26.Feb.2014 General Discussion — Two coaching choices?
I found this article puzzling.
During the process of hiring a replacement for offensive coordinator Danny Langsdorf, Riley figured he could go one of two ways.
Why? I can think of a handful of other arrangements. I think a better sentence would be “Given Riley’s conservative temperament, he narrowed the possibilities down to two choices that were in his comfort zone.”
Through the process, Riley had a list of 50 candidates.
Obviously that means there were more than the two choices mentioned above.
Riley also considered filling the O-coordinator job from within the program.
“We’ve kind of been in-bred for a long time,” he says. “There is some good to that. I like the continuity. But ultimately, I decided to go out of the box to make this hire.
Hilarious he acknowledged the in-breeding, but if ever there was a time to promote from within, this was probably it. Brennen did seem like a logical choice, unless he just doesn’t have the aptitude for it…but it seems like he does, and those with connections to the program felt that way, too. Riley has this habit of making wrong decisions, then everyone criticizes him for it, and then he does something else just to appease the critics, but he doesn’t do it at the right time. For example, going for 4th downs in ridiculous scenarios just because an increasingly critical/vocal group called him conservative. Watch next year he starts using timeouts on 1st and 10 at the 20. *rolls eyes*
Overall, Riley says a lot of good things in the article. He wants to move forward, he doesn’t want in-breading, yada yada. It sounds like he’s reading AB. The thing is, we have heard him say this kind of stuff in the past yet it never gets implemented quite right. As Lou Reed said, “Between thought and expression lies a lifetime.”
Some other news: Yve Bernard will be a GA this spring,