Great Coaches, Coach Great

[sjt18]

There has been a long running debate through our miserable walk through the valley about how long a coach should be given before being expected to win.

Some said that they needed 4-5 years since it would take that long to recruit players to their system and develop them.

Others of us said that a great coach can demonstrate his ability even with (maybe especially with) a roster that isn't ideal.


Heupel doesn't "disprove" that giving a guy 5 years will work. I don't think it would because you lose recruiting momentum and fan support... but that's an opinion that I believe aligns with history and not an ironclad "truth".

OTOH, Heupel IS an illustration of what many of us said DOES work. Coaches who come in and prove they can accomplish great things in the first 3 years are the ones who go on to win championships. There aren't a lot of them. Current success is showing why. UT now has recruiting credibility to go against the top programs without excuse or explanation. The fan and media buzz support that momentum. There is even some indications for the first time in many years that the Vols are a team opponents genuinely fear.


I am VERY hopeful we never have to have those debates again. Heupel appears to be our guy. Hopefully he retires as UT HC having won many championships.

 

[McDad]

I agree with one nugget of nuance. There is some luck involved in the initial success of a new coach.

In Heupel's case, HH transferred before CJH took over. Without that fortuitous addition, our last 2 seasons play out differently.

 

[sjt18]

I agree with one nugget of nuance. There is some luck involved in the initial success of a new coach.

In Heupel's case, HH transferred before CJH took over. Without that fortuitous addition, our last 2 seasons play out differently.

Differently for sure.

And HH is the ideal kind of player/leader for a coach to make this kind of turnaround. High character kid with talent who flew under the radar because no one knew he had talent or how to develop it.

Heupel was definitely blessed by that gift.

OTOH, this is still a roster assembled on the Island of Misfit Toys. Guys who were rejects at other places. Remnants of Pruitt's questionable, kind of directionless, roster building.

 

[BanditVol]

I have had similar thoughts. Mere mortals need 5 years. Legendary coaches do not.

Having said that, it's still early and we all still have BVS

But definitley looking forward to these last 6 games, more than any time since at least 1998

 

[#1fulmerite]

I think about how quickly Saban turned Bama around. They lost to one of the lower tiered Louisiana teams in year one and (I think) won the NC in year three.

Excluding situations such as the Miami coaches walking into an already established program, if CJH wins the NC this year, I think that accomplishment will surpass all other coaching turn arounds.

Not 100% sure on how long it took Clemson to become prominent but, would say we may be more like that program. I just hope we haven’t peaked in year two.

 

[peachtreecornersVOL81]

There has been a long running debate through our miserable walk through the valley about how long a coach should be given before being expected to win.

Some said that they needed 4-5 years since it would take that long to recruit players to their system and develop them.

Others of us said that a great coach can demonstrate his ability even with (maybe especially with) a roster that isn't ideal.


Heupel doesn't "disprove" that giving a guy 5 years won't work. I don't think it would because you lose recruiting momentum and fan support... but that's an opinion that I believe aligns with history and not an ironclad "truth".

OTOH, Heupel IS an illustration of what many of us said DOES work. Coaches who come in and prove they can accomplish great things in the first 3 years are the ones who go on to win championships. There aren't a lot of them. Current success is showing why. UT now has recruiting credibility to go against the top programs without excuse or explanation. The fan and media buzz support that momentum. There is even some indications for the first time in many years that the Vols are a team opponents genuinely fear.


I am VERY hopeful we never have to have those debates again. Heupel appears to be our guy. Hopefully he retires as UT HC having won many championships.

Completely agree. Can't count the many times I read or was told "it takes 4-5 years" to do what Heupel is doing in only his second year. Remember Butch saying it takes 6 years to do it? HA. Elite coaches can come in and get buy-in and take off in their second or third year. Heupel appears to be that guy! Finally.

 

[05_never_again]

I agree with one nugget of nuance. There is some luck involved in the initial success of a new coach.

In Heupel's case, HH transferred before CJH took over. Without that fortuitous addition, our last 2 seasons play out differently.

Fanbases, admins, boosters, etc. of successful programs would never admit this, but there is a considerable amount of luck involved not just in the initial success of a new coach but in the hiring of that coach itself. They consistently put themselves in situations that increase their chances of getting lucky, but luck is still a key component. They don't waste time and money playing nickel slots - they spend a lot of time at the blackjack table playing basic strategy or counting cards, or at the craps table taking the odds after the come out roll like you're supposed to. Exhibit A of that is if Alabama's attempted hiring of Rich Rod to replace Mike Shula doesn't leak, they hire him instead of Saban.

The most baffling part of this whole experience to me is how Virginia Tech didn't get more out of HH. Not only is he a very good QB, but also seems like a great person and leader. Fuente and that staff must have just been absolutely awful.

