Mike's post on CB re: Bronco and HB's comment

[jay santos]

http://www.cougarboard.com/nologin/m...tml?id=2126557

I didn't read HB's comment, but this is what I was pounding the pulpit about when we were considering Bronco as a head coach two years ago.

He lost at Oregon State. That was an interesting year for Bronco. He was hired at OSU as a position coach underneath Rocky Long, the DC, who had a decent defense going. Then Rocky got promoted (UCLA?) and left. Bronco was promoted to DC. Without Rocky, his D sucked, and he was canned in one year.

Bronco then kicked around with a cruddy La Tech team. A prerequisite to coach at BYU if you're not connected to Lavell.

Bronco hooked back up with Rocky at UNM and fielded good defenses. But they still never had much overall success.

We all know Bronco's BYU's teams before he got the head job.

Bronco has never won. He's never been mentored by a great head coach on a great coaching staff. He had never coached for a team that had a good offense. He's never been affiliated with a winning program.

I've been with good companies and bad companies and had good bosses and bad bosses. I thought I always knew how to run things when I would get the chance, but until I worked for a good company and a good boss, I didn't really understand.

This doesn't mean Bronco's going to fail, but it was a major risk for BYU admin to make that hire (assuming that a winning program was even their intention at the time of the Bronco hire which may be a faulty assumption).

Despite Indy's inadequate response, this most definitely is a major issue for BYU and for us as fans.

[Detroitdad]

I believe that being tutored by a great coach is a bit overrated. In fact, frequently the great coaches don't turn out other great head coaches.

I do, however, agree that Bronco was a stretch to hire. He is really quite young and inexperienced. I think that the first season and a third bear that out. I can only say that his teams need to show a stark improvement in mental preparation in order for him to keep this job for more than four years. He needs at least 8 wins this year to build up some good will with a partial rebuild coming next year.

[Venkman]

We know that Bronco was the admin's third or fourth choice so yeah, he was kind of a risky selection. Of course, Lavell wasn't a "winner" when he was hired as HC, so there is precedent on Bronco's side. Hopefully lightning strikes twice.

[Archaea]

Let's analyze what Jay has said or believes.

First, it appears correct as I feared that Bronco was not ready for the job, but "may" mature into the job. He has shown some administrative abilities, which Crowton did not demonstrate.

Second, if a person can get trained by a successful organization, it can shorten the training period.

Bronco has never really experienced success, and it shows. He is juggling matters a bit, and he is not smooth. Nonetheless, recruiting is doing fine, the players are mostly behind him and we've avoided scandals.

He just hasn't won anything. Yes, there have been extenuating circumstances. However, that's the difference between an exceptional coach and a competent coach. A competent coach some how gets around circumstances to motivate and to organize his players to improve upon themselves. A competent coach simply keeps the wheels going and allows the circumstances to control.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by jay santos

http://www.cougarboard.com/nologin/m...tml?id=2126557

I didn't read HB's comment, but this is what I was pounding the pulpit about when we were considering Bronco as a head coach two years ago.

He lost at Oregon State. That was an interesting year for Bronco. He was hired at OSU as a position coach underneath Rocky Long, the DC, who had a decent defense going. Then Rocky got promoted (UCLA?) and left. Bronco was promoted to DC. Without Rocky, his D sucked, and he was canned in one year.

Bronco then kicked around with a cruddy La Tech team. A prerequisite to coach at BYU if you're not connected to Lavell.

Bronco hooked back up with Rocky at UNM and fielded good defenses. But they still never had much overall success.

We all know Bronco's BYU's teams before he got the head job.

Bronco has never won. He's never been mentored by a great head coach on a great coaching staff. He had never coached for a team that had a good offense. He's never been affiliated with a winning program.

I've been with good companies and bad companies and had good bosses and bad bosses. I thought I always knew how to run things when I would get the chance, but until I worked for a good company and a good boss, I didn't really understand.

This doesn't mean Bronco's going to fail, but it was a major risk for BYU admin to make that hire (assuming that a winning program was even their intention at the time of the Bronco hire which may be a faulty assumption).

Despite Indy's inadequate response, this most definitely is a major issue for BYU and for us as fans.

The reality is that he was the best BYU could hire. That is what BYU really is as a "program." Kyle Whittingham was far more qualified, IMO, and he really wasn't that great of a pick up for the Utes. The fact that after what they accomplished they were left to their own DC says a lot about their program and the fact that he chose Utah over BYU says a lot about BYU's.

I also agree that tutoring is overrated. However, the ability to improve and adapt are not. Bronco needs 8 wins this year and then I think 2008 will basically tell us what the guy can and will do.

[Surfah]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

I believe that being tutored by a great coach is a bit overrated. In fact, frequently the great coaches don't turn out other great head coaches.

