Dana Holgorsen is available

Shane's point this whole season is that the lack of an OC is not the problem. We've lost most of our games due to defensive play. Hiring an OC is not going to fix the defense obviously. I did hear from some big money boosters at the Fla/Ga game that an OC is on the way. That too could be wishful thinking.

Going back to Shane, he says that Kerwin is not interested in being an OC and cites Kerwin's time at USF under Charlie Strong. Kade Bell however may be interested in moving up and at one time there was a twitter rumor going around because of the followers on Kade's account and who Kade followed in return.

My personal beliefs align with Shane's to a degree. The defense needs to mature quickly and there needs to be an influx of talent and toughness yesterday. On the offensive side, fixing the o-line will address many concerns with playcalling, but I'd still like to see an OC just to reduce the clunkiness and the inexplicable disappearance of players during games. Just my 2 cents. Don't spend it all at once.

 

We would need to build a casino in Micanopy first to attract ol Dana

 

The don’t have any good teams. Stable holding down nothing.

 

I think that would be one of the best hires that he would actually consider making. I would be cautiously optimistic.

 

I’ve alluded to that in a different thread. Does that count?

 

I’m not a big fan of Holgersom. I was surprised he left the job at West Virginia for Houston. Seemed like a step down the ladder instead of up.
Had some solid success at WV but was losing Will Grier the year he left.

 

Kade Bell's numbers look intriging, but if we hired him as OC, both our OC and DC would be 30-year olds

 

It's weird that they get paid that much for a college gig, while I read that Brian Johnson, the OC at Philadelphia and former QB whisperer at UF, makes 800k.

 

I loved watching Dino's offense when he was HC at Bowling Green. Aggressive, explosive, and scored a ton of points

 

College is a ton more work.pros give 51% to players also.

 

Dana won’t be the OC

 

I agree with Shane.

The obvious reason being that, from an analytics standpoint, our offense was our greatest strength. Of course that does not consider the fact that hiring someone would free himself up to be a different kind of game day coach.

And, honestly, how often does a HC/OC fire himself and hire someone else....unless he's FORCED to by the AD? Especially when he's ALWAYS been his own OC since being a head coach.

Nope, that isn't changing unless Stricklin or Sasse say that it must change.

 

I’m gun shy about hiring anyone from a non big conference school - it certainly hasn’t worked thus far.

 

That’s not the reason many think he should give up plays. Not many championship level coaches calling their own plays. He needs to be able to focus on the simple crap like players on the field, clock etc. Hard to balance when you are concentrating on a call sheet.

 

I'm glad we're already setting up the narrative to claim it's Billy when the new OC calls something that doesn't work and you want to complain.

 

I’d love Babers as OC and Doug Belk (Dc Houston ) on the staff
I think the argument for Holgerson /Babers is having another HC on staff will help with the operational problems

 

I think this is the 30 million dollar question. Napier and pro Napier folks (I’d like to think we all are but you get what I mean) - will tell you “just a couple of plays/players/missed assignments away. Whereas everyone else sees someone who doesn’t have a flow/feel/identity and some real operational issues. So is Napier thinking “stay the course /don’t have another learning curve?” Or does he free himself from the role and inject tempo /energy/identity to the deal but with a possible learning curve ?

 

This is such a weak response. I want Napier to be a success. In my opinion, he isn't going to give up play calling.

 

Because anytime anyone says anything on this board, people jump on them for being anti-Napier. There was no debate over the content of my post, no reason brought forward to debate what I said. Just firing off an attack at me saying I'm setting up a narrative. If you think I'm wrong, tell me why.