Started By
Message
re: So let's talk about Saban's tree.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 9:33 am to CapstoneGrad06
Posted on 4/22/16 at 9:33 am to CapstoneGrad06
First of all it is not based on time. In Muschamp case, his schemes and play calling are very similar to Brother Oliver's philosophy.
In Fishers case, he is running the same Offense that Samford and Auburn ran under Bowden, which is the same Offense that FSU ran under BB.
In Fishers case, he is running the same Offense that Samford and Auburn ran under Bowden, which is the same Offense that FSU ran under BB.
2
Posted on 4/22/16 at 9:50 am to Irons Puppet
Okay, guy. Anything to discredit any influence from Saban I guess. You sure you don't want to credit this one to Wayne Hall too?
We might as well try and credit Stallings while we are at it. Oliver coached under him from 1990-1995.
We might as well try and credit Stallings while we are at it. Oliver coached under him from 1990-1995.
This post was edited on 4/22/16 at 9:53 am
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:28 am to Irons Puppet
You can make up whatever makes you feel better, ITAT Puppet. The fact remains that Fisher himself said that he's implemented Saban process.
Oh, and I realize you don't actually watch much football, but you should probably watch an FSU game before making observations about their offense. Fisher has been running a pro-style for a while now.
Oh, and I realize you don't actually watch much football, but you should probably watch an FSU game before making observations about their offense. Fisher has been running a pro-style for a while now.
This post was edited on 4/22/16 at 10:29 am
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:32 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
Was that funnier in your head
Not an attempt to be funny. It's factual. Dooley had a side piece in Knoxville. It's also factual that he wasn't ready for the demands of being HC in the SEC. I'm pretty sure Saban knew that but couldn't/wouldn't ever say that publicly.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:41 am to bamasgot13
quote:
Dooley had a side piece in Knoxville.
Didn't know that. Didn't care either.
quote:
It's also factual that he wasn't ready for the demands of being HC in the SEC.
Well no fricking DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
quote:
I'm pretty sure Saban knew that but couldn't/wouldn't ever say that publicly.
Which was exactly my point
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:41 am to CapstoneGrad06
Saban doesn't need for you to inflate his resume. But fans like to re-write history to help their argument. Saban does brag about his coaching tree, but the bammers will claim anybody that has driven on I-20.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 11:04 am to Irons Puppet
Lol. Let's forget the fact that many of the same principles Saban employs on defense are used by Muschamp. Which, by the way, are very similar to those used by Stallings and Oliver. But yeah, that one year as GA at Auburn with Oliver, versus five years with Saban at LSU. That's a shallow argument at best.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 11:38 am to CapstoneGrad06
quote:
Lol. Let's forget the fact that many of the same principles Saban employs on defense are used by Muschamp. Which, by the way, are very similar to those used by Stallings and Oliver. But yeah, that one year as GA at Auburn with Oliver, versus five years with Saban at LSU. That's a shallow argument at best.
There are not that many diverse defensive schemes out there that have not been copied by other coaches. You bammers want to believe Saban invented Defense, The shallow argument is about how the five years with Saban trumps the 40+ years that a coach lives. You can give Kirby and some of the other long time assistants to Saban, but the others (including Dooley) have been influence by a lot of coaches. Any coach that has sniffed Saban's crotch is going to claim his principles right now. It sounds good in interviews.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 11:39 am to G8RnGA
quote:
Saban's Tree
It's taller than him
Posted on 4/22/16 at 11:47 am to Irons Puppet
quote:
Saban does brag about his coaching tree, but the bammers will claim anybody that has driven on I-20.
Yea, it's such a stretch to consider Will Muschamp as part of the Saban coaching tree.
Besides, why would we want to claim him?
Posted on 4/22/16 at 11:48 am to Irons Puppet
quote:
You bammers want to believe Saban invented Defense
Nah, we were great on defense many years before Saban showed up. I think we know how long it has been around.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 11:57 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
Yea, it's such a stretch to consider Will Muschamp as part of the Saban coaching tree.
Besides, why would we want to claim him?
You sure have a lot of your fellow cult members try to claim him. The real stretch is Fisher, but the press has been trying to push that also.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 12:01 pm to Irons Puppet
quote:
You sure have a lot of your fellow cult members try to claim him
My point was there is no reason to stretch to claim Muschamp. He sucks. But under anyone's normal "coaching tree" he is 100% in Saban's.
quote:
The real stretch is Fisher, but the press has been trying to push that also.