 

[redsvolsfan]

The transfer portal has changed things though. I’m not sure this can be compared to times before the portal. It initially hurt us but at the same time it help… Hooker for example.

 

[Stephen Gray]

Differently for sure.

And HH is the ideal kind of player/leader for a coach to make this kind of turnaround. High character kid with talent who flew under the radar because no one knew he had talent or how to develop it.

Heupel was definitely blessed by that gift.

OTOH, this is still a roster assembled on the Island of Misfit Toys. Guys who were rejects at other places. Remnants of Pruitt's questionable, kind of directionless, roster building.

I agree with you now. After our process started way back with the Fulmer firing and really with the Kiffin thing I wanted to believe in Dooley. In year two and even year one the signs were there that it probably was bad hire, but I wanted to believe it would just take some time. I was definitely on board with the need for a change early on his final year.

The evidence was certainly there that the coaches who tend to turn programs around the way we felt Tennessee deserved seemed to have dramatic impacts quickly. We can see this with Saban, Meyer, Spurrier, and others.

There are examples of coaches who eventually built a much improved team over a long period but not too many of those that end up competing at the highest levels. I do think it’s possible for coaches to get better at their jobs but I also agree with you that in the meantime momentum and recruiting tend to suffer and the process becomes more challenging.

I think as fans and generally as people who want to support our players and coaches through the rough patches it can become easy to not evaluate a poorly performing staff as objectively as we probably should. On the other hand especially in year one I think we need to cut them quite a bit of slack, but we should also be watching them to see if they are getting better and making less missteps.

 

[Stephen Gray]

Differently for sure.

And HH is the ideal kind of player/leader for a coach to make this kind of turnaround. High character kid with talent who flew under the radar because no one knew he had talent or how to develop it.

Heupel was definitely blessed by that gift.

OTOH, this is still a roster assembled on the Island of Misfit Toys. Guys who were rejects at other places. Remnants of Pruitt's questionable, kind of directionless, roster building.

Also to add: to your credit sjt18 you were always beating the drum that we should be seeing results much faster than we were under the prior trio. I think that while it might not be a proven right thing, there’s certainly plenty of evidence in that direction. There always was but now more of us see it.

 

[Other_Guy]

There are a few variables. Which program are we talking about and just how great of a coach? What about the other teams in the league?
Saban is the GOAT and Bama is one of the best programs in history. No one should be shocked he was able to turn it around in year 2.
Same with Kirby.
It's still hard to know just how good of a coach Kiffin is, but he's not going to win the SEC in year 3 at Ole Miss unless the west falls apart.
But the west has fallen apart some, so now we can see what he's made of.
We knew after 3 seasons, heck even 2 that Jimbo was a fraud. Different scenario.
Tenn went down and the entire SEC went up. All of a sudden Vandy is winning 8 games and Kentucky 10 during that stretch.
A "great" coach can take the dumpster fire Tenn was and turn it around quickly, sure. But what is your definition of great? "Good" coaches can turn things around too and not be great enough to win Champs.
Look at mark richt. It's hard to label him as a "great" coach, but at the same time how many coaches in the SEC the last 15 years are better than him?

 

[General Jack]

There has been a long running debate through our miserable walk through the valley about how long a coach should be given before being expected to win.

Some said that they needed 4-5 years since it would take that long to recruit players to their system and develop them.

Others of us said that a great coach can demonstrate his ability even with (maybe especially with) a roster that isn't ideal.


Heupel doesn't "disprove" that giving a guy 5 years won't work. I don't think it would because you lose recruiting momentum and fan support... but that's an opinion that I believe aligns with history and not an ironclad "truth".

OTOH, Heupel IS an illustration of what many of us said DOES work. Coaches who come in and prove they can accomplish great things in the first 3 years are the ones who go on to win championships. There aren't a lot of them. Current success is showing why. UT now has recruiting credibility to go against the top programs without excuse or explanation. The fan and media buzz support that momentum. There is even some indications for the first time in many years that the Vols are a team opponents genuinely fear.


I am VERY hopeful we never have to have those debates again. Heupel appears to be our guy. Hopefully he retires as UT HC having won many championships.

Oh yeah, I remember those debates, Dooley (of "Year 0" fame) was of particular note. I posted a similar thread recently that the great coaches are already showing greatness by year 2 in fact.

CJH is great in my mind, no question, and I hope 20 years from now we have a bunch of hardware to show for it.

 

[Gandalf]

It is astonishing how fast it has happened really. CJH and staff (CJH especially) may be a Dynasty level on the rise that we simply lucked into somewhat. He absolutely has shown that he and his team can actually take the talent that is there and both coach them up and scheme to match their strengths. That takes great coaching. Period.

