• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

BREAKING - Bobby Hauck expected to resign as UM head football coach Wednesday

GallatinGriz03 said:
This is a completely different time then when Delaney was hired. Pflu was fired much later in the year and someone was needed to just hold the wheel. I liked Delaney and appreciate what he did for the University and Griz Football. But Kennedy is no Delaney 2.0. He is a much more accomplished position coach. Will that translate into a great head coach.... time will tell. And I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he will succeed.
Click to expand...
You’re right on the historical comparison: this is not the Delaney moment. Delaney was hired to steady the ship after Pflu’s late‑cycle firing. Kennedy inherits a stable, high‑expectation program, and he is unquestionably more credentialed on paper than Delaney ever was.

Where the debate becomes interesting—and necessary—is whether Bobby Kennedy’s resume truly reflects an accomplished position coach in today’s college football, or whether it reflects a well‑traveled coach whose peak impact is increasingly distant.

That distinction matter.



Here is the blunt fact: Bobby Kennedy has not coached an All‑American wide receiver in over a decade, and none at Montana.

Yes, his career includes All‑Americans such as Reggie Williams (Washington) and multiple Texas receivers—but those accolades came 15–20 years ago, in a completely different recruiting and development environment.

At Stanford (2018–2022), Rice (2024), and Montana (2025), Kennedy’s receiver rooms produced:

  • Solid contributors
  • Occasional All‑Conference players
  • No nationally dominant wideouts
That’s not failure—but it’s not excellence at the highest level either.

NFL Development: Thinner Than the Reputation Suggests​

Kennedy’s biography often references NFL draft picks, but a closer look shows that:

  • Most were mid‑round selections
  • Several plateaued or declined statistically after initial success
  • Few became consistent NFL starters
For example, Stanford receivers under Kennedy like Simi Fehoko and J.J. Arcega‑Whiteside reached the NFL, but neither developed into high‑impact professional players relative to expectations.

In modern evaluations, sending players to the league is less impressive than maximizing their college dominance first. That dominance has been sporadic in Kennedy’s later stops.

The Recruiting Piece Is Underwhelming​

An accomplished position coach in 2026 is, by necessity, a recruiting weapon.

Kennedy has never been known as a:

  • Primary closer on elite recruiting classes
  • Portal magnet
  • Relationship‑based regional recruiter
At Stanford and Rice, recruiting success was largely driven by institutional fit, admissions standards, and head‑coach influence—not receiver‑specific dominance.

At Montana, Kennedy had one recruiting cycle before promotion—far too little time to establish proof of recruiting excellence in the Big Sky.

That doesn’t mean he can’t recruit. It means we have no evidence yet that he materially elevates recruiting outcomes.

Scheme Adaptation: A Legitimate Question​

Kennedy built his reputation in pro‑style and spread‑hybrid systems that emphasized:

  • Traditional route trees
  • Vertical concepts
  • Timing‑based passing
Modern offenses—especially in the FCS—prioritize:

  • RPO integration
  • Motion‑heavy concepts
  • Space creation through tempo and formations
There is limited evidence that Kennedy has been a scheme innovator rather than a scheme executor over the past decade.

That’s not a flaw in a position coach—but it matters when projecting ceiling.

Montana‑Specific Results: Too Early, But Also Too Quiet​

Kennedy’s lone season at Montana produced competent but not transformative receiver play. The Griz offense was not defined by explosive receiver production, and no wideout emerged as a national or conference‑defining star. we were never dominate on the edges in 1-on-1's, but scheme was the driver force.

Again—this is not failure.

But when someone is labeled an “accomplished position coach,” expectations rise accordingly.

Final Thought: Hope Is Reasonable—Certainty Is Not​

You’re absolutely right to give him the benefit of the doubt. That’s fair, responsible fandom.

The mistake would be confusing professional longevity with current positional excellence.

Time will tell whether Kennedy’s strengths translate upward. But as a receivers coach in the last decade, the résumé suggests competence without distinction, not dominance.

And for a program with Montana’s standards, that’s a meaningful distinction.
 
406football said:
You’re right on the historical comparison: this is not the Delaney moment. Delaney was hired to steady the ship after Pflu’s late‑cycle firing. Kennedy inherits a stable, high‑expectation program, and he is unquestionably more credentialed on paper than Delaney ever was.

Where the debate becomes interesting—and necessary—is whether Bobby Kennedy’s resume truly reflects an accomplished position coach in today’s college football, or whether it reflects a well‑traveled coach whose peak impact is increasingly distant.

That distinction matter.



Here is the blunt fact: Bobby Kennedy has not coached an All‑American wide receiver in over a decade, and none at Montana.

Yes, his career includes All‑Americans such as Reggie Williams (Washington) and multiple Texas receivers—but those accolades came 15–20 years ago, in a completely different recruiting and development environment.

