Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: Kaos on May 15, 2009, 11:28:58 AM
-
I'm going to pull a Prowler and steal somebody else's research. This was compiled by somebody on another site and it is a pretty compelling argument for being concerned about the future.
Alabama:
Mike Dubose 24-23 ; D. Franchione 17-8 ; Mike Shula 26-23 (.554)
Predecessor: Gene Stallings 62-25 (.712)
Years wasted: 10
Oklahoma:
Gary Gibbs 44-23 ; H. Schnellenberger 5-5 ; John Blake 12-22 (.550)
Predecessor: Barry Switzer 157-29 (.837)
Years wasted: 10
USC:
Ted Tollner 26-20 ; Larry Smith 44-25 ; Paul Hackett 19-18 (.586)
Predecessor: McKay / Robinson 231-75 (.755)
Years wasted: 13
Nebraska:
Bill Callahan 27-22 (.551)
Predecessor: Osborne / Solich 313-68 (.822)
Years wasted: 4 and counting
Georgia:
Ray Goff 46-34 ; Jim Donnan 40-19 (.619)
Predecessor: Vince Dooley 201-77 (.723)
Years coasting: 12
Texas:
David McWilliams 31-26 ; John Mackovic 41-28 (.571)
Predecessor: Royal / Akers 253-78 (.764)
Years wasted: 11
Averages:
"New coaches" winning % = .572
Predecessors winning % = .769
Wasted years = 9.3
Adding to this research, however, we should note that Auburn is an exception to this rule:
Auburn:
Tommy Tuberville 85-40 (.680)
Predecessor:
Terry Bowden 47-17-1 (.720)
Predecessor:
Pat Dye 99–39–4 (.711)
-
Ok. So I don't see the significance of this research.
Lightning rarely strikes twice where great coaches are proceeded by greater coaches? This is truly a groundbreaking discovery.
As your research suggests, Auburn has done a fine job of consistantly hiring good coaches in the modern era.
Was it supposed to be a slight on Chizik? If so, it was a poorly formulated one. If we are expecting this trend to carry over to Auburn due to the success of Tuberville, then it wouldn't matter if we hired Mike Ditka as head coach, he would fail.
-
Ok. So I don't see the significance of this research.
Lightning rarely strikes twice where great coaches are proceeded by greater coaches? This is truly a groundbreaking discovery.
As your research suggests, Auburn has done a fine job of consistantly hiring good coaches in the modern era.
Was it supposed to be a slight on Chizik? If so, it was a poorly formulated one. If we are expecting this trend to carry over to Auburn due to the success of Tuberville, then it wouldn't matter if we hired Mike Ditka as head coach, he would fail.
I think he was simply posting it as being interesting. Talk about being crtical...
The fuck up factor in all of this though is Jacobs, he didn't hire Tubs, and all of his hires to date have been worthless. Chizik hopefully will be a lucky hire.
-
Da Bears!
-
Da Bears!
Are you smoking something today? Must be some good shit!!
:high:
-
I think he was simply posting it as being interesting. Talk about being crtical...
I think Chad's defensiveness is symptomatic of a larger feeling permeating the board lately. The constant back and forth about Chizik's hire has polarized some people.
Some posters posts' are immediately viewed through a particular lens. This goes for the pro- as well as the anti-Chizik posters.
-
Sorry should have put a warning label on it... :sarcasm:
-
Sorry should have put a warning label on it... :sarcasm:
Sarcasm or no, I think you identified something important.
-
I think Chad's defensiveness is symptomatic of a larger feeling permeating the board lately. The constant back and forth about Chizik's hire has polarized some people.
Some posters posts' are immediately viewed through a particular lens. This goes for the pro- as well as the anti-Chizik posters.
That in combinations with the fact that he explicitly said it.
This was compiled by somebody on another site and it is a pretty compelling argument for being concerned about the future.
But yeah, congratulations. You found six whole examples where good coaches were followed by a couple mediocre coaches. Shocking revelation.
-
Ok we all get the 2 camps...
Pro-Chizik
Prowler
AChop 3.114
AUChizad
Anti-Chizik
Kaos
Lots of people in between, some being more pro and some being more anti. This is what I will say, are we tired of it yes... a lot of people are. Is there anything else to talk about...no not really. If you find yourself posting on her less grow some nads (Tiger Wench Excluded, she has her husbands).
This is an open forum, everyone decided that when this place was open we would not over moderate or ban people. People are free to bash, cuss, and otherwise pretty much do anything they want. This forum is for adults, its not for everyone (pussies).
My suggestion put folks that you don't like on ignore, and start posting more often about interesting topics. Make shit up, get naked pictures of Ogres mom, (wait I already have those), derail the topic (most of us try to do that). I for one dream of a Tigers X where a majority of our membership doesn't call each other fuck faces.
:cents:
Peace,
Fuck Face
Oh, yeah and try some withstraint when making a comment... if it isn't constructive and we've heard your argument 1000 times, we get it. This goes for both sides.
-
Ok we all get the 2 camps...
Pro-Chizik
Prowler
AChop 3.114
AUChizad
Anti-Chizik
Kaos
Lots of people in between, some being more pro and some being more anti. This is what I will say, are we tired of it yes... a lot of people are. Is there anything else to talk about...no not really. If you find yourself posting on her less grow some nads (Tiger Wench Excluded, she has her husbands).
This is an open forum, everyone decided that when this place was open we would not over moderate or ban people. People are free to bash, cuss, and otherwise pretty much do anything they want. This forum is for adults, its not for everyone (pussies). My suggestion put folks that you don't like on ignore, and start posting more often about interesting topics. Make shit up, get naked pictures of Ogres mom, (wait I already have those), derail the topic (most of us try to do that). I for one dream of a Tigers X where a majority of our membership doesn't call each other fuck faces.
:cents:
Peace,
Fuck Face
Oh, yeah and try some withstraint when making a comment... if it isn't constructive and we've heard your argument 1000 times, we get it. This goes for both sides.
Hey, fuck you, fuck face, you fuckin' fuck.
It's a slow time of the year. Fucking NHL playoffs...bleh. NBA playoffs...marginally interesting. The first quarter of a 162 game baseball season...fucking yawn.
There isn't much to discuss, unfortunately.
-
Hey, fuck you, fuck face, you fuckin' fuck.
It's a slow time of the year. Fucking NHL playoffs...bleh. NBA playoffs...marginally interesting. The first quarter of a 162 game baseball season...fucking yawn.
There isn't much to discuss, unfortunately.
My concern is when AU season starts...one group is going to be right and its going to be ugly. I wake up in cold sweats at night thinking about it.
-
My concern is when AU season starts...one group is going to be right and its going to be ugly. I wake up in cold sweats at night thinking about it.
Actually I think the answer will lie somewhere in the middle: 7-9 wins.
Not a spectacular failure for a first year staff (especially when then previous year resulted in 5-7). But not also the raging success that some predict.
I think this will result in some very good discussion.
I'm an optimist, someone pass me that half-full glass of Sweetwater 420.
-
That in combinations with the fact that he explicitly said it.
But yeah, congratulations. You found six whole examples where good coaches were followed by a couple mediocre coaches. Shocking revelation.
Oh fuck you, mr. titties in a wad.
I didn't do the research. I saw it and thought it was interesting. It's rare that schools follow success with more success. I also found it interesting that Auburn has been the exception to this rule -- as I pointed out.
I didn't say shit about Chizik so you wasted your time spitting his nuts out of your mouth to reply.
You're so far up the fucker's ass that if i said it was raining you'd shit a bloody hernia screaming that it's not Chizik's fault there's water in the sky because he didn't have any sunshine to work with in Iowa.
-
Actually I think the answer will lie somewhere in the middle: 7-9 wins.
Not a spectacular failure for a first year staff (especially when then previous year resulted in 5-7). But not also the raging success that some predict.
I think this will result in some very good discussion.
I'm an optimist, someone pass me that half-full glass of Sweetwater 420.
I agree with this. To be honest, I not only don't think that I, but even Chop or Prowler are as ragingly blindly pro-Chizik and think the man is infallible as Kaos likes to charactarize.
I know myself, am mostly just reacting to his (and Greasy's) constant unsubstantiated slams. I'm waiting and seeing. He's declaring this the end of Auburn footbal as we know it. And any rational argument against this is "Chizik dick sucking" to him. He can't be reasoned with, and it's annoying.
Undue criticism like this probably does make me root for the guy a little more than I normally would. It's similar to why I was way more conservative during the Bush era, and why I find myself swinging further to the left now under Obama. Not because I love either of them, but because the unfounded criticism against them irritates the shit out of me.
-
Actually I think the answer will lie somewhere in the middle: 7-9 wins.
Not a spectacular failure for a first year staff (especially when then previous year resulted in 5-7). But not also the raging success that some predict.
I think this will result in some very good discussion.
I'm an optimist, someone pass me that half-full glass of Sweetwater 420.
What have I said about this? Repeatedly?
The talent is there for seven, eight or nine wins next season (just as you postulate). So whatever happens next year won't really mean much unless it's an epic disaster. Anything less than seven wins though? Ugh.
I've also predicted delirious hoe downs by select members of this board who will celebrate their knowledge and savvy when this does, in fact, happen. To be expected. They'll attempt to rub it in my face because they were "right" and the mighty Kaos was "wrong." Whatever.
If he's still around three years from now, then I think we can accurately begin to assess his abilities. Saban turned the corner in two. So did Meyer.
We're sitting at five with Lebo now and all we've really seen is a blinker that indicates his intent to turn. The corner's still a shadow. Will we suffer the same with Chizik if he limps along as Lebo has? Jacobs' history says we will.