That said, there are some things that have had significant impact that are somewhat luck, somewhat areas we have had the lucky opportunity and then just did a great job taking advantage of it.

1. The transfer portal - without the rule changes and availability of a whole bunch of new players, we would barely be able to field a team after being decimated by Pruitt's malfeasance.
2. NIL - the ability to pay players in the open, combined with the transfer portal gave us just the right opportunity to take advantage. Organizations like Spire stepped in and have effectively helped us go toe to toe in the relative open where previously the Bubba Boosters dominated in darkness.
3. Hooker Herndon - Heupel is a world class QB whisperer (dont think there is any debate on that anywhere), yet we had a roster of QBs but no real leader. CJH was able to get Hooker to reach more of his potential but if he had not been here, we would have had a hard time reaching our current success with the rest. Milton may be awesome next year but definitely needed the time out of the spotlight to learn the game. Hooker makes it special this year.

 

[sjt18]

Completely agree. Can't count the many times I read or was told "it takes 4-5 years" to do what Heupel is doing in only his second year. Remember Butch saying it takes 6 years to do it? HA. Elite coaches can come in and get buy-in and take off in their second or third year. Heupel appears to be that guy! Finally.

Heupel could have shown it to me with a solid 9 win season this year. IMHO, that would have been an overachievement considering the roster and where they started. The caveat to that is that I really don't like it when coaches lose to teams they should beat. UF and LSU have more raw talent than UT right now. UK does not. I will really struggle with it if they beat UT at Neyland.

UGA... I counted as a loss from the start. I'll be disappointed but it won't make me question Heupel's trajectory or coaching.

 

[sjt18]

Fanbases, admins, boosters, etc. of successful programs would never admit this, but there is a considerable amount of luck involved not just in the initial success of a new coach but in the hiring of that coach itself. They consistently put themselves in situations that increase their chances of getting lucky, but luck is still a key component. They don't waste time and money playing nickel slots - they spend a lot of time at the blackjack table playing basic strategy or counting cards, or at the craps table taking the odds after the come out roll like you're supposed to. Exhibit A of that is if Alabama's attempted hiring of Rich Rod to replace Mike Shula doesn't leak, they hire him instead of Saban.

The most baffling part of this whole experience to me is how Virginia Tech didn't get more out of HH. Not only is he a very good QB, but also seems like a great person and leader. Fuente and that staff must have just been absolutely awful.

Okay. I let it slide before but... there is no such thing as "luck". Luck assumes two things. One, that there is no Divine in control of the universe. Two, that there are cause-less effects... that things happen for no reason at all.

Taking the best information you have available and making a decision realizing that there are unknown factors that you do not control is a skill, not "luck".

 

[05_never_again]

Okay. I let it slide before but... there is no such thing as "luck". Luck assumes two things. One, that there is no Divine in control of the universe. Two, that there are cause-less effects... that things happen for no reason at all.

Taking the best information you have available and making a decision realizing that there are unknown factors that you do not control is a skill, not "luck".

Sure there is. There are things that occur outside of your control, both good and bad. That is luck. You can control the position that you put yourself in. That is skill.

People who are successful tend to "make their own luck" by putting themselves in advantageous situations. The error people make is attributing success or failure 100% to luck, which, IMO, is hardly ever the case outside of a situation like someone winning the lottery.

 

[sjt18]

There are a few variables. Which program are we talking about and just how great of a coach? What about the other teams in the league?
Saban is the GOAT and Bama is one of the best programs in history. No one should be shocked he was able to turn it around in year 2.
Same with Kirby.
It's still hard to know just how good of a coach Kiffin is, but he's not going to win the SEC in year 3 at Ole Miss unless the west falls apart.
But the west has fallen apart some, so now we can see what he's made of.
We knew after 3 seasons, heck even 2 that Jimbo was a fraud. Different scenario.
Tenn went down and the entire SEC went up. All of a sudden Vandy is winning 8 games and Kentucky 10 during that stretch.
A "great" coach can take the dumpster fire Tenn was and turn it around quickly, sure. But what is your definition of great? "Good" coaches can turn things around too and not be great enough to win Champs.
Look at mark richt. It's hard to label him as a "great" coach, but at the same time how many coaches in the SEC the last 15 years are better than him?

My point is that championship coaches coach like championship coaches regardless of the circumstances. That doesn't mean that someone who coaches that way is guaranteed to have things line up for championships. It also doesn't mean there aren't hidden fatal flaws. We still don't know for sure that Heupel and crew can recruit enough of the right kinds of players to sustain success.

I think he's answered some questions though. He is a very good leader. He knows how to create a winning culture. He seems to develop talent very well. Playcalling has been very good on O.

