Harbaugh. Winning season at USD a basketball school. Josh Johnson drafted in the NFL. Then Stanford. Made Special K a great QB. Look at him now. Great job at Michigan this year that weren't the players he inherited. He dismantled Florida. I see a possible national title in the next 1 or 2 years if he stays.
Look, I could be wrong about Peterson. Only time will tell. But all you have to do is look at Boise this season. I can already begin to see them going downhill the farther they get away from Peterson's coaching. They went just 8-4 this season with 17 starters back against an easy schedule. They lost one game by 26 points as 9 point favorites, and they lost another game at home as 31 point favorites! That would have never happened under Peterson. His Boise teams all had the brand of toughness to them. That's what he's always looked for first with recruits. At UW he should be able to get more of the size and speed to go along with it. Like I said, his biggest obstacle to finding success at UW will be recruiting. He needs to start breaking into the top 20-25 to have any chance of winning that conference. So he's still probably at least a couple years away. With success will come better recruiting. But I'm betting they'll still continue to overachieve like they did this season..
Yeah, but is he expected to win 10+ games? If I start seeing Vegas setting their win/loss totals at 9 or 10 wins I'll believe it. But I don't think the expectations are nearly as high for UW than they are a Stanford or Oregon. Why would they be, they haven't really done anything in 10+ years.
Peterson was the brains at Boise even before he was HC IMO and I would lean towards him doing great things at Washington versus against it. I've felt he's already recruiting on a level fairly close or better to Arizona, ASU and Oregon while exceeding Stanford. Granted he's never going to out recruit USC and UCLA consistently, but he's in the game now and already surpassed Helfrich, Graham and Shaw. Wasinginton was a mess this year. And could have easily folded and he made them formidable. In a conference with some questinable coaches at some big programs Peterson could really make some noise.
Harbaugh is a good coach, no doubt. But I wouldn't say he's done "more with less" (he has no business on this list/thread).
USD is not San Diego State. They are two different schools. USD is a 1AA - NON-SCHOLARSHIP program. He had a huge advantage there - his name. They compete vs schools like Davidson, Jacksonville University, Valparaiso, and Marist: http://www.pioneer-football.org/ Stanford has had great success over the last 30 years in football, so he wasn't "doing more with less" - he was doing what was expected. He did a good job at Michigan this year....but it's Michigan! They are a top 10 football program. He BETTER win there. And dismantling Florida isn't a big accomplishment....Florida beat 3-9 Florida Atlantic in game 11. He could win a NC at Michigan, but he's going to need to recruit. He needs to start by not getting blown out at home against Ohio State.
Peterson was NOT on Koetter's staff. He was on Hawkins staff....so the program was already in place. They were 10-2 in Koetter's last season (before Hawkins arrived).
"Peterson was the brains...."
I love how the argument has now become: "Hawkins didn't do shit...it was all Peterson!" (to sum it up). And Hawkins gets no credit for hiring a young up and coming nobody OC from....of all places....Portland State?????? If you think Hawkins is a retard and Peterson was the brains of the operations that's funny. Hawkins brought in Peterson.....not the other way around. Peterson was a nobody before Hawkins "discovered" him. Peterson took over a program and had to do nothing to keep it going. Sure, he did a good job (because he could have ran it into the ground like some assistants who get promoted do, to his credit). But the consensus from most (including here on Rx) is that Peterson is a "sure thing" and the other two (Koetter and Hawkins) were just lucky (or whatever) because they are getting no credit for Boise's success but Peterson is the golden boy.
Again, I think Peterson will do okay at Washington...but I don't see the Huskies booking any plane tickets to the CFB Playoffs anytime soon.
Coach, Peterson took it to another level. I didn't see Boise winning two BCS games under Hawkins. I'll give Hawkins credit for hiring an outstanding OC. Just like I would give Gene Chizik credit for hiring Malzahn as his OC and winning the NC at Auburn. Otherwise I don't think either are very good coaches. They just had some great offensive minds pulling the strings. Peterson brought over his longtime DC at Boise to UW. And Boise was always very underrated on defense. It was also UW's strength this season. I think that will continue. Peterson's biggest job will be improving his offense. Something he'll eventually do with better recruiting. UW isn't the kind of program that can be fixed overnight. But I would say starting with two 8 win seasons is an excellent start.
GS, the BCS didn't allow the Boise's into BCS games when Hawkins was still coaching there. That's why it was a big deal when they played (and won) a BCS game.
Hawkins was 53-11 at Boise in 5 years, including 3 years where he only lost 1 game in each season. He got that job by winning at a smaller school, going 40-10. Gene Chizek can't hold Hawkins jock as a head coach....and it's not even close. Poor argument/comparison.
