[DC 86]

[quote author=97fan link=topic=16408.msg185629#msg185629 date=1483980856]
Oregon defensive coordinator Nick Aliotti retired after the 2013 season, which was Mark Helfrich's first year as head coach. Aliotti generally got the credit for the strong defenses during Chip Kelly's tenure.

My recollection is that he didn't so much retire as he was pushed out, which started the of exceedingly large proportions downswing on defense for them. Is that incorrect?
[/quote]

I have never heard or read that he was pushed out, but he felt that he should have been promoted to head coach instead of Helfrich, so he stayed for one year and retired. He has said that he would still be at Oregon if he had gotten the HC job.

Regarding the defense, not only is Aliotti missed as a co-ordinator but he was regarded as an exceptional recruiter, so the decline in talent can also be attributed in part to his departure.

[DC 86]

[quote author=97fan link=topic=16408.msg185629#msg185629 date=1483980856]
Oregon defensive coordinator Nick Aliotti retired after the 2013 season, which was Mark Helfrich's first year as head coach. Aliotti generally got the credit for the strong defenses during Chip Kelly's tenure.

My recollection is that he didn't so much retire as he was pushed out, which started the of exceedingly large proportions downswing on defense for them. Is that incorrect?
[/quote]

I have never heard or read that he was pushed out, but he felt that he should have been promoted to head coach instead of Helfrich, so he stayed for one year and retired. He has said that he would still be at Oregon if he had gotten the HC job.

Regarding the defense, not only is Aliotti missed as a co-ordinator but he was regarded as an exceptional recruiter, so the decline in talent can also be attributed in part to his departure.

[Phogge]

Stanford's biggest miss was not hiring Jim Sochor. Learned his football from the late, great Joe Verducci. Absolutely got the most of what he had at Davis and tutored a bunch of future college coaches. Plus a soft spoken gentleman who would have been a great asset to Stanford. RIP Coach.

[Phogge]

Stanford's biggest miss was not hiring Jim Sochor. Learned his football from the late, great Joe Verducci. Absolutely got the most of what he had at Davis and tutored a bunch of future college coaches. Plus a soft spoken gentleman who would have been a great asset to Stanford. RIP Coach.

[wallendar]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=16408.msg185609#msg185609 date=1483959382]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=16408.msg185590#msg185590 date=1483932089]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=16408.msg185587#msg185587 date=1483930313]
ןɐɔ needs to get over itself.  They are a stepping stone job, just as Stanford was for decades until Shaw came along.  And when Shaw leaves we could go back to being one too, so I'm not woofing over it.  This about ADs and their egos

But do they have to be a stepping stone?  I think they have a great story to tell, the greatest public university in the land, in the dynamic SF Bay Area.  They don't have to be terrible.  I know we have fun with them, but they should be a validly strong football team.
[/quote]

No they don't have to be one forever, but that's where they are now and it takes a good decade at least to get out of that.  My point is that Mike Williams needs a reality check about what that job is and what it isn't.
[/quote]

I don't know that it takes a decade.  It took Stanford two years to get out of it, when we replaced Harris with Harbaugh.
[/quote]

Not only did Harbaugh turn the fortunes of the Cardinal around in a hurry but UC has their  own example of a quick turnaround - Tedford cleaning up the mess that Holmoe made.  The right coach at any school can right a sinking ship quickly. 

[wallendar]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=16408.msg185609#msg185609 date=1483959382]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=16408.msg185590#msg185590 date=1483932089]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=16408.msg185587#msg185587 date=1483930313]
ןɐɔ needs to get over itself.  They are a stepping stone job, just as Stanford was for decades until Shaw came along.  And when Shaw leaves we could go back to being one too, so I'm not woofing over it.  This about ADs and their egos

But do they have to be a stepping stone?  I think they have a great story to tell, the greatest public university in the land, in the dynamic SF Bay Area.  They don't have to be terrible.  I know we have fun with them, but they should be a validly strong football team.
[/quote]

No they don't have to be one forever, but that's where they are now and it takes a good decade at least to get out of that.  My point is that Mike Williams needs a reality check about what that job is and what it isn't.
[/quote]

I don't know that it takes a decade.  It took Stanford two years to get out of it, when we replaced Harris with Harbaugh.
[/quote]

Not only did Harbaugh turn the fortunes of the Cardinal around in a hurry but UC has their  own example of a quick turnaround - Tedford cleaning up the mess that Holmoe made.  The right coach at any school can right a sinking ship quickly. 

