This post was prompted by the suggestion in the "This coach is" thread that we bring back Monty. We all know that's not going to happen, and if it did, it raises a host of other issues that were debated ad nauseum when he was the coach. IMHO, we're in a pick-your-poison situation. Given that we're not going to pay multi-millions to poach another Division I coach, as Missouri did to us, our choices for replacing Wyking Jones are either another Division I assistant with minimal or no head coaching experience, or a mid-major head coach looking to move up to his first Power 5 job. With the former, you're probably getting someone with the ability to recruit at this level, but with uncertainties about his ability to manage a program, hire quality assistant coaches, handle Xs and Os, and develop players through the assistants. With the latter, you're getting someone who knows program management, Xs and Os and player development, but who hasn't ever recruited at the talent level we probably need to be competitive. Ergo, the question always is whether the coach hired can shore up his weak areas quickly enough to move the program forward.
Historically since Herrerias, who was heir apparent to Pete Newell, we have leaned toward hiring lower-level head coaches (Edwards, Kuchen, Campanelli, Braun). The first three were coaches, not recruiters. Braun was a recruiter non-coach. Padgett was an assistant, and also a recruiter non-coach. The exceptions have been Montgomery (coaching non-recruiter) and Martin (recruiter non-coach), former Power 5 coaches who basically fell into our lap. Their strengths and weaknesses are well known.
The evidence is that Jones can recruit. We don't know yet if he can work into coaching the players he's recruited. I think you can't make that determination until he's had at least one more full season after this one. But basically, it's not that easy to find coaches who can do both. I think what tends to happen, although it's completely subjective, is that a coaching non-recruiter may accidentally end up with overlooked players who blossom, which propels his program to the top, like Brad Stevens at Butler, and those coaches can then use that success to move to more prestigious programs where it's easier to recruit. Perhaps the best exception to this is Mark Few, who has been at Gonzaga since 1999. By the way, they're a blow in the argument for continuity. Since 1978, they've only had four coaches, and the first coach that was successful, Dan Fitzgerald of St. Ignatius High in SF, later became the athletic director.
Historically since Herrerias, who was heir apparent to Pete Newell, we have leaned toward hiring lower-level head coaches (Edwards, Kuchen, Campanelli, Braun). The first three were coaches, not recruiters. Braun was a recruiter non-coach. Padgett was an assistant, and also a recruiter non-coach. The exceptions have been Montgomery (coaching non-recruiter) and Martin (recruiter non-coach), former Power 5 coaches who basically fell into our lap. Their strengths and weaknesses are well known.
The evidence is that Jones can recruit. We don't know yet if he can work into coaching the players he's recruited. I think you can't make that determination until he's had at least one more full season after this one. But basically, it's not that easy to find coaches who can do both. I think what tends to happen, although it's completely subjective, is that a coaching non-recruiter may accidentally end up with overlooked players who blossom, which propels his program to the top, like Brad Stevens at Butler, and those coaches can then use that success to move to more prestigious programs where it's easier to recruit. Perhaps the best exception to this is Mark Few, who has been at Gonzaga since 1999. By the way, they're a blow in the argument for continuity. Since 1978, they've only had four coaches, and the first coach that was successful, Dan Fitzgerald of St. Ignatius High in SF, later became the athletic director.