Its easy to think of coaching changes as a single-point measurement of the success of the program, but after watching all the regimes from McCartney to present, I've come to realize that progress is not even across the whole team. For example, Neu's game-day coaching was better than McCartney's, but his overall leadership was worse. Neu's recruiting was better than Barnett's but Barnett's built a much better running game and his teams were dramatically more resilient. Barnett also had huge institutional problems. Hawkins fixed that, he also had a better passing game and defensive backfield, but dramatically worse everything else. Embree was a hot mess in most areas, but he recruited well. HCMM ran a clean program with great kids and stablized a program that had fallen to the worse in college football. Generally his defensive backfield and wide receivers were good. But his recruiting was uneven, his staff mediocre and his OL was absolute trash.
So what do you think Tucker is going to improve? What do you think is going to get worse in his tenure? My guess is that we'll see improvements in toughness and athleticism, as well as a much better OL and DL. I anticipate a less wide-open Offensive scheme though and am worried that Tucker's SEC experience may cause him problems with Boulder's puckered up culture.
So what do you think Tucker is going to improve? What do you think is going to get worse in his tenure? My guess is that we'll see improvements in toughness and athleticism, as well as a much better OL and DL. I anticipate a less wide-open Offensive scheme though and am worried that Tucker's SEC experience may cause him problems with Boulder's puckered up culture.
Last edited:
