• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

Dana Holgorsen In Talks About A Possible Role On Huskers Staff


What am I missing here? What’s your point here? Of course they are buddies. Why are there always so many side comments about coaches hiring people they know? I’m 100% sure HCMR has a friendship/personal relationship with everyone on his staff. That’s how coaching works. Every staff. Every level. You’re not hiring someone to stock the shelves at the local grocery store. Or an engineer to design widgets. And it’s not charity. Your entire career (and the welfare of more than 100 young, vulnerable student-athletes) is dependent on every staff member 24/7, so you either know them very well or you know someone very well who knows them very well. And you need to get along well. Coaches all have different skill sets and must work as a collective group. They don’t sit in cubicles and punch out at 5:00 every night. They all work 70+ hr weeks and are basically working, eating, sleeping, pissing, shitting, fighting together constantly. Knowing each other well and getting along well is the bare minimum. So can we knock off all the nonsense about coaches hiring their “buddies”? Unless it’s at the level of Ferentz hiring/keeping his son WAY past his use by date, can we give this line of comments a rest? I’d be dramatically more worried about a staff full of supposed “star” coaches who don’t know/trust each other well. Look to Boulder for a front row seat to that sh$tshow. I’m not trying to be a jerk, but this seems like an ongoing theme that makes zero sense. GBR!
 
Seems like the info on Holgerson is the last item of interest folks are waiting on. I get it, i can hardly set my phone down this last week
 



HuskerBred said:
What am I missing here? What’s your point here? Of course they are buddies. Why are there always so many side comments about coaches hiring people they know? I’m 100% sure HCMR has a friendship/personal relationship with everyone on his staff. That’s how coaching works. Every staff. Every level. You’re not hiring someone to stock the shelves at the local grocery store. Or an engineer to design widgets. And it’s not charity. Your entire career (and the welfare of more than 100 young, vulnerable student-athletes) is dependent on every staff member 24/7, so you either know them very well or you know someone very well who knows them very well. And you need to get along well. Coaches all have different skill sets and must work as a collective group. They don’t sit in cubicles and punch out at 5:00 every night. They all work 70+ hr weeks and are basically working, eating, sleeping, pissing, shitting, fighting together constantly. Knowing each other well and getting along well is the bare minimum. So can we knock off all the nonsense about coaches hiring their “buddies”? Unless it’s at the level of Ferentz hiring/keeping his son WAY past his use by date, can we give this line of comments a rest? I’d be dramatically more worried about a staff full of supposed “star” coaches who don’t know/trust each other well. Look to Boulder for a front row seat to that sh$tshow. I’m not trying to be a jerk, but this seems like an ongoing theme that makes zero sense. GBR!
Click to expand...
Neon says you're disrespecting his prime time put together coaching line up.
 




HuskerBred said:
What am I missing here? What’s your point here? Of course they are buddies. Why are there always so many side comments about coaches hiring people they know? I’m 100% sure HCMR has a friendship/personal relationship with everyone on his staff. That’s how coaching works. Every staff. Every level. You’re not hiring someone to stock the shelves at the local grocery store. Or an engineer to design widgets. And it’s not charity. Your entire career (and the welfare of more than 100 young, vulnerable student-athletes) is dependent on every staff member 24/7, so you either know them very well or you know someone very well who knows them very well. And you need to get along well. Coaches all have different skill sets and must work as a collective group. They don’t sit in cubicles and punch out at 5:00 every night. They all work 70+ hr weeks and are basically working, eating, sleeping, pissing, shitting, fighting together constantly. Knowing each other well and getting along well is the bare minimum. So can we knock off all the nonsense about coaches hiring their “buddies”? Unless it’s at the level of Ferentz hiring/keeping his son WAY past his use by date, can we give this line of comments a rest? I’d be dramatically more worried about a staff full of supposed “star” coaches who don’t know/trust each other well. Look to Boulder for a front row seat to that sh$tshow. I’m not trying to be a jerk, but this seems like an ongoing theme that makes zero sense. GBR!
Click to expand...
You're not missing anything. Most people don't know enough about coaching or football or much of anything to actually point to something a coach is doing or isn't doing that makes them good or bad. But sometimes an offense or a defense or a player struggles. Someone or something has to be blamed for the failure. Being a buddy is one of the top 10 lazy explanations folks give for why something isn't working. They can't imagine a more sophisticated explanation for why a new staff may struggle. So, it must be the head coach hiring his buddies, apparently to "snooker" the program out of their money.

