Would getting rid of Brewster really mean "starting over"?

Donate To GopherHole
HopHead

HopHead

rank lieutenant
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
1,294
Reaction score
441
Points
83
I have seen countless posts here stating that one of the reasons to keep Brewster around is that they don't want to "start over" with a new coach and go through 3-5 more years of rebuilding. I will admit that I never played football after high school and the only coaching experience I have is when my son was in the fourth grade and I coached his team. So I have an honest question for those of you with more experience than I:

If Brewster were dismissed either mid-season or at the end of this year, would we really be "starting over"?

I am sure there would be a number of transfers from the freshmen and sophomores and perhaps a few upper classmen. But most seem to be in agreement that the quality of athletes on this team is as high or higher than many of the teams in the past. They are just lacking somebody to "coach 'em up". Even after the inevitable defections, the cupboard would not exactly be bare. Would it?

I know comparisons with other teams aren't really fair, but was Florida starting over when they fired Ron Zook after three seasons? Or to give an example closer to our own, how about Michigan State after they got rid of John L. Smith after four seasons. Would you say that decision was good or bad for Spartan Football?

And for the record, I have been 100% in Brewster's corner right up until the debacle against South Dakota. In my mind, there is no excuse for a performance like that. I left that game feeling the same way as when Mason came within a missed field goal of losing to NDSU in his final season. Short of a miracle, a coaching change is inevitable.
 

It's definately over-stated. A top-flight hire would be able to keep the defections to a minimum, especially if he's going to have a similar offense and defense. There will always be some defections, but there may be some anyway, if the current freshman/sophmore's know Brew is a dead-man walking.
 

It would really depend on what schemes the new guy brought in. If they were similar, and he was personable enough, we'd probably only spin our wheels for a year. Much like a repeat of this year. if it was different and our skill set wasn't suitable, then yeah, pretty much square one. For instance if we go back to a spread, or something requiring nimble linemen, we're screwed. But what the hell, we're used to it.
 

Agree with Schnoodler, a lot of it depends on who comes in. There is a lot of talent here to work with, so a new coach who coaches a similar scheme as we've been attempting to build the last two years may find himself able to have early success. But if we hire a coach who wants to change things up, we could end up Rich Rod style, struggling and rebuilding.

Needless to say, the cupboard won't be bare, there will be plenty to work with if a coach wants to work within the current scheme.
 

I agree with this, if Brewster does not work out I would hate to see another offensive style change. We have the right athletes and the right system we just need better coaches to run that system.
 


Hop-Head, I think the John L. Smith to Mark Dantonio transition you mentioned is a very valid comparrison.
I genuinely believe that Brewster has brought in better all-around depth than we had under the previous coach (who shall remain unnamed in an effort to not derail this thread). I do think the right coach could utilize this talent as well as Brewster and likeley much better.
 

I did some research on how the Gophers did before and after a coaching change:

From Mason to Brewster: -6 wins
From Wacker to Mason: -1 wins
From Gutey to Wacker: no change
From Holtz to Gutey: no change*
From Salem to Holtz: +3
From Stoll to Salem: -0.5 wins (counting ties as half a win)
From Warmath to Stoll: no change
From Fessler to Warmath: +2.5 wins
From Bierman to Fessler: +1 wins.

*I ignored the 1985 bowl game, I wasn't sure how to handle it. Holtz left before the game.

So, that's a total of 1 game worse from all these transitions. That averages to about 0.11 less wins after a transition, for all practical purposes, no difference. The dropoff in wins from 2006 to 2007 is not something we can just expect. And if this team does have talent that isn't being used properly, a new coach could do a lot better.
 

The main problem with this line of argument is that we're assuming we can get a better coach to come here and, more importantly, stay here. Didn't happen after we canned Mason, so we took a flyer with Brewster. What has changed (beyond the stadium that was already in the works last time we changed coaches) between then and now that would make Minnesota that much more appealing to an in-demand coach?