I think Peterson will have success at UW. I just don't think it will be anywhere close to the kind of success he had at Boise - and Boise success is what he was hired for, not 8-6/7-6. I could be wrong, and if I am I'll gladly admit it. Remember, he could have had many, many jobs (very likely Florida, Texas, USC, Oregon, and several others bigger than Boise) and he turned them down...then lands at UW. I don't think UW is a place he can go 11-1, 10-2 on a regular basis...here and there, sure, but not like he did at Boise.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on Hawkins. He's one of the worst coaches that I've ever seen. I know because he was in the Big 12. And I follow every team close in this conference. He was by far the worst in-game coach that I've ever seen. And his other decisions weren't any better. Like playing his son Cody at QB for 3 years. He should have never played at the division one level. It was one bad decision after another, and not one bit of improvement in any season in the 5 years he was there. I don't care what Hawkins did at the highschool or junior college level, division one power 5 football is a whole other ballgame. Hawkins was also a flop when he tried to coach in the CFL. They saw the writing on the wall and he didn't last half a season there. We can both agree on Gene Chizik. He was awful anywhere he went. Some coaches are just not good CEO's. Hawkins and Chizik are two of them. Like I said, I could be wrong about Peterson because he's coaching at another level. But so far he's won more games in his 2 seasons there than Sarkasian won in 4 out of his 5 season at UW. I've been wrong about this stuff before though. I really didn't think Dabo Swinney had it in him to get Clemson to this level. Five years ago I would have said no way. But he went out and hired the right combination of good experienced qualified assistants for his program, has used Saban's method of NFL style recruiting, and he's very much a players coach that has his players buying in. Swinney is very smart, and talk a good game. He would make a good used car salesman. Pretty good for a guy who was selling real estate 10 years ago.
good OP comment.....
one thing i've wondered is "do 'more with less" guys do well once they get to a huge program and get the some 4* talent and lots of 3* talent?"
it seems like so much of coaching success is psychological. some guys are good with underdogs. maybe other guys are good with prima-donnas. and of course, alot has to do with dealing with young black men (see switzer and/or jimmy johnson, both of whom i think claim to grown up in heavily black areas. switzer for sure)
one thing i've wondered is "do 'more with less" guys do well once they get to a huge program and get the some 4* talent and lots of 3* talent?"
it seems like so much of coaching success is psychological. some guys are good with underdogs. maybe other guys are good with prima-donnas. and of course, alot has to do with dealing with young black men (see switzer and/or jimmy johnson, both of whom i think claim to grown up in heavily black areas. switzer for sure)
As a long suffering Colorado fan I can tell you that Dan Hawkins is not a very good coach and little surprise he has not coached at the D1 level since being fired. Hawk pretty much sealed his fate when he named his son the starting QB, and in the end the program took a nose dive under his watch. Granted, he did not get a lot of help with that from a not so football friendly governing CU administration. I still blame their athletic directory though, for firing Gary Barnett who was a good coach but made a couple mistakes, then hiring Hawkins and then the kiss of death with a second bad hire in a row with John Embree. If you make two bad coaching hires in a row, that pretty much seals your fate and sinks the program for at least a decade if not more. They are still trying to dig out of that hole up in Boulder, but in all reality they are now for the most part a perennial 'also ran'.
FAir enough. I'm just saying he turned a struggling Michigan from the season before to almost winning the conference. Should of beat Michigan State and Ohio State was in a way better position this year with their talent. Better in all 3 phases of the game. I just think its amazing how he changes every team he goes to dramatically in one year.
I was one that had the under on his win total. He was left a ton of talent. The Defense he inherited had 3 first round picks last year and all 3 are starting and productive in the NFL. One, Peters at CB had a great playoff game for KC. He ran Peter's off for asking questions about coverages and calls during games. BTW, Bill Belicheck said he thought Peters was one of the smartest players he's ever interviewed. But I was one that thought they'd take a step backward.
Discounting their bowl win, So how'd they get to 7 wins
...They beat USC when Cutty Sark let his bottle run the team instead of his OC (+1win)
...They beat a disinterested Zona team at home on a rainy night in Seattle (+1win)
...They beat Wazzu to end the regular seaons without QB Luke Falk due to concussion (+1 win) which got them into a bowl
But those are wins and I had to tear up a ticket. Some of their losses in conference look close but when you look inside the stats and watch the games, they didnt look good at all.
GS, I agree with you on the DC. I think the DC has helped him tremendously and kept them in games. They are very fundamental and are disruptive up front. But he coached in a conference where he only had to get his team prepared for the 1 big non conference game and 1 big conference game (Fresno - WAC, TCU-MWC). When TCU joined the MW, what was his record head to head against Patterson, I think GP was 3-1 against Boise.
I think Peterson is very good at putting a team together. But his success is ultimately going to come down to recruiting. He's going to have to pick it up on that end to be able to compete in that league. So far UW isn't doing all that well on the recruiting front. Like I said, if he can get into the top 20-25 in recruiting I think he'll win that division. That's a big if I know. Mainly because their geographical location doesn't really allow them to have the top classes like USC or UCLA.