But you know what? Even if I am wrong (and I'll gladly suffer some capering glee from a few troglodytes in exchange for an SEC title or more).. even if I AM wrong you have to remember that Bo Jackson didn't score a touchdown every time he touched the ball. Hank Aaron did strike out sometimes. Johnny Depp has been refused pussy. So it happens. And I can live with it. Hope I have to. For what it's worth nobody will be sicker than me if I turn out to be right. I was pretty sick about the Franklin debacle despite very similar croaking coming from most of the same suspects who are now firmly wedged in Chizik's ass crack.
-
I agree with this. To be honest, I not only don't think that I, but even Chop or Prowler are as ragingly blindly pro-Chizik and think the man is infallible as Kaos likes to charactarize.
I know myself, am mostly just reacting to his (and Greasy's) constant unsubstantiated slams. I'm waiting and seeing. He's declaring this the end of Auburn footbal as we know it. And any rational argument against this is "Chizik dick sucking" to him. He can't be reasoned with, and it's annoying.
Undue criticism like this probably does make me root for the guy a little more than I normally would. It's similar to why I was way more conservative during the Bush era, and why I find myself swinging further to the left now under Obama. Not because I love either of them, but because the unfounded criticism against them irritates the shit out of me.
Unsubstantiated? Nope.
Unfounded? No.
The end of Auburn football as we know it? Maybe.
Seriously. Were you alive for the Barfield days? Do you remember what it was like? Don't want to revisit that in my lifetime.
I CAN be reasoned with. Frankly I'm waiting to see what happens too. I just have a greater sense of dread than some of you do. But declaring something as the gospel and then shitting yourself blind when I refuse to accept it isn't reasoning. I have my positions and I provide support for them. That's what it's about.
I haven't asked a soul to see things my way. I only add an alternate way of looking at the same issue.
I have no personal issues with anybody except for one, and then only because he has absolutely ZERO clue where the board ends and reality begins.
-
What have I said about this? Repeatedly?
The talent is there for seven, eight or nine wins next season (just as you postulate). So whatever happens next year won't really mean much unless it's an epic disaster. Anything less than seven wins though? Ugh.
I've also predicted delirious hoe downs by select members of this board who will celebrate their knowledge and savvy when this does, in fact, happen. To be expected. They'll attempt to rub it in my face because they were "right" and the mighty Kaos was "wrong." Whatever.
If he's still around three years from now, then I think we can accurately begin to assess his abilities. Saban turned the corner in two. So did Meyer.
We're sitting at five with Lebo now and all we've really seen is a blinker that indicates his intent to turn. The corner's still a shadow. Will we suffer the same with Chizik if he limps along as Lebo has? Jacobs' history says we will.
But you know what? Even if I am wrong (and I'll gladly suffer some capering glee from a few troglodytes in exchange for an SEC title or more).. even if I AM wrong you have to remember that Bo Jackson didn't score a touchdown every time he touched the ball. Hank Aaron did strike out sometimes. Johnny Depp has been refused pussy. So it happens. And I can live with it. Hope I have to. For what it's worth nobody will be sicker than me if I turn out to be right. I was pretty sick about the Franklin debacle despite very similar croaking coming from most of the same suspects who are now firmly wedged in Chizik's ass crack.
What you just simply cannot grasp is that you are the extreme one here vastly further away from the center of this "debate".
But go on with your imperious rants about trogledytes and their hoedowns...
-
What you just simply cannot grasp is that you are the extreme one here vastly further away from the center of this "debate".
But go on with your imperious rants about trogledytes and their hoedowns...
I made this bed I have to sleep in it. No denying. I am not nearly as far from center as you'd think, however. There's nothing really to grasp. Do I think I'm mainstream in the fact that I don't care for Chizik? At the moment, no. But I started down this path and I'm not going to be deterred until there's a valid reason for deterrence. I absolutely refuse to celebrate "baby steps." Did you know he repeated that very phrase the day after I said it while he was speaking to the AU club down here? "We've got to take baby steps." He said that. And that he also said it was going to be a 'long hard road back.' Do you honestly believe AU is so far gone that it's a long, hard road to where we were, say, A YEAR AGO? He didn't take over Duke, dammit. But I digress...
Simple question, chizad...
Do you deny that there will be a few trogs (not intended to include you) having a hoedown on my "grave" should Chizik win seven or eight?
-
Simple question, chizad...
Do you deny that there will be a few trogs (not intended to include you) having a hoedown on my "grave" should Chizik win seven or eight?
Sure, there'll be some "told you so's" and some crow eating.
That's to be expected. What will happen when Chizik bombs out his first season?
You're still tooting the "I was right about Franklin" horn in this very thread...
-
Sure, there'll be some "told you so's" and some crow eating.
That's to be expected. What will happen when Chizik bombs out his first season?
You're still tooting the "I was right about Franklin" horn in this very thread...
Nothing will happen. If I'm right I'm just right. I would hope that the next time something comes up I'd have a little more gravitas but even that's not a given.
Sure I played the Franklin card out of the gate, but my horror at the debacle he unleashed on Auburn eliminated any satisfaction I had or have at seeing what was coming. I only use it as a bludgeon these days when it's implied, inferred or intended that I don't know what I'm talking about. I didn't bust anybody's nuts over Franklin because I was sick about it too. Well, maybe.. I only started busting when the same chowderheads who were talking about Franklinstein and all that silly shit leaped off one wagon and started making Chizik Republic T-shirts.
Can't change the fact that I was right in that instance. It's only natural that I'd be less likely to change my stance now because of that. So I use it as explanation.
I'm just as quick to bring up the fact that I would have taken Ryan Leaf over Peyton in the draft when that occasion arises.
-
I'm expecting Auburn to go (7-5) or (8-4) and have a Top 10 recruiting class, those are realistic marks. But, if Auburn goes (9-3) or better and has a Top 5 recruiting class...then yeah, there'll be some hoedown going on, but it won't be on your grave because I'm sure that you'll be right there with us...Hoeing it down.
-
I absolutely refuse to celebrate "baby steps." Did you know he repeated that very phrase the day after I said it while he was speaking to the AU club down here? "We've got to take baby steps." He said that. And that he also said it was going to be a 'long hard road back.'
The folks in Ames noted that he was always quick to pull out the Obama-speak. He always used "what he had inherited" as an excuse. I think the reason Alabama fans make light of the situation so much, is because we can't believe that AU is that paranoid to get rid of CTT that quickly. Most of our fans saw it as universally stupid to get rid of CTT. Ok, so we tapped that ass one time in 7 years. Outside of that, AU has owned us recently and alot of other teams as well. You guys can't tell me that loss had absolutely nothing to do with his ouster. Had he won that game, I bet he would still be here today. Thats not me being arrogant, thats being logical.
Thats one thing to get rid of CTT if you're going to hire some NFL God or something that has won 50 Super Bowls, or somebody that was a clear step up. In Alabama's case, there is absolutely no question we stepped up a few notches. My cat would have been a step in the right direction. AU went out and flubbed it in the public's eyes. Maybe Chizik can prove everybody wrong on the field. Who knows at this point. All I know is his track record as a head coach isn't that great.
P.S.: Here is a little article that the Iowa State Rivals site had up after Chizik's departure.
http://iowastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=889020 (http://iowastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=889020)
-
I'm going to pull a Prowler and steal somebody else's research. This was compiled by somebody on another site and it is a pretty compelling argument for being concerned about the future.
Alabama:
Mike Dubose 24-23 ; D. Franchione 17-8 ; Mike Shula 26-23 (.554)
Predecessor: Gene Stallings 62-25 (.712)
Years wasted: 10
Oklahoma:
Gary Gibbs 44-23 ; H. Schnellenberger 5-5 ; John Blake 12-22 (.550)
Predecessor: Barry Switzer 157-29 (.837)
Years wasted: 10
USC:
Ted Tollner 26-20 ; Larry Smith 44-25 ; Paul Hackett 19-18 (.586)
Predecessor: McKay / Robinson 231-75 (.755)
Years wasted: 13
Nebraska:
Bill Callahan 27-22 (.551)
Predecessor: Osborne / Solich 313-68 (.822)
Years wasted: 4 and counting
Georgia:
Ray Goff 46-34 ; Jim Donnan 40-19 (.619)
Predecessor: Vince Dooley 201-77 (.723)
Years coasting: 12
Texas:
David McWilliams 31-26 ; John Mackovic 41-28 (.571)
Predecessor: Royal / Akers 253-78 (.764)
Years wasted: 11
Averages:
"New coaches" winning % = .572
Predecessors winning % = .769
Wasted years = 9.3
Adding to this research, however, we should note that Auburn is an exception to this rule:
Auburn:
Tommy Tuberville 85-40 (.680)
Predecessor:
Terry Bowden 47-17-1 (.720)
Predecessor:
Pat Dye 99–39–4 (.711)
We kept a motherfucker for 10 years with a similar record as the flubs you speak of. :suicide:
-
I'm expecting Auburn to go (7-5) or (8-4) and have a Top 10 recruiting class, those are realistic marks. But, if Auburn goes (9-3) or better and has a Top 5 recruiting class...then yeah, there'll be some hoedown going on, but it won't be on your grave because I'm sure that you'll be right there with us...Hoeing it down.
I love hos
-
I made this bed I have to sleep in it. No denying. I am not nearly as far from center as you'd think, however. There's nothing really to grasp. Do I think I'm mainstream in the fact that I don't care for Chizik? At the moment, no. But I started down this path and I'm not going to be deterred until there's a valid reason for deterrence. I absolutely refuse to celebrate "baby steps." Did you know he repeated that very phrase the day after I said it while he was speaking to the AU club down here? "We've got to take baby steps." He said that. And that he also said it was going to be a 'long hard road back.' Do you honestly believe AU is so far gone that it's a long, hard road to where we were, say, A YEAR AGO? He didn't take over Duke, dammit. But I digress...
