Welcome Aboard Marcel Yates Arizona's New DC

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 6:52 pm

Let's see if we can minimize the trolling and stay on topic.

My guess (based on nothing) is Peter Sirmon.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 6:54 pm

Well we should know soon. I hope it's not Tony Gibson like Chief is hinting at. That would be worse than Casteel. Need some new blood that is ultra aggressive IMO

chiefzona · Post by **chiefzona** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:00 pm

azcat49 wrote:Well we should know soon. I hope it's not Tony Gibson like Chief is hinting at. That would be worse than Casteel. Need some new blood that is ultra aggressive IMO

I'm not hinting Gibson. RR has no viable eyes and is riding WVUs eyes. Tony Gibson won't be the DC at Arizona.

chiefzona · Post by **chiefzona** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:01 pm

Chicat wrote:Let's see if we can minimize the trolling and stay on topic.

My guess (based on nothing) is Peter Sirmon.

He might go to Oregon and if not....might be up in the air with Clancy. He'd be a very good pick up for anyone.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:31 pm

chiefzona wrote:
azcat49 wrote:Well we should know soon. I hope it's not Tony Gibson like Chief is hinting at. That would be worse than Casteel. Need some new blood that is ultra aggressive IMO

I'm not hinting Gibson. RR has no viable eyes and is riding WVUs eyes. Tony Gibson won't be the DC at Arizona.

Thank goodness. So who is your $ on, top 3 possibles?

BearDown89 · Post by **BearDown89** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:53 pm

I'm a little concerned about what DC said in the other thread vis a vis that RR was only going to let Coach K go and Casteel wouldn't re-up w/o Coach K. So RR had no intention of letting Casteel go or changing the defense, and got caught with his pants down . . . reinforces the color of stubbornness from RR on down through the defensive side of the ball.

Not particularly encouraging intel the way I see it.

UAEebs86 · Post by **UAEebs86** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:56 pm

BearDown89 wrote:I'm a little concerned about what DC said in the other thread vis a vis that RR was only going to let Coach K go and Casteel wouldn't re-up w/o Coach K. So RR had no intention of letting Casteel go or changing the defense, and got caught with his pants down . . . reinforces the color of stubbornness from RR on down through the defensive side of the ball.

Not particularly encouraging intel the way I see it.

I have heard a couple media types say he wanted to not only get rid of Coach K and Lockwood, but also wanted Casteel to make changes, and Casteel balked.
Now, those changes may have been mostly about recruiting better rather than scheme, who knows?

chiefzona · Post by **chiefzona** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:57 pm

BearDown89 wrote:I'm a little concerned about what DC said in the other thread vis a vis that RR was only going to let Coach K go and Casteel wouldn't re-up w/o Coach K. So RR had no intention of letting Casteel go or changing the defense, and got caught with his pants down . . . reinforces the color of stubbornness from RR on down through the defensive side of the ball.

Not particularly encouraging intel the way I see it.

This exactly.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:59 pm

BearDown89 wrote:I'm a little concerned about what DC said in the other thread vis a vis that RR was only going to let Coach K go and Casteel wouldn't re-up w/o Coach K. So RR had no intention of letting Casteel go or changing the defense, and got caught with his pants down . . . reinforces the color of stubbornness from RR on down through the defensive side of the ball.

Not particularly encouraging intel the way I see it.

I don't know 89. We got a change most of us were asking for so how ever it happened I am pretty happy. Guess we will see

3goggles · Post by **3goggles** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:00 pm

chiefzona wrote:
BearDown89 wrote:I'm a little concerned about what DC said in the other thread vis a vis that RR was only going to let Coach K go and Casteel wouldn't re-up w/o Coach K. So RR had no intention of letting Casteel go or changing the defense, and got caught with his pants down . . . reinforces the color of stubbornness from RR on down through the defensive side of the ball.

Not particularly encouraging intel the way I see it.

This exactly.

