Coach Hank is the most important member of this football program outside of Fitz. There is no better coordinator in the country and no better coached unit in the country over the past several years than the NU defense. I hope he coaches us for another decade but whenever he retires it'll be a huge transition for the program.
Hankwitz
- Thread starter torque-cat
- Start date
Maybe but at 70 you have to wonder how long he wants to keep going. I don't think they have him work much on recruiting but still. Have to figure that transition is in the next 2-5 years
What I hope is that With this success and with the facility now done, Fitz will work on the administration to ensure a very sizeable budget for assistant coaches, especially coordinators when they decide to retire/move on. We have to aim high and can’t afford to have budget limit the pool.
Hank has been the reason why the NU D has seen its best stretch since the '95-'96 defenses; certainly deserving of a pay raise.
Only thing - just wish Hank would dial down even more on using the 3-man rush on 3rd and long.
Only thing - just wish Hank would dial down even more on using the 3-man rush on 3rd and long.
Salary does not seem to be an issue in retaining assistants/coordinators. Should NU be able to afford to hire the best? Yes. But there is no evidence that money is an issue right now. Maybe in years gone by, but not today. The only assistants who have left got promotions they weren't going to get at NU.
I second that. He has been excellent at NU. What a great tenure so far.
And I like him even more because he is from Scottville / Ludington. God’s country by the lake!
How old do assistants go? I mean how much longer can we reasonably expect him to stay?
And then who do we bring in to succeed him? I always liked Bates, and some years working with Narduzzi couldn't hurt. How old is Vandy?
Wouldn't imagine Hank will stay on all that much longer, but he's a bit of a football junkie/lifer so who knows. He's certainly at his happiest breaking down film and scheming.
I get the feeling that Pitt is Bates' retirement gig, one last time to coordinate a defense before hanging up the whistle. He's 58 himself. Pitt is also much closer to his family's roots in Ohio.
Vanderlinden is 63, so no spring chicken himself. On the current staff, I think McGarigle makes the most sense as a "ready made" replacement. I don't say that just because he's a young alum who's already on staff; he's a very sharp, well-respected young coach with a bright future. MacPherson made the transition to defense this year and has some marginal background coordinating defenses at the D-III level, but I think he has eyes on HC jobs.
Wouldn't be at all surprised if Fitz tries to hire Vanderlinden as a "transition DC" for 3-5 years with the express purpose of grooming McGarigle to take over when Vanderlinden is set to retire.
That would make a ton of sense. When you were first talking about McGarigle, I thought you were nuts given his lack of experience, but with some additional years learning from Vandy after Hank (and with Fitz at the helm), it could be the perfect scenario.
Not that outstanding position coaches make an outstanding DC, but our DL coach is a stud too and is underappreciated (so much so, I'm at the moment forgetting his name, but that's as much the accumulated brain cell termination accelerated in my younger years and the course of natural aging as anything). Might be the best position coach of the team if you look at results and development and players in the pro's.
Why McGarigle over Ayeni? I don't know much about either as coaches so just curious.
I'm hoping that as long as Hank is allowed to focus on what he loves--which seems to be the X's and O's and not expected to travel the country recruiting all the time, we can keep him for another 5 years and maybe 10. He seems like a very young 70, as has been alluded to in some news articles. To me he is the secret ingredient to our success---on the outside everyone knows Fitz, but Hank barely gets mentioned.
I'm hoping that as long as Hank is allowed to focus on what he loves--which seems to be the X's and O's and not expected to travel the country recruiting all the time, we can keep him for another 5 years and maybe 10. He seems like a very young 70, as has been alluded to in some news articles. To me he is the secret ingredient to our success---on the outside everyone knows Fitz, but Hank barely gets mentioned.
Fair point. Sounds like Ayeni is well positioned as recruiting coordinator. Given the character and intelligence of the players Northwestern brings in, seems like Fitz has an incredible pool of talented coaches to choose from in-house that he knows well. Not that we should stay in-house only, but it's great to have a mix.
