Florida St fires Willie Taggert

1,984 Views | 39 Replies | Last: 8 days ago by cal83dls79
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMAO
LateHit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eugene not seeming so bad right about now.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
On one hand its ridiculous that a hire is fired after 1.5 seasons. On the other hand, it's a bit of justice served for job hoppers like Willie.

Dude's getting $17M to go away. Amazin'.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Radical Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dream job became a nightmare.
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LateHit said:

Eugene not seeming so bad right about now.
was hoping he'd stay there. talked his way into fsu and now it's their prob.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:


Relationships with media? Give me a break. These media guys wannabe real reporters are, as Bobby Knight said, one step above prostitution. The audacity to say of the 4 things you have to nail or your toast is relationships with the media.

Arguably none of those 4 things are make or break issues in the first 90 days. All can be overcome, and often are.
510 Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

okaydo said:


Relationships with media? Give me a break. These media guys wannabe real reporters are, as Bobby Knight said, one step above prostitution. The audacity to say of the 4 things you have to nail or your toast is relationships with the media.

Arguably none of those 4 things are make or break issues in the first 90 days. All can be overcome, and often are.
Yeah, seriously. "Nail all four, including impressing us media, or you're screwed"...I LOL'd. The media are important, but they're not the kingmakers this guy seems to think of himself as. Someone get him the proverbial ladder so he can get over himself.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:




First 90 days:
1. Hiring a staff
2. Winning over the existing players and commits.

Everything else (recruits, fans, media..) will he more dependent on your level success the first year than what you do in the first 90 days (or 6 months).

BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:


First 90 days:
1. Hiring a staff
2. Winning over the existing players and commits.

Everything else (recruits, fans, media..) will he more dependent on your level success the first year than what you do in the first 90 days (or 6 months).
That's right. The only thing in Wolken's #3 and 4 that a head coach actually has to do in the first 90 days is to not burn every bridge with fans and media. It's not necessary to make everyone love you.

ducktilldeath
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He's been a good coach everywhere else.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducktilldeath said:

He's been a good coach everywhere else.
Has he really? Maybe Taggart is more like Sonny Dykes and just belongs in a G5 conference.

calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

ducktilldeath said:

He's been a good coach everywhere else.
Has he really? Maybe Taggart is more like Sonny Dykes and just belongs in a G5 conference.




As a HC at any level, the hires you make are key. Dykes at Cal made a bad hire at DC. Taggert made a couple of bad hires. Wilcox made a bad hire at OC. If Wilcox hires a good OC suddenly he is a good P5 coach. Dykes wasn't fitting in at Cal, but I could easily see him doing well at a P5 school like Baylor, Kansas or Texas Tech.

Taggart was the first African American head coach in Tallahassee. He wasn't getting a lot of slack if he didn't win big from the get go.
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

BearSD said:

ducktilldeath said:

He's been a good coach everywhere else.
Has he really? Maybe Taggart is more like Sonny Dykes and just belongs in a G5 conference.




As a HC at any level, the hires you make are key. Dykes at Cal made a bad hire at DC. Taggert made a couple of bad hires. Wilcox made a bad hire at OC. If Wilcox hires a good OC suddenly he is a good P5 coach. Dykes wasn't fitting in at Cal, but I could easily see him doing well at a P5 school like Baylor, Kansas or Texas Tech.

Taggart was the first African American head coach in Tallahassee. He wasn't getting a lot of slack if he didn't win big from the get go.
He came in with less than stellar credentials. They thought he would command the Florida recruit market, but they failed to look closely at what he did at USF.
CALiforniALUM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shows you how bad university admistrators and boosters are in selecting candidates.
Oski87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducktilldeath said:

He's been a good coach everywhere else.


Not really. Barely a .500 coach Pre moving to FSU.
Uthaithani
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:


Wow, Dan Wolken is one arrogant, stupid, self-important little twit.
Probably the last to get picked for dodgeball in HS gym class, too. Either that or hospitalized for getting the clarinet mouthpiece stuck in his nose.

Taggart was a bad hire, but it wasn't like the dorks in the media were going to have anything to do with that one way or the other.
Uthaithani
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

okaydo said:




First 90 days:
1. Hiring a staff
2. Winning over the existing players and commits.

Everything else (recruits, fans, media..) will he more dependent on your level success the first year than what you do in the first 90 days (or 6 months).


Can someone name me a Cal HC who did NOT look good in his first 90 days?
Okay, Dykes. Yes.
Though that exception actually proves the rule, since he ended up getting an extension and only got himself fired because he was actively looking for a job years later.