If he can recruit at a high level and at some point replace staff members who get opportunities then he will be very successful at UT.

 

[sjt18]

Sure there is. There are things that occur outside of your control, both good and bad. That is luck.

I believe that is providence. That there is a purpose. That there is a God in ultimate control... who cares even about the birds. But even without that, there are no "causeless effects" like the concept of "luck" proposes. Being outside your control does not mean it is outside of anyone's control.

People who are successful tend to "make their own luck" by putting themselves in advantageous situations. The error people make is attributing success or failure 100% to luck, which, IMO, is hardly ever the case outside of a situation like someone winning the lottery.

LOL... putting yourself consistently in a good position and avoiding bad risks has nothing to do with "luck". It is evaluating available information and recognizing opportunity/probability.

 

[05_never_again]

I believe that is providence. That there is a purpose. That there is a God in ultimate control... who cares even about the birds. But even without that, there are no "causeless effects" like the concept of "luck" proposes. Being outside your control does not mean it is outside of anyone's control.


LOL... putting yourself consistently in a good position and avoiding bad risks has nothing to do with "luck". It is evaluating available information and recognizing opportunity/probability.

I was born in the United States, into a family with 2 great parents that provided all sorts of good examples of how to live and conduct yourself. Not luck, or being blessed beyond measure? I was born into that position just because. I didn't even have to do anything to get myself in to it. If I was born in North Korea, I could still be where I am today through skill?

 

[sjt18]

I was born in the United States, into a family with 2 great parents that provided all sorts of good examples of how to live and conduct yourself. Not luck, or being blessed beyond measure? I was born into that position just because. I didn't even have to do anything to get myself in to it. If I was born in North Korea, I could still be where I am today through skill?

You were blessed. That's not the same as being "lucky".

Again, not having control isn't the same as "luck".

 

[Stephen Gray]

You were blessed. That's not the same as being "lucky".

Again, not having control isn't the same as "luck".

“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” - Seneca

Sure the breaks can break against anyone, but people who are prepared better when their chances come tend to have better outcomes overall. CJH is making the most of his opportunities so far.

 

[MAD]

What I hear Nick Saban saying is that Heupel is a genius.
He is blaming the players but it sounds like it’s a coaching mishap instead.

 

[Gandalf]

Okay. I let it slide before but... there is no such thing as "luck". Luck assumes two things. One, that there is no Divine in control of the universe. Two, that there are cause-less effects... that things happen for no reason at all.

Taking the best information you have available and making a decision realizing that there are unknown factors that you do not control is a skill, not "luck".

I returned and saw under the sun that— The race is not to the swift, Nor the battle to the strong, Nor bread to the wise, Nor riches to men of understanding, Nor favor to men of skill; But time and chance happen to them all.

When the Divine established a system with randomness and free will, there are consequences outside of our ability to measure or plan.

 

[sjt18]

I returned and saw under the sun that— The race is not to the swift, Nor the battle to the strong, Nor bread to the wise, Nor riches to men of understanding, Nor favor to men of skill; But time and chance happen to them all.

When the Divine established a system with randomness and free will, there are consequences outside of our ability to measure or plan.

Consequences? No. Circumstances? Yes. But you've made assumptions about the Divine, God, that I would dispute. The God of the Bible precludes "randomness". Free will and its extent is a far bigger debate that we won't be allowed to discuss here.

"Luck" is a pagan notion of the causeless-effect. That things happen for no reason. I'm an old, fairly experienced, guy now. You might observe that I'm more "lucky" now with finances than I was when I was 23. I'm not. Just more experienced. So even when I might not be able to identify it as a clear path of reasoning... I avoid some things and gravitate toward others. I've developed habits that have proven fruitful.

 

[Gandalf]

Consequences? No. Circumstances? Yes. But you've made assumptions about the Divine, God, that I would dispute. The God of the Bible precludes "randomness". Free will and its extent is a far bigger debate that we won't be allowed to discuss here.

"Luck" is a pagan notion of the causeless-effect. That things happen for no reason. I'm an old, fairly experienced, guy now. You might observe that I'm more "lucky" now with finances than I was when I was 23. I'm not. Just more experienced. So even when I might not be able to identify it as a clear path of reasoning... I avoid some things and gravitate toward others. I've developed habits that have proven fruitful.

I dont think you thought about what I said or I was insufficiently clear.

"consequence" implies cause and effect even if humans cannot measure it or plan it.
To our perspective it IS random, but in reality it is something simply not predictable by us. Even at a quantum level, "God does not play dice" - BUT IT SEEMS SO TO US and for practical purposes can be considered random, even if there is a causative force (and thus a deterministic outcome)
These are not mere theoretical musing btw - cryptography and modern economy utterly depend upon it.