Who are your top 3 candidates for a DC and DLine coach?

chiefzona · Post by **chiefzona** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:01 pm

azcat49 wrote:
chiefzona wrote:
azcat49 wrote:Well we should know soon. I hope it's not Tony Gibson like Chief is hinting at. That would be worse than Casteel. Need some new blood that is ultra aggressive IMO

I'm not hinting Gibson. RR has no viable eyes and is riding WVUs eyes. Tony Gibson won't be the DC at Arizona.
Thank goodness. So who is your $ on, top 3 possibles?

Nothing good.

3goggles · Post by **3goggles** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:05 pm

chiefzona wrote:
azcat49 wrote:
chiefzona wrote:
azcat49 wrote:Well we should know soon. I hope it's not Tony Gibson like Chief is hinting at. That would be worse than Casteel. Need some new blood that is ultra aggressive IMO

I'm not hinting Gibson. RR has no viable eyes and is riding WVUs eyes. Tony Gibson won't be the DC at Arizona.
Thank goodness. So who is your $ on, top 3 possibles?

Nothing good.

Then why do you care enough to post here?

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:06 pm

More posts about the football team, less posts about posters.

dc4azcats · Post by **dc4azcats** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:06 pm

Let me say that I think Chief is a good guy for the most part and I think he brings some good insight to the board. I hope he sticks around as for the most part I enjoy the banter with him. The board would be pretty boring if we didn't have folks disagreeing and having different views.

chiefzona · Post by **chiefzona** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:07 pm

Chicat wrote:More posts about the football team, less posts about posters.

I agree.

dc4azcats · Post by **dc4azcats** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:07 pm

Chicat wrote:More posts about the football team, less posts about posters.

Agree and I posted that before your post. It's the last I will speak of another poster.

dc4azcats · Post by **dc4azcats** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:10 pm

UAEebs86 wrote:
BearDown89 wrote:I'm a little concerned about what DC said in the other thread vis a vis that RR was only going to let Coach K go and Casteel wouldn't re-up w/o Coach K. So RR had no intention of letting Casteel go or changing the defense, and got caught with his pants down . . . reinforces the color of stubbornness from RR on down through the defensive side of the ball.

Not particularly encouraging intel the way I see it.

I have heard a couple media types say he wanted to not only get rid of Coach K and Lockwood, but also wanted Casteel to make changes, and Casteel balked.
Now, those changes may have been mostly about recruiting better rather than scheme, who knows?

It had everything to do with recruiting and less to do with scheme. Some folks might not want to hear that or like it but it's true. He knew like everybody on this board knew, we need to get better players on the D. He's not against the scheme, he was against 2 guys on D not really recruiting.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:12 pm

UAEebs86 wrote:
BearDown89 wrote:I'm a little concerned about what DC said in the other thread vis a vis that RR was only going to let Coach K go and Casteel wouldn't re-up w/o Coach K. So RR had no intention of letting Casteel go or changing the defense, and got caught with his pants down . . . reinforces the color of stubbornness from RR on down through the defensive side of the ball.

Not particularly encouraging intel the way I see it.

I have heard a couple media types say he wanted to not only get rid of Coach K and Lockwood, but also wanted Casteel to make changes, and Casteel balked.
Now, those changes may have been mostly about recruiting better rather than scheme, who knows?

I wouldn't say "caught with his pants down". RR had to have an inkling that forcing K to retire would not make Casteel happy. Maybe he forced Casteel's hand. Maybe Casteel forced his. Either way, we needed a change on that side of the ball. And change is what we got.

dc4azcats · Post by **dc4azcats** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:18 pm

Chicat wrote:
UAEebs86 wrote:
BearDown89 wrote:I'm a little concerned about what DC said in the other thread vis a vis that RR was only going to let Coach K go and Casteel wouldn't re-up w/o Coach K. So RR had no intention of letting Casteel go or changing the defense, and got caught with his pants down . . . reinforces the color of stubbornness from RR on down through the defensive side of the ball.

Not particularly encouraging intel the way I see it.