Other than that, pretty much every Cal coach has looked great in those months before the first season started. And with but one exception (maybe two), they have not turned out to be good coaches.

So basically that I-don't-actually-play-sports-I-just-write-about-them reporter's list of four things a new coach needs to do is absolute garbage and has nothing to do with why Taggart failed.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Uthaithani said:

okaydo said:


Wow, Dan Wolken is one arrogant, stupid, self-important little twit.
Probably the last to get picked for dodgeball in HS gym class, too. Either that or hospitalized for getting the clarinet mouthpiece stuck in his nose.

Taggart was a bad hire, but it wasn't like the dorks in the media were going to have anything to do with that one way or the other.

You're either with Wolken or with Leach.




Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Uthaithani said:

calumnus said:

okaydo said:




First 90 days:
1. Hiring a staff
2. Winning over the existing players and commits.

Everything else (recruits, fans, media..) will he more dependent on your level success the first year than what you do in the first 90 days (or 6 months).


Can someone name me a Cal HC who did NOT look good in his first 90 days?
Okay, Dykes. Yes.
Though that exception actually proves the rule, since he ended up getting an extension and only got himself fired because he was actively looking for a job years later.

Other than that, pretty much every Cal coach has looked great in those months before the first season started. And with but one exception (maybe two), they have not turned out to be good coaches.

So basically that I-don't-actually-play-sports-I-just-write-about-them reporter's list of four things a new coach needs to do is absolute garbage and has nothing to do with why Taggart failed.
Dykes had a pretty good first 90 days here. A lot of people were skeptical of the hire, initially, but he did a reasonably good job of convincing people that he actually WAS a good fit. Franklin seemed like a good hire and happily settled in Berkeley (and SD stayed nearby). Buh wasn't exactly a home run, but nobody knew how bad he'd really be. His other Assistants didn't have much west coast experience, but people figured he needed to bring in his own guys to run his system. Most important of all, at the end of the 90 days, he still had a .500 record!

I'd say, 90 days in, he was at the peak of his popularity.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?


When Leach ran the ball up the middle twice before his kicker missed a 20-yard FG attempt on the last play in Cal's 60-59 win a few years ago, what was the name of that play?

Heh.

ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducktilldeath said:

He's been a good coach everywhere else.
You can be a good G5 coach and fail at the P5 level....
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:



When Leach ran the ball up the middle twice before his kicker missed a 20-yard FG attempt on the last play in Cal's 60-59 win a few years ago, what was the name of that play?

Heh.


The Big Miss Right (and we're not talking about Leach's overweight fiancee).
ducktilldeath
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear said:

ducktilldeath said:

He's been a good coach everywhere else.
You can be a good G5 coach and fail at the P5 level....
Thanks for clearing that up.
Northside91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Uthaithani said:

calumnus said:

okaydo said:




First 90 days:
1. Hiring a staff
2. Winning over the existing players and commits.

Everything else (recruits, fans, media..) will he more dependent on your level success the first year than what you do in the first 90 days (or 6 months).


Can someone name me a Cal HC who did NOT look good in his first 90 days?
Okay, Dykes. Yes.
Though that exception actually proves the rule, since he ended up getting an extension and only got himself fired because he was actively looking for a job years later.

Other than that, pretty much every Cal coach has looked great in those months before the first season started. And with but one exception (maybe two), they have not turned out to be good coaches.

So basically that I-don't-actually-play-sports-I-just-write-about-them reporter's list of four things a new coach needs to do is absolute garbage and has nothing to do with why Taggart failed.

As far as I'm concerned, from the very beginning, Tom Holmoe, Keith Gilbertson, Cuonzo Martin and Wyking Jones did not inspire any confidence at all. Holmoe and Jones looked atrocious on paper and neither one presented like a leader. Cuonzo was uninspiring and had an unimpressive pedigree, and Gilbertson looked and sounded like a moron. If someone would like to push back on the Gilbertson comment, try listening to him on Seattle area sports talk radio first. He's an embarrassment to the coaching profession, and with WJ ranks in my mind as the most unpardonable hire in the history of Cal revenue sports.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

Uthaithani said:

calumnus said:

okaydo said:




First 90 days:
1. Hiring a staff
2. Winning over the existing players and commits.

Everything else (recruits, fans, media..) will he more dependent on your level success the first year than what you do in the first 90 days (or 6 months).


Can someone name me a Cal HC who did NOT look good in his first 90 days?
Okay, Dykes. Yes.
Though that exception actually proves the rule, since he ended up getting an extension and only got himself fired because he was actively looking for a job years later.