At Stanford (2018–2022), Rice (2024), and Montana (2025), Kennedy’s receiver rooms produced:

  • Solid contributors
  • Occasional All‑Conference players
  • No nationally dominant wideouts
That’s not failure—but it’s not excellence at the highest level either.

NFL Development: Thinner Than the Reputation Suggests​

Kennedy’s biography often references NFL draft picks, but a closer look shows that:

  • Most were mid‑round selections
  • Several plateaued or declined statistically after initial success
  • Few became consistent NFL starters
For example, Stanford receivers under Kennedy like Simi Fehoko and J.J. Arcega‑Whiteside reached the NFL, but neither developed into high‑impact professional players relative to expectations.

In modern evaluations, sending players to the league is less impressive than maximizing their college dominance first. That dominance has been sporadic in Kennedy’s later stops.

The Recruiting Piece Is Underwhelming​

An accomplished position coach in 2026 is, by necessity, a recruiting weapon.

Kennedy has never been known as a:

  • Primary closer on elite recruiting classes
  • Portal magnet
  • Relationship‑based regional recruiter
At Stanford and Rice, recruiting success was largely driven by institutional fit, admissions standards, and head‑coach influence—not receiver‑specific dominance.

At Montana, Kennedy had one recruiting cycle before promotion—far too little time to establish proof of recruiting excellence in the Big Sky.

That doesn’t mean he can’t recruit. It means we have no evidence yet that he materially elevates recruiting outcomes.

Scheme Adaptation: A Legitimate Question​

Kennedy built his reputation in pro‑style and spread‑hybrid systems that emphasized:

  • Traditional route trees
  • Vertical concepts
  • Timing‑based passing
Modern offenses—especially in the FCS—prioritize:

  • RPO integration
  • Motion‑heavy concepts
  • Space creation through tempo and formations
There is limited evidence that Kennedy has been a scheme innovator rather than a scheme executor over the past decade.

That’s not a flaw in a position coach—but it matters when projecting ceiling.

Montana‑Specific Results: Too Early, But Also Too Quiet​

Kennedy’s lone season at Montana produced competent but not transformative receiver play. The Griz offense was not defined by explosive receiver production, and no wideout emerged as a national or conference‑defining star. we were never dominate on the edges in 1-on-1's, but scheme was the driver force.

Again—this is not failure.

But when someone is labeled an “accomplished position coach,” expectations rise accordingly.

Final Thought: Hope Is Reasonable—Certainty Is Not​

You’re absolutely right to give him the benefit of the doubt. That’s fair, responsible fandom.

The mistake would be confusing professional longevity with current positional excellence.

Time will tell whether Kennedy’s strengths translate upward. But as a receivers coach in the last decade, the résumé suggests competence without distinction, not dominance.

And for a program with Montana’s standards, that’s a meaningful distinction.
Click to expand...
Brooks Davis received all-American honors this season, also helped Wortham to become a uinamnous first-team all American AP
 
RobGriz said:
Exactly what my question is. Everyone saying that this was planned and that Kennedy was hired to take over when Hauck retired is full of shit
Click to expand...
It's quite possible that they all knew it was coming but thought it was a ways down the road and then BH just made up his mind to do it last minute. I have seen very similar circumstances to that in professional settings.
 
406football said:
You’re right on the historical comparison: this is not the Delaney moment. Delaney was hired to steady the ship after Pflu’s late‑cycle firing. Kennedy inherits a stable, high‑expectation program, and he is unquestionably more credentialed on paper than Delaney ever was.

Where the debate becomes interesting—and necessary—is whether Bobby Kennedy’s resume truly reflects an accomplished position coach in today’s college football, or whether it reflects a well‑traveled coach whose peak impact is increasingly distant.

That distinction matter.



Here is the blunt fact: Bobby Kennedy has not coached an All‑American wide receiver in over a decade, and none at Montana.

Yes, his career includes All‑Americans such as Reggie Williams (Washington) and multiple Texas receivers—but those accolades came 15–20 years ago, in a completely different recruiting and development environment.

At Stanford (2018–2022), Rice (2024), and Montana (2025), Kennedy’s receiver rooms produced:

  • Solid contributors
  • Occasional All‑Conference players
  • No nationally dominant wideouts
That’s not failure—but it’s not excellence at the highest level either.

NFL Development: Thinner Than the Reputation Suggests​

Kennedy’s biography often references NFL draft picks, but a closer look shows that:

  • Most were mid‑round selections
  • Several plateaued or declined statistically after initial success
  • Few became consistent NFL starters
For example, Stanford receivers under Kennedy like Simi Fehoko and J.J. Arcega‑Whiteside reached the NFL, but neither developed into high‑impact professional players relative to expectations.