I have heard a couple media types say he wanted to not only get rid of Coach K and Lockwood, but also wanted Casteel to make changes, and Casteel balked.
Now, those changes may have been mostly about recruiting better rather than scheme, who knows?
I wouldn't say "caught with his pants down". RR had to have an inkling that forcing K to retire would not make Casteel happy. Maybe he forced Casteel's hand. Maybe Casteel forced his. Either way, we needed a change on that side of the ball. And change is what we got.

Here's what I don't get though Chi? Why if you're Casteel and even RR who has the final say in accepting a commit - do they accept a commit on a guy at a position of need - just to lose it less than a week later because Casteel left? Makes no sense.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:25 pm

Guys, look, I locked the last thread because it became a pissing match and I'm deleting posts to keep this one from doing the same. If you have a question for a poster unrelated to the topic of the thread either start a new thread or take it to PM. Let's just be done with it.

dc4azcats wrote:Here's what I don't get though Chi? Why if you're Casteel and even RR who has the final say in accepting a commit - do they accept a commit on a guy at a position of need - just to lose it less than a week later because Casteel left? Makes no sense.

I'm guessing it was a long term vs. short term thing. For the good of the team going forward long term, K had to go. Or at least that is my hope.

dc4azcats · Post by **dc4azcats** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:31 pm

Chicat wrote:Guys, look, I locked the last thread because it became a pissing match and I'm deleting posts to keep this one from doing the same. If you have a question for a poster unrelated to the topic of the thread either start a new thread or take it to PM. Let's just be done with it.

dc4azcats wrote:Here's what I don't get though Chi? Why if you're Casteel and even RR who has the final say in accepting a commit - do they accept a commit on a guy at a position of need - just to lose it less than a week later because Casteel left? Makes no sense.
I'm guessing it was a long term vs. short term thing. For the good of the team going forward long term, K had to go. Or at least that is my hope.

Absolutely that Kirlav had to go but I don't think Casteel expected to leave and I don't think RR expected him to leave. I do think that Casteel was put in a tough spot once Kirlav was gone but I don't think RR expected Casteel to leave. I say that because of the LB commit and Casteel was the guy recruiting him.

Harvey Specter · Post by **Harvey Specter** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:32 pm

azcat49 wrote:
chiefzona wrote:
azcat49 wrote:Well we should know soon. I hope it's not Tony Gibson like Chief is hinting at. That would be worse than Casteel. Need some new blood that is ultra aggressive IMO

I'm not hinting Gibson. RR has no viable eyes and is riding WVUs eyes. Tony Gibson won't be the DC at Arizona.
Thank goodness. So who is your $ on, top 3 possibles?

I second 49's emotion. No Gibson = sigh of relief.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:32 pm

Well the old man (Kirlav) had his retirement hay in the barn but Casteel had his bluff called. Big ups the RR for doing what is right

Harvey Specter · Post by **Harvey Specter** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:37 pm

BearDown89 wrote:I'm a little concerned about what DC said in the other thread vis a vis that RR was only going to let Coach K go and Casteel wouldn't re-up w/o Coach K. So RR had no intention of letting Casteel go or changing the defense, and got caught with his pants down . . . reinforces the color of stubbornness from RR on down through the defensive side of the ball.

Not particularly encouraging intel the way I see it.

The end result is all that matters, regardless of how it went down. We get a good DC that improves our defense and we should all be happy.

i was thrilled we got Miller, even if the way it went down was disconcerting. At the end of the day, we got a great coach - and that is all that matters. If I feel 1/2 as good about our new DC, I will be thrilled.

