Which of these past SEC coaches were mediocre?

dooley

Why is Bear Bryant on your list of choices? I hated the old fart but come on. Most of those guys had their ups and downs. Dooley would be my one choice from that list I guess.

I truly believe that TT was pretty damned mediocre. I know I'm on the outs with the rest of the rant on this one...but I feel that the guy was horrible. Sure he got screwed in 08...but he had some very talented teams that he scratched out pretty average seasons with...while Bammer was DOWN.

He took unnecessary risks...his game planning was less than stellar. Dude could recruit, though.

(no message)

Easily, it's Tuberville. Totally mediocre.

Charles McClendon.

quote:

---

A lot of SEC coaches through the years would seem to fit the definitions of mediocre (or non elite) that are used by some.

---

Why is it that Miles defenders NEVER EVER talk about actual gameplay, coaching decisions, player development, etc. and ALWAYS go to the overall record?

Because you can't defend Miles based on the way the team actually plays on the field. You can only do it by pointing at the record.

Well guess what. You can't win them all, and, over the last 3 years, Miles hasn't been winning very many that weren't gimmes. Coaches can't always be held responsible for whether their team wins or loses a particular game. We all know that the Auburn game itself is not a damning indictment of Miles and wouldn't have been a shining endorsement of him had we won. It's the cumulative way the team performs. It's the process.

Is Coach Miles a great coach, and is he worth the very large sums of money we pay him? Is he as good as Bear Bryant was?

Those questions can't be answered just by comparing overall records. That's a foolish and shallow way of answering the question. That's how we are in the "huge buyout" mess we are in today.

quote:

---

NEVER EVER talk about actual gameplay, coaching decisions, player development,

---

No one ever talks about it, from either side?

One thing I know, is that the folks that I talk to or see post here that have actually played the game at a high level, or coached at a pretty sophisticated program.....generally have some problems with very specific areas of Miles coaching....end of game management.

But a true Xs and Os discussion has been had on here very few times. Namely because, most posters here can not even recognize the myriad of coverages or formations that are used.

We still here a major point of detraction as the 'short side' option. It makes not a frick if it is run short or wide...it needs to be run correctly...but it gets the detractors all lathered up to say short side.

Also, what in the hell does it matter what we pay him...are you looking for a value investment. If you are going to look at the investment in terms of dollars, you have to look at the performance of the team/program in dollars...do you want to have that debate?

You dont want to judge on wins in losses.....one thing the average person can talk about.

You want to talk about game planning, execution, and development...something about 15 people on this board can do......

Pick a fricking debate, stop with the generalzations, and the buzz words.

quote:

---

Most of us have been watching football long enough to know the difference b/t a well-coached team and a poorly-coached team when we see them. You don't have to be able to create an offensive gameplan to know when you are watching a poor offensive gameplan. I don't have to be able to coach the offensive line to know that our offensive line is not living up to it's billing.

---

Ok..you say we are poorly executing....yet no one can explain what part....and if they do, there are about 100 things that affect it on a gamefield.

Everyone identifies a poor offensive game plan AFTER it does not work.

I dont see any posts on the 'game plan' being poor when we are moving the ball on occasion.

Once again, only results are being judged.

So why not lend some weight to the ultimate which is wins and losses.

When we dont blow out teams, we point to the scoreboard and say...see how close it was, disregarding the asswhipping on the field.

When we lose close, you say...dont look at the scoreboard, it wasnt that close.

Where is there any objectivity?

quote:

---

Why is it that Miles defenders NEVER EVER talk about actual gameplay, coaching decisions, player development, etc. and ALWAYS go to the overall record?

---

because
1. EVERY COACH MAKES MISTAKES. there are no exceptions. rational fans realize that even the "greatest" coaches are imperfect. saban choked ark '02, iowa '04, uab 2000, ulm @ bama, etc. negatigers have a double standard with miles. other coaches mistakes are just part of the game. miles' mistakes are stupidity. negatigers focus on the small percentage of what miles does wrong and miss the HUGE percentage of what is going right in the process making lsu football a drag.
2. overall record is what really counts. since every team has fans that complain, the difference is won/loss record. in that category, miles is exceptional.

quote:

---

Miles hasn't been winning very many that weren't gimmes

---

here is the cognitive dissonance from negatigers: they want the sec to be the toughest, most competitive conference and at the same time want lsu to dominate. those two are mutually exclusive meaning, you can't have them both.