Our evaluation of Holtz in year one is critically important

[johnnylightnin]

USM's visit to Ruston is quite timely. They are an example of what one bad hire can do to a program. They are riding a 20-game losing streak…that's about one game for each year of success they had prior to the hiring of Ellis Johnson. It has been said before, so there is no need to belabor the point, but non-power conference teams have a very small margin for error when it comes to hiring head football coaches. Our success is more fleeting than our big-5 counterparts, and our failure is more difficult to overcome because of our lack of money.

So what does that have to do with Holtz?

Many were concerned when we hired Skip. The concern was that he took over a solid program in USF and they got worse each year that he was their head man. Yes, he had some success before he landed at USF, but he was "trending down".

At Tech, we've seen him take one of the easiest schedules of all time (and a program that was in the top 25 for several weeks last year) and we're struggling to get to bowl eligible (3-5 with 4 games left). Those who advocate keeping Holtz blame our lack of success on the players or on the change over from one coach to another (even though the "system" of offense was to remain the same). Many have said that those who are calling for his firing at the end of the year if we don't see progress are being hasty.

I can understand that claim, but here's why I think it's unfounded:

1. Regardless of what he inherited, we have seen little to no offensive progress on this team. At times they actually appear to be getting worse.
2. This team appears to lack fire.
3. This team is not fundamentally sound.

The reason our evaluation of Holtz is so critical is because, if we don't get rid of him this year, we are going to be all but forced to keep him the next 2 years minimum. If the players are to blame this year, the schedule will be blamed next year. We are then likely looking at 2 years of losing records (minimum). Keeping Holtz this year means we'll keep him next year.

In the mean time, ULM is poised to go to their second straight bowl game and ULL is headed to their 3rd. Don't forget that ULL is on the schedule for the next 2 years.

Here's hoping our decision makers are looking at the long-term weight of their decision regarding Skip. I'm sure he was hired on the cheap because DR shifted funds and Guice couldn't get the guy that he wanted. That's fine. I don't blame LG for Holtz. I'm sure Skip is amazing in an interview (and while pleading for additional years). We've seen the results and I don't know how we avoid similar results next year. After two years of losing, I'm not hopeful about year three.

Here's hoping LG and TM have a plan and some clear goals that Holtz must hit this year to be given a second year.

The situation is critical for our future.

[T1]

But, sticking with the USM example, they did fire their coach after year 1 and hired someone even worse in year 2. They have gone from bad to pathetic and with a huge financial burden from the 1st firing to boot. Now they have to stick with the worse coach because they don't have the funds to fire him. It can get really messy in a hurry.

[JuBru]

But, sticking with the USM example, they did fire their coach after year 1 and hired someone even worse in year 2. They have gone from bad to pathetic and with a huge financial burden from the 1st firing to boot. Now they have to stick with the worse coach because they don't have the funds to fire him. It can get really messy in a hurry.

A completely unfair and misguided evaluation of a first-time head coach. He's making up for 2 years of crap. NO ONE COULD DO THAT IN ONE YEAR, especially a first-timer. Unlike Holtz, Monken can be given time to work things out. Is it possible he's a much better coordinator than head coach? Absolutely. There is no way to tell that just yet.

Holtz, on the other hand, has more than enough history as a head coach to tell you that he has lost his touch. He is our Ellis Johnson. We bite the bullet now, we might can recover three years. If we don't, and Holtz continues his trend (which I firmly believe he will), then we are looking at at least 6 years of rebuilding just to be above .500 consistently.

[T1]

A completely unfair and misguided evaluation of a first-time head coach. He's making up for 2 years of crap. NO ONE COULD DO THAT IN ONE YEAR, especially a first-timer. Unlike Holtz, Monken can be given time to work things out. Is it possible he's a much better coordinator than head coach? Absolutely. There is no way to tell that just yet.

Holtz, on the other hand, has more than enough history as a head coach to tell you that he has lost his touch. He is our Ellis Johnson. We bite the bullet now, we might can recover three years. If we don't, and Holtz continues his trend (which I firmly believe he will), then we are looking at at least 6 years of rebuilding just to be above .500 consistently.

So we should fire Holtz, pay him a couple million to leave, hire someone who has never coached, but shows promise, and give him 2 or 3 years to clean up this mess that Holtz caused?

[Brian96]

We hired a "proven" head coach who promised to keep our successful offensive scheme in place. At the least, we expected someone who could manage a soft landing from the inevitable let down we anticipated due to SD's juco-heavy recruiting strategy.

Instead, we got a coach who was "proving" to be trending downward who has taken the stick and jerked us into a nose dive.

[T1]

Southern Miss was 12-2 and their coach was promoted away. They were losing their 4 year starting QB, but still had some key players returning. They hired a guy with a completely different philosophy from the previous staff who had a 17-28 record as a head coach and the last time he was a HC was 9 years ago.

Tech was 9-3 and our coach was promoted away. We lost 17 out of 24 starters and were in total rebuilding mode regardless if we hired Bill Parcells or my son's junior high coach (who's an idiot btw). We went with Skip Holtz, who had an 88-71 record and 3 conference championships (2 in the conference we are moving to), who promised to keep the same offensive philosophy that had made Tech successful.