[DC 86]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16408.msg185611#msg185611 date=1483963414]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=16408.msg185609#msg185609 date=1483959382]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=16408.msg185590#msg185590 date=1483932089]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=16408.msg185587#msg185587 date=1483930313]
ןɐɔ needs to get over itself.  They are a stepping stone job, just as Stanford was for decades until Shaw came along.  And when Shaw leaves we could go back to being one too, so I'm not woofing over it.  This about ADs and their egos

But do they have to be a stepping stone?  I think they have a great story to tell, the greatest public university in the land, in the dynamic SF Bay Area.  They don't have to be terrible.  I know we have fun with them, but they should be a validly strong football team.
[/quote]

No they don't have to be one forever, but that's where they are now and it takes a good decade at least to get out of that.  My point is that Mike Williams needs a reality check about what that job is and what it isn't.
[/quote]

I don't know that it takes a decade.  It took Stanford two years to get out of it, when we replaced Harris with Harbaugh.
[/quote]

Not only did Harbaugh turn the fortunes of the Cardinal around in a hurry but UC has their  own example of a quick turnaround - Tedford cleaning up the mess that Holmoe made.  The right coach at any school can right a sinking ship quickly.
[/quote]
Tedford seems to get a bad rap because his tenure ended poorly, but the job that he did when he came in was remarkable.

Cal went 1-10 in 2001 and had not had a winning season since 1993. Under Tedford in 2002 they went 7-5, then 8-6 in 2003 and then 10-2 in 2004 (#9 in the final AP ranking). The situation that he inherited was far more dire than the current one that Cal is in, and he produced a national top ten team within three years.

[DC 86]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16408.msg185611#msg185611 date=1483963414]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=16408.msg185609#msg185609 date=1483959382]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=16408.msg185590#msg185590 date=1483932089]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=16408.msg185587#msg185587 date=1483930313]
ןɐɔ needs to get over itself.  They are a stepping stone job, just as Stanford was for decades until Shaw came along.  And when Shaw leaves we could go back to being one too, so I'm not woofing over it.  This about ADs and their egos

But do they have to be a stepping stone?  I think they have a great story to tell, the greatest public university in the land, in the dynamic SF Bay Area.  They don't have to be terrible.  I know we have fun with them, but they should be a validly strong football team.
[/quote]

No they don't have to be one forever, but that's where they are now and it takes a good decade at least to get out of that.  My point is that Mike Williams needs a reality check about what that job is and what it isn't.
[/quote]

I don't know that it takes a decade.  It took Stanford two years to get out of it, when we replaced Harris with Harbaugh.
[/quote]

Not only did Harbaugh turn the fortunes of the Cardinal around in a hurry but UC has their  own example of a quick turnaround - Tedford cleaning up the mess that Holmoe made.  The right coach at any school can right a sinking ship quickly.
[/quote]
Tedford seems to get a bad rap because his tenure ended poorly, but the job that he did when he came in was remarkable.

Cal went 1-10 in 2001 and had not had a winning season since 1993. Under Tedford in 2002 they went 7-5, then 8-6 in 2003 and then 10-2 in 2004 (#9 in the final AP ranking). The situation that he inherited was far more dire than the current one that Cal is in, and he produced a national top ten team within three years.

[BostonCard]

The difference between Bowlsby and Williams couldn't be more clear.  Bowlsby - and the Stanford community - knew Harbaugh was NEVER long-term for Stanford and to my knowledge nobody got very frustrated that he kept interviewing for jobs after every season including his first one.  Williams seems to think he can hire someone who will build a successful program and stay.  He's delusional.  Anybody he hires will be aspiring to a better job, and will start being considered for and interviewing for those jobs after their first moderatly successful season.

The reason for firing Yikes should have been, "If after all these interviews nobody else wants him, why should we?"