I disagree. It's not always the rule, but tutelage under a great coach cannot be underestimated. Look at BYU as an example. Most consider Edwards a legendary coach. Look at some of the coaches beneath him...Billick, Holmgren, Reid. 3 head coaches now in the NFL that have all been to the Super Bowl and 2 have won the Super Bowl. Look at the staff that Holmgren put together when he was at GB. Gruden and several other up and coming coaches all coached beneath him. And if you want to extend past the HC to position coaches that have been successful the list grows longer yet.

Bronco was a huge risk hire. I wasn't convinced then and am still not convinced. But the Mormon faithful loved his catch phrases, his willingness to own up to a loss, and most importantly that he wasn't GC. Will he mature into a good HC? Eventually, perhaps. But what's the time frame? 3-4 years? Next year will be his 3rd year and I predict his record will be around .500 by the end of it. How many more years are the cougar fans going to give Bronco to mature into a good HC?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

The reality is that he was the best BYU could hire. That is what BYU really is as a "program." Kyle Whittingham was far more qualified, IMO, and he really wasn't that great of a pick up for the Utes. The fact that after what they accomplished they were left to their own DC says a lot about their program and the fact that he chose Utah over BYU says a lot about BYU's.

I also agree that tutoring is overrated. However, the ability to improve and adapt are not. Bronco needs 8 wins this year and then I think 2008 will basically tell us what the guy can and will do.

He wasn't the best BYU could hire.

1. Norm Chow. If BYU admin swallows their pride, send out a caravan of top ranking officials to beg forgiveness for the way we treated him, offer him $800K and a bigger pool for assistant coaches salaries, and I think there's a better than 50/50 chance he takes the job.

2. KW. He's had some stumbles at Utah and he will continue to do so. Utah is a small fish in a small pond and will never sustain long term football success. KW is a darn solid coach, and I believe he will overachieve. But, overachievement at Utah may look like failure to BYU fans and to Utes with stars in their eyes over UM's brief era.

3. Non-LDS. Why not?

4. Any number of LDS assistants with ties to the Lavell era that I would have taken over an unproven Bronco with shaky defensive philosphy and no experience recruiting.

All that said, I'm still hoping Bronco grows into the job. He shows signs that he has the right personality to handle the head job, and he's got a loyal fan base behind him already. He needs some wins right now to maintain it though--which I think he'll get.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by jay santos

He wasn't the best BYU could hire.

1. Norm Chow. If BYU admin swallows their pride, send out a caravan of top ranking officials to beg forgiveness for the way we treated him, offer him $800K and a bigger pool for assistant coaches salaries, and I think there's a better than 50/50 chance he takes the job.

2. KW. He's had some stumbles at Utah and he will continue to do so. Utah is a small fish in a small pond and will never sustain long term football success. KW is a darn solid coach, and I believe he will overachieve. But, overachievement at Utah may look like failure to BYU fans and to Utes with stars in their eyes over UM's brief era.

3. Non-LDS. Why not?

4. Any number of LDS assistants with ties to the Lavell era that I would have taken over an unproven Bronco with shaky defensive philosphy and no experience recruiting.

All that said, I'm still hoping Bronco grows into the job. He shows signs that he has the right personality to handle the head job, and he's got a loyal fan base behind him already. He needs some wins right now to maintain it though--which I think he'll get.

I don't think KW is a better coach. We could argue this forever, but that is just my opinion. I actually think it should be easier to win at Utah than BYU.

I understand that BYU could be better if the admin made it a priority, but they will not so there is no reason to get angry about issues outside of the coach's control.

I think part of what is creating this angst is ridiculous expectations. The Ariz loss sucked, but this program is so far beyond a Crowton coached team giving up multiple times. If this year finishes 7-5, I think there is reason to be concerned. However, I think 2008 is the year when there is enough data to come to conclusions.

[Archaea]

This team falls into the category, "almost-good-enough-but-not-quite-there."

And that's how I rate Bronco thus far. Perhaps he matures beyond that and that is my hope, because current administration doesn't give a rat's ass about sports or many other things for that matter.

Image is everything currently.

[Fumamota McChopperdave]

For me, it comes down to two games: TCU and Utah. If Bronco doesn't at least get a split out of these two games, I don't know if we've really made any progress. Of course, all the fluffy stuff is better (team attitude, enthusiasm, etc) but the results haven't changed much.

That said, even if we have a mediocre year this season, I think we'll be better next year than most people think. 4 out of 5 O linemen will be back, opening holes for Fui and Manase. The receiving corps will be back (other than the TEs) along with the chosen one, Elder Collie the younger, and the defense will return a host of well-salted players. If Hall can be average, just average, we could make some noise.