It would have been great if we could have kept the staff in tact and made that progress... it just did not seem likely.

chiefzona · Post by **chiefzona** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:38 pm

azcat49 wrote:Well the old man (Kirlav) had his retirement hay in the barn but Casteel had his bluff called. Big ups the RR for doing what is right

I think Casteel quit. He made it easy and Kirelav wanted to golf in Tucson. He's happy Billy is employed.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:48 pm

dc4azcats wrote:
Chicat wrote:
dc4azcats wrote:Here's what I don't get though Chi? Why if you're Casteel and even RR who has the final say in accepting a commit - do they accept a commit on a guy at a position of need - just to lose it less than a week later because Casteel left? Makes no sense.
I'm guessing it was a long term vs. short term thing. For the good of the team going forward long term, K had to go. Or at least that is my hope.
Absolutely that Kirlav had to go but I don't think Casteel expected to leave and I don't think RR expected him to leave. I do think that Casteel was put in a tough spot once Kirlav was gone but I don't think RR expected Casteel to leave. I say that because of the LB commit and Casteel was the guy recruiting him.

I'm sure RR wanted Casteel to stay, but he needed Kirlav to retire more. You can't have a guy in that position who doesn't recruit, especially with the rules about who on staff can and cannot recruit. Whether RR made the decision or Casteel made it for him, I'm glad it happened. Good opportunity to move forward and get better even if we lose recruits this cycle.

BearDown89 · Post by **BearDown89** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:48 pm

dc4azcats wrote:
UAEebs86 wrote:
BearDown89 wrote:I'm a little concerned about what DC said in the other thread vis a vis that RR was only going to let Coach K go and Casteel wouldn't re-up w/o Coach K. So RR had no intention of letting Casteel go or changing the defense, and got caught with his pants down . . . reinforces the color of stubbornness from RR on down through the defensive side of the ball.

Not particularly encouraging intel the way I see it.

I have heard a couple media types say he wanted to not only get rid of Coach K and Lockwood, but also wanted Casteel to make changes, and Casteel balked.
Now, those changes may have been mostly about recruiting better rather than scheme, who knows?
It had everything to do with recruiting and less to do with scheme. Some folks might not want to hear that or like it but it's true. He knew like everybody on this board knew, we need to get better players on the D. He's not against the scheme, he was against 2 guys on D not really recruiting.

Appreciate the further clarification DC. I don't think a lot of us realized until recently that those two didn't recruit. Knowing that, it's now clear we need some better recruiting efforts and some coaches with enthusiasm for that part of the gig. I'm not a coach and I'm not much of an Xs and Os guy, but I've been watching college football for a long time and figure I have a decent enough eyeball for a layman. I was willing to give a pass this year given the injuries, but when you look back at RR's tenure at Michigan (w/o Casteel, force feeding Robinson the 335), his offensively slanted recruiting tendencies, the last couple of seasons here, AUTOMATIC 3rd and long conversions, getting popped - repeatedly - for huge plays right out of the gate on initial drives, highly-touted 4-stars not even sniffing the field - especially when the cupboard was so bare from Stoops, blah, blah, blah, that you'd think a couple of 4-star studs could contribute something, anything, regardless that they're underclassmen, etc., etc., etc. - it all starts to sound like a lot of excuses. Bottom line - RR has A LOT to prove on defense. Period. So I'm not one to say whether it's the scheme and that it should be some other scheme, but color me completely unimpressed 4 seasons in circumstances, injuries, excuses, Scooby, scheme, recruiting, stubbornness, crusty old coaches be damned.

I've the August 29, 1994 SI cover with Bruschi and the rest of the Desert Swarm guys framed hanging below my 60" and I'm looking at it right now. It says, "ROCK SOLID Arizona is No. 1" - Arizona has a defensive tradition if nothing else albeit a couple of decades ago now. RR should embrace the challenge of bringing that tradition back. I know I've said that before, but I can't believe it isn't capitalized upon.

Speaking of Cobb and Ware, really curious to see if they can progress under a new staff as has been suggested by other posts.

BearDown89 · Post by **BearDown89** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:52 pm

Harvey Specter wrote:
BearDown89 wrote:I'm a little concerned about what DC said in the other thread vis a vis that RR was only going to let Coach K go and Casteel wouldn't re-up w/o Coach K. So RR had no intention of letting Casteel go or changing the defense, and got caught with his pants down . . . reinforces the color of stubbornness from RR on down through the defensive side of the ball.