Brewster appears to be a CEO/head recruiter type of coach for the most part from what I can tell, and as others have pointed out he has brought in a better class of athletes than previous regimes. Do people think the position coaches and coordinators are the problem? I know the revolving carousel at OC hasn't helped us one bit. I'd like to see how Horton's game calling changes over the season as he gets more experience with our players and they get more experience with his schemes. Defensively I'll admit I don't know enough about the nuts & bolts of systems to say how much of the problem is players and how much is scheme-related.
 

ditto on the coordinator point.

We seemed pretty happy with the staff going in. Probably should see if they can actually do something with this mess before we bail. We knew we were in for a bumpy ride with the worst offense going in, and a green defense.
 



Monty519 said:
Agree with Schnoodler, a lot of it depends on who comes in. There is a lot of talent here to work with, so a new coach who coaches a similar scheme as we've been attempting to build the last two years may find himself able to have early success. But if we hire a coach who wants to change things up, we could end up Rich Rod style, struggling and rebuilding.

Needless to say, the cupboard won't be bare, there will be plenty to work with if a coach wants to work within the current scheme.
Click to expand...


Definitely not as bare as when our last coach was fired.
There's talent here, it's just not performing, or is still green. I saw flashes from some youngsters yesterday that I think bodes well going forward; Manuel finally played a good game, Vereen, Kirkwood.

I do think the loyalty factor to the coaches here is higher than before, there will be more transfers, but that will depend on the new coach too. A few candidates could bring in either a familiarity factor with Brewster, or even retain some coaches. Off the top of my head, i can't see massive transfers if someone like Major Applewhite comes here, a former Longhorn who knew Brewster very well. Likewise, if say Scott Linehan came here, he would undoubtedly retain Horton, and very likely Davis as well.

Things can also be done to soften scheme transitions. Going back to a pure spread now would be hard, but it's possible to hybridize schemes while players pick up the new playbook. Especially our very simple scheme now.

There's a certain timeline factor to this too. the 08' class for the most part would probably not transfer. Some guys could I suppose, Gray, Cooper, Reeves maybe but the rest of them only have 2 more years to play. The 09 class had a bunch of talented Minnesotans in it, Garin, Hageman, Olson, Alipate, as well as some key future contributors/starters, Michel, Watkins, Orseske, Carter.
The majority of transfers/losses would be from last year and this upcoming class, which hopefully could be offset by a strong recruiting push from a new coach(Maturi better not wait if he pulls the trigger, the new coach needs time to recruit)

Bottom line, the season isn't lost yet, but it looks like a change is likely. The next hire is going to have talented athletes here. We're much better off in that respect than in 06.
 

I don't think we need an in-demand coach. People are too hung up on getting a big name coach here. I would hire a HC from the I-AA ranks. Plenty of ambitious coaches who would welcome the chance to move up. Someone other BCS school is going to hire them sooner or later, I say get them when they are fresh, not when they are past their sell by date.

It's just too hard to recover from this kind of disarray. The wheels fell off the wagon in 1982, and keeping Salem led to the disastrous 1983.
 

RodentRampage said:
I don't think we need an in-demand coach. People are too hung up on getting a big name coach here. I would hire a HC from the I-AA ranks. Plenty of ambitious coaches who would welcome the chance to move up. Someone other BCS school is going to hire them sooner or later, I say get them when they are fresh, not when they are past their sell by date.

It's just too hard to recover from this kind of disarray. The wheels fell off the wagon in 1982, and keeping Salem led to the disastrous 1983.
Click to expand...

The problem is we also need to recruit. We didn't have our Alvarez or Hayden, they won't flock here. Local talent will go to proven teams. Otherwise we end up just where we were all over again and in five years we're looking for a Brewster type again. Rinse and repeat.
 

