4-8 but it somehow was much better and ready to win 8 or 9? It's a painful watch.
He is delusional. He is so outpaced by soooo many coaches. How bad is Sterk to have hired a coach so overwhelmed by the job?
Not only that...but I remember the look of the HC from during their beat down of the Cougs. I think it registered something like "YOU don't belong as a coach in the Pac12".
Gawd, even his clothes were lame. He get that off the clearance rack at Penny's?
No personality, charisma, passion, fire, nothing. He is white rice. Can you imagine pre game speeches??? Does he inspire others as a leader???
I would never deny that he walked into a tough spot. I also would never deny he did a crap job either.
He is a former BCS head coach and cant get a job in BCS football. Amazing. No one will hire him to coach tight ends! He sucks.
Compare that video to 90% of BCS head coaches. He was light years behind them.
I would never deny that he walked into a tough spot. I also would never deny he did a crap job either.
He is a former BCS head coach and cant get a job in BCS football. Amazing. No one will hire him to coach tight ends! He sucks.
Compare that video to 90% of BCS head coaches. He was light years behind them.
I couldn't watch the whole thing either. You mentioned academics and S&C. The academics speaks for itself via team GPA. I remember after CML was hired that one of the players stated that many of CPW's guys were entering the S&C area, signing in and then walking out. Excellent, outstanding? Don't think so.
Ok so here's some quick and dirty numbers on the best and worst in the Pac:
USC's best since 1960 have been:
John McKay: 127-40-8 from 1960-75 (73%) He was 8-11-1 his first two years taking over a mediocre program that already had high expectations (I looked briefly at Howard Jones. He left a lot to live up to.) His only other average seasons were 1970 and 71, which were both 6-4-1 and led up to a 1972 team that's among the all-time bad-ass units in college football history. So over 4 of those 16 years he was 20-19-3. If you didn't catch him during a 'down' year, you lost. 107-21-5 is a godly 80% over 12 different seasons, 4 of which ended in a national title. Won big, won consistently, improved the program from where it was, etc.
John Robinson: Took McKay's program and kept right on truckin' in the '70s, going 67-14-2 from 1976 to 1982 (81%). Take a look at those rosters from '76 to '80 sometime. There was a drop-off after that, and his second go around in the '90s was less impressive, but he also took over a program going sideways under Larry Smith and won two conference titles. His overall mark is 104-43-4, also 73%. He was also 7-1 in bowl games, undefeated in the Rose.
Pete Carroll: Supposedly their 4th choice (after Denny, heh, Belotti, and Mike Riley... shame Denny didn't say yes in retrospect) Carroll opened his first season 2-5 and then tore it up, going 95-14 (not counting the vacated stuff from violations) before moving on to Seattle. Win % of 84, was an insane 82-9 from 2002 to 2008 (90%), won 2 titles, and never finished lower than 4th in the polls over a period of 7 years.
These three guys are the standard in the Pac. To me Carroll is probably most impressive because of the scholarship limits that the '70s teams didn't compete with, but he and McKay both started with relatively ramshackle situations by USC standards.
Carroll followed their worst coach, our aforementioned Paul Hackett, who started ok in '98 but by 2000 was in last place in the Pac, an impressive feat. He did, however, start the talent collection that Carroll continued. Whether he could've gotten remotely what Carroll did out of them is highly unlikely. He got bounced after that last place finish and a 19-18 overall record.
UCLA since 1960:
--Just an aside, the Bruins also had a bad-ass coach immediately prior to this era in Henry Sanders, who won the school's only national title ('54) and owned SC during his tenure.
The Bruins get two entries for top coach: Tommy Prothro (who they lured away from Oregon State) and Terry Donahue. Prothro was 41-18-3 over six years from '65-70, a 66% mark. Prothro may be one of the most high profile victims of officiating burnout, leaving UCLA for the nearby Rams after getting repeatedly burned by freak calls in big games or not getting bowl invites because of the Pac 8 rule about conference champs being the only ones that went.
Donahue was a Vermeil assistant that got bumped up to the top job when Dick went to the NFL. His overall mark of 151-74-8 matches Prothro's win % (65) but sustained over a much longer period ('76-'95). '82-88 was Peak Donahue, as he and Don James at UW took advantage of USC's relative downturn and turned it into conference titles. He was 7-0 in his bowl games during this stretch and consistently hovered around the top 10, but his best shot at a national title was blown when he lost to WSU and USC in '88 (probably would've lost to Michigan in that Rose Bowl too, they were as good as ND and Miami that year and played both tough).