Not particularly encouraging intel the way I see it.
The end result is all that matters, regardless of how it went down. We get a good DC that improves our defense and we should all be happy.

i was thrilled we got Miller, even if the way it went down was disconcerting. At the end of the day, we got a great coach - and that is all that matters. If I feel 1/2 as good about our new DC, I will be thrilled.

It would have been great if we could have kept the staff in tact and made that progress... it just did not seem likely.

Agreed. Just hope it results in progress and not slavish stubborn devotion to things that don't work. Get stops.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:53 pm

Great post 89, couldn't agree more. Our history is "rock solid". Time for RR to get that message, it's just business

UAEebs86 · Post by **UAEebs86** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:53 pm

BearDown89 wrote:
dc4azcats wrote:
UAEebs86 wrote:
BearDown89 wrote:I'm a little concerned about what DC said in the other thread vis a vis that RR was only going to let Coach K go and Casteel wouldn't re-up w/o Coach K. So RR had no intention of letting Casteel go or changing the defense, and got caught with his pants down . . . reinforces the color of stubbornness from RR on down through the defensive side of the ball.

Not particularly encouraging intel the way I see it.

I have heard a couple media types say he wanted to not only get rid of Coach K and Lockwood, but also wanted Casteel to make changes, and Casteel balked.
Now, those changes may have been mostly about recruiting better rather than scheme, who knows?
It had everything to do with recruiting and less to do with scheme. Some folks might not want to hear that or like it but it's true. He knew like everybody on this board knew, we need to get better players on the D. He's not against the scheme, he was against 2 guys on D not really recruiting.
Appreciate the further clarification DC. I don't think a lot of us realized until recently that those two didn't recruit. Knowing that, it's now clear we need some better recruiting efforts and some coaches with enthusiasm for that part of the gig. I'm not a coach and I'm not much of an Xs and Os guy, but I've been watching college football for a long time and figure I have a decent enough eyeball for a layman. I was willing to give a pass this year given the injuries, but when you look back at RR's tenure at Michigan (w/o Casteel, force feeding Robinson the 335), his offensively slanted recruiting tendencies, the last couple of seasons here, AUTOMATIC 3rd and long conversions, getting popped - repeatedly - for huge plays right out of the gate on initial drives, highly-touted 4-stars not even sniffing the field - especially when the cupboard was so bare from Stoops, blah, blah, blah, that you'd think a couple of 4-star studs could contribute something, anything, regardless that they're underclassmen, etc., etc., etc. - it all starts to sound like a lot of excuses. Bottom line - RR has A LOT to prove on defense. Period. So I'm not one to say whether it's the scheme and that it should be some other scheme, but color me completely unimpressed 4 seasons in circumstances, injuries, excuses, Scooby, scheme, recruiting, stubbornness, crusty old coaches be damned.

I've the August 29, 1994 SI cover with Bruschi and the rest of the Desert Swarm guys framed hanging below my 60" and I'm looking at it right now. It says, "ROCK SOLID Arizona is No. 1" - Arizona has a defensive tradition if nothing else albeit a couple of decades ago now. RR should embrace the challenge of bringing that tradition back. I know I've said that before, but I can't believe it isn't capitalized upon.

Speaking of Cobb and Ware, really curious to see if they can progress under a new staff as has been suggested by other posts.