Other than that, pretty much every Cal coach has looked great in those months before the first season started. And with but one exception (maybe two), they have not turned out to be good coaches.

So basically that I-don't-actually-play-sports-I-just-write-about-them reporter's list of four things a new coach needs to do is absolute garbage and has nothing to do with why Taggart failed.
Dykes had a pretty good first 90 days here. A lot of people were skeptical of the hire, initially, but he did a reasonably good job of convincing people that he actually WAS a good fit. Franklin seemed like a good hire and happily settled in Berkeley (and SD stayed nearby). Buh wasn't exactly a home run, but nobody knew how bad he'd really be. His other Assistants didn't have much west coast experience, but people figured he needed to bring in his own guys to run his system. Most important of all, at the end of the 90 days, he still had a .500 record!

I'd say, 90 days in, he was at the peak of his popularity.


Yeah, Dykes was an unpopular pick, but seemed to be doing well that first 90 days, especially maintaining the recruiting class. He became more unpopular when he went with Goff over Kline and then became hated once the losing started.

Horrible first 90 days was Gilby as he extolled his love for UW and our great recruiting class fell apart. Holmoe was bad too, kind of like if Dykes left after one year and we promoted Buh, DC for the worst defense in the country, who then hired Doug Cosbie, who had never been an OC (and has never been since), as OC.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Northside91 said:

Uthaithani said:

calumnus said:

okaydo said:




First 90 days:
1. Hiring a staff
2. Winning over the existing players and commits.

Everything else (recruits, fans, media..) will he more dependent on your level success the first year than what you do in the first 90 days (or 6 months).


Can someone name me a Cal HC who did NOT look good in his first 90 days?
Okay, Dykes. Yes.
Though that exception actually proves the rule, since he ended up getting an extension and only got himself fired because he was actively looking for a job years later.

Other than that, pretty much every Cal coach has looked great in those months before the first season started. And with but one exception (maybe two), they have not turned out to be good coaches.

So basically that I-don't-actually-play-sports-I-just-write-about-them reporter's list of four things a new coach needs to do is absolute garbage and has nothing to do with why Taggart failed.

As far as I'm concerned, from the very beginning, Tom Holmoe, Keith Gilbertson, Cuonzo Martin and Wyking Jones did not inspire any confidence at all. Holmoe and Jones looked atrocious on paper and neither one presented like a leader. Cuonzo was uninspiring and had an unimpressive pedigree, and Gilbertson looked and sounded like a moron. If someone would like to push back on the Gilbertson comment, try listening to him on Seattle area sports talk radio first. He's an embarrassment to the coaching profession, and with WJ ranks in my mind as the most unpardonable hire in the history of Cal revenue sports.


Agree with all except Cuonzo, Former NBA player, cancer survivor, protege of Gene Keady (6 Big Ten Championships at Purdue, perennial trips to the Tournament) with a great presence who had JUST Two weeks earlier taken Tennessee to the Sweet 16!!! Not a mid-major coach, an SEC coach who just made a long tournament run. Unprecedented for Cal. Appeared to be a home run. We immediately got interest from top recruits. His first class with a year to recruit brought in TWO Top 10, 5 star McDonald's All-Americans.

I think it is largely in retrospect, the loss to Hawaii in the Tournament or from watching the team that final year that anyone could see his first 90 days as anything other than pretty great.

Mark Fox started out pretty bad. Fired for poor results at Georgia, unemployed for a year, hired through a consulting firm with an abbreviated search. Horrible speech with players rolling their eyes or falling asleep. The majority of the starters from a last place team transferring. He recovered by bringing in some transfers and international players, so many are hopeful. As I said above, the results on the court will ultimately determine how people feel about him.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Northside91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Northside91 said:

Uthaithani said:

calumnus said:

okaydo said:




First 90 days:
1. Hiring a staff
2. Winning over the existing players and commits.

Everything else (recruits, fans, media..) will he more dependent on your level success the first year than what you do in the first 90 days (or 6 months).


Can someone name me a Cal HC who did NOT look good in his first 90 days?
Okay, Dykes. Yes.
Though that exception actually proves the rule, since he ended up getting an extension and only got himself fired because he was actively looking for a job years later.

Other than that, pretty much every Cal coach has looked great in those months before the first season started. And with but one exception (maybe two), they have not turned out to be good coaches.

So basically that I-don't-actually-play-sports-I-just-write-about-them reporter's list of four things a new coach needs to do is absolute garbage and has nothing to do with why Taggart failed.

