Started By
Message
1
Posted on 11/1/22 at 12:48 pm to Rabern57
where do you think he would go?Posted on 11/1/22 at 12:50 pm to jangalang
Curses on you Jang for making me click on anything related to Jake Crain :)
Posted on 11/1/22 at 12:52 pm to AUCE05
quote:I don't think he has thought about it before he's left everywhere. When he left Florida he claimed health problems and then popped back up coaching.
where do you think he would go?
This post was edited on 11/1/22 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 11/1/22 at 12:54 pm to Rabern57
Deion or Lane please. Wouldn't be devastated by Freeze. Pass on Grimes.
Posted on 11/1/22 at 12:55 pm to beatbammer
quote:How do you define "massive failure"?
the other is a proven and massive failure at the previous opportunities he has been afforded at this same task
Rhule is one of 4 coaches in the history of the Baylor Bears with a 10+ win season (Aranda, Briles, and Grant Teaff).
He is one of 2 coaches in Temple's history to have a 10+ win season (twice).
To say he didn't live up to your recruiting or winning expectations is one thing, but to say he's a "massive failure" is just plain wrong.
ETA: What he did at Baylor is even more impressive considering where that program was when he started. I just don't understand how some folks are discounting or flat out ignoring that.
This post was edited on 11/1/22 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 11/1/22 at 12:57 pm to Poker Dough
Updated 11/01/2022
Peter’s Top 5 Auburn HC list:
1. Prime
2. Urban Meyer
3. Kiffen
4. Chris Klieman
5. Bob Stoops
Peter’s Top 5 Auburn HC list:
1. Prime
2. Urban Meyer
3. Kiffen
4. Chris Klieman
5. Bob Stoops
Posted on 11/1/22 at 1:04 pm to Poker Dough
I Just think they need to pick someone and stick to them for a set time to give them a shot. I don't know how you do it with a gamble (unproven at an equal level as Auburn) or someone who has failed more than succeeded as a HC. Too many are just sold on the simple stuff without digging deeper and that's what got us in trouble with Harsin. They saw his record and thought he must be good without looking at where he was, who he played, how he did when things were at there worst, etc.
With Kiffin they just see his record now at OM and ignore how close he's came to losing to bad teams or how bad the teams he's beat are. Deion they see the record and ignore the facts the teams he's beating are mostly garbage and getting beat by everyone. They see his smooth talking and bling and ignore what is going to win games. They ignore he's never even been on a big program's staff as anything. With Freeze they want to ignore record and coaching and only look at him off the field.
With Kiffin they just see his record now at OM and ignore how close he's came to losing to bad teams or how bad the teams he's beat are. Deion they see the record and ignore the facts the teams he's beating are mostly garbage and getting beat by everyone. They see his smooth talking and bling and ignore what is going to win games. They ignore he's never even been on a big program's staff as anything. With Freeze they want to ignore record and coaching and only look at him off the field.
This post was edited on 11/1/22 at 1:49 pm
Posted on 11/1/22 at 1:35 pm to wareaglepete
quote:
pdated 11/01/2022
Peter’s Top 5 Auburn HC list:
1. Prime
2. Urban Meyer
3. Kiffen
4. Chris Klieman
5. Bob Stoops
Upvoted.
Posted on 11/1/22 at 1:41 pm to Niner
quote:
How do you define "massive failure"?
Rhule is one of 4 coaches in the history of the Baylor Bears with a 10+ win season (Aranda, Briles, and Grant Teaff).
He is one of 2 coaches in Temple's history to have a 10+ win season (twice).
To say he didn't live up to your recruiting or winning expectations is one thing, but to say he's a "massive failure" is just plain wrong.
ETA: What he did at Baylor is even more impressive considering where that program was when he started. I just don't understand how some folks are discounting or flat out ignoring that.
I said he was a proven and massive failure AT THAT SAME TASK (beating Top 25 teams) and you reply to me quoting things that have nothing to do with what I posted.
By the way, Auburn head coaches usually and frequently are faced with playing Top 25 teams frequently now than any time in the past. Rhule is a coach who can "organize a program" but then only beat mediocre to bad opponents (which is how he racked up those win totals of his at Baylor in the mediocre to bad Big 12).
And Rhule's DC who is attached to him at the hip (Snow) made Derek Brown look utterly pedestrian at Carolina the last 2+ seasons. In the 3 weeks Brown has been coached/coordinated since Rhule/Snow's dismissal, he's been dominating the LOS again.
Posted on 11/1/22 at 1:52 pm to beatbammer
quote:Fair enough - I didn't read your post correctly. I still don't know that I would say "massive", but he didn't beat any top 25 teams - that is correct and would be defined as "failure".
I said he was a proven and massive failure AT THAT SAME TASK (beating Top 25 teams) and you reply to me quoting things that have nothing to do with what I posted.
By the way, Auburn head coaches usually and frequently are faced with playing Top 25 teams frequently now than any time in the past. Rhule is a coach who can "organize a program" but then only beat mediocre to bad opponents (which is how he racked up those win totals of his at Baylor in the mediocre to bad Big 12).
And Rhule's DC who is attached to him at the hip (Snow) made Derek Brown look utterly pedestrian at Carolina the last 2+ seasons. In the 3 weeks Brown has been coached/coordinated since Rhule/Snow's dismissal, he's been dominating the LOS again.
My point is that you and others are, IMHO, overly discounting the level of difficulty in winning 10+ games at Temple and Baylor - even given where their conferences were at the time. There were other periods of time when those conferences were "down" and the coach at Baylor and Temple didn't win 10 games. Whether Rhule succeeds or fails, no one ultimately knows, but I'd give credit to what he has done as a college football head coach vs some of the other candidates.
Forgive my misunderstanding.
Posted on 11/1/22 at 1:58 pm to Niner
quote:
just don't understand how some folks are discounting or flat out ignoring that.
They have to ignore it to make their narrative make sense.
Posted on 11/1/22 at 2:01 pm to beatbammer
quote:
I said he was a proven and massive failure AT THAT SAME TASK (beating Top 25 teams) and you reply to me quoting things that have nothing to do with what I posted.
By the way, Auburn head coaches usually and frequently are faced with playing Top 25 teams frequently now than any time in the past. Rhule is a coach who can "organize a program" but then only beat mediocre to bad opponents (which is how he racked up those win totals of his at Baylor in the mediocre to bad Big 12).
But this is stupid and a lazy take, man.
YOU NEED CONTEXT!
Year 1:
Complete rebuild. They went 1-11. Of course they beat no ranked teams. This is a data point that you just throw out the window entirely because it means nothing.
Year 2:
7-6. Zero ranked wins. This is a very typical "turning point" season for a rebuilding team that you see all the time. In other words, the team is improving and starts beating poor to average teams, but they simply aren't good enough to compete with teams that are better than them (ie: ranked teams). This is kind of like Chizik's first season at Auburn wherein we went 8-5 but lost to pretty much every "good" team we played. Keep in mind, Baylor is still amassing and developing their talent here after a mass exodus.
Year 3:
11-3. Zero ranked wins. Ok what happened here? Well they only played three ranked opponents...and they were #10 Oklahoma, #6 Oklahoma, and #5 Georgia. Keep in mind that both Oklahoma and Georgia have vastly more talent than Baylor. Yes Baylor is "good" by year three here, but there is still a talent discrepancy on the field. He lost to Oklahoma by 3-points in game #1 and then lost to them by 7-points in overtime in game #2. They lost by 12 points to a 12-win Georgia team that finished the season ranked #4.
He leaves after year #3, but this is exactly when the "reign" is supposed to start. So he never actually gets to coach through the potential seasons wherein his program is rolling which is where the wins against ranked teams ACTUALLY take place. There just isn't enough data there to suggest that he has some fundamental inability to "beat ranked teams". There isn't. You can't say "oh he barely lost to vastly more talented Oklahoma and Georgia in the first season wherein his team was good, he can't win the big game!" and pretend like that's a reasonable take.
I've mentioned this before, but this exact argument and loose use of a "statistic" is incredibly similar to the first few years of Kirby's tenure at Georgia wherein he was beating bad to above average teams, but was still losing "the big game" and allegedly blowing it. There were a LOT of takes during this period wherein he was being compared to Richt and it was being joked about how he was Saban's bitch and would never compete with him.
Again, it takes more than 2-3 years before the winning and direction actually starts to stabilize and formulate into an actual machine.
Posted on 11/1/22 at 2:46 pm to metafour
quote:Agree with the lazy take as you left some context out.
But this is stupid and a lazy take, man.
YOU NEED CONTEXT!
Year 1:
Complete rebuild. They went 1-11. Of course they beat no ranked teams. This is a data point that you just throw out the window entirely because it means nothing.
Year 2:
7-6. Zero ranked wins. This is a very typical "turning point" season for a rebuilding team that you see all the time. In other words, the team is improving and starts beating poor to average teams, but they simply aren't good enough to compete with teams that are better than them (ie: ranked teams). This is kind of like Chizik's first season at Auburn wherein we went 8-5 but lost to pretty much every "good" team we played. Keep in mind, Baylor is still amassing and developing their talent here after a mass exodus.
Year 3:
11-3. Zero ranked wins. Ok what happened here? Well they only played three ranked opponents...and they were #10 Oklahoma, #6 Oklahoma, and #5 Georgia. Keep in mind that both Oklahoma and Georgia have vastly more talent than Baylor. Yes Baylor is "good" by year three here, but there is still a talent discrepancy on the field. He lost to Oklahoma by 3-points in game #1 and then lost to them by 7-points in overtime in game #2. They lost by 12 points to a 12-win Georgia team that finished the season ranked #4.
He leaves after year #3, but this is exactly when the "reign" is supposed to start. So he never actually gets to coach through the potential seasons wherein his program is rolling which is where the wins against ranked teams ACTUALLY take place. There just isn't enough data there to suggest that he has some fundamental inability to "beat ranked teams". There isn't. You can't say "oh he barely lost to vastly more talented Oklahoma and Georgia in the first season wherein his team was good, he can't win the big game!" and pretend like that's a reasonable take.
I've mentioned this before, but this exact argument and loose use of a "statistic" is incredibly similar to the first few years of Kirby's tenure at Georgia wherein he was beating bad to above average teams, but was still losing "the big game" and allegedly blowing it. There were a LOT of takes during this period wherein he was being compared to Richt and it was being joked about how he was Saban's bitch and would never compete with him.
Again, it takes more than 2-3 years before the winning and direction actually starts to stabilize and formulate into an actual machine.
They lost to ranked opponents when they were ranked around those opponents
No. 10 Sooners
No. 13 Bears
No. 7 Bears
No. 6 Sooners
No. 5 Bulldogs
No. 7 Bears
They still lost those games and came close to loosing to unranked teams. You stated that those teams had vastly better players but we are in year 3 of his tenure which means he had at least 2 good years recruiting. They held up against the Sooners in their second matchup.
You compare his year 2 to Chiziks first season. Dude year 2 to a year 1? I can understand because he was rebuilding but I would think that Chizik played a tougher schedule in year 1.
There was a reason for him to leave. Maybe it was the money or ego of being a NFL HC but I don't think he put enough on the table. I don't think his recruiting would be that great in comparison to say Lane or Prime
Posted on 11/1/22 at 4:12 pm to 88TIger
Someone want to interpret what Prime says here?
A reporter asked @DeionSanders about Auburn. His response (Twitter link)
"Fraudulent slip..."
A reporter asked @DeionSanders about Auburn. His response (Twitter link)
"Fraudulent slip..."
Posted on 11/1/22 at 4:13 pm to beatbammer
quote:
I said he was a proven and massive failure AT THAT SAME TASK (beating Top 25 teams)
He beat every ranked team he played at Temple. Your narrative is a massive failure
Posted on 11/1/22 at 4:15 pm to Niner
Fraudulent slip:
He’s such a GOAT already
He’s such a GOAT already
Posted on 11/1/22 at 4:21 pm to 88TIger
quote:247Sports College Football Team Talent Composite for 2019
No. 10 Sooners
No. 13 Bears
No. 7 Bears
No. 6 Sooners
No. 5 Bulldogs
No. 7 Bears
Bulldogs #3 (14 5*s, 45 4*s)
Sooners #8 (5 5*s, 45 4*s)
Bears #35 (0 5*s, 14 4*s)
Posted on 11/1/22 at 4:48 pm to Ccslimm
That's good news
Page 220 of 542
Latest Auburn News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News