Two quick comments:

1) I think there was some consternation about Harbaugh interviewing for other jobs.  Not so much that he took another job (especially with the 49ers when he took it), but that he interviewed far and wide. The song and dance we played every year was a bit frustrating. The Kansas situation was particularly galling because, well, it's Kansas.

2) I find it a bit ironic that Dykes was fired for looking around since after last year a lot of bear backers were kind of wishing he'd accept a job elsewhere so they could hire someone else without having to pay a buyout.  I know a lot of Cal fans who felt that going 7-5 last year was the worst possible outcome because the administration was more or less obliged to give him a contract extension, but that it wasn't a good record that gave anyone any confidence that he'd be a good coach.

BC

[BostonCard]

The difference between Bowlsby and Williams couldn't be more clear.  Bowlsby - and the Stanford community - knew Harbaugh was NEVER long-term for Stanford and to my knowledge nobody got very frustrated that he kept interviewing for jobs after every season including his first one.  Williams seems to think he can hire someone who will build a successful program and stay.  He's delusional.  Anybody he hires will be aspiring to a better job, and will start being considered for and interviewing for those jobs after their first moderatly successful season.

The reason for firing Yikes should have been, "If after all these interviews nobody else wants him, why should we?"

Two quick comments:

1) I think there was some consternation about Harbaugh interviewing for other jobs.  Not so much that he took another job (especially with the 49ers when he took it), but that he interviewed far and wide. The song and dance we played every year was a bit frustrating. The Kansas situation was particularly galling because, well, it's Kansas.

2) I find it a bit ironic that Dykes was fired for looking around since after last year a lot of bear backers were kind of wishing he'd accept a job elsewhere so they could hire someone else without having to pay a buyout.  I know a lot of Cal fans who felt that going 7-5 last year was the worst possible outcome because the administration was more or less obliged to give him a contract extension, but that it wasn't a good record that gave anyone any confidence that he'd be a good coach.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16408.msg185611#msg185611 date=1483963414]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=16408.msg185609#msg185609 date=1483959382]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=16408.msg185590#msg185590 date=1483932089]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=16408.msg185587#msg185587 date=1483930313]
ןɐɔ needs to get over itself.  They are a stepping stone job, just as Stanford was for decades until Shaw came along.  And when Shaw leaves we could go back to being one too, so I'm not woofing over it.  This about ADs and their egos

But do they have to be a stepping stone?  I think they have a great story to tell, the greatest public university in the land, in the dynamic SF Bay Area.  They don't have to be terrible.  I know we have fun with them, but they should be a validly strong football team.
[/quote]

No they don't have to be one forever, but that's where they are now and it takes a good decade at least to get out of that.  My point is that Mike Williams needs a reality check about what that job is and what it isn't.
[/quote]

I don't know that it takes a decade.  It took Stanford two years to get out of it, when we replaced Harris with Harbaugh.
[/quote]

Not only did Harbaugh turn the fortunes of the Cardinal around in a hurry but UC has their  own example of a quick turnaround - Tedford cleaning up the mess that Holmoe made.  The right coach at any school can right a sinking ship quickly.
[/quote]

Yes, but not a lasting turnaround and the year after he left, the Bears were right back where they started at 1-11, and they have only one winning season since.

Doesn't give one much confidence that the bears can achieve lasting success.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16408.msg185611#msg185611 date=1483963414]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=16408.msg185609#msg185609 date=1483959382]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=16408.msg185590#msg185590 date=1483932089]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=16408.msg185587#msg185587 date=1483930313]
ןɐɔ needs to get over itself.  They are a stepping stone job, just as Stanford was for decades until Shaw came along.  And when Shaw leaves we could go back to being one too, so I'm not woofing over it.  This about ADs and their egos

But do they have to be a stepping stone?  I think they have a great story to tell, the greatest public university in the land, in the dynamic SF Bay Area.  They don't have to be terrible.  I know we have fun with them, but they should be a validly strong football team.
[/quote]

No they don't have to be one forever, but that's where they are now and it takes a good decade at least to get out of that.  My point is that Mike Williams needs a reality check about what that job is and what it isn't.
[/quote]

I don't know that it takes a decade.  It took Stanford two years to get out of it, when we replaced Harris with Harbaugh.
[/quote]

Not only did Harbaugh turn the fortunes of the Cardinal around in a hurry but UC has their  own example of a quick turnaround - Tedford cleaning up the mess that Holmoe made.  The right coach at any school can right a sinking ship quickly.
[/quote]

Yes, but not a lasting turnaround and the year after he left, the Bears were right back where they started at 1-11, and they have only one winning season since.