Worst UCLA coach is... *drumroll* Neuheisal. Bob Toledo was more Price-esque (feast or famine), Dorrell and Mora were mediocre, but only Rick carries the distinction of a losing record in the last 50 years of UCLA football, going 21-29 over 4 years.
Oregon State is an interesting case, in that perhaps their best ever coach gave his best years to a rival Pac school, and his replacement turned the program into a wasteland unmatched anywhere outside the state of Kansas (or maybe the city of Chicago) for years and years. Prothro was 63-31-2 from 1955 to '64, winning 3 conferences titles, a Liberty Bowl as an independent, and made 2 Rose Bowl appearances. Nobody else since has managed a resume' like this. Only Mike Riley (103-66 has sustained success, and only Erickson (31-17 4 years) managed a conference title.
Dee Andros has been cited above as the saboteur of all Beaver fan happiness for a generation. He got an interview after impressing Beav people for a scrappy game he gave them in Prothro's last year coaching an outgunned Idaho squad. His overall record of 51-64-1 isn't that bad on the surface, but the trend was down, hard, his final 5 or 6 years. There's no way a coach would be allowed to continue on this trend for as long as he did in the modern game, really. From '65 to '70 he was 32-22-1 with 3 straight 2nd place finishes from '66 to '68. He was 5-6 in '71, and then the bottom fell out. He went 8-36 over 4 years from '72 to '75, and his successors from Fertig through Pettibone were a combined 44-183-5 from '76 to '96, for a 19% win rate. So imagine getting Paul Wulff results for 24 straight years. That's what Beaver fans suffered. Avezzano had the worst stretch from '80 to '84 (6-47-2) but as Flat pointed out, does that make him the worst qualitatively too? Hard to say in this mess. What Riley and Erickson achieved here is pretty remarkable. Like Bill Snyder remarkable.
I'll post on a few more teams later this week when I might have the energy and inclination.
USC's best since 1960 have been:
John McKay: 127-40-8 from 1960-75 (73%) He was 8-11-1 his first two years taking over a mediocre program that already had high expectations (I looked briefly at Howard Jones. He left a lot to live up to.) His only other average seasons were 1970 and 71, which were both 6-4-1 and led up to a 1972 team that's among the all-time bad-ass units in college football history. So over 4 of those 16 years he was 20-19-3. If you didn't catch him during a 'down' year, you lost. 107-21-5 is a godly 80% over 12 different seasons, 4 of which ended in a national title. Won big, won consistently, improved the program from where it was, etc.
John Robinson: Took McKay's program and kept right on truckin' in the '70s, going 67-14-2 from 1976 to 1982 (81%). Take a look at those rosters from '76 to '80 sometime. There was a drop-off after that, and his second go around in the '90s was less impressive, but he also took over a program going sideways under Larry Smith and won two conference titles. His overall mark is 104-43-4, also 73%. He was also 7-1 in bowl games, undefeated in the Rose.
Pete Carroll: Supposedly their 4th choice (after Denny, heh, Belotti, and Mike Riley... shame Denny didn't say yes in retrospect) Carroll opened his first season 2-5 and then tore it up, going 95-14 (not counting the vacated stuff from violations) before moving on to Seattle. Win % of 84, was an insane 82-9 from 2002 to 2008 (90%), won 2 titles, and never finished lower than 4th in the polls over a period of 7 years.
These three guys are the standard in the Pac. To me Carroll is probably most impressive because of the scholarship limits that the '70s teams didn't compete with, but he and McKay both started with relatively ramshackle situations by USC standards.
Carroll followed their worst coach, our aforementioned Paul Hackett, who started ok in '98 but by 2000 was in last place in the Pac, an impressive feat. He did, however, start the talent collection that Carroll continued. Whether he could've gotten remotely what Carroll did out of them is highly unlikely. He got bounced after that last place finish and a 19-18 overall record.
UCLA since 1960:
--Just an aside, the Bruins also had a bad-ass coach immediately prior to this era in Henry Sanders, who won the school's only national title ('54) and owned SC during his tenure.
