The CardBoard
We may be talking to Chris Petersen - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: We may be talking to Chris Petersen (/thread-1071.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: We may be talking to Chris Petersen - yvonne - 01-08-2011

Have you tweet repeaters learned nothing? Folks in the twittersphere know nothing!

Re: We may be talking to Chris Petersen - fyao - 01-08-2011

Harbaugh once said that his assistant coaches are so good that he could be working for any of them!  If true, that would be an argument for say, Shaw over Petersen.  They wouldn\'t have to change the offensive playbook as well.  Any chance that any of the assistants (Roman, Shaw, Fangio) would be willing to stay and work for one of the others?

Re: We may be talking to Chris Petersen - tmswope - 01-09-2011

Quote:Harbaugh once said that his assistant coaches are so good that he could be working for any of them!  If true, that would be an argument for say, Shaw over Petersen.  They wouldn\'t have to change the offensive playbook as well.  Any chance that any of the assistants (Roman, Shaw, Fangio) would be willing to stay and work for one of the others?

As much as Petersen intrigues me, at least for next season, I don\'t really want Luck to have to change playbooks.  Short-sighted, sure.  And I\'m confident Luck can pick up a new offense.  But part of me is thinking let\'s not mess up what is working for him.

Just one argument for hiring from within  I guess.  Admittedly, though, I\'m still pretty torn on which way we should go as "Plan A" (Petersen versus Roman/Shaw).

Re: We may be talking to Chris Petersen - yvonne - 01-09-2011

Quote:Harbaugh once said that his assistant coaches are so good that he could be working for any of them!  If true, that would be an argument for say, Shaw over Petersen.  They wouldn\'t have to change the offensive playbook as well.  Any chance that any of the assistants (Roman, Shaw, Fangio) would be willing to stay and work for one of the others?

Generally, assistants have 1-2 year contracts. When a new head coach comes in, he evaluates the old staff and decides whom, if anyone, he wants to keep. Of course, the assistants also decide whether they want to stay. When the Golfer left for Notre Dame, he invited most of the staff to accompany him. Conversely, Dave Tipton worked on the staffs of Green through Harris. It\'s extremely common to keep a few coaches because coaching switches usually happen during recruiting season, and retaining coaches assures that some continuity is kept.

I\'m guessing that part of the decision process will involve evaluation of what will be best for both next year, and going forward, including discussions of turnover and retention.

Re: We may be talking to Chris Petersen - bulldogbigred - 01-09-2011

Quote:
Quote:Harbaugh once said that his assistant coaches are so good that he could be working for any of them!  If true, that would be an argument for say, Shaw over Petersen.  They wouldn\'t have to change the offensive playbook as well.  Any chance that any of the assistants (Roman, Shaw, Fangio) would be willing to stay and work for one of the others?

As much as Petersen intrigues me, at least for next season, I don\'t really want Luck to have to change playbooks.  Short-sighted, sure.  And I\'m confident Luck can pick up a new offense.  But part of me is thinking let\'s not mess up what is working for him.

Just one argument for hiring from within  I guess.  Admittedly, though, I\'m still pretty torn on which way we should go as "Plan A" (Petersen versus Roman/Shaw).

I think Peterson is a smart guy, he will make a gradual transition in the playbook. He\'ll implement some of the plays he wants to run but he won\'t change the whole playbook. Peterson knows that Harbaugh\'s offense has been working well for Stanford, and most likely Peterson won\'t wipe out the previous offensive style.