Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: The Prowler on August 23, 2009, 02:28:24 PM
-
(http://blog.al.com/auburnbeat/2009/01/large_9Auburn1.jpg)
Kicking it with Gene Chizik, Part II
August 21, 2009 11:30 AM
Posted by ESPN.com's Chris Low
AUBURN, Ala. -- Auburn coach Gene Chizik is the first to admit that it took a lot of courage for athletic director Jay Jacobs to hire somebody that was 5-19 the last two years.
But the fact that Jacobs knew Chizik, knew his work ethic and had worked with him previously at Auburn allowed him to look deeper than just those two losing seasons in Ames, Iowa.
Had it not been for that prior relationship, Chizik wouldn't be here right now.
Taking the Iowa State job was a gamble. It was a major rebuilding task. But as Chizik points out, when you start passing up head coaching opportunities as an assistant, you never know when another one is going to come your way.
And while some have fixated on what Chizik didn't do at Iowa State, Jacobs was more interested in what he did do at Auburn and Texas as defensive coordinator.
At one point, Chizik was part of 29 consecutive victories, beginning in 2003 at Auburn and ending in 2006 at Texas. In 2004, his last season at Auburn, he won the Broyles Award as the nation's top assistant coach. He also coached three consecutive Thorpe Award winners for the nation's top defensive back.
Here's the second part of my Q&A with Chizik:
You've sort of locked it down here as far as releasing information about your team, closing practice and closing scrimmages and have generally been pretty guarded. Why is that?
Gene Chizik: Everything that I do is to protect what we're trying to do here at Auburn. Things over the last few years have gotten so out of control with technology. It's changed the whole world. The world right now is different, so I do what I think is in the best interest of our football team at all times. That's our players. That's injuries. That's rumors. That's whatever gets out there. I want to be able to have control of whatever's out there. I still won't always have control, just like no coach has complete control. But to the best of my ability, I'm here to protect and do what I think is best for our players, and that's the bottom line. I don't close practices because I want to close practices. I close practice for a reason, because the people I need to be at practice are the ones I want to know what is going on in depth with Auburn football, and I don't need it in 200 chat rooms 15 minutes later.
Some coaches take over a program and go out of their way to bring attention to themselves and to their team. You've sort of been the opposite. You've kept your head down, gone to work and haven't made a lot of waves off the field. Is that just your style?
GC: Here's the deal: I do my job, and I go home to my family. I want to do what I can to help Auburn win football games. Now that entails a lot -- recruiting, re-recruiting my players everyday, doing everything I can for this program. I ask myself every day: Does this help me win football games? Does this decision affect my guys in a positive way or negative way? That's everything I do, because at the end of the day, the only thing that gets you attention is whether you win or you lose. I don't get validation by the outside world. I get validated because I have a job to do for these players, for the guys who hired me and for my family. So if it doesn't tie into winning football games, all that other stuff doesn't matter. That's not who I am, and I'm never going to be that.
Where are you with this football team two weeks away from playing your first game as opposed to where you thought you would be?
GC: That's a hard question because we're playing against ourselves everyday. We're a very, very thin football team. We're 10 players under the (85-man scholarship) limit.
How did your numbers get so low?
GC: Part of it is natural attrition. But before I even got here, it was down. Again, depth is a huge concern for us right now. Couple that with the fact that we don't have an off date until 11 games into the season.
How have those factors impacted the way you've structured preseason camp and how much you've hit?
GC: Just look at it. We've been in camp two weeks and have 14 more weeks before we get a week off, so you're practicing four straight months before you ever get some reasonable time off. It's a very fine line. We've hit them, and we've pulled off. We've practiced them long, and we've practiced them short. We really take it day by day.
You're on record as saying you won't be one of those head coaches that meddles into what your offensive coordinator, Gus Malzahn, is doing on that side of the ball. Is there a big difference in being involved and meddling?
GC: One thing Gus and I have been on the same page about from Day 1 is that philosophically we agree on what we're trying to get accomplished. We spend countless hours going over situations so that on game day it's not our first rodeo. We're watching the ends of halves of games together, how they're handling time, how they're handling what they're doing, how they're handling what they're calling and talking about communication on the sideline. We go over what's four-down territory, what's not four-down territory, all those things so it's been like we've been together before. But I can assure you that philosophically we're on the same exact page. We meet a lot, not on how he calls plays, but situationally what I would like to see in certain situations and see called in certain situations.
How much healthier is Chris Todd now with his shoulder, and has it been obvious with the way he's thrown the ball in camp?
GC: I think he is healthier. I think he's more confident with it. He's really made some nice throws. We're at the point in camp where we need to be very careful with it, because your arm gets tired. But that happens with everybody. I don't think any of that is shoulder-related. I think going with Chris (as the starter) was a home run.
With Chris being out for the spring while recovering from shoulder surgery, was he at the forefront of your mind in the quarterback race coming into the preseason?
GC: One of the things we said was that we were going to be very open-minded and very specific when we're accessing these guys. When you put all the factors out on the table right now, he's got game-time experience. He's played with an unhealthy shoulder. He hasn't gone through spring practice, yet he comes in and picks up the offense fast, which is what you get from a guy who's played. He's made some really good throws, which tells you his shoulder is on its way to being what you want it to be. And in a short period of time, he's made up a lot of distance. So what does that tell you? At the end of the day, as long as you give him the right reps, we felt like he gave us the best chance to win. It doesn't mean he gave us the only chance to win. But we felt like down the road, the longer he's in it, that he's going to give us the best chance to win.
The rap on Auburn has always been that the board of trustees and other boosters have manipulated what went on with the football program. How realistic is that?
GC: You've got passionate people here who really care. They want to be a part of things. It's no different from Florida or Georgia. If that's the rap against us, I would take a little bit of issue with that. They are simply passionate people that care like everybody else does. We've got a great leader now. The guy over there in that office, Jay (Jacobs), played here, has been here and has done it for X amount of years. He's a great leader and has a firm grip on running this athletic department now.
What role do you think former Auburn coach Pat Dye played in your hiring?
GC: I really don't know all the details in it. I don't know what role, if any. I just know that I always respected the heck out of coach Dye and what he's done here. But I can't really answer what role he had. I'm just glad I'm here. I know that.
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/sec/0-8-134/Kicking-it-with-Gene-Chizik--Part-II.html (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/sec/0-8-134/Kicking-it-with-Gene-Chizik--Part-II.html)
-
"I don't know what role, if any"
Wow. Clearly he can't make up his mind whether to have bread with his dinner. Either you want a role or you don't. It's not hard. If Gene Chizik is this indecisive, I'm not sure he can be trusted as a Corch.
Wait, is that "Roll" or "Role"? Well, makes no difference. He's obviously wishy washy.
-
(http://blog.al.com/auburnbeat/2009/01/large_9Auburn1.jpg)
Its not my fault. I have a blueprint!!
-
(http://blog.al.com/auburnbeat/2009/01/large_9Auburn1.jpg)
His Blueprint worked pretty good.
Signed,
Carlos Rogers ('04 Thorpe Award Winner)
-
(http://blog.al.com/auburnbeat/2009/01/large_9Auburn1.jpg)
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/sec/0-8-134/Kicking-it-with-Gene-Chizik--Part-II.html (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/sec/0-8-134/Kicking-it-with-Gene-Chizik--Part-II.html)
And then Kaos pulled his britches down and I axed, Wherez the fucking MEAT?
-
His Blueprint worked pretty good.
Signed,
Carlos Rogers ('04 Thorpe Award Winner)
His blueprint sucks hairy balls.
Signed,
The only Fuking team ever run by his shit-acular blueprint,
The Iowa State Cyclones
co-signed,
The entire Big 12,
UNLV,
Kent State,
Toledo,
Iowa State Athletic Administration,
Iowa State Beat Writers,
Iowa State Fans,
Iowa State videographers,
Former Iowa State Assistant coaches,
Dan McCarney,
Iowa State Cheerleaders,
Iowa State trainers,
Iowa State medical staff,
The parents, grandparents and siblings of Iowa State players,
All named and unnamed Cyclones,
Seneca Wallace and
the Iowa State grounds crew
-
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2008-12-15-iowastate-chizik_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2008-12-15-iowastate-chizik_N.htm)
"Pollard confirmed he offered Chizik a two-year contract extension the week before the Cyclones' final game."
Answer this. If his blueprint "sucks hairy balls", then why did their Athletic Director try to get him to stay and even offer a contract extension?
Dan McCarney was 26-67 in conference at Iowa State over 12 years, resigned and left the program considered the most successful coach in their history.
Did his blueprint "suck hairy balls"?
-
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2008-12-15-iowastate-chizik_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2008-12-15-iowastate-chizik_N.htm)
Answer this. If his blueprint "sucks hairy balls", then why did their Athletic Director try to get him to stay and even offer a contract extension?
Dan McCarney was 26-67 in conference at Iowa State over 12 years, resigned and left the program considered the most successful coach in their history.
Did his blueprint "suck hairy balls"?
Are you truly this ignorant? Seriously?
There is only one worse athletic director in college football than Jamie Pollard. Only one. Congratulations. We have him.
Are you so dense you don't understand that coaching contracts are essentially worthless?