Doesn't give one much confidence that the bears can achieve lasting success.

BC

[Redrum]

[quote author=wallendar link=topic=16408.msg185649#msg185649 date=1483987878]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=16408.msg185611#msg185611 date=1483963414]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=16408.msg185609#msg185609 date=1483959382]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=16408.msg185590#msg185590 date=1483932089]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=16408.msg185587#msg185587 date=1483930313]
ןɐɔ needs to get over itself.  They are a stepping stone job, just as Stanford was for decades until Shaw came along.  And when Shaw leaves we could go back to being one too, so I'm not woofing over it.  This about ADs and their egos

But do they have to be a stepping stone?  I think they have a great story to tell, the greatest public university in the land, in the dynamic SF Bay Area.  They don't have to be terrible.  I know we have fun with them, but they should be a validly strong football team.
[/quote]

No they don't have to be one forever, but that's where they are now and it takes a good decade at least to get out of that.  My point is that Mike Williams needs a reality check about what that job is and what it isn't.
[/quote]

I don't know that it takes a decade.  It took Stanford two years to get out of it, when we replaced Harris with Harbaugh.
[/quote]

Not only did Harbaugh turn the fortunes of the Cardinal around in a hurry but UC has their  own example of a quick turnaround - Tedford cleaning up the mess that Holmoe made.  The right coach at any school can right a sinking ship quickly.
[/quote]
Tedford seems to get a bad rap because his tenure ended poorly, but the job that he did when he came in was remarkable.
[/quote]
ןɐɔ went 1-10 in 2001 and had not had a winning season since 1993. Under Tedford in 2002 they went 7-5, then 8-6 in 2003 and then 10-2 in 2004 (#9 in the final AP ranking). The situation that he inherited was far more dire than the current one that ןɐɔ is in, and he produced a national top ten team within three years.

[Redrum]

[quote author=wallendar link=topic=16408.msg185649#msg185649 date=1483987878]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=16408.msg185611#msg185611 date=1483963414]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=16408.msg185609#msg185609 date=1483959382]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=16408.msg185590#msg185590 date=1483932089]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=16408.msg185587#msg185587 date=1483930313]
ןɐɔ needs to get over itself.  They are a stepping stone job, just as Stanford was for decades until Shaw came along.  And when Shaw leaves we could go back to being one too, so I'm not woofing over it.  This about ADs and their egos

But do they have to be a stepping stone?  I think they have a great story to tell, the greatest public university in the land, in the dynamic SF Bay Area.  They don't have to be terrible.  I know we have fun with them, but they should be a validly strong football team.
[/quote]

No they don't have to be one forever, but that's where they are now and it takes a good decade at least to get out of that.  My point is that Mike Williams needs a reality check about what that job is and what it isn't.
[/quote]

I don't know that it takes a decade.  It took Stanford two years to get out of it, when we replaced Harris with Harbaugh.
[/quote]

Not only did Harbaugh turn the fortunes of the Cardinal around in a hurry but UC has their  own example of a quick turnaround - Tedford cleaning up the mess that Holmoe made.  The right coach at any school can right a sinking ship quickly.
[/quote]
Tedford seems to get a bad rap because his tenure ended poorly, but the job that he did when he came in was remarkable.
[/quote]
ןɐɔ went 1-10 in 2001 and had not had a winning season since 1993. Under Tedford in 2002 they went 7-5, then 8-6 in 2003 and then 10-2 in 2004 (#9 in the final AP ranking). The situation that he inherited was far more dire than the current one that ןɐɔ is in, and he produced a national top ten team within three years.

