More from Wallace L. Walker
Posted by wewantwalker on December 24, 2007
Fellow Bruin fans-I would like to add something to my earlier blog. It is grossly unfair to intimate that DeWayne is a Karl Dorrell clone. I have the greatest respect for Karl. DeWayne and I will be forever grateful for the opportunity Karl afforded DeWayne. But DeWayne goes to his interview on Wednesday with a resume that is superior to Neuheisel or Golden. He has been a football coach for 20-years. He has coached at the community college, division 1 and NFL levels. He has worked for four of the greatest football coaches of this generation (Lavell Edwards, Pete Carroll, Bill Bellichek and Joe Gibbs). He has never been fired from a job and Bellichek retained him at the New England Patriots when Pete was fired. DeWayne had no history with Bellichek and Bellichek brought Mangini with him to the Patriots from the Jets. Mangini, the present New York Jets head coach and DeWayne shared secondary resonsibilities during the year DeWayne remained with the Patriots. In addition to the above named coaches, DeWayne worked under Greg Williams while with the Redskins. Neusheisel, Golden or Karl have those exposures. If Neuhisel or Golden is hired, how will they recruit? DeWayne’s detractors blighthly dismisses the recruiting coups that UCLA has scored over the past two years. Who will give Golden directions to the the Southern California high school coaches who that are presently sending their youngster to UCLA. Neuhisel has not recruited the PAC 10 in six years. And, if you review his success in recruiting Washington state players while he was at the University of Washington you will see that he did not do well. Another brother of mine and DeWayne is a 1975 University of Washington gradaute. His greatest complaint against Neuheisel is not that he lied and cast a cloud over his alma mater for recruiting violations, it is that Neuheisel lost the recruiting edge in the state of Washington that Don James spent a quarter of a century building. My UW brother claims that Willingham has had slow success at UW over the past three years because it has taken him that long to retake the state. If anyone believes that Neuheisel and Golden can go where DeWayne and Scott have been the last two years and bring those recruits to UCLA they should rethink their position. DeWayne’s contacts in the southern california area comes from actively recruiting that area since the mid-1990s. He recruited Southern California for BYU, UCB and now UCLA. Many of the high school coaches in the Los Angeles County area are men he has known since childhood, played against in high school and at PCC. Remember, it was DeWayne who recruited Steve Sarkesian to BYU. If DeWayne were to leave UCLA, and believe me I have no information that he will, I can assure you that the present recruiting relationships presently established have yielded the best two recruiting classes in recent memory will not be duplicated in the near future. His 20-year work history as a football coach does not need to include his superior coaching job Saturday night. To characterize him as a “hack” as some sites have is beyond reproach. Such a characterization is inacurate and unduly hateful. I have followed UCLA football since the days of Red Sanders. My two favorite player on the 1954 champtionship team were Hardiman Cureton and Jack Ellena. I remember every head football coach hired at UCLA since Red Sanders. Vermiel and Donohue did not have coordinator experience. I am not arguing with the criteria Mr. Guerrero deems necessary to hire the next coach. That is his call. I only make reference to this to remind DeWayne’s detractors that Neuheisel, Golden or any past UCLA head coach other than Pepper Rogers or Tommy Prothro could go into Wednesday’s interview with a body of work superior to my brother. Lastly, it pains me to say that Pete Carroll appears to be smarter than the UCLA administration. Remember, DeWayne was Pete’s first hire at USC. He named him Associate Head Coach. Why do you think that was? Pete realized that when he was hired at USC,that he had no contacts at the Southern California high schools. DeWayne did. Pete also had the awareness to hire Kirby Wilson, the present running backs coach with the Pittsburgh Steelers. Kirby is a Dorsey High School graduate. Along with DeWayne, Kirby and Hackett holdover, Orgeron, Pete hit the ground with an experienced recruiting cadre. If you recall, even though Pete began his recruiting late, he was able to sign several highly sought after recruits that formed the basis for his present program. He was able to recruit the Los Angeles inner city because of DeWayne and Kirby. Pete needed a map to find g B High School in 2001. I again thank all of you for indulging me but it so pains me to see the level of misinformation on the other blogs.Wallace L. Walker
We Want Walker 
CM said
well put
bpbruin said
Thanks again Wallace for your input and insight. We Bruin fans who support your brother need to be more vocal to counteract the ugliness from other quarters.
IMO, in football, a good defense is more important than a good offense. Good defenses are more reliably consistent than good offenses. Good defenses can keep you in a game. It’s not easy to find an excellent DC. Bob Toledo and Karl Dorrell struggled with this until Dewayne Walker arrived. Texas’ first year DC Duane Akina underperformed with all that top-5 talent, giving up the most yards in UT history. He is likely to be fired at year end. (BTW, Brian Dohn reports that an SEC and a Big 12 team are interested in DW; could it be Texas?).
