Originally Posted by Tornado man
and will not be any more of a leader than Mac was.
"Leaders" don't take over a department that is two levels down from their level of responsibility and run it personally (And do a crappy job of it) See Danny Mac's inability to EVER develop special teams, besides being his own special teams coach.
"Leaders" develop subordinates; and their subordinates develop subordinates. If Danny Mac was such a great "leader", why is it we only developed ONE competent Offensive Line in 14 years???
"Leaders" recognize their teams' strengths and adapt their "system" to exploit those strengths. If Danny Mac was such a great "leader", how come we spent so much time developing "power football" in the early years, independent of the proper personnel to actually execute? Having a umpteen bazillion yard a year rusher may sound great, but if it doesn't help you win....
"Leaders" tend to understand how to take risks. And they understand that managing risk is important, but know to the bottom of their soul that risk aversity is a losing proposition. So if Danny Mac was such a "great leader", how come he (reportedly) dialed back the strength program when his talent level was thin, to avoid injuries? This also begs the question of his misunderstanding of strength/conditioning training and its relationship to injuries, which is a competence issue.
"Leaders" don't put the program on the back of a slow, *****-footing running back who had like one good game in his 4 year career, (Stevie Hicks) while ignoring a succession of potentially talented Tight Ends (WTF is a TE screen?) and bruising Full-backs (See Ryan Kock).
It's too bad you love Danny Mac. He wasn't a very good football coach, and he was an awful leader. I bit my tongue for the first 10 years, (even when he had his "great" seasons I didn't care for him) because tenure has value. Don't tell me to bite my tongue, now, when the votes are in.