Fisher is a combination of guys. Offensive philosophy is clearly all his own, but his program structure is obviously based on Saban's. He says as much. And then he coached under Bowden, but to be frank I'm not sure he took anything away from end of career Bobby. I probably wouldn't add him in a Saban tree the same way I wouldn't add Dantonio, but they were both influenced in some way.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 12:02 pm to G8RnGA
Still not as impressive as the Hayden Fry coaching tree
Off the top of my head -
Bill Snyder
Barry Alvarez
Every Stoops brother
Bert Bielema
Kirk Ferentz
Dan McCarney
Jim Leavitt
Even Urban Meyer and all his guys could be considered a smaller branch off the Hayden Fry tree
Off the top of my head -
Bill Snyder
Barry Alvarez
Every Stoops brother
Bert Bielema
Kirk Ferentz
Dan McCarney
Jim Leavitt
Even Urban Meyer and all his guys could be considered a smaller branch off the Hayden Fry tree
Posted on 4/22/16 at 12:03 pm to BowlJackson
quote:
Hayden Fry coaching tree
One of if not the GOAT coaching tree
Don James is pretty solid too
Nick Saban (LSU-Alabama)
Gary Pinkel (Missouri)
Jim L. Mora (UCLA)
This post was edited on 4/22/16 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 4/22/16 at 12:03 pm to Irons Puppet
I guess Alabama can claim Muschamp then, since Oliver played at Alabama and spent 14 years as an assistant.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 12:06 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Fry was the man. Probably one of the smartest coaches ever to come through the college game.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 12:14 pm to BowlJackson
quote:
Fry was the man. Probably one of the smartest coaches ever to come through the college game.
These 2 coaching staffs are always the ones I just look at and drop my jaw
1983 Iowa Coaching Staff
Hayden Fry, Bob Stoops, Dan McCarney, Barry Alvarez, Bill Synder, Kirk Ferentz
1995 Cleveland Browns Staff & Front Office
Coaches : Bill Belichick, Nick Saban, Kirk Ferentz, Pat Hill, Eric Mangini
Front Office : Ozzie Newsome, Scott Pioli, Mike Tannenbaum, Jim Schwartz, Thomas Dimitroff, Phil Savage, Michael Lombardi
It's kind of funny because all of those guys were talented enough to get the top jobs in their field (head coach or general manager) but almost all of them ended up being bad at it.
This post was edited on 4/22/16 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 4/22/16 at 12:26 pm to SummerOfGeorge
I didn't realize Bob Stoops was already coaching in 83. I would've thought he'd still be a head hunting SS for the Hawkeyes at that point
Posted on 4/22/16 at 12:49 pm to randomways
quote:
Back on topic...determining coaching trees probably needs a different paradigm than it once did. Coaching is a much more volatile profession nowadays, with less job security -- can you imagine Richt being fired with the same success (adjusted for number of games) in prior to the 1990s or so? -- and more lateral and upwards mobility. Add in the greater power of information dissemination and ability for fans/sportswriters to provide feedback, and it's just difficult to really say where a coaching tree really deserves to start branching. Some are, as in the Kirby example mentioned, pretty obvious. Most, however, come down to fairly arbitrary/highly subjective criteria.
Strongly agree here. I think the volatility of the profession came along with the more "concrete" nature of a national champion and/or conference champion. In the early 90s, conference championships largely still determined based on total record and head to head wins, so addition of a conference championship game changed things a bit. Even still, with bowl games and #1 rankings being subjective (lots of split national champions up to that point), the advent of the BCS and a MNC put more pressure on being "the best", as opposed to finishing somewhere in the top 10 and then allowing votes to determine who belonged on the top, leaving a lot of subjective consideration.
The pressure to win and win big is greater now, there is no lack of information, and essentially wherever you are, you can watch any game. This was not the case throughout the 80s and most of the 90s. With only four spots in the CFP, it's still pretty crowded to achieve the level that most programs are looking to attain. It seems like 6 with byes for 1 and 2 would make a bit more sense personally, but ultimately expansion is a slippery slope.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News