[jacketree]

The timing is pretty odd, and if they were trying to save a few bucks on the buyout by doing it the new calendar year, a) why wait a week and b) they are still giving him $6 million to go away.  You'd think they'd have some master plan, but as we saw with Bowlsby and Trent Johnson, that isn't always the case.  Must have been some final straw to have them throw his clothes out the window and slam the door.

As far as Stanford not getting who they might get, I just remember Mike Riley being passed over for Teevens and Norm Chow eating the dust of Walt Harris.  Can't remember who else might have been in the mix when Harbaugh was hired.  Sort of vaguely remember James Lofton popping up as the inexperienced Stanford legend to bring it all home.  Like the Brevin Knight/Jarron Collins combo this past go around in hoops.

If Cal hires the right person, they could be deadly. The other side of the family has been saying this for nearly sixty years.  Snyder and Tedford had that look, but; well, there's always "but"...

"But" seems to be an academic side afraid that somehow Rose Bowls and Nobel Laureates do not go together.  Unlike say rugby titles or a great swimming program.  Eventually they will probably figure it out.

[jacketree]

The timing is pretty odd, and if they were trying to save a few bucks on the buyout by doing it the new calendar year, a) why wait a week and b) they are still giving him $6 million to go away.  You'd think they'd have some master plan, but as we saw with Bowlsby and Trent Johnson, that isn't always the case.  Must have been some final straw to have them throw his clothes out the window and slam the door.

As far as Stanford not getting who they might get, I just remember Mike Riley being passed over for Teevens and Norm Chow eating the dust of Walt Harris.  Can't remember who else might have been in the mix when Harbaugh was hired.  Sort of vaguely remember James Lofton popping up as the inexperienced Stanford legend to bring it all home.  Like the Brevin Knight/Jarron Collins combo this past go around in hoops.

If Cal hires the right person, they could be deadly. The other side of the family has been saying this for nearly sixty years.  Snyder and Tedford had that look, but; well, there's always "but"...

"But" seems to be an academic side afraid that somehow Rose Bowls and Nobel Laureates do not go together.  Unlike say rugby titles or a great swimming program.  Eventually they will probably figure it out.

[oldalum]

My total guess is that this has to do with reducing the Athletic Dept. deficit, Williams was given some directive on increasing alumni donations, then he went to the big donors and learned he could not get the donations while Dykes was still HC.

[oldalum]

My total guess is that this has to do with reducing the Athletic Dept. deficit, Williams was given some directive on increasing alumni donations, then he went to the big donors and learned he could not get the donations while Dykes was still HC.

[BostonCard]

My total guess is that this has to do with reducing the Athletic Dept. deficit, Williams was given some directive on increasing alumni donations, then he went to the big donors and learned he could not get the donations while Dykes was still HC.

I'm thinking the AD gets rid of Dykes, eats the bailout, and stingy calum still doesn't pony up.

BC

[BostonCard]

My total guess is that this has to do with reducing the Athletic Dept. deficit, Williams was given some directive on increasing alumni donations, then he went to the big donors and learned he could not get the donations while Dykes was still HC.

I'm thinking the AD gets rid of Dykes, eats the bailout, and stingy calum still doesn't pony up.

BC

[teejers1]

Put me in group that thinks:

Cal could do a LOT better than hiring Chip Kelly, thus, I'm okay if this rumor actually pans out;

I don't believe Kelly will be hired as Cal's next head football coach;

A younger, defensive-minded coach who can recruit would be a problem - see Wilcox and Lupoi combo mentioned earlier; and

Agree with those saying Cal could readily make itself a top-flight program (certainly a consistent player in CCG mix).

All in all, I like it better when Cal is a one-trick pony that can be handled . . . Those days may be coming to an end sooner rather than later, depending on the hire.

[teejers1]

Put me in group that thinks:

Cal could do a LOT better than hiring Chip Kelly, thus, I'm okay if this rumor actually pans out;

I don't believe Kelly will be hired as Cal's next head football coach;

A younger, defensive-minded coach who can recruit would be a problem - see Wilcox and Lupoi combo mentioned earlier; and

Agree with those saying Cal could readily make itself a top-flight program (certainly a consistent player in CCG mix).