In modern evaluations, sending players to the league is less impressive than maximizing their college dominance first. That dominance has been sporadic in Kennedy’s later stops.

The Recruiting Piece Is Underwhelming​

An accomplished position coach in 2026 is, by necessity, a recruiting weapon.

Kennedy has never been known as a:

  • Primary closer on elite recruiting classes
  • Portal magnet
  • Relationship‑based regional recruiter
At Stanford and Rice, recruiting success was largely driven by institutional fit, admissions standards, and head‑coach influence—not receiver‑specific dominance.

At Montana, Kennedy had one recruiting cycle before promotion—far too little time to establish proof of recruiting excellence in the Big Sky.

That doesn’t mean he can’t recruit. It means we have no evidence yet that he materially elevates recruiting outcomes.

Scheme Adaptation: A Legitimate Question​

Kennedy built his reputation in pro‑style and spread‑hybrid systems that emphasized:

  • Traditional route trees
  • Vertical concepts
  • Timing‑based passing
Modern offenses—especially in the FCS—prioritize:

  • RPO integration
  • Motion‑heavy concepts
  • Space creation through tempo and formations
There is limited evidence that Kennedy has been a scheme innovator rather than a scheme executor over the past decade.

That’s not a flaw in a position coach—but it matters when projecting ceiling.

Montana‑Specific Results: Too Early, But Also Too Quiet​

Kennedy’s lone season at Montana produced competent but not transformative receiver play. The Griz offense was not defined by explosive receiver production, and no wideout emerged as a national or conference‑defining star. we were never dominate on the edges in 1-on-1's, but scheme was the driver force.

Again—this is not failure.

But when someone is labeled an “accomplished position coach,” expectations rise accordingly.

Final Thought: Hope Is Reasonable—Certainty Is Not​

You’re absolutely right to give him the benefit of the doubt. That’s fair, responsible fandom.

The mistake would be confusing professional longevity with current positional excellence.

Time will tell whether Kennedy’s strengths translate upward. But as a receivers coach in the last decade, the résumé suggests competence without distinction, not dominance.

And for a program with Montana’s standards, that’s a meaningful distinction.
Click to expand...
Holy ChatGPT Batman!
 
406football said:
You’re right on the historical comparison: this is not the Delaney moment. Delaney was hired to steady the ship after Pflu’s late‑cycle firing. Kennedy inherits a stable, high‑expectation program, and he is unquestionably more credentialed on paper than Delaney ever was.

Where the debate becomes interesting—and necessary—is whether Bobby Kennedy’s resume truly reflects an accomplished position coach in today’s college football, or whether it reflects a well‑traveled coach whose peak impact is increasingly distant.

That distinction matter.



Here is the blunt fact: Bobby Kennedy has not coached an All‑American wide receiver in over a decade, and none at Montana.

Yes, his career includes All‑Americans such as Reggie Williams (Washington) and multiple Texas receivers—but those accolades came 15–20 years ago, in a completely different recruiting and development environment.

At Stanford (2018–2022), Rice (2024), and Montana (2025), Kennedy’s receiver rooms produced:

  • Solid contributors
  • Occasional All‑Conference players
  • No nationally dominant wideouts
That’s not failure—but it’s not excellence at the highest level either.

NFL Development: Thinner Than the Reputation Suggests​

Kennedy’s biography often references NFL draft picks, but a closer look shows that:

  • Most were mid‑round selections
  • Several plateaued or declined statistically after initial success
  • Few became consistent NFL starters
For example, Stanford receivers under Kennedy like Simi Fehoko and J.J. Arcega‑Whiteside reached the NFL, but neither developed into high‑impact professional players relative to expectations.

In modern evaluations, sending players to the league is less impressive than maximizing their college dominance first. That dominance has been sporadic in Kennedy’s later stops.

The Recruiting Piece Is Underwhelming​

An accomplished position coach in 2026 is, by necessity, a recruiting weapon.

Kennedy has never been known as a:

  • Primary closer on elite recruiting classes
  • Portal magnet
  • Relationship‑based regional recruiter
At Stanford and Rice, recruiting success was largely driven by institutional fit, admissions standards, and head‑coach influence—not receiver‑specific dominance.

At Montana, Kennedy had one recruiting cycle before promotion—far too little time to establish proof of recruiting excellence in the Big Sky.

That doesn’t mean he can’t recruit. It means we have no evidence yet that he materially elevates recruiting outcomes.

Scheme Adaptation: A Legitimate Question​

Kennedy built his reputation in pro‑style and spread‑hybrid systems that emphasized:

  • Traditional route trees
  • Vertical concepts
  • Timing‑based passing
Modern offenses—especially in the FCS—prioritize:

  • RPO integration
  • Motion‑heavy concepts
  • Space creation through tempo and formations
There is limited evidence that Kennedy has been a scheme innovator rather than a scheme executor over the past decade.