These 2 scenarios are NOTHING alike, except that Tech and USM were successful and lost their coach.

[T1]

Is this what's really going on with some of you guys:

ULM and ULL are turning their programs around and finding some success finally. We need to be good NOW so they don't pass us by. We are not good now and we are going to lose recruits to them. Every year ULM and ULL are better than us, we lose 2 years of recruiting battles. If we don't fire Skip Holtz right now, we will never be as good as ULM and ULL ever again. Fire him NOW!!! Then we could tell recruits that we made a mistake this year and we are really the 2012 team, but Holtz sucks and now we've got this new guy who will restore us to the 2012 version.

[mildawg]

And both hired duds as replacements.

[Guisslapp]

So USM's performance this year is Ellis Johnson's fault? Then, it stands to reason....

[johnnylightnin]

If you consentrate on USM, you miss the point of the OP.

[T1]

If you consentrate on USM, you miss the point of the OP.

This must have been the point:

if we don't get rid of him this year, we are going to be all but forced to keep him the next 2 years minimum. If the players are to blame this year, the schedule will be blamed next year. We are then likely looking at 2 years of losing records (minimum). Keeping Holtz this year means we'll keep him next year.

What if we improve next year? What if you like the direction the program is going? Shouldn't we evaluate a coach on a yearly basis? You shouldn't judge him by your assumptions of how next year is going to be before we have even finished this year. That's strange to me.

[T1]

In other words, in year 1 of Dykes/Franklin, why didn't we all say, this offense is terrible. If we don't fire him now next year's offense is going to be terrible and then the next year. We should fire them now because this offense is going nowhere fast.

[johnnylightnin]

This must have been the point:

if we don't get rid of him this year, we are going to be all but forced to keep him the next 2 years minimum. If the players are to blame this year, the schedule will be blamed next year. We are then likely looking at 2 years of losing records (minimum). Keeping Holtz this year means we'll keep him next year.

What if we improve next year? What if you like the direction the program is going? Shouldn't we evaluate a coach on a yearly basis? You shouldn't judge him by your assumptions of how next year is going to be before we have even finished this year. That's strange to me.

Regardless of my judgement, what you've highlighted was my main point. Good bad or ugly, if Holtz is the HC for 2014, he WILL be the HC for 2015. If we improve, that's great. If we don't, it won't matter, because he'll have the more difficult schedule to blame and we'll be stuck with him for 2015 regardless.

If your honest, you will say that you've seen no cause for confidence in what we've seen on the field. You've said elsewhere that you gave Holtz a pass before the season started. You say we should keep him because of the players. I'm saying that keeping him is a two year commitment. If you've seen enough progress in year one to justify that, I would imagine you're comfortable with that proposition. I haven't and I'm not.

[johnnylightnin]

In other words, in year 1 of Dykes/Franklin, why didn't we all say, this offense is terrible. If we don't fire him now next year's offense is going to be terrible and then the next year. We should fire them now because this offense is going nowhere fast.

Here are the major differences that come to my mind in answer to this question:

1. This was Dykes' first HC gig. He didn't have a track record as an HC or any discernible negative "trend".
2. Dykes inherited a team that was 4-8 and his first year we went 5-7.
3. According to Dawg06's thread, in Dykes' first year, we played the #82 toughest schedule in the country, this year, we're playing the #128 schedule (so far)
4. Dykes really did have to install a new system…a total over-haul, Holtz said he was going to leave the offense like it was.

So, why not call for Dykes' head, yet insist that we be prepared to fire Holtz at the end of the year if our course remains the same? Dykes performed better against a tougher schedule as a first time coach all while installing a COMPLETELY new system.

[T1]

Regardless of my judgement, what you've highlighted was my main point. Good bad or ugly, if Holtz is the HC for 2014, he WILL be the HC for 2015. If we improve, that's great. If we don't, it won't matter, because he'll have the more difficult schedule to blame and we'll be stuck with him for 2015 regardless.

If your honest, you will say that you've seen no cause for confidence in what we've seen on the field. You've said elsewhere that you gave Holtz a pass before the season started. You say we should keep him because of the players. I'm saying that keeping him is a two year commitment. If you've seen enough progress in year one to justify that, I would imagine you're comfortable with that proposition. I haven't and I'm not.

I don't think we will beat Oklahoma and Auburn next year. But based on this year's conference results, and with some improvement next year, and cutting out some of the stupid mistakes, I don't see why we couldn't win the conference championship next year. We are not very far from beating UNT and Tulane right now... with basically our backup players from last year. A year's experience will do wonders for players like Ryan Higgins and Trent Taylor and Mitchell Bell and Tre Carter and Xavier Woods and Eddie Johnson and Jaydric Decouette, and Adarius Barnes and Thomas McDonald and Beau Fitte and Kyle Fischer, and Logan McPherson. Plus we will get an explosive transfer at WR next year in Paul Turner and we desperately needed that this year. I'm also excited to see what Carlos Henderson can do. I think next year looks promising.