HopHead said:
I have seen countless posts here stating that one of the reasons to keep Brewster around is that they don't want to "start over" with a new coach and go through 3-5 more years of rebuilding. I will admit that I never played football after high school and the only coaching experience I have is when my son was in the fourth grade and I coached his team. So I have an honest question for those of you with more experience than I:

If Brewster were dismissed either mid-season or at the end of this year, would we really be "starting over"?

I am sure there would be a number of transfers from the freshmen and sophomores and perhaps a few upper classmen. But most seem to be in agreement that the quality of athletes on this team is as high or higher than many of the teams in the past. They are just lacking somebody to "coach 'em up". Even after the inevitable defections, the cupboard would not exactly be bare. Would it?

I know comparisons with other teams aren't really fair, but was Florida starting over when they fired Ron Zook after three seasons? Or to give an example closer to our own, how about Michigan State after they got rid of John L. Smith after four seasons. Would you say that decision was good or bad for Spartan Football?

And for the record, I have been 100% in Brewster's corner right up until the debacle against South Dakota. In my mind, there is no excuse for a performance like that. I left that game feeling the same way as when Mason came within a missed field goal of losing to NDSU in his final season. Short of a miracle, a coaching change is inevitable.
Click to expand...

Your probably referencing one of my posts. I do not want Brewster to stay just for the sake of not having to start over, if he doesn't change things and quick he's done and if that means that we have to start over with a new coaching staff then so be it. I think alot of posts are being misunderstood here.
 



Schnoodler said:
The problem is we also need to recruit. We didn't have our Alvarez or Hayden, they won't flock here. Local talent will go to proven teams. Otherwise we end up just where we were all over again and in five years we're looking for a Brewster type again. Rinse and repeat.
Click to expand...

Wisconsin and Iowa didn't always have their Alvarez and their Hayden. We're not going to be looking for a Brewster type again, that was an experiment. Recruiting is important, but it is not everything.

We need someone experienced, who has proved that he can get the most out of players: If you can do that, how much more can you do when you have better players? We don't need someone with a wacky high octane offense. We've seen those be exciting at times, but sputter and fail too many times.

There are more coaches out there besides Brewster.
 


wdgold said:
Your probably referencing one of my posts. I do not want Brewster to stay just for the sake of not having to start over, if he doesn't change things and quick he's done and if that means that we have to start over with a new coaching staff then so be it. I think alot of posts are being misunderstood here.
Click to expand...

I actually wasn't referencing any specific post but a general feeling that I have seen expressed by many people here. I had this thought going through my head a lot in the last 9 days. However, it was your post that finally prompted me to start a thread on the issue.
 

Schnoodler said:
Otherwise we end up just where we were all over again and in five years we're looking for a Brewster type again. Rinse and repeat.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily. Brewster will most likely be fired at the end of the season when the pool of candidates is much larger than last time around. Another important factor is we'll have more money to throw at a candidate since Brewster's buyout is a drop in the bucket and we have more revenue coming into the football program.

Larger Candidate Pool + More Money + Better Facilities = Better Coach
 

gophmeister said:
Not necessarily. Brewster will most likely be fired at the end of the season when the pool of candidates is much larger than last time around. Another important factor is we'll have more money to throw at a candidate since Brewster's buyout is a drop in the bucket and we have more revenue coming into the football program.

Larger Candidate Pool + More Money + Better Facilities = Better Coach
Click to expand...


Couldn't of said it better myself!
 

Schnoodler said:
The problem is we also need to recruit. We didn't have our Alvarez or Hayden, they won't flock here. Local talent will go to proven teams. Otherwise we end up just where we were all over again and in five years we're looking for a Brewster type again. Rinse and repeat.
Click to expand...

This is why we need a big name coach in the market - one who will give kids a reason to stay here BEFORE we somehow start winning BT titles, and perhaps get those 1-2 skill position difference makers from outside the midwest.

Look at what Spurrier did at SC. While they haven't won big yet, (this proves how hard it is to take a mediocre team to the top in a tough conference) you can actually look and see the talent they have and go "whoa - that is a lot different than past SC teams."