That’s not a flaw in a position coach—but it matters when projecting ceiling.

Montana‑Specific Results: Too Early, But Also Too Quiet​

Kennedy’s lone season at Montana produced competent but not transformative receiver play. The Griz offense was not defined by explosive receiver production, and no wideout emerged as a national or conference‑defining star. we were never dominate on the edges in 1-on-1's, but scheme was the driver force.

Again—this is not failure.

But when someone is labeled an “accomplished position coach,” expectations rise accordingly.

Final Thought: Hope Is Reasonable—Certainty Is Not​

You’re absolutely right to give him the benefit of the doubt. That’s fair, responsible fandom.

The mistake would be confusing professional longevity with current positional excellence.

Time will tell whether Kennedy’s strengths translate upward. But as a receivers coach in the last decade, the résumé suggests competence without distinction, not dominance.

And for a program with Montana’s standards, that’s a meaningful distinction.
Click to expand...
Yeah nice ChatGPT summary there bud.

I’m not sure how much AI really knows about football. But anyone who does know and pays attention knows that BK had amazing impact on the WR room this year. He also produced a freshman that played at All American levels.
 
406football said:
You’re right on the historical comparison: this is not the Delaney moment. Delaney was hired to steady the ship after Pflu’s late‑cycle firing. Kennedy inherits a stable, high‑expectation program, and he is unquestionably more credentialed on paper than Delaney ever was.

Where the debate becomes interesting—and necessary—is whether Bobby Kennedy’s resume truly reflects an accomplished position coach in today’s college football, or whether it reflects a well‑traveled coach whose peak impact is increasingly distant.

That distinction matter.



Here is the blunt fact: Bobby Kennedy has not coached an All‑American wide receiver in over a decade, and none at Montana.

Yes, his career includes All‑Americans such as Reggie Williams (Washington) and multiple Texas receivers—but those accolades came 15–20 years ago, in a completely different recruiting and development environment.

At Stanford (2018–2022), Rice (2024), and Montana (2025), Kennedy’s receiver rooms produced:

  • Solid contributors
  • Occasional All‑Conference players
  • No nationally dominant wideouts
That’s not failure—but it’s not excellence at the highest level either.

NFL Development: Thinner Than the Reputation Suggests​

Kennedy’s biography often references NFL draft picks, but a closer look shows that:

  • Most were mid‑round selections
  • Several plateaued or declined statistically after initial success
  • Few became consistent NFL starters
For example, Stanford receivers under Kennedy like Simi Fehoko and J.J. Arcega‑Whiteside reached the NFL, but neither developed into high‑impact professional players relative to expectations.

In modern evaluations, sending players to the league is less impressive than maximizing their college dominance first. That dominance has been sporadic in Kennedy’s later stops.

The Recruiting Piece Is Underwhelming​

An accomplished position coach in 2026 is, by necessity, a recruiting weapon.

Kennedy has never been known as a:

  • Primary closer on elite recruiting classes
  • Portal magnet
  • Relationship‑based regional recruiter
At Stanford and Rice, recruiting success was largely driven by institutional fit, admissions standards, and head‑coach influence—not receiver‑specific dominance.

At Montana, Kennedy had one recruiting cycle before promotion—far too little time to establish proof of recruiting excellence in the Big Sky.

That doesn’t mean he can’t recruit. It means we have no evidence yet that he materially elevates recruiting outcomes.

Scheme Adaptation: A Legitimate Question​

Kennedy built his reputation in pro‑style and spread‑hybrid systems that emphasized:

  • Traditional route trees
  • Vertical concepts
  • Timing‑based passing
Modern offenses—especially in the FCS—prioritize:

  • RPO integration
  • Motion‑heavy concepts
  • Space creation through tempo and formations
There is limited evidence that Kennedy has been a scheme innovator rather than a scheme executor over the past decade.

That’s not a flaw in a position coach—but it matters when projecting ceiling.

Montana‑Specific Results: Too Early, But Also Too Quiet​

Kennedy’s lone season at Montana produced competent but not transformative receiver play. The Griz offense was not defined by explosive receiver production, and no wideout emerged as a national or conference‑defining star. we were never dominate on the edges in 1-on-1's, but scheme was the driver force.

Again—this is not failure.

But when someone is labeled an “accomplished position coach,” expectations rise accordingly.

Final Thought: Hope Is Reasonable—Certainty Is Not​

You’re absolutely right to give him the benefit of the doubt. That’s fair, responsible fandom.

The mistake would be confusing professional longevity with current positional excellence.

Time will tell whether Kennedy’s strengths translate upward. But as a receivers coach in the last decade, the résumé suggests competence without distinction, not dominance.

And for a program with Montana’s standards, that’s a meaningful distinction.
Click to expand...
This is clearly AI generated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top