All in all, I like it better when Cal is a one-trick pony that can be handled . . . Those days may be coming to an end sooner rather than later, depending on the hire.

[DC 86]

Put me in group that thinks:

ןɐɔ could do a LOT better than hiring Chip Kelly

Wow, a LOT better than a coach with a record of 46-7 (33-3 in conference), twice national coach of the year in a span of four years. Worst season was his first (10-3, final ranking was #11), finished in the top four nationally every year thereafter. Cal must be a much more desirable job than I thought if they can recruit someone who is a LOT better.

[DC 86]

Put me in group that thinks:

ןɐɔ could do a LOT better than hiring Chip Kelly

Wow, a LOT better than a coach with a record of 46-7 (33-3 in conference), twice national coach of the year in a span of four years. Worst season was his first (10-3, final ranking was #11), finished in the top four nationally every year thereafter. Cal must be a much more desirable job than I thought if they can recruit someone who is a LOT better.

[Mick]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=16408.msg185674#msg185674 date=1483997580]
Put me in group that thinks:

ןɐɔ could do a LOT better than hiring Chip Kelly

Wow, a LOT better than a coach with a record of 46-7 (33-3 in conference), twice national coach of the year in a span of four years. Worst season was his first (10-3, final ranking was #11), finished in the top four nationally every year thereafter. ןɐɔ must be a much more desirable job than I thought if they can recruit someone who is a LOT better.
[/quote]

This is what I meant when I said the NFL stink will hang on Chip Kelly.  He was a ridiculously strong coach for Oregon, but we have multiple people on this site saying, "Yeah, Cal could do a lot better" because he walked into a no-win situation with horrendous people like Jed York and Trent Baalke and a roster bereft of talent, with no strong position coaches or OC's wanting to join him.  Total recency bias.

[Mick]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=16408.msg185674#msg185674 date=1483997580]
Put me in group that thinks:

ןɐɔ could do a LOT better than hiring Chip Kelly

Wow, a LOT better than a coach with a record of 46-7 (33-3 in conference), twice national coach of the year in a span of four years. Worst season was his first (10-3, final ranking was #11), finished in the top four nationally every year thereafter. ןɐɔ must be a much more desirable job than I thought if they can recruit someone who is a LOT better.
[/quote]

This is what I meant when I said the NFL stink will hang on Chip Kelly.  He was a ridiculously strong coach for Oregon, but we have multiple people on this site saying, "Yeah, Cal could do a lot better" because he walked into a no-win situation with horrendous people like Jed York and Trent Baalke and a roster bereft of talent, with no strong position coaches or OC's wanting to join him.  Total recency bias.

[Goose]

This is what I meant when I said the NFL stink will hang on Chip Kelly.  He was a ridiculously strong coach for Oregon, but we have multiple people on this site saying, "Yeah, ןɐɔ could do a lot better" because he walked into a no-win situation with horrendous people like Jed York and Trent Baalke and a roster bereft of talent, with no strong position coaches or OC's wanting to join him.  Total recency bias.

I don't think it is NFL stink. Kelly was moderately successful in Philadelphia while he had a good roster. He wasn't so successful after he wrecked the roster. He was in a no-win situation with no talent and a toxic front office with the Niners. Conversely, when he took over at Oregon, he was riding the crest of a wave on a rising tide. He had a great program, a great staff, some really special players, Knight's money, and really, really fortunate timing on his side. Do the problems at the Niners make him a bad coach? No. Does his success at Oregon indicate he can be a pretty good coach under the right conditions? Yes. Do either experiences indicate he can turn around a program that has lots of problems? No. Few coaches have that experience (as a success anyway, many try).
FWIW, I think Chip Kelly is probably a good offensive coach with some interesting ideas. I think he is a smart man. I am not sure he is a good leader. He certainly doesn't seem to have EUTM, which may just indicate he is sane. I don't know that he is a good head coach. Oregon's recent slump could be blamed on him "leaving the program bare", but he has been gone too long for that to ring true. All head coaches are only as good as their staff. At Oregon, Kelly started out with a pretty great staff. That perhaps allowed him to not be the greatest "head" coach and get away with it. The program could kind of run itself. He didn't have to worry about the defense. Aliotti would take care of that. He could just innovate with his athletes that were recruited to match his style and were better than most of the competition had. How would that work at cal? I am pretty sure Kelly is smart enough not to try to find out. But, who knows?