Why do you offer somebody a two-year contract when you know they are not the answer and will be FIRED after another season like the one they just had? It's called recruiting, Chopper. If you don't have something on the table, it's hard for a guy to recruit against coaches that are seen as established. How would Chizik have gone into some kid's house and told them "I'll be here for the next four years, Mrs. Corncob, don't worry about your son" when ISU refused to give him that vote of confidence? Did Ole Miss give David Cutcliffe a huge extension and then fire him a year later? Damn straight. Did Alabama lock Mike Shula up with a hefty raise and a long-term extension and fire him the next winter? Yep. Same thing with DuBose. How many years did Tuberville have left on his contract, Chopper?
Duh.
Dan McCarney did not "resign" of his own volition. Pollard forced him out because he thought the program was on the verge of turning the corner and didn't think McCarney could take it there.
After winning records in five of the six previous seasons, McCarney's 2006 team struggled to a 4-8 record. It was a young team, learning the ropes.
He wanted to do "better." He thought it was ready to compete for the Big 12 North title. And it probably was until they brought Captain Blueprint in.
They couldn't find enough buses to cover all the people he tried to shove under the wheels after he got there.
Funny. Or ironic if you will. That's the same thing we've got now. Jacobs is just as dumb -- or perhaps dumber -- than Pollard. At least Pollard hired Chizik when he was still a highly regarded assistant. He didn't wait until he'd proven himself woefully inept at the job of running a college football program.
Nobody else talks about a fucking Blueprint. Chizik talked big about his when he got to ISU. Five wins (none of any significance) and nineteen losses later, that team wasn't getting better. It got progressively worse day by day. There's your blueprint.
-
There is only one worse athletic director in college football than Jamie Pollard. Only one. Congratulations. We have him.
This is so subjective that your flat statement of "fact" is laughable. What are your criteria for "worst athletic director in college football"? Please share your exhaustive research with the class. Thanks.
Dan McCarney did not "resign" of his own volition. Pollard forced him out because he thought the program was on the verge of turning the corner and didn't think McCarney could take it there.
Got a quote and/or citation for this?
Nobody else talks about a fucking Blueprint. Chizik talked big about his when he got to ISU.
Saban's "process" is nothing more than a rose by another name. This is pretty common coach-speak and yet you've hung your hat on this cliche being symbolic of Chizik's ineptitude.
Five wins (none of any significance) and nineteen losses later, that team wasn't getting better. It got progressively worse day by day.
Again, by what criteria are you judging? Quantify this assertion.
-
Saban's "process" is nothing more than a rose by another name. This is pretty common coach-speak and yet you've hung your hat on this cliche being symbolic of Chizik's ineptitude.
Wouldn't you agree that Saban's "process" has made visibile results, though? From a 7-6 season with a loss to ULM, to a 12-2 season and a quarter away from a trip to the MNC game? From a decent player at a position or two to NFL-caliber talent all over the field? In just a matter of 3 years? I think the difference here is Saban says "Hey, calm the fuck down. I got this." and then shows it on the field and in recruiting. Chizik says he has a "blueprint", but doesn't have shit to show for it. Just because you have a "plan", doesn't mean its a good one. I bet UGA thought they had a good defensive plan before our game last season.
Five wins (none of any significance) and nineteen losses later, that team wasn't getting better. It got progressively worse day by day.
ISU was actually worse their second year under Chizik. I wouldn't call that improvement.
-
Wouldn't you agree that Saban's "process" has made visibile results, though? From a 7-6 season with a loss to ULM, to a 12-2 season and a quarter away from a trip to the MNC game? From a decent player at a position or two to NFL-caliber talent all over the field? In just a matter of 3 years? I think the difference here is Saban says "Hey, calm the fuck down. I got this." and then shows it on the field and in recruiting. Chizik says he has a "blueprint", but doesn't have shit to show for it. Just because you have a "plan", doesn't mean its a good one. I bet UGA thought they had a good defensive plan before our game last season.
Not sure you can compare Saban who has two seasons at UA to Chizik who has not had one yet. In two years you can make the above comparison and it would have more validity.
-
Wouldn't you agree that Saban's "process" has made visibile results, though? From a 7-6 season with a loss to ULM, to a 12-2 season and a quarter away from a trip to the MNC game? From a decent player at a position or two to NFL-caliber talent all over the field? In just a matter of 3 years? I think the difference here is Saban says "Hey, calm the eff down. I got this." and then shows it on the field and in recruiting. Chizik says he has a "blueprint", but doesn't have shiitake to show for it. Just because you have a "plan", doesn't mean its a good one. I bet UGA thought they had a good defensive plan before our game last season.
ISU was actually worse their second year under Chizik. I wouldn't call that improvement.
Wes was only addressing the standard "Coach speak" that Saban, Chizik and countless others use. He wasn't comparing the two.
-
This is so subjective that your flat statement of "fact" is laughable. What are your criteria for "worst athletic director in college football"? Please share your exhaustive research with the class. Thanks.
It is my opinion and I've stated my rationale multiple times. Look it up yourself if you so desire.
Got a quote and/or citation for this?
Also previously noted. Look back and find it yourself.
Saban's "process" is nothing more than a rose by another name. This is pretty common coach-speak and yet you've hung your hat on this cliche being symbolic of Chizik's ineptitude.
Only because his doesn't effing work. Helmets lined up yet? If I build a house and it collapses and kills the owners, I'm not going to continue to tout my blueprint. I hope he does have a plan. I just tire of hearing talk about it as if it is some infallible talisman when it has yet to show any effectiveness whatsoever.
Again, by what criteria are you judging? Quantify this assertion.
Performance. Judging by performance.
I guess I should only consider how well they juggled cats on amateur night at Binky Boo's nightclub.
BTW, tell me where to send donations to the Chopper Defense Fund. I need to contribute.
-
Only because his doesn't fucking work. Helmets lined up yet? If I build a house and it collapses and kills the owners, I'm not going to continue to tout my blueprint. I hope he does have a plan. I just tire of hearing talk about it as if it is some infallible talisman when it has yet to show any effectiveness whatsoever.
And you are having hallucinations that the house has fallen in and killed the owners. That hasn't happened.
If it does, then great for you, your visions were psychic visions. But it simply hasn't happened yet.
BTW, tell me where to send donations to the Chopper Defense Fund. I need to contribute.
:taunt:
So people disagreeing with you means we're jumping to defend Chopper...
You live in a strange world...
-
Not sure you can compare Saban who has two seasons at UA to Chizik who has not had one yet. In two years you can make the above comparison and it would have more validity.
^^^This
-
And you are having hallucinations that the house has fallen in and killed the owners. That hasn't happened.
If it does, then great for you, your visions were psychic visions. But it simply hasn't happened yet.
:taunt:
So people disagreeing with you means we're jumping to defend Chopper...
You live in a strange world...
The owners in Iowa died grisly deaths.
Only when replies to Chopper are the root. (That part was a joke, BTW).
I do live in a strange world. But I like it.
-
^^^This
He's had two. How can you even say that.
Compare Chizik to ANY two of Saban's years. To his first two at Toledo or where the hell ever. Or at Michigan State.
I hate Saban. I hope he gets a case of the burning shits and fouls his pants on national television, but there's not really any ground to stand on here.
-
He's had two. How can you even say that.
Compare Chizik to ANY two of Saban's years. To his first two at Toledo or where the hell ever. Or at Michigan State.
I hate Saban. I hope he gets a case of the burning shits and fouls his pants on national television, but there's not really any ground to stand on here.
You can't compare Chizik's 2 years in Ames with Saban's first two in Tuscaloosa. That was the comparison you were trying to make.
-
You can't compare Chizik's 2 years in Ames with Saban's first two in Tuscaloosa. That was the comparison you were trying to make.
No I wasn't.
I never said anything about Saban's monkey ass at all.
You also can't compare Chizik's alleged "blueprint" for Carlos Rogers to whatever "blueprint" he's toting around now as Prowler tried to do. The jobs are completely different. Chizik didn't ramble on and on about his blueprint then. He pulled that out at ISU.
It's not a damn blueprint if it doesn't work.
-
It's not a damn blueprint if it doesn't work.
Actually architects have been providing less and less information, they are still considered blueprints.
Ask Sani
-
Actually architects have been providing less and less information, they are still considered blueprints.
Ask Sani
Semantics, but okay.
Some blueprints suck.
"I have a blueprint" is not enough. Particularly when said blueprint has been previously put into use and the house collapsed. Sure. Blame the nails. Blame the boards, they were warped. Blame the ground prep. Blame the plumbers. Blame the roofers. Blame anybody you want. Still your blueprint. Still collapsed.
-
Semantics, but okay.
Some blueprints suck.
"I have a blueprint" is not enough. Particularly when said blueprint has been previously put into use and the house collapsed. Sure. Blame the nails. Blame the boards, they were warped. Blame the ground prep. Blame the plumbers. Blame the roofers. Blame anybody you want. Still your blueprint. Still collapsed.
:sarcasm:
-
Semantics, but okay.
Some blueprints suck.
"I have a blueprint" is not enough. Particularly when said blueprint has been previously put into use and the house collapsed. Sure. Blame the nails. Blame the boards, they were warped. Blame the ground prep. Blame the plumbers. Blame the roofers. Blame anybody you want. Still your blueprint. Still collapsed.
Actually I'd blame the contractor...it would be his dumbass fault.
-
Actually I'd blame the contractor...it would be his dumbass fault.
He should be offered an extension.
-
He should be offered an extension....