When you’ve got an excellent DC (and a great recruiter to boot), you’ve got to do everything to hold onto him. Let’s compare the talent of the UCLA and USC starting defenses. UCLA averages 2.8 stars; USC averages 4.0 stars. Big difference. DW coaches them up, swarming to the ball, tackling well. UCLA’s D is one of the nation’s best in opponent’s 3rd down conversion. DW challenges his players, demands the best from them, and yet is universally liked and respected. That’s a rare quality. Only a person of character can achieve that. Remember at Colorado when Chris Naole picked up Rick Neuheisel and threw him against the wall?
I hope Gene Block and Dan Guerrero will have the same courage as the Rooney family when they hired Mike Tomlin after just 1 year as a DC.
bpbruin said
A question to wewantwalker:
I like DW’s coaching and recruiting ability, his character, and his passion for UCLA. I think he’s the best fit for UCLA, far better than the bribing Neuheisel. As long as he succeeds, I would love to have him here for the next 20 years.
But if Neuheisel is hired (and most accounts say he’s the frontrunner), DW will leave, if not now, then in the near future.
What can be done to retain him as a long-term solution? My thought is to hire an NFL retread head coach with an offensive background, or an up and coming NFL OC, who will use UCLA for several years to angle for an NFL head coaching position. I remember Tom Coughlin was on Parcell’s staff, and went to Boston College for a few years, then got an NFL gig. I think Petrino was similar. I’m sure there are many examples. That way, DW can gain some more experience to satisfy the administration. How about someone like Jim Fassel?
Who do you think?
wewantwalker said
I really really really really hope DG goes with his gut and chooses DeWayne.
Any other head coaches out there that might make it easier for DeWayne to stick around?
I don’t know. I think DeWayne is going to get a head coaching shot fairly soon. Despite how much he loves LA, I don’t see him turning down a HC gig at decent school if UCLA won’t bite. It could be an opportunity of a lifetime.
That being said, a coach, like Mooch for example, that’d only stick around a few years might entice him to stay.
I think Mooch would be good in that respect. Belotti was 57. Jim Fassel ain’t bad either. That’s why I liked the idea of a Chow/DeWayne combo so much. Chow would only stick around for 5 years probably…
But there are limits to this. I, personally, wouldn’t want Rich Brooks from Kentucky, regardless of his UCLA connections.
I guess those are my thoughts on that. I do think that if DeWayne gets a shot at a decent enough program, he couldn’t give that up. Especially if we get a guy like RN. I wouldn’t give up that opportunity if I were him.
I do think that as time passes by, this is going to be a more and more important topic to discuss.
Bleh. when did this whole thing get so sticky? 😛
Peter said
No matter how much experience Walker has had as an assistant, he does not have very much experience as a coordinator, and he has even less as a head coach. Success as a recruiter is nice; success as a head coach is better.
Only 4 of UCLA’s coaches have ever had previous D-I coaching experience. The most recent 3 (Sanders, Prothro, and Rodgers) combined for a record of 126-49-5 (.714). The first was William Spaulding, the first UCLA coach with a career winning record and the first to win a conference championship. The other 5 permanent coaches since Sanders had a record of 281-172-14 (.617). That’s more than a game a season worse, and the latter group includes Donahue, the person with whom people most often connect UCLA football.
Hiring proven coaches worked well for UCLA, but it hasn’t been done in nearly 40 years. While Walker may be the best coach in the future, it is hires like these – choosing potential over a proven commodity – that have turned UCLA into a second-rate job.
Furthermore, it is often true in the sports world that perception is reality. If UCLA hires a young head coach who has had some success rebuilding a smaller program, it will show a lot more commitment to the program than hiring the defensive coordinator of the previous (fired) coach, who, interestingly enough, will command lower pay. I agree that you don’t want a coach that is quick to leave, but he’s only going to be in demand if he actually does a good job here. While it wasn’t great that Prothro and Vermeil left, there hasn’t been a coach since that has matched either of their respective winning percentages. I would rather have a coach win 9 games a year for 5 years than 7 games a year for 15.
BTW- When someone says, “I’ll trade X for Y,” it means they’re willing to give up X for Y. So if someone says, “I’ll trade DeWayne Walker for any recruit,” they’re really saying they’d give up DeWayne Walker for any recruit. They probably meant the other way around, but it’s still funny.
bpbruin said
To Peter:
You’re using the fallacy of a very small sample size. I don’t know of any statistical study that determines the correlation between coaching success and previous head coaching experience, but my guess is the correlation isn’t that much. My guess is that hiring a previous successful head coach gives you better odds of success than hiring a successful coordinator, but that’s a minor factor compared to the candidate’s coaching and leadership abilities.
There are tons of counterexamples to your argument. Head coaches that bombed in their 1st stint but later won Super Bowls (Shanahan, Belichick). Mediocre head coaches who gained later success (Pete Carroll). Successful college coaches who couldn’t make it at the next level (Koetter, Joe Glenn, Dan Hawkins so far). Not everyone turns out like Jim Tressel or Urban Meyer. Dennis Franchione bombed at A&M. Walt Harris bombed at Stanford.
To insist on previous head coaching experience is to limit your pool of good candidates. And that’s especially the case at UCLA, where very few successful head coaches have shown interest in the job.
