I hate to use that line as it had negative connotations to our basketball program a decade or more ago (i.e. Chris Booker). I’m surprised that some news hasn’t leaked yet with so many mainstream media outlets. Any names coming into focus yet?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think he will have trouble signing a name D/CNone yet. It took brohm more than 30 days to hire diaco. I wouldn’t expect a quick decision now
WhyI think he will have trouble signing a name D/C
I think he will have trouble signing a name D/C
At $600 +K for two years, they’ll warm up to it. As GBI hinted, even Coach Hagen might consider it.I think he will have trouble signing a name D/C
Problem is, it’s 600k and then what? A spring board or a stain on the resume? That’s the gamble for anyone who has a decent gig already. Got to think an outsider is looking at where the last 2 DC’s ended up.At $600 +K for two years, they’ll warm up to it. As GBI hinted, even Coach Hagen might consider it.
Problem is, it’s 600k and then what? A spring board or a stain on the resume? That’s the gamble for anyone who has a decent gig already. Got to think an outsider is looking at where the last 2 DC’s ended up.
One is coaching in Italy and the other is paid for next year to do nothing. Not a bad gig. Diaco will fall back to a positional coach and try to re-emerge somewhere else.Problem is, it’s 600k and then what? A spring board or a stain on the resume? That’s the gamble for anyone who has a decent gig already. Got to think an outsider is looking at where the last 2 DC’s ended up.
Where did GBI hint that?. As GBI hinted, even Coach Hagen might consider it.
And? I mean hell, Wisky has had their own issues keeping coaches. If we’re having the same issues then we are winning. No one is knocking down the doors of losing coaches.Problem is, it’s 600k and then what? A spring board or a stain on the resume? That’s the gamble for anyone who has a decent gig already. Got to think an outsider is looking at where the last 2 DC’s ended up.
I gotta figure if Hagen was big time DC material, he would already have proven so.Where did GBI hint that?
Agree.I gotta figure if Hagen was big time DC material, he would already have proven so.
Hint = my interpretation of the headline they posted regarding Mark Hagen and the changes at Texas.I gotta figure if Hagen was big time DC material, he would already have proven so.
Tom was throwing shit out to stir discussion. Hagen isnt DC material.Hint = my interpretation of the headline they posted regarding Mark Hagen and the changes at Texas.
Nothing more than that.
When do you believe D.C. subject will gain traction to an announcement?Tom was throwing shit out to stir discussion. Hagen isnt DC material.
I think Purdue will announce it out of the blue. Not much gets leaked by Brohmco.When do you believe D.C. subject will gain traction to an announcement?
Sorry, I wasn't more clear. If a DC comes in, does well, and spring boards to something bigger, that is fine with me. From the applicant's perspective, that is best case scenario. But worst case, and arguably the more likely scenario, is they are fired within 1-2 years like the last 2 guys. Now they are out on the street looking for a new job with a fresh stain on the resume. When you are contemplating a career move these are things you have to weigh. I've declined promotions in my career due to the perceived volatility of the offered position. Bird in the hand and all.. But football coaches tend to bet on themselves, perhaps to a fault, and be more risk tolerant than the average person, so who knows how this job is being perceived by the candidate pool. All it takes is one guy who is convinced he can turn it around and make his mark in a premier conference.And? I mean hell, Wisky has had their own issues keeping coaches. If we’re having the same issues then we are winning. No one is knocking down the doors of losing coaches.
The last two were experienced and didn't allow him to concentrate on offense why would the next hire be different?I believe Brohm would want an experienced guy so he could concentrate on offense rather than have to worry about both offense and mentoring a young dc
I think he DID concentrate on offense and let the DC essentially be the head coach of the defense. After getting burned twice I think he is going to bring in the reigns and hire someone who he knows he can work with. I believe the 2 or 3 coaches on his staff he trusts the most are all on the offensive side of the ball and will be willing to give them more autonomy in order to give more of his attention to fixing the defense.The last two were experienced and didn't allow him to concentrate on offense why would the next hire be different?
