AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Barnett interview
- Thread starter cruisebuff
- Start date
Let's just say, what GB said has more weight to it than not. If so, would it not be Bohn's job to tell Hawkins when he hired him what's in store for him? If so, then maybe, just maybe I haven’t given him enough benefit of my doubt?
That said, Hawkins should have eluded to those problems a couple of years ago. Had he done so, those including myself may not have been so pissed off at how he's done his job?
If Hawkins now recognizes those obstacles, then he better start addressing them.
If Bohn has been aware of the problems the whole time, and not help Dan address them, then the nasty gram e-mails should follow.
Then again, this may all be a matter of perception by GB. Or Hawkins & Bohn don't think those problems exist anymore?
Beats Me?
That said, Hawkins should have eluded to those problems a couple of years ago. Had he done so, those including myself may not have been so pissed off at how he's done his job?
If Hawkins now recognizes those obstacles, then he better start addressing them.
If Bohn has been aware of the problems the whole time, and not help Dan address them, then the nasty gram e-mails should follow.
Then again, this may all be a matter of perception by GB. Or Hawkins & Bohn don't think those problems exist anymore?
Beats Me?
2HellNback
Well-Known Member
This is all bull****.
He's recruited better than 90 teams who are producing better than us. He can't coach, that's the deal.
He's recruited better than 90 teams who are producing better than us. He can't coach, that's the deal.
somebody
Well-Known Member
Not only that, but even if GB's right about what Hawk's just learning, that's a condemnation. That crap is stuff he needed to learn before he talked to a single player as a coach.
These comments reminded me of some other comments from Barnett when he stepped down.
"The University of Colorado is a gold mine. There are lots of things that have to happen. Mike, the athletic department, is part of that. But, the whole university has a role in that as well. Mike’s been given the charge to do his part of it, and like I said, this is a gold mine. This is absolutely a gold mine. This can be as good a place as there is in the country. "
http://www.cubuffs.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=600&ATCLID=219927
So which is it? Gold mine or limited resources? Maybe he meant a gold mine without any gold? :huh:
Buff fanatic
Well-Known Member
"There are a lot of things that have to happen"
somebody
Well-Known Member
A lot of little things?
we'll see
If I was the head dickwad, wouldn't that make me a dick head?
I dunno. I'll ask the questions again. Did the admissions standards predate the recruiting scandal or post date it?
To cut Hawkins some slack I'd care to guess that having almost all of the players he recruited on the team instead of about 60% would have made this a deeper and more skilled team. Still, they should probably look a little bit better than they do.
I can see some of your points buffaholic, but I don't think all of our problems are really located only on the offensive side of the ball. Certainly, it has been a mess over there most of the time. Defense has also been a certifiable mess, which only doesn't look as bad because the offense was worse. That isn't to say the defense has been good for 4 years. They have their moments, but it has been far too inconsistent. The last few games the defense has played good enough to win games, but it played just about awful enough to lose games vs CSU, Toledo and WVU. Special teams has also been a mess that could equal the ineptitude of the offense. Hawk may have a keen eye for talent in players, but I certainly don't see that same keen eye of his finding talented coaches. His in game coaching leaves a lot to be desired. I just don't think this team is a Sarkisian away.
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
I will grant everyone the argument that Hawkins is in over his head.
But making comments like "he can't coach" is just ridiculous. Dan Hawkins went 41-11 at Williamette, and 53-11 at Boise State. It is obvious he can coach.
Unfortunately, he just wasn't / isn't prepared to coach on the BCS stage. I am sure there are some little side issues with Colorado football which are certainly unique - but not the mountains Gary Barnett tries to make them.
Saying Dan Hawkins can't coach is like saying Bobby Knight can't coach. Unfortunately, success Dan Hawkins had at Williamette and Boise State has not transferred to Colorado.
Did you just compare Dan Hawkins, who has never won anything at the highest level of collegiate sports, with Bobby Knight, who has 3 national championships and numerous Big 10 conference championships?
Chilly
Well-Known Member
:nod:
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
He is right Sacky. Dayan is a coach. Bobby Knight is a coach. Both have coached alot. It's just that Bobby is a Hall of Fame coach at the highest college level, and Dayan is looking like a total bust at those levels. But they both coached. Good coach or bad coach, you can't say Dayan is not a coach. It's the little things that matter. Good or bad. Dayan is only changing three letters and adding one more away from being a good coach. We'll see if he can do that.
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
Sure. What did Bobby Knight do after he left Indiana? Nothing. Occasionally
got Tech into the NCAA tournament but never any kind of contender. I have heard many people say, "Bob Knight can't coach anymore.".
That's crazy. He proved by his level of success in other locations that he COULD coach. Unfortunately for Knight and for Tech, it never quite worked out like they wanted it do.
The same is true for Hawkins. His record speaks for itself. It is unfortunate, both for CU and for Dan Hawkins that he has not been able to translate the successes he had at his other coaching jobs to the University of Colorado. But saying he "just can't coach" is ridiculous.