[Goose]

This is what I meant when I said the NFL stink will hang on Chip Kelly.  He was a ridiculously strong coach for Oregon, but we have multiple people on this site saying, "Yeah, ןɐɔ could do a lot better" because he walked into a no-win situation with horrendous people like Jed York and Trent Baalke and a roster bereft of talent, with no strong position coaches or OC's wanting to join him.  Total recency bias.

I don't think it is NFL stink. Kelly was moderately successful in Philadelphia while he had a good roster. He wasn't so successful after he wrecked the roster. He was in a no-win situation with no talent and a toxic front office with the Niners. Conversely, when he took over at Oregon, he was riding the crest of a wave on a rising tide. He had a great program, a great staff, some really special players, Knight's money, and really, really fortunate timing on his side. Do the problems at the Niners make him a bad coach? No. Does his success at Oregon indicate he can be a pretty good coach under the right conditions? Yes. Do either experiences indicate he can turn around a program that has lots of problems? No. Few coaches have that experience (as a success anyway, many try).
FWIW, I think Chip Kelly is probably a good offensive coach with some interesting ideas. I think he is a smart man. I am not sure he is a good leader. He certainly doesn't seem to have EUTM, which may just indicate he is sane. I don't know that he is a good head coach. Oregon's recent slump could be blamed on him "leaving the program bare", but he has been gone too long for that to ring true. All head coaches are only as good as their staff. At Oregon, Kelly started out with a pretty great staff. That perhaps allowed him to not be the greatest "head" coach and get away with it. The program could kind of run itself. He didn't have to worry about the defense. Aliotti would take care of that. He could just innovate with his athletes that were recruited to match his style and were better than most of the competition had. How would that work at cal? I am pretty sure Kelly is smart enough not to try to find out. But, who knows?

[winflop]

Some interesting tidbits in this Wilner column, clouded by some absolutely idiotic things as well

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/09/co...-marriage/

• Interesting theory that Williams decided to fire Yikes weeks ago but had to work through the UC bureaucracy to make it happen.  Certainly plausible, but since you are the reporter why don't you go find out?
  
• Another interesting theory that next year would be Yikes' last regardless because he'd either do well enough to get a better job elsewhere or he'd be fired then
  
• "the Bears could have hired Mike MacIntyre instead of Sonny Dykes" - I don't think this is true.  My recollection is that Barbour reached out to MacIntyre and he turned her down
  
• A lot of good reasons why Kelly wouldn't be interested, enough that he shouldn't be listed as a potential candidate
  
• Ron Rivera a candidate?  They have to call him?  No they don't, unless they want to be laughed at.  Rivera is one year removed from head coaching a team to a Super Bowl.  Not a chance he drops 4 or 5 levels down, alma mater or not
  
• Jonathan Smith: "If he’s good enough for Chris Petersen …" then he's too good to take this job
  

I think Wilner has something in common with Yikes (before he was fired) in that he has his job because nobody else wants to hire him.

[winflop]

Some interesting tidbits in this Wilner column, clouded by some absolutely idiotic things as well

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/09/co...-marriage/

• Interesting theory that Williams decided to fire Yikes weeks ago but had to work through the UC bureaucracy to make it happen.  Certainly plausible, but since you are the reporter why don't you go find out?
  
• Another interesting theory that next year would be Yikes' last regardless because he'd either do well enough to get a better job elsewhere or he'd be fired then
  
• "the Bears could have hired Mike MacIntyre instead of Sonny Dykes" - I don't think this is true.  My recollection is that Barbour reached out to MacIntyre and he turned her down
  
• A lot of good reasons why Kelly wouldn't be interested, enough that he shouldn't be listed as a potential candidate
  
• Ron Rivera a candidate?  They have to call him?  No they don't, unless they want to be laughed at.  Rivera is one year removed from head coaching a team to a Super Bowl.  Not a chance he drops 4 or 5 levels down, alma mater or not
  
• Jonathan Smith: "If he’s good enough for Chris Petersen …" then he's too good to take this job
  

I think Wilner has something in common with Yikes (before he was fired) in that he has his job because nobody else wants to hire him.