...cord with which to hang himself.
-
Are you truly this ignorant? Seriously?
Duh.
After winning records in five of the six previous seasons, McCarney's 2006 team struggled to a 4-8 record. It was a young team, learning the ropes.
For clarification purposes, here's Dan McCarney's records in his 6 years previous to his wonderful '06 season.... :sad:
2000 Iowa State 9-3 (winning record)
2001 Iowa State 7-5 (winning record)
2002 Iowa State 7-7 (not a winning record)
2003 Iowa State 2-10 (not a winning record)
2004 Iowa State 7-5 (winning record)
2005 Iowa State 7-5 (winning record)
That's winning records in four of the previous six.
-
For clarification purposes, here's Dan McCarney's records in his 6 years previous to his wonderful '06 season.... :sad:
2000 Iowa State 9-3 (winning record)
2001 Iowa State 7-5 (winning record)
2002 Iowa State 7-7 (not a winning record)
2003 Iowa State 2-10 (not a winning record)
2004 Iowa State 7-5 (winning record)
2005 Iowa State 7-5 (winning record)
That's winning records in four of the previous six.
7-7 is a breakout year.
-
For clarification purposes, here's Dan McCarney's records in his 6 years previous to his wonderful '06 season.... :sad:
2000 Iowa State 9-3 (winning record)
2001 Iowa State 7-5 (winning record)
2002 Iowa State 7-7 (not a winning record)
2003 Iowa State 2-10 (not a winning record)
2004 Iowa State 7-5 (winning record)
2005 Iowa State 7-5 (winning record)
That's winning records in four of the previous six.
if you want to paint a true picture why don't you show where they were BEFORE McCarney.
You know, the same place Blueprint Gene was driving them.
-
Coach Jim Walden:
1987 Iowa State 3-8
1988 Iowa State 5-6
1989 Iowa State 6-5
1990 Iowa State 4-6-1
1991 Iowa State 3-7-1
1992 Iowa State 4-7
1993 Iowa State 3-8
1994 Iowa State 0-10-1
Coach Dan McCarney:
1995 Iowa State 3-8
1996 Iowa State 2-9
1997 Iowa State 1-10
1998 Iowa State 3-8
1999 Iowa State 4-7
2000 Iowa State 9-3 (Sage Rosenfels' Senior year)
2001 Iowa State 7-5 (Seneca Wallace's Junior year)
2002 Iowa State 7-7 (Seneca Wallace's Senior year)
2003 Iowa State 2-10
2004 Iowa State 7-5
2005 Iowa State 7-5
2006 Iowa State 4-8
If ya didn't know, Seneca Wallace was the Iowa State offense....much like Burner Turner was to Northern Illinois.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7Elsegn4Zw&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7Elsegn4Zw&feature=related)
-
Coach Jim Walden:
1987 Iowa State 3-8
1988 Iowa State 5-6
1989 Iowa State 6-5
1990 Iowa State 4-6-1
1991 Iowa State 3-7-1
1992 Iowa State 4-7
1993 Iowa State 3-8
1994 Iowa State 0-10-1
Coach Dan McCarney:
1995 Iowa State 3-8
1996 Iowa State 2-9
1997 Iowa State 1-10
1998 Iowa State 3-8
1999 Iowa State 4-7
2000 Iowa State 9-3 (Sage Rosenfels' Senior year)
2001 Iowa State 7-5 (Seneca Wallace's Junior year)
2002 Iowa State 7-7 (Seneca Wallace's Senior year)
2003 Iowa State 2-10
2004 Iowa State 7-5
2005 Iowa State 7-5
2006 Iowa State 4-8
I think that settles it...ISU sucks.
-
I think that settles it...ISU sucks.
Only 1 winning coach in the past 80 years!
-
Na...clearly Kaos knows better. Facts be damned.
-
Only 1 winning coach in the past 80 years!
Seriously. The numbers don't lie. Step back and take this in....80 FUCKING YEARS!!!!!
Football in Ames, Iowa is a fucking JOKE. It has been since your great, great, great, great, GREAT Grandpappy was on the Mayflower.
-
Football in Ames, Iowa is a fucking JOKE.
And we took their fucking punchline.
-
And we took their effing punchline.
maybe they took ours, that being coach rhoads.
-
Na...clearly Kaos knows better. Facts be damned.
the FACTS, mr. Nozzle, are that McCarney had the program headed in the right direction. Reversed decades of futility and had winning seasons and bowl invites.
That may have been as good as that program could do.
But the AD got a case of the fancy pants and wanted more.
Out with McCarney in with Cliche McBlueprint.
Back into the abyss. Deeper than before.
-
maybe they took ours, that being coach rhoads.
I think Rhoades can get them to at least 5 wins this season.
-
the FACTS, mr. Nozzle, are that McCarney had the program headed in the right direction.
Yeah...in 2000, then again in 2004 and 2005 with back to back winning seasons. Another 20 years or so and he would have screamed out to a .500 record there.
-
the FACTS, mr. Nozzle, are that McCarney had the program headed in the right direction. Reversed decades of futility and had winning seasons and bowl invites.
That may have been as good as that program could do.
But the AD got a case of the fancy pants and wanted more.
Out with McCarney in with Cliche McBlueprint.
Back into the abyss. Deeper than before.
Nothing but re-hash of the same ignorance to the facts. I'm seeing a trend.
You sir, are hopeless.
-
Are you truly this ignorant? Seriously?
More crap.
There is only one worse athletic director in college football than Jamie Pollard. Only one. Congratulations. We have him.
So, you agree he's a horrible AD... okay.
Are you so dense you don't understand that coaching contracts are essentially worthless?
More crap.
Why do you offer somebody a two-year contract when you know they are not the answer and will be FIRED after another season like the one they just had? It's called recruiting, Chopper. If you don't have something on the table, it's hard for a guy to recruit against coaches that are seen as established. How would Chizik have gone into some kid's house and told them "I'll be here for the next four years, Mrs. Corncob, don't worry about your son" when ISU refused to give him that vote of confidence? Did Ole Miss give David Cutcliffe a huge extension and then fire him a year later? Damn straight. Did Alabama lock Mike Shula up with a hefty raise and a long-term extension and fire him the next winter? Yep. Same thing with DuBose. How many years did Tuberville have left on his contract, Chopper?
Congrats genius. You've now successfully covered yourself and justified giving contract extensions for when times are shit, as well as when they're good. You can now always have a reason for a contract extension. You're good. Real good.
Dan McCarney did not "resign" of his own volition. Pollard forced him out because he thought the program was on the verge of turning the corner and didn't think McCarney could take it there.
After winning records in five of the six previous seasons, McCarney's 2006 team struggled to a 4-8 record.
It was a young team, learning the ropes.He wanted to do "better." He thought it was ready to compete for the Big 12 North title. And it probably was until they brought Captain Blueprint in.
If he didn't leave on his own, was he offered a contract extension? I mean, by your lines of thinking, he must have been due a ten year extension. He was the savior of the program to that point. He was taking it in the right direction and had them winning bowl game after bowl game.
Nobody else talks about a fucking Blueprint. Chizik talked big about his when he got to ISU. Five wins (none of any significance) and nineteen losses later, that team wasn't getting better. It got progressively worse day by day. There's your blueprint.
Yes, having a "blueprint", or plan is exclusive to Chizik. No other coach says this, or does this going into rebuilding projects or new surroundings. You focus too much on the term, and it's not serving your argument.
Thus, it comes down to the point that neither one of us is going to agree on, and that's the resources and circumstances Chizik finds himself in here as opposed to ISU. You can call me every colorful animal, or stupid, or anything else, but I just do NOT find it to be the same in the least. Funny thing is, I'm the ONLY one here between the two of us who actually has lived, or lived next two BOTH locations and could give first hand knowledge, but you think you seem to know better anyway. You can argue, bitch and moan, explain, make up and fabricate ALLL you want, but it doesn't make Auburn University and Iowa State the same situation. It just doesn't. Period.
-
Thus, it comes down to the point that neither one of us is going to agree on, and that's the resources and circumstances Chizik finds himself in here as opposed to ISU. You can call me every colorful animal, or stupid, or anything else, but I just do NOT find it to be the same in the least. Funny thing is, I'm the ONLY one here between the two of us who actually has lived, or lived next two BOTH locations and could give first hand knowledge, but you think you seem to know better anyway. You can argue, bitch and moan, explain, make up and fabricate ALLL you want, but it doesn't make Auburn University and Iowa State the same situation. It just doesn't. Period.
Mike Shula was given all the support and resources he could want. Alabama is a football school in the SEC. He was given an extension a year before he was fired. He still sucked, because he's a bad coach. You can have all the support, tools, resources, whatever you want to call it, in the world, and it doesn't make you a better coach automatically. If you're going to hang your hat on "well, he has more support and resources at AU", you may want to find a stronger hat rack. You guys want Shula as your next head coach? I mean, he would have alot of resources at his disposal. Auburn isn't the same place as Tuscaloosa. Its not the same situation. Soooo, he's guaranteed to be successful, right?
-
Mike Shula was given all the support and resources he could want. Alabama is a football school in the SEC. He was given an extension a year before he was fired. He still sucked, because he's a bad coach. You can have all the support, tools, resources, whatever you want to call it, in the world, and it doesn't make you a better coach. If you're going to hang your hat on "well, he has more support and resources at AU", you may want to find a stronger hat rack. You guys want Shula as your next head coach? I mean, he would have alot of resources at his disposal. Auburn isn't the same place as Iowa State. Its not the same situation. Soooo, he's guaranteed to be successful, right?
