I appreciate the positive spin, but dude, 7 OC's in 7 seasons under 1 Head Coach! I'm sorry, but that tells me something is seriously wrong. The funny thing is, if you could look at the Christiansen hire all by itself, it's not a bad move. I've thought of him as one of the top 5 innovative offensive minds in college football since his days at Missouri. With that being said, you've got an offensive staff that has 3 of your former OC's as position coaches. Too many cooks in the kitchen. Plus, Erickson didn't deserve a demotion. This team was averaging over 35 ppg for the first half of the season. That's when our QB injuries struck yet again.
I guess my biggest problem is that now I'm questioning Kyle's ethics. Erickson is a fall guy when he didn't deserve to be. Kyle just threw away the continuity that comes with actually getting to play in an offensive system for two straight years in a last ditch effort to save his job.
Ethics? I think that is being a little over-reationary. We don't know what happened with Erickson and Whitt. Who knows how Erickson feels about this change. Maybe he likes it. Maybe this means less hours, less recruiting. Maybe he is pissed and is looking for another job. Who knows.
The simple fact remains: People are calling for Whitt's head. Some want this year to be his last without big improvements. Wilson may not be back (so the whole continuity thing becomes a little less relevant of an argument. Hell, if DC's QB transfers over from Wyoming then we actually have more continuity at the most important position than if Erickson was still the OC). So, if you are Whitt, and you are told this is it, are you going to stick with a guy who lost you six games last year, where your defense did everything right and the offense turned the ball over WAAAYYY too many times, or couldn't get a first down, and you lost, or will you bring in your friend, a guy who has EXCELLED at offense as an OC? And recently? Not back in the 80's?
I don't blame Whitt for the hire. In fact, I applaud him, because even though it looks bad at the end of the day, he is trying to fix the problem. Wynn goes down, Hays is the backup. Whitt brings in 7-8 QB's the next three years. It's on BJ that not one of those 6 were ready to go as the backup. Whitt has a chance to bring in Chow, thinking it is long term. You DO that. You don't stay loyal to ARod and Schramm. You bring Chow in. You'd be crazy not too.
That blows up in his face when Chow decides to leave after one year. So, he tries to bring stability to the position by bringing in BJ. That was destined fail as BJ went with a guy who couldn't throw, then a walkon, then a FR that wasn't prepared because you spent too much time in spring and fall working with Wynn/Hays.
So, Whitt has the chance to bring in a coach with a TON of experience to help. He does. Not a bad move. Two downsides though, he is old, and won't be around for long. This works out pretty well...until we don't have a backup QB ready to go. (So, is BJ the problem?)
The fact is, the offense lost the UCLA game for Utah (INT's), the Arizona game (the pick 6, inability to move the ball in the fourth Q), the USC game (3 points, really? You can't score 20 points? 3 INT's?), ASU (Can only score 19? No first downs late in the game? Utah killed ASU's offense. We did the best against ASU than any other team), and WSU (TWO pick sixes?). The defense lost one game. The OSU game. And that is debatable with Wilson's 3 picks that game. One was a pick six and the other was a TD on the next play).
The only game that Utah lost as "just not good enough" was the Oregon game. You could argue that the offense lost every single game for Utah this year. So, that makes Erickson's job untouchable?
If Whitt is going down (which I don't think he should be), at least he knows what the problem is and he is fighting to fix it. I won't knock him for that.