[wallendar]

From a knowledgeable source, Wilcox and Rivera will be interviewed.  If neither accepts the job, Spivital will be named head coach...

[wallendar]

From a knowledgeable source, Wilcox and Rivera will be interviewed.  If neither accepts the job, Spivital will be named head coach...

[fullmetal]

Wilner's job is to get clicks and stir up discussion.  That's the name of the media game these days...

[fullmetal]

Wilner's job is to get clicks and stir up discussion.  That's the name of the media game these days...

[CTcard]

• "the 59ers could have hired Mike MacIntyre instead of Sonny Dykes" - I don't think this is true.  My recollection is that Barbour reached out to MacIntyre and he turned her down
  

Well, I don't think anyone outside of the principles really knows. Cal did hire Dykes first. Story among the weenie faithful is that Barbour preferred Dykes for the offensive fireworks. Of course it is possible that she preferred Dykes because McIntyre told her he thought he had better offers coming down the pipe.

[CTcard]

• "the 59ers could have hired Mike MacIntyre instead of Sonny Dykes" - I don't think this is true.  My recollection is that Barbour reached out to MacIntyre and he turned her down
  

Well, I don't think anyone outside of the principles really knows. Cal did hire Dykes first. Story among the weenie faithful is that Barbour preferred Dykes for the offensive fireworks. Of course it is possible that she preferred Dykes because McIntyre told her he thought he had better offers coming down the pipe.

[Mick]

• "the 59ers could have hired Mike MacIntyre instead of Sonny Dykes" - I don't think this is true.  My recollection is that Barbour reached out to MacIntyre and he turned her down

ESPN seems to think Barbour wanted Dykes, not MacIntyre. 
http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id...paying-off

Cal fired Tedford on 11/20/12 and stated that they hired DHR to commence an immediate search.  MacIntyre stated as of 11/26, Cal had not contacted him.

And from my own limited experience, I haven't seen Cal too eager to hire from SJSU.

[Mick]

• "the 59ers could have hired Mike MacIntyre instead of Sonny Dykes" - I don't think this is true.  My recollection is that Barbour reached out to MacIntyre and he turned her down

ESPN seems to think Barbour wanted Dykes, not MacIntyre. 
http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id...paying-off

Cal fired Tedford on 11/20/12 and stated that they hired DHR to commence an immediate search.  MacIntyre stated as of 11/26, Cal had not contacted him.

And from my own limited experience, I haven't seen Cal too eager to hire from SJSU.

[stupac2]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=16408.msg185717#msg185717 date=1484004978]

• "the bears could have hired Mike MacIntyre instead of Sonny Dykes" - I don't think this is true.  My recollection is that Barbour reached out to MacIntyre and he turned her down
  

Well, I don't think anyone outside of the principles really knows. Cal did hire Dykes first. Story among the weenie faithful is that Barbour preferred Dykes for the offensive fireworks. Of course it is possible that she preferred Dykes because McIntyre told her he thought he had better offers coming down the pipe.
[/quote]

Was Colorado really a better offer? I guess they probably have more resources, but in football terms you'd have to think that Cal was in a better spot. Sure, they were terrible that year, but had been decent recently and Goff was already committed, right? Colorado had nothing.

[stupac2]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=16408.msg185717#msg185717 date=1484004978]

• "the bears could have hired Mike MacIntyre instead of Sonny Dykes" - I don't think this is true.  My recollection is that Barbour reached out to MacIntyre and he turned her down
  

Well, I don't think anyone outside of the principles really knows. Cal did hire Dykes first. Story among the weenie faithful is that Barbour preferred Dykes for the offensive fireworks. Of course it is possible that she preferred Dykes because McIntyre told her he thought he had better offers coming down the pipe.
[/quote]

Was Colorado really a better offer? I guess they probably have more resources, but in football terms you'd have to think that Cal was in a better spot. Sure, they were terrible that year, but had been decent recently and Goff was already committed, right? Colorado had nothing.