Apples and fucking cantaloupes.
Chizik was ultra-successful at every stop along his career...except the abyss that is Ames, Iowa.
Shula was a middling coach who was handed positions thanks to his daddy's connections.
Edited to clarify: Shula's assistant coaching positions were the product of nepotism. His stint at Bama was attributable mostly to his being a member of the "family".
-
Nothing but re-hash of the same ignorance to the facts. I'm seeing a trend.
You sir, are hopeless.
Iowa State's improvement under McCarney was a trend.
Blueprint's death spiral was a trend.
You wouldn't know a trend if it took a dump on your head.
You are a braying donkey. With green fur.
-
Apples and fucking cantaloupes.
Chizik was ultra-successful at every stop along his career...except the abyss that is Ames, Iowa.
Shula was a middling coach who was handed positions thanks to his daddy's connections.
Exactly. We've actually had the debate, bringing Shula into this, and at that time, I said, for that argument to hold water, we'd have to consider Shula and Chizik to be on level ground. I don't believe that Shula is on the same level as Chizik, and still wouldn't be today.
-
Apples and effing cantaloupes.
Chizik was ultra-successful at every stop along his career...except the abyss that is Ames, Iowa.
Shula was a middling coach who was handed positions thanks to his daddy's connections.
There is a difference between being an assistant and being the head coach.
Surely you can recognize that.
-
Mike Shula was given all the support and resources he could want. Alabama is a football school in the SEC. He was given an extension a year before he was fired. He still sucked, because he's a bad coach. You can have all the support, tools, resources, whatever you want to call it, in the world, and it doesn't make you a better coach automatically. If you're going to hang your hat on "well, he has more support and resources at AU", you may want to find a stronger hat rack. You guys want Shula as your next head coach? I mean, he would have alot of resources at his disposal. Auburn isn't the same place as Tuscaloosa. Its not the same situation. Soooo, he's guaranteed to be successful, right?
That's not the argument at all. Nobody on this board since the man was hired has said Chizik will automatically be successful and a great Corch just because he's at Auburn. The issue is whether 5-19 is indicative of Chizik's corching ability or simply a product of the football black hole that is Ames, Iowa.
Now that Chizik has all the tools and support at his disposal, he's either going to make the best of them and prove his worth or his incompetence. He may turn out to be Mike Shula. He could also be Mark Richt. No excuses either way.
-
Apples and fucking cantaloupes.
Chizik was ultra-successful at every stop along his career*...except the abyss that is Ames, Iowa.
Shula was a middling coach who was handed positions thanks to his daddy's connections.
FTFY
* = as a coordinator
And you're accusing me of comparing apples and cantaloupes. Being the head coach is a whole different ball game than being only a coordinator, or co-coordinator as he was at Texas. Thats fine that he did well as a coordinator. It doesn't have shit to do with his performance as a head coach, especially when he has been head coach somewhere else and failed miserably. You guys tend to point out his success as a coordinator, but don't want to talk about his shortcomings as a head coach, which is really the only true comparison. Yes, yes, yes, Chopper......AU is not Iowa State, we know.
-
Iowa State's improvement under McCarney was a trend.
2000 Iowa State 9-3 (Sage Rosenfels' Senior year)
2001 Iowa State 7-5 (Seneca Wallace's Junior year)
2002 Iowa State 7-7 (Seneca Wallace's Senior year)
2003 Iowa State 2-10
2004 Iowa State 7-5
2005 Iowa State 7-5
2006 Iowa State 4-8
I see no consistent trend of improvement here. Only a program stuck in neutrel with a few nose dives, concluding with his final season at 4-8. His final season would have to have been an improvement, not a failure for this statement to be fact. He either resigned, or was forced to resign. Point is moot.
Blueprint's death spiral was a trend.
Your opinion, not fact. ...but you're welcome to it.
-
Yes, yes, yes, Chopper......AU is not Iowa State, we know.
Yes yes yes, but you and Kaos CONSTANTLY base Chizik's success, or lack there off based on this. Glad you're slowly realizing this.
If you want to compare Chizik and Shula, let's wait a few years after Chizk has the opportunity with the same resources at Auburn, as Shula had at Alabama. Then, and ONLY then, can you even start to have that debate.
-
That's not the argument at all. Nobody on this board since the man was hired has said Chizik will automatically be successful and a great Corch just because he's at Auburn. The issue is whether 5-19 is indicative of Chizik's corching ability or simply a product of the football black hole that is Ames, Iowa.
Now that Chizik has all the tools and support at his disposal, he's either going to make the best of them and prove his worth or his incompetence. He may turn out to be Mike Shula. He could also be Mark Richt. No excuses either way.
The deal is, obviously Chopper does believe that Chizik will be successful at AU. Thats no real secret. Your last statement pretty much sums up what I'm getting at. The only difference is I believe it will show the latter. But, thats just my opinion.
-
There is a difference between being an assistant and being the head coach.
Surely you can recognize that.
Absolutely.
Shula's first head gig was Bama.
Chizik's first head gig was ISU.
Those schools are not on equal footing as far as facilities and tools available for the coach.
Both men failed miserably, but one had many more advantages.
We shall see now if Chizik is Shula-caliber, or if his previous successes are more indicative of his abilities.
-
FTFY
* = as a coordinator
And you're accusing me of comparing apples and cantaloupes. Being the head coach is a whole different ball game than being only a coordinator, or co-coordinator as he was at Texas. Thats fine that he did well as a coordinator. It doesn't have shit to do with his performance as a head coach, especially when he has been head coach somewhere else and failed miserably. You guys tend to point out his success as a coordinator, but don't want to talk about his shortcomings as a head coach, which is really the only true comparison. Yes, yes, yes, Chopper......AU is not Iowa State, we know.
How the fuck does Mike Shula keep getting brought into this conversation? RWS do you have him locked in your basement or something?
-
The deal is, obviously Chopper does believe that Chizik will be successful at AU. Thats no real secret. Your last statement pretty much sums up what I'm getting at. The only difference is I believe it will show the latter. But, thats just my opinion.
Again, where have I said this? I'm only arguing about the people that have already said he's NOT going to be. This is something you and Kaos CONSTANTLY (again) whiff on.
Amazing.
-
FTFY
* = as a coordinator
You didn't fix jack shit, dickhole. We're all (yourself included) aware of Chizik's resume. I acknowledged that ISU, his sole HC gig, was a failure.
And you're accusing me of comparing apples and cantaloupes. Being the head coach is a whole different ball game than being only a coordinator, or co-coordinator as he was at Texas. Thats fine that he did well as a coordinator. It doesn't have shit to do with his performance as a head coach, especially when he has been head coach somewhere else and failed miserably. You guys tend to point out his success as a coordinator, but don't want to talk about his shortcomings as a head coach, which is really the only true comparison. Yes, yes, yes, Chopper......AU is not Iowa State, we know.
Hey, bucko, you started comparing Shula and Chizik. Shula hadn't been the head man anywhere prior to hitting the SEC. I'm willing to give Chizik a mulligan on his HC time in Ames because, as proven over and over, NO ONE wins in Ames. That said, I think it was valuable experience in the role of HC.
Therefore, the only comparison to be drawn will be drawn after Chizik and Shula have equal time in the SEC at their first HC job with any possibility of success.
-
Yes yes yes, but you and Kaos CONSTANTLY base Chizik's success, or lack there off based on this. Glad you're slowly realizing this.
If you want to compare Chizik and Shula, let's wait a few years after Chizk has the opportunity with the same resources at Auburn, as Shula had at Alabama. Then, and ONLY then, can you even start to have that debate.
I'm not comparing the coaches themselves to each other as much as I am comparing situations. Obviously, Shula had an optimal situation at Alabama with all of the tools and resources he could want. He was not a good coach, so he did not succeed. If you don't know how to use, or take advantage of your resources, or decipher what those resources give you, then they aren't doing you much good. Will Chizik be the next Shula? I don't know. I have my own opinion, but its just that. I'm simply giving you examples of situations and opportunities, and how they can be squandered.
-
How may times can you fuckers argue the same. fucking. thing?
F U C K
-
How may times can you fuckers argue the same. fucking. thing?
F U C K
Is this a challenge? :silence:
-
How may times can you fuckers argue the same. fucking. thing?
F U C K
Don't tempt us. Between Kaos, Chopper, and I, we will fuck your world up. If you could speed up time and make football season start, this would solve much of your problem. kthx.
-
2000 Iowa State 9-3 (Sage Rosenfels' Senior year)
2001 Iowa State 7-5 (Seneca Wallace's Junior year)
2002 Iowa State 7-7 (Seneca Wallace's Senior year)
2003 Iowa State 2-10
2004 Iowa State 7-5
2005 Iowa State 7-5
2006 Iowa State 4-8
I see no consistent trend of improvement here. Only a program stuck in neutrel with a few nose dives, concluding with his final season at 4-8. His final season would have to have been an improvement, not a failure for this statement to be fact. He either resigned, or was forced to resign. Point is moot.
Your opinion, not fact. ...but you're welcome to it.