Face it, all the good ones are taken. Peterson & Belloti have turned us down. Mendenhall, Grobe, Kragthorpe, Kelly, Riley too. The market has spoken; UCLA isn’t a plum job. You can scream all you want at Dan, but please accept the constraints he’s working under.
Here’s my list of possible candidates with HC experience. Leach – supposedly cooled on us. Jones – shows interest but won’t retain DW as DC. I don’t like Leach or Jones because they run the ball less than almost any other coach in the country. Pat Hill, Gary Patterson, George O’Leary, Jim Leavitt, Kyle Whittingham. I think Patterson looks the best, but he turned down a $2 million offer from Minnesota.
Did you know Les Miles’ record at OkSt? He’s now considered one of the premier coaches in America. LSU hired him after a 4-year record of 0.571 ball. Karl Dorrell did 0.565. Well, we can’t find a Les Miles, because UCLA isn’t LSU. Would Miles move from OkSt to UCLA? Would Ron Prince move from Kansas St? Mike Gundy?
But we can find plenty of Al Goldens. That unfortunately is where UCLA is at. And don’t tell me I’m settling for mediocrity. We all want better. But so far, we can’t get it.
Walker is a Hot Commodity « We Want Walker said
[…] Comments Buelsy on Merry Christmas to You and You…bpbruin on More from Wallace L. Walker…wewantwalker on Take Action NOW!Washington Huskie Fa… on Take Action NOW!Peter on More […]
Peter said
Appreciate the response. My main point was that hiring Walker would just be more of the same. Small sample size or not, I don’t think it is a coincidence that in the 40 years since UCLA hired a head coach we have fallen from the ranks of the elite. None of the three apparent finalists should be top-tier candidates, but apparently that is all we can get.
Considering what we have, I think Golden should be the top choice. His record doesn’t look good on the surface, but 4 wins is definitely an improvement at Temple. Walker is another assistant from inside the family, and that just hasn’t worked. We need to do something different. Neuheisel has the experience, but both of his previous jobs are in terrible positions right now. And then there are the other problems he’s had.
Unlike the other two, Golden would be a clean break from our past mistakes. He’s well-respected on the East Coast, and if it doesn’t work out we will at least be able to say we tried something different. He may not be the big name head coach we want, and he may not be the head of a very successful program (like Petersen or Jones), but if he can improve the results of the team on the field we will next time. And even if he leaves to be Paterno’s successor, the program will be in a better place, where it can attract better candidates.
bpbruin said
To Pete:
“Small sample size or not, I don’t think it is a coincidence that in the 40 years since UCLA hired a head coach we have fallen from the ranks of the elite.”
I think some Bruin fans are suffering from the “Clemson syndrome”, a term coined by SI’s Stewart Mandel. It’s “the phenomenon by which fans of historically second-tier programs delude themselves into thinking that one isolated period of greatness — Clemson’s 1981 national title season — is more representative of their team’s rightful place in the sport’s hierarchy than its other hundred or so years of football.”
Our only period of greatness was the Red Sanders era. No one in the country puts us in the same tier as ND, USC, Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Miami, and FSU. Does anyone think of Michigan State as an elite program? Its reputation is maybe even lower than UCLA’s. But they’ve won 3 NCs, the last one in 1965, and had a great run from 1950 to 1966.
UCLA is a second tier team. That doesn’t mean we can’t aspire to be a first tier team, but we shouldn’t judge the last 40 years based on first tier standards. They were not a failure.
Vermeil had a very good year in 1975 (#5). Donahue had an excellent decade in the 80s (five top 10 finishes). Even Bob Toledo had 2 very exciting years (#5, #8). So 3 out of our 4 coaches since Pepper Rodgers (the last to have previous head coaching experience) had some really good years.
USC is a first tier school. I’d rank them top 3 along with ND and Alabama. Compare Donahue’s 20 years of “mediocrity” with USC’s 18 years in the wilderness with Ted Tollner, Larry Smith, JRII, and Paul Hackett. Donahue had 5 top-10 finishes compared with 3 for USC. Donahue’s winning percentage was 0.635, higher than USC’s 18 year total, and higher than all 4 USC coaches individually.
Getting to the elite level is darned, darned tough. It takes a lot of luck. USC after JR I, Oklahoma after Switzer, Alabama after Stallings, Nebraska after Osborne, ND after Holtz, Texas after Akers, late term Joe Paterno, and late term Bobby Bowden all had long dry spells.
With the recruiting base, UCLA should be at least 2nd best in the Pac 10. Better than Oregon, better than Cal. Those last 2 aren’t all that great. Soft teams, average defenses, often go into the tank. Cal 26-16 conference record last 5 years, Oregon 25-17, UCLA 24-18. We can do much better than this. Cal has one top-10 finish under Tedford, Bellotti has 2 in 13 years.
Terry Donahue’s 1980s run was much better than that. I think that’s a good standard to aspire to. To ask for Red Sanders standards especially with our limitations is too much to ask for, but certainly not too much to HOPE for.