As to Cobb and Ware (and others), Brad Allis and others have suggested that Casteel's 3-3-5 demands to much thinking and that maybe a new DC would just let their talent get out there and play. He pointed to the fact that small walk-ons are playing over them. Stay tuned I guess.

mjizzle025 · Post by **mjizzle025** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:57 pm

I have some friends on the team and I read this board all the time, but I'm tired of everything that is inaccurate. Casteel did not quit, he was fired. The people around the team say Rodriguez wanted to announced it to the team this week, but one of the coaches told a recruit and it got out. If it wasn't made public that morning, it would have leaked and Rich hates that shit. Tony Gibson isn't an option because he and Rich hate each other. You're full of shit chief, you don't know anything. You talk to two player's dads and they don't even play. They don't know shit either and we all laugh when you talk to them and try to get them to join up with you in your crap. Nobody knows who the defensive coordinator is and nobody knows when it is going to get announced.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:00 pm

mjizzle025 wrote:I have some friends on the team and I read this board all the time, but I'm tired of everything that is inaccurate. Casteel did not quit, he was fired. The people around the team say Rodriguez wanted to announced it to the team this week, but one of the coaches told a recruit and it got out. If it wasn't made public that morning, it would have leaked and Rich hates that shit. Tony Gibson isn't an option because he and Rich hate each other. You're full of shit chief, you don't know anything. You talk to two player's dads and they don't even play. They don't know shit either and we all laugh when you talk to them and try to get them to join up with you in your crap. Nobody knows who the defensive coordinator is and nobody knows when it is going to get announced.

Oops

(nice post BTW)

chiefzona · Post by **chiefzona** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:00 pm

UAEebs86 wrote:
BearDown89 wrote:
dc4azcats wrote:
UAEebs86 wrote:
BearDown89 wrote:I'm a little concerned about what DC said in the other thread vis a vis that RR was only going to let Coach K go and Casteel wouldn't re-up w/o Coach K. So RR had no intention of letting Casteel go or changing the defense, and got caught with his pants down . . . reinforces the color of stubbornness from RR on down through the defensive side of the ball.

Not particularly encouraging intel the way I see it.

I have heard a couple media types say he wanted to not only get rid of Coach K and Lockwood, but also wanted Casteel to make changes, and Casteel balked.
Now, those changes may have been mostly about recruiting better rather than scheme, who knows?
It had everything to do with recruiting and less to do with scheme. Some folks might not want to hear that or like it but it's true. He knew like everybody on this board knew, we need to get better players on the D. He's not against the scheme, he was against 2 guys on D not really recruiting.
Appreciate the further clarification DC. I don't think a lot of us realized until recently that those two didn't recruit. Knowing that, it's now clear we need some better recruiting efforts and some coaches with enthusiasm for that part of the gig. I'm not a coach and I'm not much of an Xs and Os guy, but I've been watching college football for a long time and figure I have a decent enough eyeball for a layman. I was willing to give a pass this year given the injuries, but when you look back at RR's tenure at Michigan (w/o Casteel, force feeding Robinson the 335), his offensively slanted recruiting tendencies, the last couple of seasons here, AUTOMATIC 3rd and long conversions, getting popped - repeatedly - for huge plays right out of the gate on initial drives, highly-touted 4-stars not even sniffing the field - especially when the cupboard was so bare from Stoops, blah, blah, blah, that you'd think a couple of 4-star studs could contribute something, anything, regardless that they're underclassmen, etc., etc., etc. - it all starts to sound like a lot of excuses. Bottom line - RR has A LOT to prove on defense. Period. So I'm not one to say whether it's the scheme and that it should be some other scheme, but color me completely unimpressed 4 seasons in circumstances, injuries, excuses, Scooby, scheme, recruiting, stubbornness, crusty old coaches be damned.

I've the August 29, 1994 SI cover with Bruschi and the rest of the Desert Swarm guys framed hanging below my 60" and I'm looking at it right now. It says, "ROCK SOLID Arizona is No. 1" - Arizona has a defensive tradition if nothing else albeit a couple of decades ago now. RR should embrace the challenge of bringing that tradition back. I know I've said that before, but I can't believe it isn't capitalized upon.

Speaking of Cobb and Ware, really curious to see if they can progress under a new staff as has been suggested by other posts.

As to Cobb and Ware (and others), Brad Allis and others have suggested that Casteel's 3-3-5 demands to much thinking and that maybe a new DC would just let their talent get out there and play. He pointed to the fact that small walk-ons are playing over them. Stay tuned I guess.