Gotta give the point to Chop here. Kaos still in the lead, but Chops arguments have been much improved as of late. :poke:
-
How may times can you fuckers argue the same. fucking. thing?
F U C K
I believe the number is right around 352
-
I'm not comparing the coaches themselves to each other as much as I am comparing situations. Obviously, Shula had an optimal situation at Alabama with all of the tools and resources he could want. He was not a good coach, so he did not succeed. If you don't know how to use, or take advantage of your resources, or decipher what those resources give you, then they aren't doing you much good. Will Chizik be the next Shula? I don't know. I have my own opinion, but its just that. I'm simply giving you examples of situations and opportunities, and how they can be squandered.
Okay, but you started with this...
You guys want Shula as your next head coach? I mean, he would have alot of resources at his disposal. Auburn isn't the same place as Tuscaloosa. Its not the same situation. Soooo, he's guaranteed to be successful, right?
This is you pushing Shula as an equal to Chizik. It shows your lack of knowing the difference between ISU and Auburn, as opposed to the differences in AU vs. UA. Your backpeddling now and trying to justify. It's okay though. We understand.
-
Okay, but you started with this...
This is you pushing Shula as an equal to Chizik. It shows your lack of knowing the difference between ISU and Auburn, as opposed to the differences in AU vs. UA. Your backpeddling now and trying to justify. It's okay though. We understand.
That was me asking if you would hire Shula as your next head coach.
-
That was me asking if you would hire Shula as your next head coach.
No. ...and there was no reason to ask that if you weren't bringing in a Shula/ Chizik comparison.
Everyone sees this. It's okay.
-
No. ...and there was no reason to ask that if you weren't bringing in a Shula/ Chizik comparison.
Everyone sees this. It's okay.
Jesus, maybe you are as dumb as Kaos says you are....Simply comparing things on a situational basis, Chopper. Very simple concept. I'm sorry your Chizik goggles won't allow you to see that. You see Chizik and Shula in the same sentence, and you automatically go into defense mode.
-
That was me asking if you would hire Shula as your next head coach.
FAIL: I read that as you comparing Chizik to Shula as well. Nice try though.
-
I'm not comparing the coaches themselves to each other as much as I am comparing situations. Obviously, Shula had an optimal situation at Alabama with all of the tools and resources he could want. He was not a good coach, so he did not succeed. If you don't know how to use, or take advantage of your resources, or decipher what those resources give you, then they aren't doing you much good. Will Chizik be the next Shula? I don't know. I have my own opinion, but its just that. I'm simply giving you examples of situations and opportunities, and how they can be squandered.
You're deliberately ignoring the two coaches' resumes prior to getting that first HC gig.
Chizik, as a non-head coach, is a DEMONSTRABLY better coach than Shula. Light-years ahead of the baby dolphin.
Shula never had, apart from the resources at Bama, any indications that he might ever succeed as a head coach.
Chizik has the pedigree, but his resume is tainted by a stop in a pit from which no one emerges victorious.
-
Jesus, maybe you are as dumb as Kaos says you are....Simply comparing things on a situational basis, Chopper. Very simple concept. I'm sorry your Chizik goggles won't allow you to see that. You see Chizik and Shula in the same sentence, and you automatically go into defense mode.
No. Chizik goggles? I'm simply telling you you're wrong in your comparison. It doesn't have anything to do with support, or non support of Chizik. This whole "support", or "Chizdick Sucking Loons" thing is something you and Kaos made up. This is just a torn out page from Kaos's playbook that you try to use when you've struggled to make your argument.
-
FAIL: I read that as you comparing Chizik to Shula as well. Nice try though.
No. I was asking it hypothetically, because I knew the answer already. Nobody would want Shula because he is a fuck up, and can't win given all of the tools and support he could ever want. Chizik now has alot of tools and support. He hasn't coached his first game at AU yet, so its difficult to say whether he will be like Shula and squander his resources. Thats why I'm not comparing the two so much as coaches, but the situations they are/were in. The only reason I am comparing the SITUATIONS, is to illustrate that you can still manage to fuck up a head coaching job with lots of resources at your disposal. Not saying it WILL happen, but it can. Very. Simple.
-
No. I was asking it hypothetically, because I knew the answer already. Nobody would want Shula because he is a fuck up, and can't win given all of the tools and support he could ever want. Chizik now has alot of tools and support. He hasn't coached his first game at AU yet, so its difficult to say whether he will be like Shula and squander his resources. Thats why I'm not comparing the two so much as coaches, but the situations they are/were in. The only reason I am comparing the SITUATIONS, is to illustrate that you can still manage to fuck up a head coaching job with lots of resources at your disposal. Not saying it WILL happen, but it can. Very. Simple.
There is no comparison in "situations" apart from bama and Auburn both being SEC schools and having the resources that membership affords them.
Shula's "situation" was that he was handed a job for which he was patently unqualified.
Chizik's "situation" is that he landed (or was handed, if you prefer) his job after rising, successfully, through the ranks of his profession, earning the highest accolades at every stop...except ISU. <insert ISU stats showing that losing is what they do there>.
-
<insert ISU stats showing that losing is what they do there>.
Like Maryland and crab cakes, baby
-
You're deliberately ignoring the two coaches' resumes prior to getting that first HC gig.
Chizik, as a non-head coach, is a DEMONSTRABLY better coach than Shula. Light-years ahead of the baby dolphin.
Shula never had, apart from the resources at Bama, any indications that he might ever succeed as a head coach.
Chizik has the pedigree, but his resume is tainted by a stop in a pit from which no one emerges victorious.
I don't give a shit what Nick Saban did at Kent State as a GA or assistant. I don't give a shit what he did at OSU. I don't care what he did at Navy, West Virginia, the Cleveland Browns, Houston Oilers, Syracuse, or Michigan State as a DC. What I care about is what he did as a head coach, because thats what he is now. Thats the experience that I care about. Its a whole new ball game when you're the big cheese. Thats the line of thinking that I think on.
-
Like Maryland and crab cakes, baby
Call me "Kitty".
Call me "Kitty Cat".
-
Call me "Kitty".
Call me "Kitty Cat".
You motor boated 'em didn't you. You ole sailor you.
-
You motor boated 'em didn't you. You ole sailor you.
Were they built for speed or comfort?
-
I don't give a shit what Nick Saban did at Kent State as a GA or assistant. I don't give a shit what he did at OSU. I don't care what he did at Navy, West Virginia, the Cleveland Browns, Houston Oilers, Syracuse, or Michigan State as a DC. What I care about is what he did as a head coach, because thats what he is now. Thats the experience that I care about. Its a whole new ball game when you're the big cheese. Thats the line of thinking that I think on.
I get that HC is a whole different ball of wax than AC.
However, if I'm looking at two candidates (Shula and Chizik) for the same job (HC at an SEC school), then I will examine their resumes for performance at past positions.
In that analysis Chizik stomps a steaming mudhole in Shula's ass, and gives some valid basis for expecting Chizik to not fail miserably.
He might, of course, but there is nothing to indicate that he will...despite Kaos's myopic and delusional view of ISU.
-
Shula's "situation" was that he was handed a job for which he was patently unqualified.
Hindsight is 20/20. When he was hired, he had been an assistant in the NFL for 15 years. He was an OC for Tampa Bay from '96-'99, and they were 11-5 his last season there. He had experience as an assistant ABOVE NCAA football. So, 15 years as an NFL assistant makes you unqualified automatically? Does it make him an automatic success story? No, having shitty seasons as the head coach makes you unqualified, after the fact. I could just as easily cite whatever excuses that I want to explain Shula's failure. But, we all know he was simply a shitty head coach. Even with all of his experience in the NFL.
-
I don't give a shit what Nick Saban did at Kent State as a GA or assistant. I don't give a shit what he did at OSU. I don't care what he did at Navy, West Virginia, the Cleveland Browns, Houston Oilers, Syracuse, or Michigan State as a DC. What I care about is what he did as a head coach, because thats what he is now. Thats the experience that I care about. Its a whole new ball game when you're the big cheese. Thats the line of thinking that I think on.
Nobody here disagrees with this. You bringing up Shula as any kind of representation for this comparison of situations was a complete stretch and was weak. That's all.
-
No. I was asking it hypothetically, because I knew the answer already. Nobody would want Shula because he is a fuck up, and can't win given all of the tools and support he could ever want. Chizik now has alot of tools and support. He hasn't coached his first game at AU yet, so its difficult to say whether he will be like Shula and squander his resources. Thats why I'm not comparing the two so much as coaches, but the situations they are/were in. The only reason I am comparing the SITUATIONS, is to illustrate that you can still manage to fuck up a head coaching job with lots of resources at your disposal. Not saying it WILL happen, but it can. Very. Simple.
That might have been what you were trying to say, but thats not the way it came across.
-
He was an OC for Tampa Bay from '96-'99, and they were 11-5 his last season there.
Thanks to Dungy and Kiffen. The Bucs were never higher than 22nd in total offense under his watch.
-
How may times can you fuckers argue the same. fucking. thing?
F U C K
I concur, the only logical way to solve this, is a fight to the death...in the Thunderdome.
-
Were they built for speed or comfort?
Hotroute...Hot...route
-
No, having shitty seasons as the head coach makes you unqualified, after the fact.
Again, let's see what Chizik does with resources at Auburn. Otherwise, this "debate" you're creating makes no sense right now. Why? Because as we've all agreed, ISU and Auburn are NOT the same situations, and we've all agreed, or seen anyway, that judging success by record alone would be an awfully narrow minded approach being that his ONLY stop for ONLY 2 years, was ISU.
-
I concur, the only logical way to solve this, is a fight to the death...in the Thunderdome.
2 men enter 1 man leave
-
Thanks to Dungy and Kiffen. The Bucs were never higher than 22nd in total offense under his watch.
Chizik was only successful at Texas because of Mack Brown, Vince Young, and Colt McCoy. See how easy that is?
-
Chizik was only successful at Texas because of Mack Brown, Vince Young, and Colt McCoy. See how easy that is?
He was pretty successful at Auburn also... just sayin'. His Thorpe Award winners appreciate his success as well...
-
He was pretty successful at Auburn also... just sayin'. His Thorpe Award winners appreciate his success as well...
Wow, he took 3 highly talented guys, and they won Thorpe awards. I guess our LB coaches will be the best LB coaches EVAR when Rolando McClain and Dont'a Hightower hit the draft.
Joe Pendry is a shoo-in for a head coaching job somewhere.....he coached Andre Smith.
Scott Loeffler should be getting a call any day now....he corched Tim Tebow.
Billy Gonzales too....he corched Percy Harvin.
-
Percy Harvey was pretty good.
-
Wow, he took 3 highly talented guys, and they won Thorpe awards. I guess our LB coaches will be the best LB coaches EVAR when Rolando McClain and Dont'a Hightower hit the draft.
Joe Pendry is a shoo-in for a head coaching job somewhere.....he coached Andre Smith.
Scott Loeffler should be getting a call any day now....he corched Tim Tebow.
Billy Gonzales too....he corched Percy Harvin.
"...annnd the whifffff!" - "Major League".
Point is, Chizik was a pretty good coach with or without the HC's, and he proved it by doing it at different locations, not just one under the wing of a single HC.
How did Shula seperate himself from being average under those HC's you mentioned? I honestly don't know. What's your point? Sounds to me, or it could be argued, that the Bucs had success under Dungy and Monte Kiffen, despite a very average (and ranked below avg) offense under Mike Shula.
-
"...annnd the whifffff!" - "Major League".
Point is, Chizik was a pretty good coach with or without the HC's, and he proved it by doing it at different locations, not just one under the wing of a single HC.
How did Shula seperate himself from being average under those HC's you mentioned? I honestly don't know. What's your point?
My point is simply that if you coach some guys that are insanely talented, thats not necessarily reflective of your coaching. Now, it doesn't hurt your resume at all, don't get me wrong. Nobody is going to see that you coached them on your resume and frown upon it. Thats not the point I'm trying to make. When Scott Loeffler moves on and they see he coached Tim Tebow, that looks pretty good. But I think we can all agree that Loeffler wasn't pivotal to Tebow's success. Now, if Tebow was some lowley 3* recruit with maybe 3-5 offers, then there is alot to be said there.
Also, I'm a little confused about something. I didn't think Chizik coached DBs at Texas? I thought he was Co-DC/LB.....Duane Akina has coached DBs for the past 9 years at Texas. So, how exactly did Chizik coach two CBs to Thorpe awards as a LB coach?
-
My point is simply that if you coach some guys that are insanely talented, thats not necessarily reflective of your coaching. Now, it doesn't hurt your resume at all, don't get me wrong. Nobody is going to see that you coached them on your resume and frown upon it. Thats not the point I'm trying to make. When Scott Loeffler moves on and they see he coached Tim Tebow, that looks pretty good. But I think we can all agree that Loeffler wasn't pivotal to Tebow's success. Now, if Tebow was some lowley 3* recruit with maybe 3-5 offers, then there is alot to be said there.
You can equate it all to individuals and talent RWS, but the fact he was part of defenses on two different teams that went undefeated, and had great defenses. My point is is that he didn't necessarily need the guidance, or tutoring from his HC's exclusively to do his job.
In fact, it's been said that one of our defensive coaches, Thigpen, left his alma mater (UNC) on the advice from Mack Brown to coach under Chizik. I'm not saying that this makes Chizik the best ever defensive coach on earth, but it certainly bodes to his coaching pedigree.
I never see, or never heard ANY of that from Shula.
So, again, where or how is your "comparison"...again.... valid with Shula vs. Chizik? It's just not. No matter how many different roads you try to bring it in from.
-
Also, I'm a little confused about something. I didn't think Chizik coached DBs at Texas? I thought he was Co-DC/LB.....Duane Akina has coached DBs for the past 9 years at Texas. So, how exactly did Chizik coach two CBs to Thorpe awards as a LB coach?
He was involved, and if you had a question about this, you could of asked Carlos Rogers when he made it a point to come to Chizik's introduction as HC in Auburn. The Texas DB... Well, let's just call it an incredible coincidence then. Regardless, his defenses were tops.
-
You can equate it all to individuals and talent RWS, but the fact he was part of defenses on two different teams that went undefeated, and had great defenses, my point, is that he didn't necessarily need the guidance, or tutoring from his HC's exclusively to do his job.
In fact, it's been said that one of our defensive coaches, Thigpen, left his alma mater (UNC) on the advice from Mack Brown to coach under Chizik. I'm not saying that this makes Chizik the best ever defensive coach on earth, but it certainly bodes to his coaching pedigree.
I never see, or never heard ANY of that from Shula.
So, again, where or how is your "comparison"...again.... valid with Shula vs. Chizik? It's just not. No matter how many different roads you try to bring it in from.
Still not trying to compare Chizik vs. Shula on a coaching basis only. I was only comparing their situations, no matter how many times you say otherwise. As I have already said, it has still yet to be seen whether Chizik will squander his opportunity at AU. He hasn't played a game yet, so you can't fairly say whether he has or not. Everybody has their opinion whether he will or not. But in reality, we're going to have to see something on the field either way. You brought up the point about the Thorpe award winners. I'm simply telling you that if you have an insanely talented person to begin with, it shouldn't be that hard to get some hardware in their hands.
-
Still not trying to compare Chizik vs. Shula on a coaching basis only. I was only comparing their situations, no matter how many times you say otherwise. As I have already said, it has still yet to be seen whether Chizik will squander his opportunity at AU. He hasn't played a game yet, so you can't fairly say whether he has or not. Everybody has their opinion whether he will or not. But in reality, we're going to have to see something on the field either way. You brought up the point about the Thorpe award winners. I'm simply telling you that if you have an insanely talented person to begin with, it shouldn't be that hard to get some hardware in their hands.
Stop. The fact Shula is IN this discussion is the problem. Situations, or coach vs. coach. It doesn't apply to the discussion. PERIOD.
-
He was involved, and if you had a question about this, you could of asked Carlos Rogers when he made it a point to come to Chizik's introduction as HC in Auburn. The Texas DB... Well, let's just call it an incredible coincidence then. Regardless, his defenses were tops.
Chizik was a DB coach and DC at AU. I don't see why I should ask Carlos Rogers about Chizik coaching DBs at Texas. I know he coached Rogers at AU, no question about that.
Simple question; since Chizik was Co-DC and LB coach at Texas, and Texas has had the same DB coach the past 9 years, how did Chizik coach two Thorpe winners at Texas?
-
Stop. The fact Shula is IN this discussion is the problem. Situations, or coach vs. coach. It doesn't apply to the discussion. PERIOD.
It does, actually. The only thing to it is, as you have pointed out, we're still a few years away from knowing anything on Chizik. I agree with that, no problem. They both had experience as assistants, Shula in the NFL for 15 years for that matter. They both landed gigs in the SEC as head coaches. Shula tanked. Verdict is still out on Chizik.
-
Chizik was a DB coach and DC at AU. I don't see why I should ask Carlos Rogers about Chizik coaching DBs at Texas.
Simple question; since Chizik was Co-DC and LB coach at Texas, and Texas has had the same DB coach the past 9 years, how did Chizik coach two Thorpe winners at Texas?
Regardless of this answer RWS, your insertion of Shula into this discussion was baseless. It's not worth further discussion.
Anyway, google Aaron Ross, Michael Huff and Carlos Rogers Thorpe Award winners and see where the credit is given.
-
Regardless of this answer RWS, your insertion of Shula into this discussion was baseless. It's not worth further discussion.
Anyway, google Aaron Ross, Michael Huff and Carlos Rogers Thorpe Award winners and see where the credit is given.
Technically, I haven't seen in their profiles or anything where it says Gene Chizik coached them. I see in Chizik's profile that he did. My question is W H Y? Carlos Rogers, not an issue. But at Texas, how does a LB coach get credit for coaching two Thorpe Award winners when Texas has had the same DB coach for 9 years? Doesn't that seem a little odd to you?
Look up Duane Akina, 9th year Texas DB coach's Wikipedia page and tell me who coached those two Thorpe Award winners at Texas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Akina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Akina)
How about this profile?
http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/akina_duane00.html (http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/akina_duane00.html)
-
Technically, I haven't seen in their profiles or anything where it says Gene Chizik coached them. I see in Chizik's profile that he did. My question is W H Y? Carlos Rogers, not an issue. But at Texas, how does a LB coach get credit for coaching two Thorpe Award winners when Texas has had the same DB coach for 9 years? Doesn't that seem a little odd to you?
Look up Duane Akina, 9th year Texas DB coach's Wikipedia page and tell me who coached those two Thorpe Award winners at Texas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Akina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Akina)
I don't know... don't care. It's moot as far as this topic. Let us know if you find out anything.
-
Fuck this...
Common ground :
1) Auburn is not Ames. Stupid point but all agree.
2) Chizik did not have the talent at Ames he should at Auburn.
3) Auburn plays a significantly tougher schedule than Iowa State.
4) Whatever Chizik did at Iowa State did not work. The team had it's two worst consecutive seasons in a decade. The blueprint failed.
5) Some argue that Chizik established himself as a failure for his inability to a least maintain the moderate level of consistent success attained under its previous coach
6) Others argue that no one can win at ISU so his performance there is irrelevant.
I laugh at #6. My point is, was and will ALWAYS be that a program of our stature should not be casting around on refuse heaps and hiring people to run a multi million enterprise on a hunch and a handful of hope.
Regardless of how chizik performs the hire will always be retarded.
Good players make decent coaches good. Great coaches make decent players better. Show me one single solitary area where Chizik left ISU better than he found it.
I hope he learned from that debacle and will be a better coach as a result. But his "I have ne'er failed" and "blueprint" comments do not inspire confidence.
-
I don't know... don't care. It's moot as far as this topic. Let us know if you find out anything.
You're the one that made the point about all the Thorpe Award winners he has coached, further proving his pedigree. But the fact that he probably didn't actually coach two of them, has nothing to do with anything? Gotcha.
-
Regardless of how chizik performs the hire will always be retarded.
This is why you can't be taken seriously when it comes to this subject.
You're the one that made the point about all the Thorpe Award winners he has coached, further proving his pedigree. But the fact that he probably didn't actually coach them, has nothing to do with anything? Gotcha.
You missed the point of why I posted that. You clutch to it, and obviously you're still not getting why it was posted as part of the total point, not the sole focus of it. Not my problem.
-
This is why you can't be taken seriously when it comes to this subject.
You missed the point of why I posted that. You clutch to it, and obviously you're still not getting why it was posted as part of the total point, not the sole focus of it. Not my problem.
Please, enlighten me. Its a point until someone disproves it, then it never really mattered. Funny.
-
You were making your usually snarky retort to Wes about his Dungy/ Kiffen assertion.
Chizik was only successful at Texas because of Mack Brown, Vince Young, and Colt McCoy. See how easy that is?
He was pretty successful at Auburn also... just sayin'. His Thorpe Award winners appreciate his success as well...
My point was that he showed he wasn't just successful under Mack Brown, but at Auburn. His defenses were successful at multiple locations, not just Mack Brown. They were also well above average.
He also produced award winning defensive players. Now, if you want to believe that Chizik had nothing to do with Aaron Ross, or Michael Huff and it was an incredible coincidence that Chizik was the DC at the time of their awards, then fine. Just a word of note though, even though the coach you keep bringing up coached the DB's directly, that coach worked directly UNDER Chizik. Keep flapping your gums though as if Chizik's job was totally unrelated.
You're the one that wants to go off on this reply fest trying to say that I'm basing Chizik's success as a DC, because he had good players. I didn't do that. You did.
I then, made it clear that it was a moot point towards the total arguement, because it is. I've told you, and I'm telling you this last time.... who fucking cares.
-
Fuck this...
Common ground :
1) Auburn is not Ames. Stupid point but all agree.
2) Chizik did not have the talent at Ames he should at Auburn.
3) Auburn plays a significantly tougher schedule than Iowa State.
4) Whatever Chizik did at Iowa State did not work. The team had it's two worst consecutive seasons in a decade. The blueprint failed.
5) Some argue that Chizik established himself as a failure for his inability to a least maintain the moderate level of consistent success attained under its previous coach
6) Others argue that no one can win at ISU so his performance there is irrelevant.
I laugh at #6. My point is, was and will ALWAYS be that a program of our stature should not be casting around on refuse heaps and hiring people to run a multi million enterprise on a hunch and a handful of hope.
Regardless of how chizik performs the hire will always be retarded.
Good players make decent coaches good. Great coaches make decent players better. Show me one single solitary area where Chizik left ISU better than he found it.
I hope he learned from that debacle and will be a better coach as a result. But his "I have ne'er failed" and "blueprint" comments do not inspire confidence.
This is what I agree with...
The hire was dumb. DUMB. But Chizik is the coach that was given the opprtunity. What he does with this GIFT of an opportunity is up to him. If he bombs, it was a horrible hire. If he is sucessful, it was still a horrible hire, but Auburn got lucky.
Either way, you fuckers have argued the exact same god damned thing for over 8 months now...
Let's just all agree that we hope the douche of an AD we have got lucky and this thing turns out good. Because if it doesn't, I am with Kaos, this could set us back a long long way. Especially with the shape of the program that TT apparently left this thing in.
-
Chopper says you can't be taken seriously.
-
This is what I agree with...
The hire was dumb. DUMB. But Chizik is the coach that was given the opprtunity. What he does with this GIFT of an opportunity is up to him. If he bombs, it was a horrible hire. If he is sucessful, it was still a horrible hire, but Auburn got lucky.
Either way, you fuckers have argued the exact same god damned thing for over 8 months now...
Let's just all agree that we hope the douche of an AD we have got lucky and this thing turns out good. Because if it doesn't, I am with Kaos, this could set us back a long long way. Especially with the shape of the program that TT apparently left this thing in.
Agree
-
Chizik was only successful at Texas because of Mack Brown, Vince Young, and Colt McCoy. See how easy that is?
Shula's offense finished no higher than 22nd out of 32 teams during his tenure.
Chizik's product was a bit more impressive, contributing much more to the success of TX.
Also, I think that RWS has a point regarding Chizik's Thorpe Award winners and his lack of DB coaching credit at TX. I find it interesting, though, that two of Akina's winners got the nod during Chizik's only two years in Austin....and fifteen years after Akina's only other Thorpe winner.
-
Shula's offense finished no higher than 22nd out of 32 teams during his tenure.
Chizik's product was a bit more impressive, contributing much more to the success of TX.
Also, I think that RWS has a point regarding Chizik's Thorpe Award winners and his lack of DB coaching credit at TX. I find it interesting, though, that two of Akina's winners got the nod during Chizik's only two years in Austin....and fifteen years after Akina's only other Thorpe winner.
It's all pure coincidence Wes. Period.
-
Chizik's product was a bit more impressive, contributing much more to the success of TX.
I think we've already established that there was very little change in the defenses at both Auburn and Texas before Chizik and after Chizik.
He came into both places -- schools flush with talent he did not recruit -- and maintained.
Auburn's defense in 2004 was awesome. It was as good or better than that idiotic 1992 defense we've heard so much about at Alabama. Man for man, I think it was better. How many of those players are now in the NFL? Five or six? Maybe more?
But tell me. Who was the defensive coordinator for Alabama in 1992? Which college or NFL team is he coaching today? He was a college coach briefly if that helps you out any.
-
But tell me. Who was the defensive coordinator for Alabama in 1992? Which college or NFL team is he coaching today? He was a college coach briefly if that helps you out any.
Who is Bill Oliver. The college of fishing in a lake.
I'll take Chizik's Record at Ames for $1000... Alex
-
Who is Bill Oliver. The college of fishing in a lake.
I'll take Chizik's Record at Ames for $1000... Alex
Very good.
He coached some award winners. Was a hell of a DC from what I've heard.
In the category of "Chizik's Record at Ames" Which team did ISU beat to earn Gene Chizik's first road win as head coach?
-
I think we've already established that there was very little change in the defenses at both Auburn and Texas before Chizik and after Chizik.
He came into both places -- schools flush with talent he did not recruit -- and maintained.
Auburn's defense in 2004 was awesome. It was as good or better than that idiotic 1992 defense we've heard so much about at Alabama. Man for man, I think it was better. How many of those players are now in the NFL? Five or six? Maybe more?
But tell me. Who was the defensive coordinator for Alabama in 1992? Which college or NFL team is he coaching today? He was a college coach briefly if that helps you out any.
This is fair, and I even agree to an extent. However, Wes's post was written in direct response to a comparison made to Mike Shula from RWS. Would you agree that Chizik's performance as Wes described it, is a fair response to Mike Shula's career at Tampa Bay?
I can't help but believe that you temper Chizik's success at Auburn, and Texas in an effort to solidify your position overall that he's not HC material. I'm not saying he's a world beater, but I find it hard to believe that Gene Chizik just rode an incredible wave of circumstance and talent to where he is at this point alone. He could have, certainly. I just don't believe that until I see what results he produces. He may very well be Auburn's anti-Christ. I just don't believe there's ANY way of knowing that yet.
-
But tell me. Who was the defensive coordinator for Alabama in 1992? Which college or NFL team is he coaching today? He was a college coach briefly if that helps you out any.
One year vs. three years.
Chizik performed on a consistent basis.
Note: at this point I'm just kicking the can back at you. I was just putting to bed RWS's silly Shula comparisons.
-
This is fair, and I even agree to an extent. However, Wes's post was written in direct response to a comparison made to Mike Shula from RWS. Would you agree that Chizik's performance as Wes described it, is a fair response to Mike Shula's career at Tampa Bay?