For example, SF didn't hire his staff because they had all worked together at UCF and had great success at UCF, taking that team from the basement to the penthouse in a couple years. No, not at all. Instead, he hired his "buddies". See how it works? Trying to explain why the success couldn't be duplicated at Nebraska is complicated. But just blaming it on buddy hires is easy. Pelini only hired "buddies" too. That's why he couldn't get to more than 9 or 10 wins per year. Easy-peasy, no muss, no fuss. Callahan wouldn't fire his defensive coordinator, not because he respected the man and felt that he wasn't the problem. The same was true with Osborne when he didn't fire Charlie McBride in the early 90's. It wasn't because that Osborne thought the CM was a good coach, it was because they were buddies. ;)
 
Last edited:
Captkenny said:
You're not missing anything. Most people don't know enough about coaching or football or much of anything to actually point to something a coach is doing or isn't doing that makes them good or bad. But sometimes an offense or a defense or a player struggles. Someone or something has to be blamed for the failure. Being a buddy is one of the top 10 lazy explanations folks give for why something isn't working. They can't imagine a more sophisticated explanation for why a new staff may struggle. So, it must be the head coach hiring his buddies, apparently to "snooker" the program out of their money.

For example, SF didn't hire his staff because they had all worked together at UCF and had great success at UCF, taking that team from the basement to the penthouse in a couple years. No, not at all. Instead, he hired his "buddies". See how it works? Trying to explain why the success couldn't be duplicated at Nebraska is complicated. But just blaming it on buddy hires is easy. Pelini only hired "buddies" too. That's why he couldn't get to more than 9 or 10 wins per year. Easy-peasy, no muss, no fuss. Callahan wouldn't fire his defensive coordinator, not because he respected the man and felt that he wasn't the problem. The same was true with Osborne when he didn't fire Charlie McBride in the early 90's. It wasn't because that Osborne thought the CM was a good coach, it was because they were buddies. ;)
Click to expand...
Lazy thinking
 



NorthwoodHusker said:
Lazy thinking
Click to expand...
:Rolf:

The irony if your post is extraordinary! Thank you for helping me explain why people do the things they do! But really, you may just be a buddy poster!

P.S. I thought of another of the top 10 lazy explanations we see on the board for the hire of coaching assistants. It relates to our o-line coach. The conventional wisdom a year ago was that MR retained a bad coach solely to court the nephew of the o-line coach. Fast forward to today, we see that the o-line has improved and the coach has been named the #6 recruiter in the nation. (Reflected in a Huskermax recruiting forum thread) I’m not sure how such things are measured, but it certainly suggests that there may have been more to MR’s decision to retain his o-line coach than to court the nephew. He saw something in this person that caused him to trust him with a part of the most important facet of the offense; the line.

We will get to see whether MR’s thoughtful judgments and buddy hiring pays off as we move forward in 2024.
 
Last edited:

I would hesitate to attribute an opinion to being "lazy". An opinion can be influenced by available information which may be lacking. It may be influenced by the coaches or players being reluctant to explain the real reasons for failures. A poster may be reluctant to blame a player and would rather blame a highly paid coach. It may be influenced by remembrances of other situations that do not necessarily pertain to the current situation.
Attributing another forum member's post to laziness may show a lack of effort in countering the opinion with better analysis. Or just being snarky is easier.

Of course sometimes we argue just to argue. As I just showed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top