Simple question, chizad...
Do you deny that there will be a few trogs (not intended to include you) having a hoedown on my "grave" should Chizik win seven or eight?
Not chizd, but anybody that does a hoedown over a 7-8 win season is crazy. As you've said, and I concur, the talent is there for it. So, it will prove little, beyond the fact that Chizik is capable of meeting expectations when expectations are not that high. If he pulls a Boden '93, I'm not sure how I'll feel because of how that thing ended. If he does worse than 7-5 regular season, I may be on the Kaos bandwagon. I say "may" because things can happen beyond the coahes control. If we find consistenly decent QB play, and don't suffer an inordinant number of injuries at key positions, ie the OL, then 7-5 should be doable...9-3 with a sprinkling of luck. If he hits the 7-9 win window, I'll still be in "wait and see" until I at least see his first full recruiting class, and maybe beyind that. So for me, it won't be success in year one (caveats noted) if he doesn't win a minimum of 7, and pull in a top 10 class in Feb. He does that, he'll win a little confidence from me.
-
You guys can't tell me that loss had absolutely nothing to do with his ouster.
I think you're close to being correct. Here is my theory, for what little it is worth:
The power brokers (or at least a very powerful few of them) didn't like Tuberville for whatever reason and they tried to replace him in '03. We know the fallout from that. Since that season, Tuberville had won at least 9 games a year and, more importantly, had beaten bama every year. There was no justifiable reason to fire the man. 2008 gave those disgruntled power brokers their opening to drop the hammer: 5-7 AND a loss to bama. They finally saw the chance to do what they'd been hoping to do for almost six years and they took it.
It was a stupid knee-jerk reaction to fire Tuberville...unless you're one of those power *cough*Lowder*cough* brokers and, in that case, it was long overdue.
-
I think Chizad has it right. I also believe that a lot of others have it right as well. Frankly, the reason I went the way of constant fucking with Kaos, was because frankly there was no point in doing anything else. I just got to the point of "why even bother"?
Look, beyond the Kaos vs. Chopper thing, anytime a poster gets fucked with by an extreme side ALL THE TIME for doing nothing more than posting information or their opinion, then damn. 80% of what I got called a "Chizdick Sucking Loon" for was nothing more than passing, or posting information along. My actual opinion basically became irrelevent and moot, if it was even expressed at all.
My actual opinion on Auburn's situation is actually pretty simple. I was not excited about the hire. I still think there might have been more popular choices, but I have to respect that whether you think the people in charge are dipshits, they certainly have ten times the info I do, and if they thought Gene Chizik was the slam dunk hire, then for fucksake I'll support his goofy ass. I'm a lot more interested in seeing Auburn succeed and having fun with Auburn people than having a horrible time ranting and raving and alienating myself.
There's not ONE person here that would be excited, happy or okay with total failure, so to act as if we're rooting that on by supporting Chizik is simply stupid.
I think he's done a hell of a job putting together a great staff, and if nothing else, making Auburn relevant in the recruiting scheme of things. I'd rather just sit back and see, but yes, cheer on the good things when they happen. If that's by posting info I see that's newsworthy or interesting to the people that would use an Auburn forum, then I'll continue to do it, regardless of the fantastic and colorful names one particular extremist might jerk off to.
-
I think you're close to being correct. Here is my theory, for what little it is worth:
The power brokers (or at least a very powerful few of them) didn't like Tuberville for whatever reason and they tried to replace him in '03. We know the fallout from that. Since that season, Tuberville had won at least 9 games a year and, more importantly, had beaten bama every year. There was no justifiable reason to fire the man. 2008 gave those disgruntled power brokers their opening to drop the hammer: 5-7 AND a loss to bama. They finally saw the chance to do what they'd been hoping to do for almost six years and they took it.
It was a stupid knee-jerk reaction to fire Tuberville...unless you're one of those power *cough*Lowder*cough* brokers and, in that case, it was long overdue.
Knowing what I know now, and believing it to be true, It was time for Tubs to go. And Tubs wasn't fired, he chose not to stay under the conditions presented, and he held the ace card in his contract. Tubs chose to step down instead of being strongarmed in to making changes he wasn't willing to make, but that EVERYONE knew needed to be made.
-
And Tubs wasn't fired, he chose not to stay under the conditions presented
You quit or I'm going to fire you.
Same result.
-
You quit or I'm going to fire you.
Same result.
Not how it went down.
-
Well then enlighten us. My sources say that is basically the readers digest condensed version of what happend.
And btw that rivals report......Paul clark had obviously done something that the vast majority of you have not....actually spoken with chizik.
By the time he is gone 5-7 will seem like a dream season.
Put me in the fuck chizik camp.
"Talk about it in ISU Confidential
Finally. After two years of holding my tongue and being a good soldier – or shill as KXNO's Marty & Miller not so inaccurately said – I can put it all out there regarding what I've thought from day one about former Iowa State football coach Gene Chizik.
When Chizik was hired, I told some media colleagues in confidence that his stay at Iowa State would be three years maximum. Either he would fail miserably and be fired or he would have a little success and jump on the very first opportunity that came along to move back south. Now I must admit, even I am surprised at the bizarre turn of events whereby he failed miserably at Iowa State and still got to jump on the very first opportunity that came along to move back south. What the hell Auburn is thinking is anybody's guess. And who cares. Because it just unburdened Iowa State of its most unprepared, overmatched and incompetent head coach of the modern era.
Gene Chizik won five games in two years, making him one of the worst head coaches in ISU history.
The red flags began popping up almost immediately. When Chizik said that winning is hard everywhere - that it was hard to win at Texas and Auburn, too - you knew he had no comprehension of the task at hand. Chizik's resume is built on winning with superior players, something anybody can do. It's not hard to win at Texas or Auburn; it's hard to lose. When he was given the third-highest assistant coach salary pool in the Big 12 and immediately set about hiring his old buddies for jobs they weren't qualified for at a pay rate twice what he could have gotten them for, you knew he was playing head coach instead of actually being one. When Chizik told the players he inherited that he wasn't going to come down to their level, his legacy of all-hat-no-cattle sound bites was in motion. Few of those players had ever been part of anything as wretched as the two seasons Chizik presided over. He'd have been fortunate to have them bring him up to their level. And when he made the players spend 20 minutes of the first spring practice of 2007 precisely lining up their helmets, you wondered if a real life Captain Queeg hadn't taken over the ISU football program.
Chizik's game day performance speaks for itself and his Saturday state of confusion was boderline comical, if you subscribe to the idea that it's better to laugh than to cry. He might someday have the mental capacity to manage a game as head coach, but it's not there yet. The next opposing coach that Chizik outsmarts will be the first. Without superior athletes, he was rendered impotent as a coach and when all three phases became his ultimate responsibility, he gagged on it. Chizik coordinated defenses at Auburn and Texas; but as a head coach, all he coordinated was disarray. The Cyclone sideline resembled a fire drill more often than not in crucial situations and the number of delay of game penalties and wasted time outs that could be attributed to him and his staff was a career's worth, not two season's worth. The defense was ultimately dumbed down not so the players could understand it, but so the coaches could manage it. And even then they failed.
Would Chizik have eventually been able to win more games at Iowa State and perhaps even get to 6-6 and a bowl game? Maybe, eventually. Had he at least been stubborn enough not to quit, it was possible. After all, he had a brilliant rebuilding plan in place – get better players. Who could fail with a plan like that? But when you consider the games that his Iowa State teams choked away against very beatable opponents these last two autumns, even better players might not have mattered. Because the players he had at Iowa State were collectively good enough to go .500 or better in each of his two seasons in Ames. He and his coaching staff were the problem, not the players. Had the coaches been as good as the players, ISU would have won more games. Even if the players were horrible – say 5-19 horrible – that still means that Chizik and his staff generated a grand total of zero wins with their talent. The players, of course, were not 5-19 horrible, which means the reality is that Chizik and staff cost Iowa State victories as opposed to making them happen.
Iowa State had some good individual talent on its coaching staff. I was impressed throughout the past two seasons by coaches like Tony Petersen, Scott Fountain, Jay Rodgers and Mike Pelton. But when the CEO is swimming in confusion and the coordinators are ten years past their primes and their primes weren't all that good to begin with, there's only so much individual position coaches can do. When word came down that Petersen was losing his job in the staff reorganization, it was clear evidence to me that ability didn't carry much weight in the Cyclone football organization. Instead, clearly, it was a lot more about being part of Chizik's confederate clan than it was about coaching ability.
A two-word phrase will serve as Chizik's epitaph when it comes to his burying his dismal tenure at Iowa State: "firmly entrenched." That phrase was part of his disingenuous explanation regarding comments attributed to him by a Dallas radio show host by way of an Oklahoma State assistant coach. Now, those comments supposedly made by Chizik about being sorry he took the ISU job may have indeed been false. Or they may have been true. Whether they were ever spoken or not doesn't matter, they were definitely being thought. The truth was, Chizik couldn't have been less firmly entrenched at Iowa State. If the Chiziks even bothered to fully unpack, it would be a stunner to me. Never has someone so obviously had an eye on the exit immediately after coming through the entrance.