I don’t see any way he stays 10 years and 5 years is a stretch to me. It is a grueling intense job for a young man. Love Doc, but want to see him enjoy some relaxing time in retirement.
Doc is one of those guys who would be bored in retirement, probably mock scheming blitz packages.
I think McG will be rather good as DC for us in about 10 years from now. I'm not sure if he'd be as good as Fitz was for us so young. I'd like to avoid losses like the MSU and New Hampshire debacles. Vanderlinden would be great if Hank retires. Does Hank have grown kids and grandkids to take care of and spend time with? Is his wife still alive? He's 71 now? I could understand if he wanted to retire- but gosh- I hope he stays with us for as long as possible!!
McGarigle is 35...
Hank's only son is college-aged. Had him later in life because he spent most of his adult life in a film room breaking down offenses. No grandkids. Wife Cathy is awesome and very much alive.
I'm being completely serious. Hank is pretty much 100% football.
Why is there an assumption that a bright, young but experienced coach like McGarigle needs 10 or even 5 years to be a college DC? We are seeing young coaches throughout the NFL and college football succeed at a very young age so I am not sure why a very talented and bright coach like McGarigle would need that much time. Anybody notice how young Jim Leohnard and Dave Aranda are as successful DCs? Having two seasoned/grey haired coordinators like Hank/McCall in place was important to compliment a young inexperienced head coach like Fitz. Now that Fitz has really matured and grown into the position, I am not so sure that will be the route Fitz takes for his next coordinator hires.
Last edited:
Plus, Fitz has some knowledge about the D as well. This said, I'm still high on the idea of Vandy coming in for a few years and McGarigle learning a bit more from him. McGarigle played under Colby and has to do some penance for that to unlearn whatever Colby may have imparted on him even if it wasn't his fault.
McGarigle left NU as the NCAA's all-time leading tackler under Colby. Colby's defenses had their issues, but McGarigle wasn't one of them.
McGarigle the player was great. I have absolutely no doubts he can coach up the LB's based on how great he was.
Running a defense? Well, McGarigle played in a scheme run by the worst DC in all of Division I football for four years. If it were a cheese, it would be Swiss. Everytime I start thinking how bad McCall is, I remember how bad Colby was, and then I'm like, well, McCall isn't really that bad. That experience playing the scheme in itself, likely sets back McGarigle's DC development a few years through no fault of his own. Nothing some years learning under Hank and a dose of Vandy can't overcome. Of course, there may have been hard first hand lessons learned on what NOT to do, and what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, so there's that too.
How can such an intelligent person say such ridiculous things? Do you really believe that McG will be any less of a coach having played under Colby?
Not really. I just like to bitch about the Colby years. It's therapy.
In reality, I actually think having played under Colby will make him a stronger coach. Because one often learns the most from failure.
At the very least, he can probably just think, what would Colby do, and do the exact opposite, and we are probably golden.
Consider the time he spent with Haslett and the Rams a counter to his time spent under Colby.
It certainly helps. But, the damage of the Colby years was extensive. It may indeed take the joint powers of not two but three defensive gurus to overcome such madness.
No sense is putting it mildly. Tim M's experience with Colby may make him a better coach. I didn't mention it years ago, but I had a student who was a longtime friend of Tim M., and so we would talk NU football a lot. (This was soon after Tim M graduated.) He mentioned how frustrated Tim and the other players on defense were about Colby's very passive and reactive defensive philosophy, and that the players wanted to be more aggressive and attacking, but weren't allowed. The extensive use of the 3-man rush, lack of blitzing, and soft coverage of receivers were sore points. After playing for Colby and then having NFL exposure and time with Hank, I suspect that Tim M. would be nothing like Colby.
These are the basic tenets of the Hankwitz "bend but don't break" defense, no? How come Hank is so successful with it, where Colby failed? I guess the devil's in the details of how to apply that kind of defense.
You're the second person to use "golden" to describe NU in a couple days. I think "golden" has a negative connotation currently--you know "golden" helmets and all? Maybe we should be thinking "platinum".