Brewster was brought in to upgrade the talent and we have not seen a significant upgrade in that area IMO. Sure, it might be a tiny bit better, (if that) but with his inability to create an identity offensively that has more than washed out any of the small gains he has made in that area.
 

josh087 said:
This is why we need a big name coach in the market - one who will give kids a reason to stay here BEFORE we somehow start winning BT titles, and perhaps get those 1-2 skill position difference makers from outside the midwest.

Look at what Spurrier did at SC. While they haven't won big yet, (this proves how hard it is to take a mediocre team to the top in a tough conference) you can actually look and see the talent they have and go "whoa - that is a lot different than past SC teams."

Brewster was brought in to upgrade the talent and we have not seen a significant upgrade in that area IMO. Sure, it might be a tiny bit better, (if that) but with his inability to create an identity offensively that has more than washed out any of the small gains he has made in that area.
Click to expand...


There is no doubt in my mind that if Brewster is booted they are going to have to go big time as far as who the next coach will be. Be prepared for the excuses such as, poor budget, not a winning program etc. For me, no more excuses for not bringing this program to the next level.
 

Right now...

Minny seems to match-up well with the SDUs of the world. Rather discouraging into TB's 4th year and contrasts sharply with a similar coaching time frame at MSU.

Matching-up with BT powers will probably require higher-level recruiting over multiple years and experienced coaching to maximize the talent that can be signed.

Getting the high-end coaching talent throughout the staff takes $$, but the U likes to hire on the cheap.

If Tubby continues to have success on the bb side, that might change.
 

RodentRampage said:
I did some research on how the Gophers did before and after a coaching change:

From Mason to Brewster: -6 wins
From Wacker to Mason: -1 wins
From Gutey to Wacker: no change
From Holtz to Gutey: no change*
From Salem to Holtz: +3
From Stoll to Salem: -0.5 wins (counting ties as half a win)
From Warmath to Stoll: no change
From Fessler to Warmath: +2.5 wins
From Bierman to Fessler: +1 wins.

*I ignored the 1985 bowl game, I wasn't sure how to handle it. Holtz left before the game.

So, that's a total of 1 game worse from all these transitions. That averages to about 0.11 less wins after a transition, for all practical purposes, no difference. The drop-off in wins from 2006 to 2007 is not something we can just expect. And if this team does have talent that isn't being used properly, a new coach could do a lot better.
Click to expand...

Interesting way to look at it, but you can do all sorts of things with stats. You inspired me to go back and look at the second year records. Started with Stoll since what Bernie and Wes did isn't too relevant IMO. The cumulative record for the second year is 41-39 with the best mark being 7-4 and the worst 4-7. That's 7 coaching changes for 1 game over .500 in the second year. Maybe not starting over, but definitely spinning your wheels. We've either done a really crappy job of hiring or this place might be harder to win at than a lot of us want to admit. Probably both. If the odds are so strong that we're going to be .500 two years from now, I'd stick with the present coach if possible.

Still think Brewster has a chance to get to .500. If he does or even a game under, it's not a slam dunk to fire him even if he did lose to SD. It's just as important if he's still able to recruit and if he hasn't lost the team as Schnoodler has pointed out. Maybe kool-aid drinking to some, but at least it's not panicking or throwing a hissy fit or being delusional enough that you think you know football better than an entire staff of professional coaches.
 

Mulligan said:
Interesting way to look at it, but you can do all sorts of things with stats. You inspired me to go back and look at the second year records. Started with Stoll since what Bernie and Wes did isn't too relevant IMO. The cumulative record for the second year is 41-39 with the best mark being 7-4 and the worst 4-7. That's 7 coaching changes for 1 game over .500 in the second year. Maybe not starting over, but definitely spinning your wheels. We've either done a really crappy job of hiring or this place might be harder to win at than a lot of us want to admit. Probably both. If the odds are so strong that we're going to be .500 two years from now, I'd stick with the present coach if possible.
Click to expand...