Chizik's decision to bolt for Auburn – while fine and good in and of itself – is obvious proof that he did regret coming to ISU and that he had quit on the job and given up on accomplishing anything in Ames. And it certainly shows that he was not firmly entrenched. Whether or not he ultimately got the Auburn job was immaterial once he had interviewed. The real story of the last two days was the Chizik was not up to the task and he knew it. As did many of us. It's nothing short of a blessing that Auburn took him off Iowa State's hands. It was quick and painless and just gives ISU a one-year head start on cleaning up the mess that Chizik created. He never hesitated to let people know how much work there was to be done and what a bad situation he stepped into. Well, the next guy will have it a lot worse, thanks entirely to Chizik. But the next guy will probably be a lot better head coach, so it's still a net gain for Iowa State.
Gene Chizik was Plan B for Iowa State. While even that was too high considering the candidates interviewed, it's at least reassuring to know that someone better than him wanted the job in 2006 and was even offered the job, but just couldn't pull the trigger fast enough to take it. ISU settled for Chizik and got what it got. Even though he was packaged and sold as a rock star, he wasn't hired as one. The rock star got away, so Iowa State took the back-up singer. It's Auburn's problem now. While he has a better chance of winning in general there – because he'll have better players – he'll be up against it in a job where so much is riding on one rivalry game a year. Beating Alabama trumps all else at Auburn and Nick Saban will probably floss with Gene Chizik on an annual basis. It's a coaching mismatch of epic proportions. I mean, if Mike Sanford and Tom Amstutz and Doug Martin hand you your lunch with inferior talent, what's Saban going to do with superior talent? When the clock ticks down to 0:00 on future Iron Bowls, there will be nothing left to do but I.D. the Auburn bodies.
Good luck, Auburn, you'll need it."
-
Retarded Monkey Lost In The Ural Mountains
Ingredients
2 oz. Liqueur, banana
2 oz. Sour Apple Pucker
2 oz. Vodka, pear
Mixing Instructions
Shake ingredients in a cocktail shaker with ice. Strain into glass. It has a smoother taste than you'd expect.
Nice addition bammer.
-
Nice addition bammer.
I think you should use 99 Bananas for the 99 proof kick.
-
We had a Boise State guy call Houston Nutt a used car salesman right after we hired him. Sour grapes.
Turns out he was right.
-
pigtit, I haven't seen where he actually did a whole hell of a lot except occaisionally grab a big win. No offense but Nuttless has never impressed me to much. His downhill slide @ Ole Miss will begin this year just as it has most eveywhere he has ever been.
Unless he pimps off a coaching slot for some players he has never really done anything.
-
pigtit, I haven't seen where he actually did a whole hell of a lot except occaisionally grab a big win. No offense but Nuttless has never impressed me to much. His downhill slide @ Ole Miss will begin this year just as it has most eveywhere he has ever been.
Unless he pimps off a coaching slot for some players he has never really done anything.
And some posters shouldn't post in the football forum, lack of knowledge and all that.
-
And yet you are still constantly pecking away at those keys prowler. Just because my opinion does not jive with those of certain other posters and I'm not afraid to call a shitty hire and over inflated coaches shitty hires and over inflated coaches does not mean that I do not know what I am talking about.
This toipc is called "What history tells us" which is because history is a pretty good indicator of futore actions. Chiziks history is to find a way to lose in a mickey mouse league so his future prediction is that he will find an easy way to lose in the SEC west. Nutt's history is to take a team exceed expectations the first year and then begin a slow slide to mediocrity in the 2nd.
History is fact and a pretty good indicator of future trends.
-
pigtit, I haven't seen where he actually did a whole hell of a lot except occaisionally grab a big win. No offense but Nuttless has never impressed me to much. His downhill slide @ Ole Miss will begin this year just as it has most eveywhere he has ever been.
Unless he pimps off a coaching slot for some players he has never really done anything.
This we agree on.
-
Nutt's history is to take a team exceed expectations the first year and then begin a slow slide to mediocrity in the 2nd.
You have kind of a funny definition of mediocrity. HDN is 6-5 against your Tigers. Generally I wouldn't call someone mediocre when they have a winning record against my team, but that's just me. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we have Petrino, but HDN isn't the goof that a lot of people, including a lot of Arkansas fans, seem to think he is.
-
You have kind of a funny definition of mediocrity. HDN is 6-5 against your Tigers. Generally I wouldn't call someone mediocre when they have a winning record against my team, but that's just me. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we have Petrino, but HDN isn't the goof that a lot of people, including a lot of Arkansas fans, seem to think he is.
His record against Auburn is not necessarily an indicator of his overall lack of mediocrity.
Mike Shula was 1-1 against Urban Meyer. I guess Shula's pretty much on par with the Pope by your estimation.
-
It was just a quick number to show the man is not the boob that some try to make him out to be. I'll give you another, since he's been in the league, he's been to the SEC Championship game twice, same as Auburn and Alabama, and more than either of the Miss schools. Granted he hasn't won there, but he came within a freshmen's muffed punt of it against the eventual National Champ.
Look I'd just as soon he sucked as much as you guys seem to think he does. He coaches for another team now and I would love to see Ole Miss be as sorry as they were under Ogeron. The problem is the man has shown he can hold his own in the SEC West, and I don't think he's going away anytime soon.
-
It was just a quick number to show the man is not the boob that some try to make him out to be. I'll give you another, since he's been in the league, he's been to the SEC Championship game twice, same as Auburn and Alabama, and more than either of the Miss schools. Granted he hasn't won there, but he came within a freshmen's muffed punt of it against the eventual National Champ.
Close only counts in horseshoes and Auburn recruiting.
-
Close only counts in horseshoes and Auburn recruiting.
Bugger off!!
Now, back to Nutt. I've never thought the guy was a bad coach by any stretch. Several of our resident regulars seem to have the inside scoop on what went down during his Arky fall from grace. But, with regard to his coaching ability, I think there needs to be a distinction made. In my somewhat humble opinion, aw the hell with that, I know everything...I think there are limits as to how CONSISTENTLY good Arkansas can be. That goes for Auburn as well. Can they both be minimum 8-9 win teams with the occasional 10-12 win season and SEC championships thrown in? Yes, and both should be. But, due to location, conference affiliation and other factors, I don't think either has the ability to be a real playa on the national seen year in and year out like a Texas or USC or even Ohio State.
Having said that, I think Nutt and likewise with Tuberville, came about as close to that with their respective programs as anyone is going to do. It was time for a change in both scenarios but during their tenures, both guys had stretches where they maximized the potential that was there.
-
Close only counts in horseshoes and Auburn recruiting.
Well I guess Alabama has plenty of room to talk in this discussion, you've got a stellar 6-5 record against Mr. Mediocre. Woohoo, we're a half game above mediocre!
-
Well I guess Alabama has plenty of room to talk in this discussion, you've got a stellar 6-5 record against Mr. Mediocre. Woohoo, we're a half game above mediocre!
Remind him how many SEC championships they've won in that timeframe he is commenting on...
-
I think there are limits as to how CONSISTENTLY good Arkansas can be. That goes for Auburn as well. Can they both be minimum 8-9 win teams with the occasional 10-12 win season and SEC championships thrown in? Yes, and both should be. But, due to location, conference affiliation and other factors, I don't think either has the ability to be a real playa on the national seen year in and year out like a Texas or USC or even Ohio State.
Horseshit quitter talk.
-
It was just a quick number to show the man is not the boob that some try to make him out to be. I'll give you another, since he's been in the league, he's been to the SEC Championship game twice, same as Auburn and Alabama, and more than either of the Miss schools. Granted he hasn't won there, but he came within a freshmen's muffed punt of it against the eventual National Champ.
Look I'd just as soon he sucked as much as you guys seem to think he does. He coaches for another team now and I would love to see Ole Miss be as sorry as they were under Ogeron. The problem is the man has shown he can hold his own in the SEC West, and I don't think he's going away anytime soon.
No, he's a decent coach, but his personality gets in the way sometimes.
He is not the face I would want for my program. He always seemed to be up in some shenanigans. And he was too emotional. I sometimes felt like the Arkansas team rose and fell on his moods and that it was more a cult of personality than anything else. When you've got a volatile, mercurial guy like that you're not going to have any kind of real consistency or long-lasting success.
That's my book.
The perfect head coach?
Keeps his emotions in check and thinks before he talks.
Knows the meaning of the word discretion in both his personal and professional life.
Understands the role of the media and uses it to his advantage.
Is not reactionary, but always looking to better himself, his staff and the program.
Provides moral and spiritual guidance not in what he says, but in what he does.
Hires assistants who fit the same basic mold, always looking to surround himself with people more intelligent than he is.
Respects and understands the game of football, but more importantly respects and understands the institution he represents.
Is arrogant enough to be confident in his abilities, but humble enough to make changes and adjustments as the situation warrants.
Presents himself as firm and decisive and takes responsibility for his performance, the performance of his staff and the performance of the team -- on and off the field.
He understands that the program is bigger than any one man, including himself.
And he also has to win. Yeah. Win. There's that.
-
No, he's a decent coach, but his personality gets in the way sometimes.
He is not the face I would want for my program. He always seemed to be up in some shenanigans. And he was too emotional. I sometimes felt like the Arkansas team rose and fell on his moods and that it was more a cult of personality than anything else. When you've got a volatile, mercurial guy like that you're not going to have any kind of real consistency or long-lasting success.
That's my book.
The perfect head coach?
Keeps his emotions in check and thinks before he talks.
Knows the meaning of the word discretion in both his personal and professional life.
Understands the role of the media and uses it to his advantage.
Is not reactionary, but always looking to better himself, his staff and the program.
Provides moral and spiritual guidance not in what he says, but in what he does.
Hires assistants who fit the same basic mold, always looking to surround himself with people more intelligent than he is.
Respects and understands the game of football, but more importantly respects and understands the institution he represents.
Is arrogant enough to be confident in his abilities, but humble enough to make changes and adjustments as the situation warrants.