The last two hiring fails had nothing to do with experience. Both were complete boneheaded hires on Brohm's part. All you had to do is look at Holt's declining performances at USC and Washington to know he wouldn't last. And how the hell do you explain the Diaco hire?The last two were experienced and didn't allow him to concentrate on offense why would the next hire be different?
Well, you can hire a rising star that's a DC from Group 5 or lower.The last two hiring fails had nothing to do with experience. Both were complete boneheaded hires on Brohm's part. All you had to do is look at Holt's declining performances at USC and Washington to know he wouldn't last. And how the hell do you explain the Diaco hire?
There are VERY good experienced DC's out there. He just hired the wrong ones.
WKU teams went like 30-10 with him as DC too? I think the guy you replied to is offbase. Brohm had every reason to bring Holt with him to Purdue. It just didn’t work out. The Diaco hire was definitely a mistake.I wouldn't say that Holt's performance at USC was bad, according to Wickedpedia:
"His second tour at USC also lasted three seasons, while the Trojans posted a 34–5 record (.872). "
Now, now he fared from there . . . .
His performance at Washington was horrible. That's undeniable. And if you look at his performance at WKU, his defensive stats got progressively worse over the years.I wouldn't say that Holt's performance at USC was bad, according to Wickedpedia:
"His second tour at USC also lasted three seasons, while the Trojans posted a 34–5 record (.872). "
Now, now he fared from there . . . .
Maybe it’s on him or maybe not. Coach could have players in the right call and the players may not execute and miss tackles and the like. It could be a combination of both and we would have to watch the tapes to really make a good evaluation of the situation.His performance at Washington was horrible. That's undeniable. And if you look at his performance at WKU, his defensive stats got progressively worse over the years.
Isn't that a "Haze" comment post game? LOL, just given some shit for fun.have to watch the tapes to really make a good evaluation of the situation.
I'm laughing at the thought, but of course Haze laughed all the way to the bank.Isn't that a "Haze" comment post game? LOL Just given some shit for fun.
Yes, he did get the last laugh.I'm laughing at the thought, but of course Haze laughed all the way to the bank.
According to this site, he has 'many options' - which I take to mean La Jolla, Boca, or whatever other luxury locales he wants to live at.Yes, he did get the last laugh.
Post game presser:Isn't that a "Haze" comment post game? LOL, just given some shit for fun.
His performance at Washington was horrible. That's undeniable. And if you look at his performance at WKU, his defensive stats got progressively worse over the years.
When he was giving up 33-35 ppg on average per season his last two years? The argument was that Brohm thought Holt was not being aggressive enough with his defensive calls. Too soft, especially across the middle. Gave up way too many big plays.Of course, that wasn't my point. My point was that Holt had previously had a fair amount of success.
I thought bringing Holt along was a good move. Not sure that his firing was. I thought that I read somewhere that there was an argument between Brohm and Holt early in the 2019 season.
I saw Holt multiple times at practice (when we were allowed). His intensity and fire couldn't be denied. I watched him work with George after practice, in George's first year. I was impressed with the player and coach!
When he was giving up 33-35 ppg on average per season his last two years? The argument was that Brohm thought Holt was not being aggressive enough with his defensive calls. Too soft, especially across the middle. Gave up way too many big plays.
Brohm also got tired of Wisky regularly running for 250 yards+ per game on the defense.
Sorry, giving up 33-35 ppg is never good enough. That’s treading on D-Haze DC territory......Once again, my main reason to jump into the fray was to point out that Holt had a good record at USC. He wasn't a crummy DC at each of his posts.
Now, we could turn the argument around and say that only scoring these points :
2019 Points/G: 25.8 (87th of 130)
2018 Points/G: 30.5 (52nd of 130)
2017 Points/G: 25.2 (92nd of 130)
for someone who is supposed to an offensive guru is the reason for the lack of success.
I like Brohm and Holt, just trying to understand why people attack Holt as the main reason that we 'underachieved' and that his dismissal was justified.
BTW, did you see what Jonathan Taylor did against JAX?