Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Mark Dantonio
HeretoBeatmyChest
Member Posts: 4,295
Was a DC for 8 years amid 20 years as an assistant, including 3 years as DC at Ohio St.
Prior to coming to MSU they went 5-5-4. He goes 7-9-6-11-11-7 and likely another 11 this year.
Not a sexy hire but a solid coach who proved he was a good hire immediately and then very good in years 4 and 5. Not saying we should hire him but it shows you two things. First, Sark looks like a fucking high school coach compared to the top 20 coaches and second, a boring but solid coach will prove his worth early and pay huge dividends over time.
Prior to coming to MSU they went 5-5-4. He goes 7-9-6-11-11-7 and likely another 11 this year.
Not a sexy hire but a solid coach who proved he was a good hire immediately and then very good in years 4 and 5. Not saying we should hire him but it shows you two things. First, Sark looks like a fucking high school coach compared to the top 20 coaches and second, a boring but solid coach will prove his worth early and pay huge dividends over time.
Comments
-
I would like a coach with a proven track record as a head coach myself. What is his conference record? I know teams have a habit of padding their W-L.
-
He's definitely in my top 3 or 4. I'm not sure of his conference record but he's made five or six straight bowls, has owned Michigan, and has made some Big 10 Championship Games. With him, the lines would be solved within a year or two, there wouldn't be very many blowout losses, and we would win at least 9 or 10 most years.
-
I like him.. But he hasn't gotten to a big (BCS) bowl ... So he hasn't won one.. Good coaches are good in big games ...
But if it was him or Sark.. I'm with Dantonionionionno ... -
35-18 and since his first year 32-13.He_Needs_More_Time said:I would like a coach with a proven track record as a head coach myself. What is his conference record? I know teams have a habit of padding their W-L.
He's coached under Tressel and Saban.
-
Id take him over Sark ANYDAY, if only to find a position for Wooching, get the ball to the TE and keep Oregon off the fucking field. After watching MSU, I realize how soft UW is.
-
Minnesota would grind our faces into the field turf. The Big10 will be back next year, and physical as ever.
-
Did it really take you until 11/2/13 to realize the UW team was soft?puppylove_sugarsteel said:Id take him over Sark ANYDAY, if only to find a position for Wooching, get the ball to the TE and keep Oregon off the fucking field. After watching MSU, I realize how soft UW is.
Benefit of the doubt is strong with PL_SS.
-
For DC, fine. But his offenses are a dreckfest. No thanks.
-
I wouldn't root for him to lose just so I could be right. He strikes me as a good Husky coach. Better record than Saban at State?
-
I like him because he would win more games than Sark and would have tough teams. Who gives a fuck about Wooching? If he plays, great, if not, who cares. I don't think a fullback playing or not is going to make or break the program. Do you want us to poach Sonny Dykes from Cal because he would get the ball to Kasen?puppylove_sugarsteel said:Id take him over Sark ANYDAY, if only to find a position for Wooching, get the ball to the TE and keep Oregon off the fucking field. After watching MSU, I realize how soft UW is.
-
35-18 Big 10 (11, 12, 14) if my quick math is correct
Its not spectacular given that the conference as a whole has kind of sucked, but it's pretty good. My guess is that's second to THE Ohio St. and Michigan State has been an underachieving mediocre team since the 60's. It's way better than Sark anyway. -
Better than Sark but pretty meh. He's already 57 years old.
-
I bet he's got a good 6-8 years left in the tank. He's tough as nails and, stating the obvious, would be a huge upgrade over our favorite Armenian. He's not exactly known for offense but the defense would improve immediately. He deserves to be in the conversation.TheKobeStopper said:Better than Sark but pretty meh. He's already 57 years old.
-
When Oregon puts 50 plus on that dude next year want to see how many of u pimps still squeeling for him
-
His offenses are epically bad but if we open our pocketbooks, no reason we couldn't hire a top coordinator.RaccoonHarry said:
I bet he's got a good 6-8 years left in the tank. He's tough as nails and, stating the obvious, would be a huge upgrade over our favorite Armenian. He's not exactly known for offense but the defense would improve immediately. He deserves to be in the conversation.TheKobeStopper said:Better than Sark but pretty meh. He's already 57 years old.
-
I like him. His lines play physical and their defense is tough as nails. His offenses usually do suck but he wins. He did tie for a big 10 title one year but I don't know what the tie breaker was.
He is making 2 million and could probably be had with for a significant raise. I am guessing he can't spend as much on assistants there either but I don't know for sure. -
Being 57 shouldn't be a big deal. Not many coaches stay at the same school for 15-20 years. A guy who is 57 could give us 10 good years, which I would take in a heartbeat.
-
Not throwing this guy out as a candidate, but if anybody watched the Virginia Tech @ Boston College game today, you saw a first year coach at BC (believe he came from Temple) do the following:
1) He's embraced a philosophy that his teams are going to play tough, physical football on the OL/DL
2) Base offense consists of some combination of 5-7 OL/TEs, 1 WR, QB, FB, and RB. They run the ball hard between the tackles and use enough play action and misdirection to keep the defense honest.
3) When they are in positions where they can be aggressive and blitz, they embrace those opportunities to create turnovers.
None of the above is earth shattering football. None of that is sexy. But it is a philosophy and one that you have to commit to if you embrace it. You can't get down 1-2 scores in a game and decide that you're going to change who you are. You trust in what it is that you do.
BC sucks. They aren't a great team. But sometimes watching teams that suck pull off a nice upset in a well played game highlights those that have plans. And conversely, it also highlights when others don't have plans.
Bottom line is that Sark seems incapable of embracing a philosophy or core set of values and running with them. It'll be his downfall. -
Uh, Dantonio = Seven
-
He had a 29-13 record in conference at msu after 5 years vs whatever shitty record 7 will have after 5 years. Maybe this is a whoosh of some kind.
-
If Pool Boy happens to find his nutsack somewhere and does what he should, hopefully his top 2 are better than Ty Willingham and Tom O'Brien.
-
Another thing I like... he's not Mr. Personality. He was very even keel the entire game. His post-game interview wasn't much different than the halftime one.
-
I just want a fucking coach with an identity, not some sleezy car salesman.... Who the fuck fires their entire defensive coaching staff, as a first time head coach and comes out successful. Doog clue #999 your honor
-
I watched that Michigan State defense yesterday and that was impressive defense.
-
He doesn't suck, but he's not great either.
He would be an upgrade over Sark, but that's not much of a compliment. -
He has an identity though. His teams consistently do the same thing well. There are others out there but I like coaches with a real strength. Not one made up by the media (best play caller) or offensive genius with no stats to support it.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