We didn't lose to NDSU, USD, get by SDSU by the skin of our teeth and struggle with Montana State because it is so difficult to win here. Aside from Holtz, no coach has had another HC job after leaving here since the 1930s. That's got to say something, since it indicates that other schools didn't think we made a mistake when we fired them.

The point wasn't that firing the coach will guarantee success, it was that firing the coach is unlikely to produce disaster.

Still think Brewster has a chance to get to .500. If he does or even a game under, it's not a slam dunk to fire him even if he did lose to SD. It's just as important if he's still able to recruit and if he hasn't lost the team as Schnoodler has pointed out. Maybe kool-aid drinking to some, but at least it's not panicking or throwing a hissy fit or being delusional enough that you think you know football better than an entire staff of professional coaches.
Click to expand...

I haven't been panicking or throwing a hissy fit. But perhaps he should be made coach for life, if is so delusional to have an opinion. There are some things that get any coach fired. Losing twice in four years to I-AA opponents is one of them. Unless the rest of the season is phenomenal, we're likely to lose a lot of season ticket holders if he comes back.
 

My problem with the "don't want to start over" portion of the fanbase is that they tend to overlook/gloss over the fact that Brewster has started over at least once despite being here for 3+ years.

If you come in and say you're going to run the spread and you recruit players for the spread (including a spread QB) and then you become pro style and claim you're going to "pound the rock," isn't that starting over?

Maybe a coaching change is a half-step backwards, but considering the coordinator turnover that this program has had under Brewster, there isn't that much to lose.
 

And if you insist on looking at the second year, then it shows that firing the coach is even less of a problem:

In year 2, Brewster was 1 game better than Mason in his last year.
In year 2, Mason was 1 game better than Wacker in his last year.
In year 2, Wacker was 2 games better than Gutey in his last year.
In year 2, Gutey was 1 game worse than Holtz in his last year.*
In year 2, Holtz was 5 games better than Salem in his last year.
In year 2, Salem was the same as Stoll in his last year.
In year 2, Stoll was 3 games better than Warmath in his last year.

*Ignoring the bowl game.

So it's clear that a coaching change doesn't spell disaster in either the first or second years.
 

HopHead said:
But most seem to be in agreement that the quality of athletes on this team is as high or higher than many of the teams in the past. They are just lacking somebody to "coach 'em up".
Click to expand...

No, we have we coaches here that can coach them. During Brewster's tenure here, he has hired assistants and coordinators that are accomplished and in demand. If anything should be taken from Brewster's staff, it's that coaching is highly overrated, that really is all about the Johnnys and the Joes more than it is about the X's and the O's.

The athletes on this team are either not very talented or they are still largely young and inexperienced. Since players tend to peak in their third and fourth years and need game experience to get better and we have just one class of third-year players, most of whom are starting for the first time, we can't yet know which is which.
 

This year's team is exactly what year one should've looked like!
 

I don't buy that switching schemes with a coaching change would be bad and that the Gophers aren't built to be a spread team.

Gray was recruited to be a spread QB, he is now a square peg being fit into a round hole, which is why he ended up at WR.

It's BS that the OL can't transition. The OL Brewster inherited was a classic run first prototype that has not worked well even when they went back to smash mouth football, so that is simply a lack of recruiting. The new guys over the past two years from Olson to Eggen, Gjere, Michel, Lenkiewicz, etc are all much more athletic and can play any scheme, including spread.

Let's not over think this deal.
 

I don't think the offense here before Brewster was "smash mouth", and it sure wasn't typical. A lot of people assume that the offense was giants grinding it out, but it was a small, quick OL, rather than one that focused on blasting giant holes.
 

No, because the Cupboard isn't bare...

John L. Smith got fired. Results? MSU goes to a January Bowl 2 Seasons later...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom