Trading Up

Nestor brought up the idea of DG going after Steve Spurrior to replace KD and others have proposed lists of other top flight coaching talent.  That made me think we may need to change the focus of our argument to dump Dorrell.  Instead of focusing on Dorrell's failures and his apparent lack of coaching skills, we should continue to point out that there is better coaching talent available.

DG has to recognize that even if Dorrell improves as a head coach he will only go from lousy to maybe mediocre.  As long as Dorrell is coach, UCLA football is destined to have the once in every five or ten years good season to go along with a lot of appearances in the who gives a damn bowl.  If UCLA can attract a "home run" hire, then it must be done.  The fans are upset over the team's performance under Dorrell and his innate ability to experience unfathomable losses.  However, even if some of those losses did not occur, at best, Dorrell is a mediocre coach.  As has been discussed here on BN and elsewhere, ad nausium, there is nothing in the last five years that would give even the most casual fan a good feeling that Dorrell will ultimately evolve into a good football coach.  At best, he should be considered no more than the current care taker until the right coach is found.  No opportunity to move up in coaching talent should be ignored.  In professional sports, even if your team has an all star talent on the roster, wouldn't you want the GM to trade him for the opportunity to get a hall of fame talent?  While the degree of talent may not be the same in UCLA's coaching situation, the analogy still works.  Isn't it incumbent on DG to do his due diligence to the football program by taking the short list of potential coaching candidates out of his desk draw, updating it, and start making informal inquiries?  If DG has the opportunity to hire a coach with a good track record, doesn't he owe it to all the fans to trade up?