(10-02-2019 02:11 PM)75src Wrote: Wins are more important than exciting plays. Neely did well here even though he was a conservative coach. If Bloom does well enough for someone else to take him, then we get someone else which has worked for UH.
(10-02-2019 01:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: Agree
If we're going to attract people OTHER than diehards, we're going to have to have exciting schemes or at least exciting players.... and it's going to be hard (but not at all impossible) to get exciting players from g5.
I understand the plan to continue to get better and better.... but what I don't understand (and perhaps I just don't know) is why, if Bloomgren is successful here, that he would turn down offers to leave that would surely come?
That's the problem with these 'build it' plans that we seem to love so much.
I agree that wins matter.
Neely was 1950 Different era completely
I don't think I'd describe what UH has done as 'build it', schematically. That's actually a perfect example of my point.
If you hire from within, or if you replace him with someone who would have essentially built the same thing, that's fine. It doesn't happen often, but it's a plan.
Let me say it differently...
Bloomgren is an OC/OL guy... hence his philosophy. He wants to recruit/coach/create great OL who will then well protect and block for a great QB/RB who will want to come here because of the OL. I believe but cannot swear to this as his strategy. Let's say he's successful and then gets hired away. It seems self-evident he'd want to take his OL coach, right? So now we've LIKELY (not assuredly, but likely) lost the top 2 people at what he was building... even if we offer his OL coach the HC position. If he stays, maybe there's some continuity. What if he doesn't? What if we get that great QB and then he takes his QB coach and the great player with him as well?
My issue with 'build it' is that we aren't a destination for any coach short of someone who either just bleeds blue and grey or has a scheme not designed to get players to the pros that few others would hire. I would prefer a string of coaches who could recruit and then adapt to get a lot out of whatever we have to work with at the time. I think that's more what UH tries to do.
As I said, maybe I just don't know and of course nobody owes me an explanation... but that is the reality. We're planning around what I see as a very narrow path to longer-term success based on something that has little to do with Rice. I suppose we can argue that cerebral OL are more common and thus making is OL-U makes some sense... but you don't need to be married to the run to develop OL into pro prospects these days.