Originally posted by kray28:
Never confuse success in college with success at the Pro level.
Not saying good college coaches can't do well in the Pros, but good college coach does not imply a good NFL coach. The converse however does seem to hold true. (Good NFL coaches tend to make good college coaches.)
Harbaugh has an impressive college resume, but zero experience as an NFL HC. He has some experience as an assistant.
I'd say that that rules him out, or at least makes him far from the slam dunk that that certain Bay Area homers are making him out to be. The responsibilities of an NFL head coach are very different than a college head coach. In college, recruiting is the big differentiator, and then you have Xs and Os. In the NFL, you largely have very little control over the talent you have, so X's and O's are often the differentiator.
I think you oversimplify the college vs pros thing. I think you're right that recruiting and x's and o's are the two HUGE necessary talents at the college level. But those are equally important at the pro level. The difference is that the draft is the great equalizer. In college the best salesmen working for the biggest name programs have all the advantages when it comes to recruiting the top talent. At the pro level the top talent is spread out through the draft, and though there are certain clubs that screw it up regularly, you generally are lucky to come out of the draft with more than a couple of the top 30 talents each year. A problem for a lot of college coaches is they don't know how to mine the lower ends of the draft for the nuggets of gold that are always there.
Since Nolan came on board this club has done a pretty good job in the top couple of rounds (with the one glaring exception), but they have gotten hard workers and solid citizens, but rarely difference makers in the late rounds.
Why am I going off on this tangent? Because a coach like Harbaugh (or Chris Peterson at Boise State) doesn't have that recruiting advantage (Stanford because of it's academic standards, Boise because of it's conference), but both coaches seem to be able to find and develop talent. And bottom line: finding and developing talent is what it's all about.
Walsh, Belichek and to a lesser extent Andy Reid were/are considered masters of the draft, because they don't need top picks to find top talent: they see the talents players have and have a vision for how they will fit into their system. Harbaugh seems to have this talent as well. Is it a sure thing? Of course not! But is Gruden?
Gruden, for all the ballyhoo on this board inherited his Super Bowl winner and when the team was dismantled, he was never successful in rebuilding a new team in his image. (Look up his record!)
Holmgren? He was successful with a great organization in Green Bay, that hasn't lost a beat without him. But do you really think what he did in Seattle was special? If that's special, then your sights are set too low! And he's old as the hills. He won't last more than a couple of seasons.
Billick? Though he did well in Baltimore, despite his offensive reputation, he was never able to turn that offense around. And when i saw him on the broadcast two weeks ago going off on the Niners' use of time outs when they had the ball inside the 20 yard line with about 30 seconds o go, I knew he was NOT the tactician we need!
Should I go on?
That's why I don't want a re-tread. With a re-tread you know what you're getting, which is guys who are a little better than average and might get you into the playoffs pretty frequently. But I think those of you who want this sell yourselves and your team short. I WANT SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONSHIPS, and nothing less will do!! And we won't get it without taking a chance on one of these unproven guys with potential!
If we're afraid to lose, we'll never win!