No offense but Brad has no clue. He banks off idiocy. A new DC does nothing with RR micromanaging.

catinfl · Post by **catinfl** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:28 pm

chiefzona wrote:
azcat49 wrote:
chiefzona wrote:
azcat49 wrote:Well we should know soon. I hope it's not Tony Gibson like Chief is hinting at. That would be worse than Casteel. Need some new blood that is ultra aggressive IMO

I'm not hinting Gibson. RR has no viable eyes and is riding WVUs eyes. Tony Gibson won't be the DC at Arizona.
Thank goodness. So who is your $ on, top 3 possibles?

Nothing good.

You probably didn't think much of the Alex Grinch hire at WSU either? The fact of the matter is we have a chance for a new coach and it may turn out horribly, but it could also turn out great.

cordera89 · Post by **cordera89** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:30 pm

Tell me this, Why does it matter of what chief said in his own right. Listen we all want RR to hired a DC that can make our defense play competitive. Casteel didn't get the job done ok. 335 didn't get the job done.

catinfl · Post by **catinfl** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:36 pm

It had everything to do with recruiting and less to do with scheme. Some folks might not want to hear that or like it but it's true. He knew like everybody on this board knew, we need to get better players on the D. He's not against the scheme, he was against 2 guys on D not really recruiting.[/quote]

Appreciate the further clarification DC. I don't think a lot of us realized until recently that those two didn't recruit. Knowing that, it's now clear we need some better recruiting efforts and some coaches with enthusiasm for that part of the gig. I'm not a coach and I'm not much of an Xs and Os guy, but I've been watching college football for a long time and figure I have a decent enough eyeball for a layman. I was willing to give a pass this year given the injuries, but when you look back at RR's tenure at Michigan (w/o Casteel, force feeding Robinson the 335), his offensively slanted recruiting tendencies, the last couple of seasons here, AUTOMATIC 3rd and long conversions, getting popped - repeatedly - for huge plays right out of the gate on initial drives, highly-touted 4-stars not even sniffing the field - especially when the cupboard was so bare from Stoops, blah, blah, blah, that you'd think a couple of 4-star studs could contribute something, anything, regardless that they're underclassmen, etc., etc., etc. - it all starts to sound like a lot of excuses. Bottom line - RR has A LOT to prove on defense. Period. So I'm not one to say whether it's the scheme and that it should be some other scheme, but color me completely unimpressed 4 seasons in circumstances, injuries, excuses, Scooby, scheme, recruiting, stubbornness, crusty old coaches be damned.

I've the August 29, 1994 SI cover with Bruschi and the rest of the Desert Swarm guys framed hanging below my 60" and I'm looking at it right now. It says, "ROCK SOLID Arizona is No. 1" - Arizona has a defensive tradition if nothing else albeit a couple of decades ago now. RR should embrace the challenge of bringing that tradition back. I know I've said that before, but I can't believe it isn't capitalized upon.

Speaking of Cobb and Ware, really curious to see if they can progress under a new staff as has been suggested by other posts.[/quote]

As to Cobb and Ware (and others), Brad Allis and others have suggested that Casteel's 3-3-5 demands to much thinking and that maybe a new DC would just let their talent get out there and play. He pointed to the fact that small walk-ons are playing over them. Stay tuned I guess.[/quote]

No offense but Brad has no clue. He banks off idiocy. A new DC does nothing with RR micromanaging.[/quote]

What proof do you have of this micromanaging?

3goggles · Post by **3goggles** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:39 pm

I saw Bama run a lot of the 4-1-6 and 4-2-5 tonight. Clearly it helps to have the best recruits! Bama could run the 3-3-5 and it wouldn't make a difference. You need the players over anything!

Scummy Dick Douglas · Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:44 pm

3goggles wrote:I saw Bama run a lot of the 4-1-6 and 4-2-5 tonight. Clearly it helps to have the best recruits! Bama could run the 3-3-5 and it wouldn't make a difference. You need the players over anything!

This.