Presents himself as firm and decisive and takes responsibility for his performance, the performance of his staff and the performance of the team -- on and off the field.
He understands that the program is bigger than any one man, including himself.
And he also has to win. Yeah. Win. There's that.
Why do you hate Living Colour?
-
Horseshit quitter talk.
Well, since Auburn has never done it in it's entire illustrious history dating back well over 100 years, I'd say it's anything but quitter talk. Add the fact that 85 scholarships have limited only an elite few to that status, outside a nice "Run" now and then, and I'll take 8-9 wins at a minimum each year with the occasional run at a MNC. If that ain't good enough, you're gonna' spend a lot of time being let down and heartbroken.
-
Well, since Auburn has never done it in it's entire illustrious history dating back well over 100 years, I'd say it's anything but quitter talk. Add the fact that 85 scholarships have limited only an elite few to that status, outside a nice "Run" now and then, and I'll take 8-9 wins at a minimum each year with the occasional run at a MNC. If that ain't good enough, you're gonna' spend a lot of time being let down and heartbroken.
If your point is that the scholarship limit has eliminated the days of dynasty teams, then I'll agree.
-
Well, since Auburn has never done it in it's entire illustrious history dating back well over 100 years, I'd say it's anything but quitter talk. Add the fact that 85 scholarships have limited only an elite few to that status, outside a nice "Run" now and then, and I'll take 8-9 wins at a minimum each year with the occasional run at a MNC. If that ain't good enough, you're gonna' spend a lot of time being let down and heartbroken.
Harv,
I would agree with you if you had said it's more difficult to maintain elite status at Auburn than say at a place like Florida, or LSU, but is has been done, and can be done. Ark's situation and Auburn's are completely different. Their physical location is a big problem for them in recruiting. Ark doesn't produce enough talent to supply an SEC team with the players they need, so they have to go out and steal players elsewhere. And the players they're in the market to steal would probably first choose TX, Tx A&M, OK, Nebraska, Mizzou, Kansas, etc. Their competing against not only big name programs, but another conference. The in the SEC they have to steal from MS, LA, and TN. It's a tough sell in conference too. Auburn, on the other hand, has been and maintained an elite program. We're #14 in all time winning percentage. We are nationally known. And we can and do recruit our state region well, most of the time. It's harder to maintain that status, but it's possible. It might be possible at Ark, but it's harder than at Auburn. I think Nutt is a pretty good coach, but I'd agree with Kaos' assessment, I wouldn't want him as Auburn's head coach.
-
That has as much to do with it as anything; however, the few schools that currently have anything close to what could be called a dynasty in this day and age, all have some built in advantages over Auburn, and always will. By "Dynasty" I mean consistently being a top 5 playa for the MNC. Love em' or hate em' USC, Texas, OSU, now UF and to some extent, LSU all share some of those advantages in one way or another. I'm not saying AU can't be a consistent winner, they've shown that ability in the past and their record bears that out.
-
Well I guess Alabama has plenty of room to talk in this discussion, you've got a stellar 6-5 record against Mr. Mediocre. Woohoo, we're a half game above mediocre!
I'm not here proclaiming we're better than Arkansas either, or how close we've been to winning this or that. If you haven't noticed, the past decade or so has been a pretty shitty time to be an Alabama fan.
-
If your point is that the scholarship limit has eliminated the days of dynasty teams, then I'll agree.
It's had that effect somewhat, but I think the bigger effect is that it's allowed more programs to compete at a higher level, ie Boise St, and the like.
-
That has as much to do with it as anything; however, the few schools that currently have anything close to what could be called a dynasty in this day and age, all have some built in advantages over Auburn, and always will. By "Dynasty" I mean consistently being a top 5 playa for the MNC. Love em' or hate em' USC, Texas, OSU, now UF and to some extent, LSU all share some of those advantages in one way or another. I'm not saying AU can't be a consistent winner, they've shown that ability in the past and their record bears that out.
If by "built-in advantages" you mean that they have the media sucking their respective programs off every Saturday, then I'll agree with this, too.
-
That has as much to do with it as anything; however, the few schools that currently have anything close to what could be called a dynasty in this day and age, all have some built in advantages over Auburn, and always will. By "Dynasty" I mean consistently being a top 5 playa for the MNC. Love em' or hate em' USC, Texas, OSU, now UF and to some extent, LSU all share some of those advantages in one way or another. I'm not saying AU can't be a consistent winner, they've shown that ability in the past and their record bears that out.
If by "built-in advantages" you mean that they have the media sucking their respective programs off every Saturday, then I'll agree with this, too.
LAWYER FIGHT!!!!!!
The white zone is for loading and unloading, there is no parking in the red zone!
-
That has as much to do with it as anything; however, the few schools that currently have anything close to what could be called a dynasty in this day and age, all have some built in advantages over Auburn, and always will. By "Dynasty" I mean consistently being a top 5 playa for the MNC. Love em' or hate em' USC, Texas, OSU, now UF and to some extent, LSU all share some of those advantages in one way or another. I'm not saying AU can't be a consistent winner, they've shown that ability in the past and their record bears that out.
LSU went the better part of 50 years without said advantage. Their "rise" is a relatively new phenomenon. Up until that midget cocksucker got there LSU was basically Ole Miss with a better uniform.
Frankly, Auburn was better positioned to take the "advantage" that LSU now owns, but we shot ourselves in the face in 2003. Repeatedly.
We also shot ourselves in the face in 2001. Here's the funny thing about 2001. If we'd played LSU when scheduled -- right after September 11 -- I think we would have won that game. But we got to the end of the season, laid an egg at Arkansas and let the disappointment over unfulfilled promise turn AU into quitters. I can tell you for absolute certain that I'd never seen an AU team mail it in and quit until I saw the 2001 team roll over and play dead against a weak Bama team. No emotion.
We play LSU when we're supposed to and AU wins that game. Could have changed the next five years...
-
If by "built-in advantages" you mean that they have the media sucking their respective programs off every Saturday, then I'll agree with this, too.
Bingo. Big market teams are always going to get more than their share of media bobo honkage. Auburn is small town America. The Lovliest Village. We know the potential of Auburn and what it has to offer, but the rest of the country doesn't care. It's more sexy for the Game Day crew to suck Pete Carroll's man meat.
-
LSU went the better part of 50 years without said advantage. Their "rise" is a relatively new phenomenon. Up until that midget cocksucker got there LSU was basically Ole Miss with a better uniform.
That's why they were prefaced with "To some extent". Again, a dynasty in modern day is most likely going to look like the 8-10 year run that most of these schools are on. LSU has 2 MNC's in a 7 year period.
-
LSU went the better part of 50 years without said advantage. Their "rise" is a relatively new phenomenon. Up until that midget cocksucker got there LSU was basically Ole Miss with a better uniform.
If you go by all time winning percentage, that's not true. LSU is 13th in all time winning percentage, Auburn is 15th.
But the real "advantage" is being "The state school"
Top 20 all time in winning percentage.
12 of the top 20 are "the state school", 2 are private, one is "the national school".
No/School/W%/W/L/Tie/Total games played.
1 Michigan 0.73982 872 295 36 1203
2 Notre Dame 0.73639 831 284 42 1157
3 Texas 0.72039 835 314 33 1182
4 Oklahoma 0.71472 789 299 53 1141
5 Ohio State 0.71441 807 307 52 1166
6 Alabama 0.70855 799 316 43 1158
7 Southern Cal 0.70614 766 303 54 1123
8 Nebraska 0.70275 824 337 40 1201
9 Tennessee 0.69214 783 333 55 1171
10 Penn State 0.68934 800 349 42 1191
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Florida State 0.67073 459 221 17 697
12 Georgia 0.64599 723 384 54 1161
13 Louisiana State 0.64027 700 383 47 1130
14 Miami-Florida 0.63402 544 310 19 873
15 Auburn 0.62734 681 395 47 1123
16 Florida 0.62713 641 373 40 1054
17 Miami-Ohio 0.62593 649 379 44 1072
18 Washington 0.61601 652 397 50 1099
19 Arizona State 0.61500 541 334 25 900
20 Central Michigan 0.60999 557 350 34 941
-
If you go by all time winning percentage, that's not true. LSU is 13th in all time winning percentage, Auburn is 15th.
LSU wasn't relevant for a very, very long time. Don't know what their "winning percentage" is. I guess, like Ole Miss, most of that was carved up back when they used dinosaurs to get back and forth from games.
-
LSU wasn't relevant for a very, very long time. Don't know what their "winning percentage" is. I guess, like Ole Miss, most of that was carved up back when they used dinosaurs to get back and forth from games.
Neither was UF
-
Neither was UF
Good point.
We missed a prime opportunity to vault onto the national stage. The media was ready for us in 2001. We fell on our sword. They were drooling on us in 2003. We shit the bed. Still pissed at us for that in 2004. I'm convinced that the reluctance to move us up was directly correlated to us pissing in their face in '03 with that disastrous start. The media was ready again in 2005. Ready to love because they felt bad for shitting us in 2004. Shit the bed again against GaTech. Still ready to give us some love in 2006. Had an opportunity to move into a serious BCS title debate. What? What's that smell? Shit in the fucking bed again. Houston Fucking Nutt and his clown circus poked us and we shit the fucking bed. Explosive shit. But we could have crawled right back into it. They were going to forgive until... more shit in the bed. Sheets soaked in it. Fucking Georgia. A bad Georgia team.
You see, people, this is why I was okay with Tuberville leaving. We'd get close, but with the exception of 2004 there was a lot of bed shitting. I was thinking that we'd do like my Red Sox. Pistol whip the guy who kept getting us close and bring in somebody who could actually bring home the bacon.