It's not a valid comparison. Knight came to Indiana from Army. He was wildly successful at Indiana. Contrast that to Hawkins, who came here from Boise, where he was wildly successful at Boise. When one guy made the jump to big time, he was a success. When the other guy did it, he fell flat on his face. Nobody is going to say Bobby Knight can't coach. His first year at Tech, the team won something like 10 more games than it had the year before with basically the same players. While Knight was at Tech, they were regularly a contender for the league title. Hawkins has had nothing even remotely close to a division title, let alone a conference championship. I can very easily look at Hawk and say "he sucks as a coach". He is what his record says he is: 14-29. Nobody with half a brain would say that about Bobby Knight. They might call him an egotistical prick, and they'd be right, but he knows the game of basketball and knows how to motivate his players to play the game properly. The same cannot be said about Hawkins.
Mick Ronson
Well-Known Member
that may be pushing a little far. they were top half of the league, usually an NCAA team, and made the Sweet 16 one year. to be fair, during Knight's reign in Lubbock....the South had OSU, OU, and UT all make the Final Four and at least UT and OU the Elite 8 another year. that's pretty strong competition over a 5-6 year period in one division of the same conference (KU had two FF's in that time period as well).
contending for the league title were KU, OU, UT, and OSU. TT was a step below with an emerging ATM under Gillespie in the latter part of Knight's era at Tech.
Knight always had a great scorer in Andre Emmett, Jarrious Jackson and seemingly another guy. A Knight team would also nearly always feature an over-achieving guard with a nice outside shot and a big bruiser in the middle from the Baltics who was either balding or looked like a muscled-up Pete Townsend or both.
Last edited:
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
Your information on Knight is a little skewed.
I think my point is still valid. You cannot take what Hawkins did at Williamette (the team went 18-23-1 during the five years before Hawkins took over, then went 42-11 over Hawk's five year term) say the man couldn't coach.
JimmyBuff
Well-Known Member
You mean like how Boise State has skyrocketed since Talkins left and Indiana went into shambles after one final four run with Davis when Knight left?..
Oh, how's Knight's son doing at TTech now?
Please, don't even try to compare Talkins to Bobby Knight.. Its absurd.. No one gives a sh#t about Williamette.. Gerry Faust was a legendary high school coach.. Does that mean he had a clue when it came to coaching in college?
We can clearly see his work at CU that Talkins has no clue about coaching div 1 football at the BCS level.. The guy is in over his head and its embarrassing that we are stuck with this fool for another LOSING year next year.. Thanks Bohn.. :sad2:
The Guest
Guest
Interesting statement. If I'm not mistaken, Coach Hawkins did exactly that very early in his tenure. He basically came out and said that the fundamental processes were broken. Processes not visible to fans. He said that relations with the academics staff were rock-bottom among other things and that there was a lot of behind the scenes work that needed to be done to serve as the foundation of a successful program.
I'm not going to track down the article, but I'm confident he did exactly what you're accusing him of not doing.
Moving on:
This is an interesting thread. I'm struggling to support this staff after the early season debacles and the KSU letdown. I think we'd be more understanding of the losses if it looked like our teams were on the field to compete.
If the issue was only talent and inexperience it would be one thing. But that delay of game penalty at the beginning of the second half against KSU was a bit too telling. Those things that coaches are responsible for don't always click on this team on gameday. Communication, readiness to play, motivation and identity.
This leads me to a question that I've asked before, and haven't received a satisfactory answer.
Why hasn't Coach Hawkins had success here?
I know people think he's soft, and blinded by his love for his son. And folks like to point out that he's not a good enough coach to lead at this level.
However, I'd argue that his Boise State teams were far better than his CU teams. Typically BCS schools have better access to facilities and recruiting, so his teams should be better. But I suspect we all agree that his Broncos would have kicked the **** out of this year's CU team, and won this year's Big XII North Division and beaten CSU, Toledo and possibly WVA.
In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that his Boise State teams were better than than GB's Buffs for several years. Please understand, I'm not just saying teams with a better record. WAC conference play is obviously weaker than Big XII conference play. I'm saying BETTER teams at Boise State.
So. I'll ask it again...what's different in his tenure at CU that prohibits Coach Hawkins from assembling a team at least as good as his WAC team? When really he should have better teams, not worse, simply by virtue of playing in a BCS affiliated conference.
Is Coach Peterson (sp?) the major difference? Is there more?
Lots of reasons that he's struggled. Everything that GB talked about. Then you've got a culture change that had to be pulled off with very little upperclassman leadership in place when he got here. Add in a first recruiting class that was barely salvageable and a commitment to redshirting as many players as possible to build the right way to the future.
Bottom line is that most of our talent is in the freshman and sophomore classes. Once this thing gets to the point where the locker room is dominated by 4th and 5th year guys, you'll see the reality of what Dan Hawkins is building in Boulder. At that point, we'll have a mature football team and the only way an underclassman will see the field is if he's super talented.
Bottom line is that most of our talent is in the freshman and sophomore classes. Once this thing gets to the point where the locker room is dominated by 4th and 5th year guys, you'll see the reality of what Dan Hawkins is building in Boulder. At that point, we'll have a mature football team and the only way an underclassman will see the field is if he's super talented.
Last edited:
Barnett was wrong about 1 thing. He said "I think CU will win this week (Missouri is really struggling)"
The Guest
Guest
They still might be struggling, it's tough to say.