The Bruins get two entries for top coach: Tommy Prothro (who they lured away from Oregon State) and Terry Donahue. Prothro was 41-18-3 over six years from '65-70, a 66% mark. Prothro may be one of the most high profile victims of officiating burnout, leaving UCLA for the nearby Rams after getting repeatedly burned by freak calls in big games or not getting bowl invites because of the Pac 8 rule about conference champs being the only ones that went.
Donahue was a Vermeil assistant that got bumped up to the top job when Dick went to the NFL. His overall mark of 151-74-8 matches Prothro's win % (65) but sustained over a much longer period ('76-'95). '82-88 was Peak Donahue, as he and Don James at UW took advantage of USC's relative downturn and turned it into conference titles. He was 7-0 in his bowl games during this stretch and consistently hovered around the top 10, but his best shot at a national title was blown when he lost to WSU and USC in '88 (probably would've lost to Michigan in that Rose Bowl too, they were as good as ND and Miami that year and played both tough).
Worst UCLA coach is... *drumroll* Neuheisal. Bob Toledo was more Price-esque (feast or famine), Dorrell and Mora were mediocre, but only Rick carries the distinction of a losing record in the last 50 years of UCLA football, going 21-29 over 4 years.
Oregon State is an interesting case, in that perhaps their best ever coach gave his best years to a rival Pac school, and his replacement turned the program into a wasteland unmatched anywhere outside the state of Kansas (or maybe the city of Chicago) for years and years. Prothro was 63-31-2 from 1955 to '64, winning 3 conferences titles, a Liberty Bowl as an independent, and made 2 Rose Bowl appearances. Nobody else since has managed a resume' like this. Only Mike Riley (103-66 has sustained success, and only Erickson (31-17 4 years) managed a conference title.
Dee Andros has been cited above as the saboteur of all Beaver fan happiness for a generation. He got an interview after impressing Beav people for a scrappy game he gave them in Prothro's last year coaching an outgunned Idaho squad. His overall record of 51-64-1 isn't that bad on the surface, but the trend was down, hard, his final 5 or 6 years. There's no way a coach would be allowed to continue on this trend for as long as he did in the modern game, really. From '65 to '70 he was 32-22-1 with 3 straight 2nd place finishes from '66 to '68. He was 5-6 in '71, and then the bottom fell out. He went 8-36 over 4 years from '72 to '75, and his successors from Fertig through Pettibone were a combined 44-183-5 from '76 to '96, for a 19% win rate. So imagine getting Paul Wulff results for 24 straight years. That's what Beaver fans suffered. Avezzano had the worst stretch from '80 to '84 (6-47-2) but as Flat pointed out, does that make him the worst qualitatively too? Hard to say in this mess. What Riley and Erickson achieved here is pretty remarkable. Like Bill Snyder remarkable.
I'll post on a few more teams later this week when I might have the energy and inclination.
Let me explain it to you Flat. On paper Jeff Tuel was everything you want in a QB. Arm, size, athletic ability. On the actual field of play, the guy just couldn't pull the trigger and make plays. Look at his numbers for god sake. The NFL frequently takes chances on potential and Tuel had all that. However, the Bills found out what we already knew, potential doesn't make plays. A good college QB isn't defined by making an NFL roster, it is defined by making plays and/or winning games.
Like I said...
Jesus H Christ, you think PW in his first year as HC of the Cougs would have laid that much fear into an elite PAC-12 team? Nooooo waaaaay!!!! Go to bed.
Jesus H Christ, you think PW in his first year as HC of the Cougs would have laid that much fear into an elite PAC-12 team? Nooooo waaaaay!!!! Go to bed.
I have to wonder if this interview is thr biggest reason he's struggled to find work since getting fired. Would have been much better to release a statement to the press thanking the school for the opportunity, say you gave it your all, apologize for the results not being better, but say the foundation is in place for a better future. Might have allowed some of the more positive interpretations of his tenure to gain traction. Instead he put on display the attitude which needed to be purged from the program in order to have success.
#1 He is a bad coach.
#2 He has the personality of white rice. Would you look at his recruiting classes and think this guy was gonna land you big time talent?
#3 If you’re bad at #1 & #2 why are you in coaching?
#4 I was too generous to think he should sell insurance. He is definitely a janitor.
Similar threads