But if you seriously think Chizik is going to be doing any baconing? I can't help you with that. Might have been better off to be satisfied with being close enough to see the treasure and just live with the shit smell.
-
Good point.
We missed a prime opportunity to vault onto the national stage. The media was ready for us in 2001. We fell on our sword. They were drooling on us in 2003. We shit the bed. Still pissed at us for that in 2004. I'm convinced that the reluctance to move us up was directly correlated to us pissing in their face in '03 with that disastrous start. The media was ready again in 2005. Ready to love because they felt bad for shitting us in 2004. Shit the bed again against GaTech. Still ready to give us some love in 2006. Had an opportunity to move into a serious BCS title debate. What? What's that smell? Shit in the fucking bed again. Houston Fucking Nutt and his clown circus poked us and we shit the fucking bed. Explosive shit. But we could have crawled right back into it. They were going to forgive until... more shit in the bed. Sheets soaked in it. Fucking Georgia. A bad Georgia team.
You see, people, this is why I was okay with Tuberville leaving. We'd get close, but with the exception of 2004 there was a lot of bed shitting. I was thinking that we'd do like my Red Sox. Pistol whip the guy who kept getting us close and bring in somebody who could actually bring home the bacon.
But if you seriously think Chizik is going to be doing any baconing? I can't help you with that. Might have been better off to be satisfied with being close enough to see the treasure and just live with the shit smell.
What coach out there "gets close" and acheives every year?
-
What coach out there "gets close" and acheives every year?
None.
Bob Stoops is a big bed shitter. But it's okay because he delivered. Pete Carroll shits the bed every single year -- but one. Saban shit the bed last season. Matter of record, Saban shit all over the bed the year he "won" his national title, but that year beds around the country were filled with shit and it was a matter of finding the least stained sheets. That LSU team couldn't have stayed on the field with the 2004 Auburn team. Neither could Les Miles' NC squad. Fact is, there are only one or two teams in the last 30 years of SEC history that could have hung with the 2004 team. You could make an argument for it being the best SEC team of the modern era.
The problem with Tuberville's bed shitting was the timing. Everything was there and in place for us. We could have been what LSU became. All we had to do was keep from re-shitting the bed in 2003. We didn't. We took a big bottle of Exlax before the year kicked off.
-
None.
Bob Stoops is a big bed shitter. But it's okay because he delivered. Pete Carroll shits the bed every single year -- but one. Saban shit the bed last season. Matter of record, Saban shit all over the bed the year he "won" his national title, but that year beds around the country were filled with shit and it was a matter of finding the least stained sheets. That LSU team couldn't have stayed on the field with the 2004 Auburn team. Neither could Les Miles' NC squad. Fact is, there are only one or two teams in the last 30 years of SEC history that could have hung with the 2004 team. You could make an argument for it being the best SEC team of the modern era.
The problem with Tuberville's bed shitting was the timing. Everything was there and in place for us. We could have been what LSU became. All we had to do was keep from re-shitting the bed in 2003. We didn't. We took a big bottle of Exlax before the year kicked off.
Pretty much nailed it. 2004 type teams don't come around but maybe once in a career...unless you're Paterno or Bowden, and still I can't think of a team of theirs that good. That's why it's so grossly heart wrenching and so just wrong that they weren't allowed to prove they were as good as they were.
-
Well, since Auburn has never done it in it's entire illustrious history dating back well over 100 years, I'd say it's anything but quitter talk. Add the fact that 85 scholarships have limited only an elite few to that status, outside a nice "Run" now and then, and I'll take 8-9 wins at a minimum each year with the occasional run at a MNC. If that ain't good enough, you're gonna' spend a lot of time being let down and heartbroken.
Ahem, excuse for a moment while I stop to point out the obvious. When you fire a winning coach (and we all know he was fired), announce that money is no object and then show up with a 4-19 chizik as your coaching hire..... yes yes you have in the eyes of anyone that knows a football has 2 pointy ends quit, surrenderd, given up or at the very best accepted a stride down to mediocrity as your target.
Now back to the regularly scheduled discussion.
-
I think Kaos needs an ongoing thread this football season where he discusses which teams shit the bed. :rofl:
-
Neither was UF
Or Miami
and then show up with a 4-19 chizik as your coaching hire
I thought it was 5-19
-
Or MiamiI thought it was 5-19
I do not give him credit for barely beating a division II team.
And the name is Greaseyweasel, You may not agree with my views on the fuckstain of a coaching staff we have been sodomized with but don't ever confuse me with the mother fuckin' bammers
-
I have been sodomized with the bammers
:thumbsup:
-
Prowler stick to links to unsubtantiated internet rumors and chizik wet dreams. Humor requires a much much higher intellect than you are capable of.
-
And the name is Greaseyweasel, You may not agree with my views on the fuckstain of a coaching staff we have been sodomized with but don't ever confuse me with the mother fuckin' bammers
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - well, I'm sure you've heard the rest.
-
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - well, I'm sure you've heard the rest.
Lets see if the math works out: Hates Pat Dye+Wants Chizik and Auburn to fail+says that even if Chizik won a NC it would still be bad for Auburn+Hates the Auburn family with such a passion he trolls Auburn boards spewing anti Auburn shit daily=GreaseyBammer
-
Lets see if the math works out: Hates Pat Dye+Wants Chizik and Auburn to fail+says that even if Chizik won a NC it would still be bad for Auburn+Hates the Auburn family with such a passion he trolls Auburn boards spewing anti Auburn shit daily=GreaseyBammer
he's not just a greasey bammer, he's a mother fuckin' bammer.
-
No dumb fuck. Personnal issues with Pat "Quit right before NCAA probation caused by his paying players"Dye +Wants chizik the fuck gone before he causes Auburn to fail = A Hard core Auburn graduate who does not look forward to calling your stupid asses out for supporting the downfall of Auburn football when chizik is kicked to the curb and the rebuilding begins.
Nope sounds like a hard core Auburn supporter to me.
-
No dumb fuck. Personnal issues with Pat "Quit right before NCAA probation caused by his paying players"Dye +Wants chizik the fuck gone before he causes Auburn to fail = A Hard core Auburn graduate who does not look forward to calling your stupid asses out for supporting the downfall of Auburn football when chizik is kicked to the curb and the rebuilding begins.
Nope sounds like a hard core Auburn supporter to me.
You've still yet to explain to us how you know with 100% certainty that Chizik will cause Auburn to fall.
-
greasey bammer, what are you going to do if Coach Chizik doesn't fail at Auburn, like (9-4) or better?
-
No dumb fuck. Personnal issues with Pat "Quit right before NCAA probation caused by his paying players"Dye +Wants chizik the fuck gone before he causes Auburn to fail = A Hard core Auburn graduate who does not look forward to calling your stupid asses out for supporting the downfall of Auburn football when chizik is kicked to the curb and the rebuilding begins.
Nope sounds like a hard core Auburn supporter to me.
I thought you didn't like Dye for trespassing on your granddaddy's farm or some shit?
-
No dumb fuck. Personnal issues with Pat "Quit right before NCAA probation caused by his paying players"Dye +Wants chizik the fuck gone before he causes Auburn to fail = A Hard core Auburn graduate who does not look forward to calling your stupid asses out for supporting the downfall of Auburn football when chizik is kicked to the curb and the rebuilding begins.
Nope sounds like a hard core Auburn supporter to me.
IF you are an Auburn fan, and I have my doubts, you just fall in to the catagory of "Every team has it's share of just plain dumb fuck idiot fans."
:fu:
-
I think Dye violated Greasy's special place with his Hall Of Fame Coaching dick.
-
I think Dye violated Greasy's special place with his Hall Of Fame Coaching dick.
:rofl: :rofl:
-
I think Dye violated Greasy's special place with his Hall Of Fame Coaching dick.
Or maybe Greasey's wife screams out "Oh Pat!" at inappropriate times.
-
I thought you didn't like Dye for trespassing on your granddaddy's farm or some shit?
Nope my Grandad told him to get his ass off our property after he quit in an attempt to not be held accountable for the Eric Ramsey situation.
Up till that point he was a most welcomed guest with pretty much the run of the place.
After he showed his true colors he was not welcome anymore.
-
IF you are an Auburn fan, and I have my doubts, you just fall in to the catagory of "Every team has it's share of just plain dumb fuck idiot fans."
:fu:
I'm not a member of your sub group. But thanks for the invite.
-
greasey bammer, what are you going to do if Coach Chizik doesn't fail at Auburn, like (9-4) or better?
Turder, I have no doubt that he will fail. And it will be a very very miserable failure when he does. Go pull his record and see what teams he lost to in his previous tenure as a head coach.
With the 85 scholly limitation all schools (especially in the SEC) have got good and even great players now.
The wild card in the deck is the coaching. Not every team can have an SEC caliber coach.
5-19 (4-19 against non division II opponents) is not the kind of coach that can compete. Sure he had shittier players at ISU but again look at the schools he lost too...............................They had shitty non-SEC caliber players too. He was out classed, out coached and about to be run out of town before Auburn awarded his ineptitude with a 211% raise in pay. Now I know you are saying "He had great years as a defensive coordinator at Auburn and Texas before he went to ISU". Let me ask you a question: Did he vastly improve or even minorly improve the defense at either school from what it was before he got there? Did their defenses drop off after he left? No they wern't and no they didn't. He landed in gravy jobs both times and rode the coat tails of some fine coaches.
Now you tell me what in anything that he has done at Auburn or said that has not came straight from the coaches cliche' handbook convinces you that he is capable of being a success in the hardest division in the hardest conference in modern football?
-
Nope my Grandad told him to get his ass off our property after he quit in an attempt to not be held accountable for the Eric Ramsey situation.