I can't help but believe that you temper Chizik's success at Auburn, and Texas in an effort to solidify your position overall that he's not HC material. I'm not saying he's a world beater, but I find it hard to believe that Gene Chizik just rode an incredible wave of circumstance and talent to where he is at this point alone. He could have, certainly. I just don't believe that until I see what results he produces. He may very well be Auburn's anti-Christ. I just don't believe there's ANY way of knowing that yet.
I don't care about Mike Shula one way or another. What he did or didn't do has no bearing on my thinking toward Chizik at all. There is the obvious similarity of the confused deer in the headlights look they both had while on the sidelines. I don't think I've ever seen two people wear dumber expressions, but that's as far as that goes.
What Chizik did as a defensive coordinator has no bearing on his ability to be a head coach. I'd be happy to have him back as DC (except for the fact that he took shots at Auburn when he left and should NEVER be allowed to set foot on Jordan Hare turf again except as an enemy, that I just can't get past).
That is my point. In his one effort to BE a head coach he was an abject failure. You can skew the numbers any way you want, but the fact is that McCarney had the program on as solid a footing as it had ever been. Chizik booted it back to the stone age and did so with shocking swiftness.
Some great assistants turn into great head coaches. Mark Richt, for one. Some don't. Sylvester Croom, Mike Shula, Mike DuBose, Ron Zook, etc.
Using his resume as DC and ignoring his freakishly bad experience as HC doesn't make logical sense to me. I could see a Tulane or Southern Miss or UAB taking a chance on a guy like that and hoping he would improve. But we are Auburn. Bringing him in, particularly to a league that boasts Meyer, Richt, Saban, Nutt, Petrino, Johnson, Brooks, Spurrier and Miles was offensive. It was the rinkiest of dink. No palatable justification was ever offered by the administration. No reasonable explanation was given. Jay Jacobs tied our football future to his "hunch." That's not good enough for me. That's why I say the hire will always be a bad one.
Sometimes you make a mistake and it turns out okay for you. Maybe you have a one-night stand with a fat, ugly chick and get her pregnant. Her dad forces you to get married. Later on she loses weight, has plastic surgery and ends up looking pretty hot. Your kid turns out okay. She can cook a little. So it turns out fine. But crawling in bed with the hippo was STILL a mistake.
-
One year vs. three years.
Chizik performed on a consistent basis.
Note: at this point I'm just kicking the can back at you. I was just putting to bed RWS's silly Shula comparisons.
You're saying Bill Oliver didn't perform on a consistent basis?
I have to disagree there. He did so for far longer than Chizik has.
Why isn't Brother Bill the head coach of the Dallas Cowboys AND the Green Bay Packers, simultaneously. He was a damn good DC.
So was Wayne Hall. Where'd he end up being head coach?
-
You're saying Bill Oliver didn't perform on a consistent basis?
I have to disagree there. He did so for far longer than Chizik has.
You only referenced '92. Thus, my response.
Honest question: does Oliver sport the same awards/achievements on his resume as Chizik?
-
Your also forgetting that Oliver chose to retire. Its not like after getting snubbed at Auburn he didn't have other offers.
-
You only referenced '92. Thus, my response.
Honest question: does Oliver sport the same awards/achievements on his resume as Chizik?
He only coached the best defense, ever, in the history of college football. All defenses, past, present and future must be measured against it. No offense ever scored against it. In fact, it scored most of the points for its own team. It was so awesome, Kool Aid named a flavor after it. Michael Jackson wrote a song about it, but it was so touching it made him cry and he could never manage to perform it, thus it has never been heard. That defense was so awesome that Hitler came back from the grave and surrendered to it so he could save a little dignity. It was so awesome the government tried to purchase it to replace the Hoover Dam. The Dam plan fell through, though.
Yeah. He coached that. I don't have any idea about the awards.
I'm going to do an analysis of that damn team. That's my mission for the next few days. It was not that fucking good and I'm going to prove it.
-
Your also forgetting that Oliver chose to retire. Its not like after getting snubbed at Auburn he didn't have other offers.
Oliver would have sucked a goat's dick at the 50 yard line during halftime of the SuperBowl if somebody would have given him a coaching position.
He didn't fucking retire. He was let go when Tuberville was hired and despite constant campaigning on his part was never even fucking interviewed for another job.
Most of that was because he was known to be a rancorous back-stabbing bitch and earned that reputation deservedly.
-
I'm going to do an analysis of that damn team. That's my mission for the next few days. It was not that fucking good and I'm going to prove it.
It's times like this that I can love you again.
-
It's times like this that I can love you again.
I'm pretty sure based on some previous research I did that the 2004 AU team played much stronger opposition. That so-called otherworldly 1992 defense averaged almost 10 ppg. The '04 AU defense allowed just over 11 ppg, but the competition was (to my memory) significantly better. I don't think they played but two quality teams in '92. I'll have to go back and dig it up.
When I write it? I will post it to the front page. The bama hacks here will shit their drawers and tell all their friends. We will be inundated with redneck bastards telling us how ignorant we are. Word will get out quickly.
I'll probably get death threats. Gotten them twice in my life. Once when I said Alabama was stupid for giving Shula a raise and another when I said NASCAR was idiotic in general and Dale Earnhardt was no hero just because he buzzed around in circles and killed himself.
You prepared for that?
-
I'm pretty sure based on some previous research I did that the 2004 AU team played much stronger opposition. That so-called otherworldly 1992 defense averaged almost 10 ppg. The '04 AU defense allowed just over 11 ppg, but the competition was (to my memory) significantly better. I don't think they played but two quality teams in '92. I'll have to go back and dig it up.
That team played more top ten opponents than OU and USC combined that year. Sorry, that's the only stat handy in my brain this morning. I trust your research will bear out your premise.
You prepared for that?
I was born ready. I'm with ya, Leather.
-
That team played more top ten opponents than OU and USC combined that year. Sorry, that's the only stat handy in my brain this morning. I trust your research will bear out your premise.
I was born ready. I'm with ya, Leather.
BUT BUT BUT...they played the Citadel.
Automatic disqualification!
-
Sounds like a party to me.
-
He only coached the best defense, ever, in the history of college football. All defenses, past, present and future must be measured against it. No offense ever scored against it. In fact, it scored most of the points for its own team. It was so awesome, Kool Aid named a flavor after it. Michael Jackson wrote a song about it, but it was so touching it made him cry and he could never manage to perform it, thus it has never been heard. That defense was so awesome that Hitler came back from the grave and surrendered to it so he could save a little dignity. It was so awesome the government tried to purchase it to replace the Hoover Dam. The Dam plan fell through, though.
Yeah. He coached that. I don't have any idea about the awards.
I'm going to do an analysis of that damn team. That's my mission for the next few days. It was not that f*cking good and I'm going to prove it.
I COL'd (Chortled Out Loud)
-
I'm pretty sure based on some previous research I did that the 2004 AU team played much stronger opposition. That so-called otherworldly 1992 defense averaged almost 10 ppg. The '04 AU defense allowed just over 11 ppg, but the competition was (to my memory) significantly better. I don't think they played but two quality teams in '92. I'll have to go back and dig it up.
When I write it? I will post it to the front page. The bama hacks here will shit their drawers and tell all their friends. We will be inundated with redneck bastards telling us how ignorant we are. Word will get out quickly.
I'll probably get death threats. Gotten them twice in my life. Once when I said Alabama was stupid for giving Shula a raise and another when I said NASCAR was idiotic in general and Dale Earnhardt was no hero just because he buzzed around in circles and killed himself.
You prepared for that?
If they give that much of a fuck about a team from 17 years ago, they need to let it go. You can't compare a team from 1992 to a team in 2004. Thats why it annoys me when I go on BOL and see people asking if our '09 defense will be better than the 1992 defense. 17. Fucking. Years. People. Shit, even I wouldn't form an argument if you put up whatever stats to say the 1992 team wasn't all that great.
-
If they give that much of a f*ck about a team from 17 years ago, they need to let it go. You can't compare a team from 1992 to a team in 2004. Thats why it annoys me when I go on BOL and see people asking if our '09 defense will be better than the 1992 defense. 17. f*cking. Years. People. sh*t, even I wouldn't form an argument if you put up whatever stats to say the 1992 team wasn't all that great.
BLASPHEMER!!!
It is the team by which all other college football teams must be judged. And all fall short of the glory.
-
BLASPHEMER!!!
It is the team by which all other college football teams must be judged. And all fall short of the glory.
I's thought dat team wuz reeel gewd. Tha most best eva pimp.
Signed,
Antonio Langham
-
I think the one thing about that defense, or better yet, that game...was that I don't think I've ever seen a more glaring endorsement for a playoff system. Meaning...settle the shit on the field. Anyone who followed that game recalls how it was a foregone conclusion that Miami, the baddest mofos in the history of college football, would have a double digit cakewalk. They had the Swagga. It was a mismatch talent wise of epic proportions. Hype doesn't prove a damn thing. The scoreboard does.
Defensively, I'd put our 87' team up there with some of the best evah. SHOULD have played for the MNC had it not been for one decision to go prevent defense against LSU on the last drive of the game....when they hadn't crossed midfield the entire second half. If memory serves, Auburn allowed that 1 TD to LSU then promptly ran off 4 straight shut outs after that.
-
I's thought dat team wuz reeel gewd. Tha most best eva pimp.
Signed,
Antonio Langham
For the record? He signed this on a napkin.
-
For the record? He signed this on a napkin.
You know where he got his shoes?