Harvey Specter · Post by **Harvey Specter** » Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:47 pm

3goggles wrote:I saw Bama run a lot of the 4-1-6 and 4-2-5 tonight. Clearly it helps to have the best recruits! Bama could run the 3-3-5 and it wouldn't make a difference. You need the players over anything!

I agree with this... but if the 3-3-5 was all that, then somebody great would run it.

I think most of us are really tired of the 'OKG recruiting philosophy'; it reads to me like 'spin for why we can't bring in elite prospects'. #DoneWithThat

We need horses. I hope we hire somebody who can bring them to Tucson.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 4:40 am

Ok so . . . . . who?

Bo Davis or Mel Tucker?

No west coast recruiting ties (to my knowledge) and haven't run a program of their own, but both are coming off a Natty and can say they coached the best and under the best. That's gotta be worth something in a 3 or 4-star recruit's living room, doesn't it?

3goggles · Post by **3goggles** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 6:18 am

Chicat wrote:Ok so . . . . . who?

Bo Davis or Mel Tucker?

No west coast recruiting ties (to my knowledge) and haven't run a program of their own, but both are coming off a Natty and can say they coached the best and under the best. That's gotta be worth something in a 3 or 4-star recruit's living room, doesn't it?

Who are they? Defensive coaches on Alabama?

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 6:34 am

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 6:35 am

3goggles wrote:
Chicat wrote:Ok so . . . . . who?

Bo Davis or Mel Tucker?

No west coast recruiting ties (to my knowledge) and haven't run a program of their own, but both are coming off a Natty and can say they coached the best and under the best. That's gotta be worth something in a 3 or 4-star recruit's living room, doesn't it?
Who are they? Defensive coaches on Alabama?

Mel Tucker is going to Georgia with Kirby Smart.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... oordinator" target="_blank

UAEebs86 · Post by **UAEebs86** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 7:06 am

3goggles wrote:
Chicat wrote:Ok so . . . . . who?

Bo Davis or Mel Tucker?

No west coast recruiting ties (to my knowledge) and haven't run a program of their own, but both are coming off a Natty and can say they coached the best and under the best. That's gotta be worth something in a 3 or 4-star recruit's living room, doesn't it?
Who are they? Defensive coaches on Alabama?

Gave up 40 points and 536 yards with all those first round draft picks.

Maybe Kiffin is the genius LOL.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 7:43 am

Maybe it doesn't matter anymore given how complex and good the offenses have become?

You would think we would get an announcement soon

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 7:49 am

UAEebs86 wrote:
3goggles wrote:
Chicat wrote:Ok so . . . . . who?

Bo Davis or Mel Tucker?

No west coast recruiting ties (to my knowledge) and haven't run a program of their own, but both are coming off a Natty and can say they coached the best and under the best. That's gotta be worth something in a 3 or 4-star recruit's living room, doesn't it?
Who are they? Defensive coaches on Alabama?
Gave up 40 points and 536 yards with all those first round draft picks.

Maybe Kiffin is the genius LOL.

Also shut out Michigan State and kept Auburn, Miss St, Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia, and Wisconsin all under 20 points.

whatisee · Post by **whatisee** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 8:51 am

How about Alabama D Line coach Bo Davis for DC?

ramcat · Post by **ramcat** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:37 am

Like it, and don't care about local ties. His resume will get him where he wants to go and think he could attract some recruits from SE.

RazorsEdgeAZ · Post by **RazorsEdgeAZ** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:52 am

Lol, Tony Gibson as new DC...?

Don't think so. Gibby left in bad terms with RR. With the defensive staff now fractured (Lockwood, Casteel, Kirlav) I wouldn't be surprised if some on existing staff left for WVU under DC Gibson.

With new guy coming in etc, and not being his guys... Uncertain future stability.

catinfl · Post by **catinfl** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:23 am

whatisee wrote:How about Alabama D Line coach Bo Davis for DC?

Would rather have Lupoi with his connections in the west.

Login • Register