Up till that point he was a most welcomed guest with pretty much the run of the place.
After he showed his true colors he was not welcome anymore.
I doubt you've ever met Pat Dye. And your recollection of history is, as most of your post are, amazingly fucked up!
-
Sure he had shittier players at ISU but again look at the schools he lost too...............................They had shitty non-SEC caliber players too. He was out classed, out coached and about to be run out of town before Auburn awarded his ineptitude with a 211% raise in pay.
Regardless of what you think of GW's mode of attack, this is a very valid point. It's not like ISU lost only to teams with vastly superior talent.
Iowa State should have had equal or better talent than the following teams that cleaned Chizik's clock:
Kent Motherfucking State
Northern Bleeding Iowa
To-fucking-ledo
UNL-tothe-V
Baylor
Shitty Colorado
The problem at ISU is that in two years Chizik's coaching ability, his "blueprint", his ability to inspire, his gameday strategy, his motivation or his "relentless intensity" did not lead that team to but one win that wasn't directly due to having better players (Iowa).
The five teams he beat?
South Dakota fucking State
Kent motherfucking State
Kansas State
Colorado
Iowa
In two years he didn't win a single fucking road game. Not ONE. And he had Baylor, UNLV and Toledo as chances. In most road games, ISU was slaughtered.
35-17 to Nebraska
42-17 at TTech
42-28 at Missouri
45-7 at Kansas
38-10 at fucking Baylor
35-7 at Nebraska
59-17 at OU
52-20 at Mizzou
And he's going to go to LSU, Georgia, Tennessee and places like that now?
The fucking Iowa State team wasn't even competitive. He didn't have to win ten games a year or anything, but Jesus on a moped, couldn't he at least have them in the game?
Dammit, I'm getting worked up again.
-
Kaos it is better that you don't bother trying to show the moron brigade the foolishness and basically how just follow the leader they are. By mid October they will on here wondering who hired him and who in the hell ever backed him.
They aren't rue Tigers, they were not there during the late 60's and seventies when things were bad. They have been brought on in the good times and they think anyone can do it, any coach can make it happen. They have not seen what I and I am beginning to think you have seen.
They can't believe it so they refuse to.
-
Hey greaseybammer, are ya gonna answer my question? What are you going to do if Coach Chizik doesn't fail at Auburn? Are you going to still come here with a new line, borrowed from your mouth breathing brethren..."wait 'til next year".
Here's something that you (greaseybammer), Kaos & a few others have apparently failed to realize is that Auburn has more money to hire better coaches than what he had at ISU, Auburn has better facilities to attract better players than what he had at ISU, Auburn has better players on roster than what he had at ISU & Auburn has some Top Shelf coaches right now at Auburn. Does that mean that Coach Chizik will be successful at Auburn, nope. What it means is that he has a better chance of being successful here than he'd have at a lot of other place, especially ISU. So, before you automatically write him off, I'd suggest you sit down, shut up, and just see if he can do what he was hired to do and that's bring Auburn back to where it once was, not too long ago. Because greaseybammer, when you come on here and do your best to try and blast everything that Coach Chizik has done, so far at Auburn, it just makes you look retarded, especially when you base everything off of what you and your bammer buddies think, instead of the facts.
And to point something out to you greaseybammer, Texas' defense stats did drop off after Coach Chizik and this was with TWO coaches coaching the Defense. Also after CGC's first year at ISU, Texas tried to hire him back as the DC/Assistant HC. And, I'm pretty sure Auburn's defensive stats dropped off too from the '04 defense to the '05.
-
Then why didn't we hire a better coach than what they had at ISU? Your logic (or lack thereof) confuses anyone who bothers to read any of your own well thought out postings.
-
Hey greaseybammer, are ya gonna answer my question? What are you going to do if Coach Chizik doesn't fail at Auburn? Are you going to still come here with a new line, borrowed from your mouth breathing brethren..."wait 'til next year".
Here's something that you (greaseybammer), Kaos & a few others have apparently failed to realize is that Auburn has more money to hire better coaches than what he had at ISU, Auburn has better facilities to attract better players than what he had at ISU, Auburn has better players on roster than what he had at ISU & Auburn has some Top Shelf coaches right now at Auburn. Does that mean that Coach Chizik will be successful at Auburn, nope. What it means is that he has a better chance of being successful here than he'd have at a lot of other place, especially ISU. So, before you automatically write him off, I'd suggest you sit down, shut up, and just see if he can do what he was hired to do and that's bring Auburn back to where it once was, not too long ago. Because greaseybammer, when you come on here and do your best to try and blast everything that Coach Chizik has done, so far at Auburn, it just makes you look retarded, especially when you base everything off of what you and your bammer buddies think, instead of the facts.
And to point something out to you greaseybammer, Texas' defense stats did drop off after Coach Chizik and this was with TWO coaches coaching the Defense. Also after CGC's first year at ISU, Texas tried to hire him back as the DC/Assistant HC. And, I'm pretty sure Auburn's defensive stats dropped off too from the '04 defense to the '05.
Every bit of this is horse shit Prowler.
You have to look at one simple thing that negates every thing you said. At Iowa State Chizik did not coach the team to one single victory. Only in one case was his coaching ability able to overcome a supposed disparity in talent and that was his first-season win over Iowa. In cases where talent was equal, he got fed his ass like a big ham sandwich. In cases where his team should have had superior talent? Ham fucking sandiwch again.
What Auburn can give him in terms of facilites or players is utterly irrelevant when he can't do shit with them.
He has no better chance at Auburn than he did at ISU because at ISU he was unable to wring anyting out of the talent he had, even against teams that should have been vastly overmatched.
When you suck his cock and claim that his staff is "good to great" when there''s no basis for that, when you can't follow simple logic that makes you look pretty retarded, too. Your avatar is the most retarded thing I've ever seen.
The tag under it should read "Jesus walks on water. Chizik drowns on land."
-
Kaos, your argument is that Chizik can't win at Auburn because he couldn't win at Iowa State and Chiz likes ham sammies? I would expect you to bring more than that. 1 coach in the last 100 years has left Iowa State with a winning record, so every coach they have ever hired has been horrible? That's not even feasible. I didn't like the Chizik hire, I was pissed off and sent 20 angry texts to Xer's complaining about the hire, there is nothing we can do about the hire, so rehashing the same point every fucking day gets so old. Greasy has to spew his Bs in every damn thread, this shit is way passed old!
-
The only thing I object to -- and argue against -- is the (also way past stale) "holy SHIT, Auburn is in good hands" braying that follows every cliched meaningless utterance he offers.
You say no coach won at ISU. True. How many were epic failures like Chizik was? Spin it any way you want but he inherited a program that had reached, for it, successful stability. He ran it into the ground.
You say no coach won at ISU. How many of those bums went on from there to accomplish anything? One?
Had chizik held his own at ISU against teams with relatively equal talent maybe the "ignore 5-19" thumpers could get my attention. Fact is he didn't. That can't be spun. In games where the difference was coaching he failed.
I don't know what GW's agenda is. Mine is simple. I leave it alone until the sunshine chorus tried to tell me a painted turd is a treasure.
-
Why the fuck does it have to be that if anyone says anything positive...they are "Chizdick suckers". And if anyone questions Chizik...as ALL of us did when he was hired...they are bammers.
It's bullshit. That is why this is the only post I have made on the subject. Count me in the group that I think the majority of us fall in of "We can't do anything about it now. We love Auburn football so we might as well hope and pray for the best".
If I point out something positive that is happening in recruiting, or in the spring game, or with the assistants, that doesn't mean I "blindly follow" the Auburn coach and admins. The same goes with if I criticize JJ or even Chizik and what he does, doesn't mean I am a fucking bammer.
This shit is getting old. GW, you are a fucking moron. You make 1 good point out of 378 tries. The problem is, everyone is tired of reading your shit after the 329th point you have tried to cram down our throats, that no one takes you even remotely seriously...
-
Every bit of this is horse shit Prowler.
Point out to me and everyone here what exactly was Horse Shit in my last post, douche. Kaos, your "I said the Franklin Experiment was going to fail" credibility is crumbling everytime you type. I say that because for some reason you seem to really, really care about having credibility on a message board, because when someone Dares to question why you feel the way that you do, and that they feel that you're wrong; you keep pointing back to 'Ol Faithful, "I was right about Tony Franklin".
-
Ok. All of it was horseshit.
My credibility is crumbling? Why? Did Franklin just call a good play for Auburn? No, dipshit, he didn't. That cred is written in stone. As is your drooling mental retardation on the same subject.
-
I should've figured that you couldn't point out anything in my post that you called Horseshit. :thumbsup:
-
Why the fuck does it have to be that if anyone says anything positive...they are "Chizdick suckers". And if anyone questions Chizik...as ALL of us did when he was hired...they are bammers.
It's bullshit. That is why this is the only post I have made on the subject. Count me in the group that I think the majority of us fall in of "We can't do anything about it now. We love Auburn football so we might as well hope and pray for the best".
You can count the dicksuckers on one hand, even here.
I am also in the "we can't do anything about it" category. I do hope and pray for the best. That doesn't preclude me from throwing rocks at the drum bangers from time to time.
-
I should've figured that you couldn't point out anything in my post that you called Horseshit. :thumbsup:
What part of the word "all" do you fail to understand?
-
What part of the word "all" do you fail to understand?
What part of the words "Point Out" do you fail to understand. When you point something out as being wrong, you're supposed to follow it up as to why it's wrong. Can you do that? So, I'll ask the question again, so that you can understand it. Which part of my post, that you called Horseshit, was wrong and why? I'll understand if you don't want to respond to the question, because it'd make you look dumber than you already are.