As far as I'm concerned, from the very beginning, Tom Holmoe, Keith Gilbertson, Cuonzo Martin and Wyking Jones did not inspire any confidence at all. Holmoe and Jones looked atrocious on paper and neither one presented like a leader. Cuonzo was uninspiring and had an unimpressive pedigree, and Gilbertson looked and sounded like a moron. If someone would like to push back on the Gilbertson comment, try listening to him on Seattle area sports talk radio first. He's an embarrassment to the coaching profession, and with WJ ranks in my mind as the most unpardonable hire in the history of Cal revenue sports.


Agree with all except Cuonzo, Former NBA player, cancer survivor, protege of Gene Keady (6 Big Ten Championships at Purdue, perennial trips to the Tournament) with a great presence who had JUST Two weeks earlier taken Tennessee to the Sweet 16!!! Not a mid-major coach, an SEC coach who just made a long tournament run. Unprecedented for Cal.


We'll disagree on Cuonzo. He made a lot of money as a result of the Mercer miracle (the year T finished fourth in the SEC behind Mark Fox's UGA team, btw). If not for that eye candy, he's not turning many heads. His last season at Mizz State was probably more impressive. I like my coaches with a little personality, not Bo Pelini and Ty Willingham types. Yes, I know, Pats fans would chuckle. Call me shallow.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Northside91 said:

calumnus said:

Northside91 said:

Uthaithani said:

calumnus said:

okaydo said:




First 90 days:
1. Hiring a staff
2. Winning over the existing players and commits.

Everything else (recruits, fans, media..) will he more dependent on your level success the first year than what you do in the first 90 days (or 6 months).


Can someone name me a Cal HC who did NOT look good in his first 90 days?
Okay, Dykes. Yes.
Though that exception actually proves the rule, since he ended up getting an extension and only got himself fired because he was actively looking for a job years later.

Other than that, pretty much every Cal coach has looked great in those months before the first season started. And with but one exception (maybe two), they have not turned out to be good coaches.

So basically that I-don't-actually-play-sports-I-just-write-about-them reporter's list of four things a new coach needs to do is absolute garbage and has nothing to do with why Taggart failed.

As far as I'm concerned, from the very beginning, Tom Holmoe, Keith Gilbertson, Cuonzo Martin and Wyking Jones did not inspire any confidence at all. Holmoe and Jones looked atrocious on paper and neither one presented like a leader. Cuonzo was uninspiring and had an unimpressive pedigree, and Gilbertson looked and sounded like a moron. If someone would like to push back on the Gilbertson comment, try listening to him on Seattle area sports talk radio first. He's an embarrassment to the coaching profession, and with WJ ranks in my mind as the most unpardonable hire in the history of Cal revenue sports.


Agree with all except Cuonzo, Former NBA player, cancer survivor, protege of Gene Keady (6 Big Ten Championships at Purdue, perennial trips to the Tournament) with a great presence who had JUST Two weeks earlier taken Tennessee to the Sweet 16!!! Not a mid-major coach, an SEC coach who just made a long tournament run. Unprecedented for Cal.


We'll disagree on Cuonzo. He made a lot of money as a result of the Mercer miracle (the year T finished fourth in the SEC behind Mark Fox's UGA team, btw). If not for that eye candy, he's not turning many heads. His last season at Mizz State was probably more impressive. I like my coaches with a little personality, not Bo Pelini and Ty Willingham types. Yes, I know, Pats fans would chuckle. Call me shallow.


The SEC plays an unbalanced schedule, Tennessee played Florida twice for example. When they played Tennessee beat Georgia 67-48. Sagarin has Tennessee as the #8 team that year and Georgia #74
There is a reason Tennessee made a Sweet 16 run in the NCAA Tournament while Georgia again failed to win more than a single game in the NIT.

If you are happier with the Mark Fox hire than the Cuonzo Martin hire, I am happy for you, and hopefully you will actually he proven to be right, but don't try to pretend you have factual evidence to back up your opinion.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sanders to FSU?

ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses said:

sanders to FSU?




Can you imagine Deion walking into your living room if you're some 16 year old kid?

If he puts a good staff around him, this could absolutely work.
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

going4roses said:

sanders to FSU?




Can you imagine Deion walking into your living room if you're some 16 year old kid?

If he puts a good staff around him, this could absolutely work.
He's a talking head, not a head coach. The proof of the pudding would be his executive ability.
kjkbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Deion is eight years older today than Old Joe Kapp was when he took over the Bears in 1982. I don't feel young after confirming that.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.