-
What part of the words "Point Out" do you fail to understand. When you point something out as being wrong, you're supposed to follow it up as to why it's wrong. Can you do that? So, I'll ask the question again, so that you can understand it. Which part of my post, that you called Horseshit, was wrong and why? I'll understand if you don't want to respond to the question, because it'd make you look dumber than you already are.
Really lame reply, Pee Wee Herman. I clearly pointed out A.L.L --- I am pointing to A.L.L of it. Please tell me you understand the word "all", Prowler. It means the entirety, the complete thing. Each and every part.
But since you (obviously) are having trouble comprehending, let's take your original and break it down:
Here's your original with the proper horseshit annotations:
Hey greaseybammer, are ya gonna answer my question? What are you going to do if Coach Chizik doesn't fail at Auburn? Are you going to still come here with a new line, borrowed from your mouth breathing brethren..."wait 'til next year".
Horseshit. Your question doesn't bear answering. GW has already said what he thinks about the situation and how he will respond but you don't listen.
Here's something that you (greaseybammer), Kaos & a few others have apparently failed to realize is that Auburn has more money to hire better coaches than what he had at ISU, Auburn has better facilities to attract better players than what he had at ISU, Auburn has better players on roster than what he had at ISU & Auburn has some Top Shelf coaches right now at Auburn.
Horseshit because it's irrelevant. At ISU Chizik should have been competitive against teams with equal or lesser talent. He was not. So what difference will "better" anything make using that standard? All the teams he will now be competing against have better players, facilities and coaches than the teams that routinely whipped his narrow ass at ISU. UNLV or Tennessee? Kent State or Kentucky?
Top Shelf? Horseshit on that too. While the potential is there, Captain Capitalization, you really don't know what shelf these guys are on. Tulsa, Oklahoma State and Iowa State are not really considered the pinnacles of coaching. It's not like any of these guys comes with a championship pedigree.
Does that mean that Coach Chizik will be successful at Auburn, nope. What it means is that he has a better chance of being successful here than he'd have at a lot of other place, especially ISU.
Horseshit on the basis of relativity. If you give me a better toolkit it doesn't mean I'm going to become a master carpenter if I can't even use a hammer.
So, before you automatically write him off, I'd suggest you sit down, shut up, and just see if he can do what he was hired to do and that's bring Auburn back to where it once was, not too long ago.
Horseshit. Take your own advice and grab a great big cup of shut the fuck up about how great Chizik is. He hasn't done a damn thing but make noise to this point. Talk is cheap, Prowler. He talked his ass off at ISU. Always with the blueprint, always with the cliches. So far? That's all we've got, too.
Because greaseybammer, when you come on here and do your best to try and blast everything that Coach Chizik has done, so far at Auburn, it just makes you look retarded, especially when you base everything off of what you and your bammer buddies think, instead of the facts.
Horseshit. He's basing his opinion on Chizik (whether he's a bammer or not) on cold hard facts as he sees them. He's listed those facts. You're the one spinning castles in the sky with fanciful imaginary ropes of gold. You're the one palpitating over "recruits looking our way" and fawning over every cliche Chizik spews. You're the one with the most ignorant avatar in the history of avatardom.
And to point something out to you greaseybammer, Texas' defense stats did drop off after Coach Chizik and this was with TWO coaches coaching the Defense. Also after CGC's first year at ISU, Texas tried to hire him back as the DC/Assistant HC. And, I'm pretty sure Auburn's defensive stats dropped off too from the '04 defense to the '05.
Horseshit. Horseshit, horseshit, horseshit.
You're taking "message board rumors" and assuming them as fact. When Chizik was there, nimwit, there were "TWO coaches coaching the defense." He wasn't even the sole DC (another reason Auburn gave him the finger when he left and should have remembered his traitorous bullshit before hiring him).
No, Texas did NOT try to hire him back, I don't care what some "respected message board poster" with "inside information" tries to tell you.
The ONLY thing you got right in this entire diatribe was that Texas had slightly better defensive numbers when Chizik was sharing the DC role with Akers or whoever. But that wasn't due to knowledge on your part, it was just guessing so you still get horseshit.
Texas defensive stats
2003: 327 yards and 21 ppg
2004: 317 yards and 16.2 ppg
2005: 280 yards and 14.6 ppg
2006: 292 yards and 17.8 ppg
2007: 374 yards and 24.6 ppg
2008: 339 yards and 18.6 ppg
Auburn's defensive stats
2003: 283 yards and 16.5 ppg
2004: 269 yards and 11.2 ppg
2005: 294 yards and 14.7 ppg
2006: 297 yards and 13.9 ppg
2007: 298 yards and 16.7 ppg
2008: 317 yards and 18.0 ppg
Chizik or whoever, Auburn's numbers were fairly consistent across the board.
-
You just proved to everyone here how much of a dumbass that you really are.
When Coach Chizik was hired at Texas, he had the Assistant HC title along with the Co-DC title...he was the one that called the plays. When he left Texas after the '06 season, their Defense took a plunge and that's why Coach Brown wanted to get Coach Chizik back at UT, regardless if you think that it's true or not, and there was word going around, at that time, that Coach Brown was going to give Coach Chizik the Head Coach in Waiting Title. All of that is not just speculation on anyone's part.
But the last part of your post, was a true dumbass masterpiece. I knew that the Defenses at both Auburn and Texas had fallen off after Coach Chizik left and I didn't have to go looking at stats to make sure if I was correct. So Kaos, keep stabbing away, trying your best, to discredit everything that Coach Chizik has done while he's been at Auburn. Wait, did that sound too..."Chizik cock sucking" for your liking, eventhough I'm just point out some facts?
-
So Kaos, keep stabbing away, trying your best, to discredit everything that Coach Chizik has done while he's been at Auburn.
As a head coach, or as a DC? As a head coach at AU, he hasn't done shit.
-
As a head coach, or as a DC? As a head coach at AU, he hasn't done shit.
Well yeah, everyone realizes that. I'm talking about all of the positive publicity for Auburn, since his hiring hatred had died down, somewhat (for intelligent football fans).
-
You just proved to everyone here how much of a dumbass that you really are.
When Coach Chizik was hired at Texas, he had the Assistant HC title along with the Co-DC title...he was the one that called the plays. When he left Texas after the '06 season, their Defense took a plunge and that's why Coach Brown wanted to get Coach Chizik back at UT, regardless if you think that it's true or not, and there was word going around, at that time, that Coach Brown was going to give Coach Chizik the Head Coach in Waiting Title. All of that is not just speculation on anyone's part.
But the last part of your post, was a true dumbass masterpiece. I knew that the Defenses at both Auburn and Texas had fallen off after Coach Chizik left and I didn't have to go looking at stats to make sure if I was correct. So Kaos, keep stabbing away, trying your best, to discredit everything that Coach Chizik has done while he's been at Auburn. Wait, did that sound too..."Chizik cock sucking" for your liking, eventhough I'm just point out some facts?
Un-fucking-real.
Talking out of your ass and making shit up is not "quoting facts." Speculation is not "quoting facts." You've got the market cornered on proving dumbass, prowler. It's your market and yours alone.
Un-fucking-real.
Yeah, the defense at Texas fell off the fucking map when CO Coordinator Chizik left. It was a precipitous drop. Not. Like Auburn, the defense was fairly consistent over the long haul.
You ignore all the other horseshit babble you spouted (and there was a ton) and seize on the hopeful nugget that you were right with your guessing. Know how I know you were guessing, P? Because I can read:
I'm pretty sure Auburn's defensive stats dropped off too from the '04 defense to the '05
That is a guess and indicates that your other statements were guesses, too.
But I gave you that. Comment on the remainder of your horseshit if you will. Please, I can't wait to hear what you make up errr... embellish from errr... read on another message board somewhere from some other doofenschmirtz who is making up, embellishing or fabricating some more shit.
-
Un-fucking-real.
Talking out of your ass and making shit up is not "quoting facts." Speculation is not "quoting facts." You've got the market cornered on proving dumbass, prowler. It's your market and yours alone.
Un-fucking-real.
Yeah, the defense at Texas fell off the fucking map when CO Coordinator Chizik left. It was a precipitous drop. Not. Like Auburn, the defense was fairly consistent over the long haul.
You ignore all the other horseshit babble you spouted (and there was a ton) and seize on the hopeful nugget that you were right with your guessing. Know how I know you were guessing, P? Because I can read:
That is a guess and indicates that your other statements were guesses, too.
But I gave you that. Comment on the remainder of your horseshit if you will. Please, I can't wait to hear what you make up errr... embellish from errr... read on another message board somewhere from some other doofenschmirtz who is making up, embellishing or fabricating some more shit.
I'm sorry, but I'm gonna have to score this point Prowler.
Greasey's stupid ass said that both Texas and Auburn had worse defensive stats before and after his tenure.
This is completely and utterly false, as both teams had clear improvement before and after. That's 4 times worth of wrong.
You said Prowler's "entire post" was horseshit. You finally break it down piece by piece and claim a couple opinion-based semantic bullshit is "horsehit", and then even somehow try to twist the fact that Chizik's defenses were improvements on the defenses he inherited AND they dropped off after he left are horseshit, despite you yourself providing the evidence that proves this.
Utter lunacy in my opinion.
Then you hang on "I'm pretty sure Auburn's defensive stats dropped off too from the '04 defense to the '05" being a weakness in his argument? "I'm pretty sure" is clearly a sarcastic term meaning, as he explained, there's no need to look it up because it is common knowledge that the 04 defense was monstorous.
The more you try to stick with this particular argument, the sillier you look.
-
I'm sorry, but I'm gonna have to score this point Prowler.
I expected nothing less.