- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Every coaching candidate has his drawbacks
Posted on 11/2/16 at 10:54 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 11/2/16 at 10:54 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Would you be prepared to give Sloan the LSU job based on interim stats?
did Sloan come back 10 years later and go undefeated and turn around a teams season that was tanking and have his team performing better than they had before in many years? Did the Sloan guy turn a USC program around as soon as he took over and duplicated that task again at LSU? Did Sloan have his teams performing at elite levels where before he took over they looked like crap teams?
0
Posted on 11/2/16 at 10:57 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:you might want to check that again, genius.
He and Steve Sloan are the only 2 not to have a winning record.
Posted on 11/2/16 at 11:02 pm to MastrShake
quote:
you might want to check that again, genius.
Uh no, you might
Posted on 11/2/16 at 11:04 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Luckily O never had a 11 loss season playing Mac competition, so he has that going for him.
Posted on 11/2/16 at 11:16 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:several coaches dont have a winning record. if youre trying to say they never had a winning season, youre a dolt and you need to learn how to speak.
Uh no, you might
Posted on 11/2/16 at 11:30 pm to MastrShake
quote:
youre just gonna keep saying that over and over arent you, even though its not even close to true. forget the SEC, he doesnt even have the worst history at Ole Miss. before Freeze, most of their HCs had records just as bad as Orgerons. that program has sucked for 50 years, it has nothing to do with O.
God damn you are so dishonest it is amazing.
Again, Ole Miss has had seven losing seasons in the past 20 years. O had 3 of them. Somehow the history of Ole Miss is relevant to the fact that O had losing seasons, but Coach O's losing record as a head coach has no relevance to his future success.
Tuberville had as many wins as O had losses. Yet somehow you have the audacity to claim that a losing record in the SEC for both of them makes them effectively equal. I mean, most of their HCs did not have records just as bad as Orgeron. There is a world of difference between 12-20 and 3-21.
I wish you would stop being so dishonest about his time at Ole Miss.
Posted on 11/2/16 at 11:44 pm to boxcar willie
quote:
Every coaching candidate has his drawbacks
This kind of false equivalency is completely dishonest. Some coaches do have credentials better than others. For example:
1) Some of the candidates have coached their teams to multiple 10 win seasons.
2) One of the candidates has actually won a national championship.
3) Almost all of the candidates are viewed as superior football minds by their proponents - notably Orgeron is an exception.
If you can't make comparisons you can't make a decision. If you can't honestly think about qualifications for different candidates then you really have no place in an adult discussion about a football program that can uplift or depress a whole university.
This isn't about personality, or where someone is from, or what they say in a press conference, or what they say to radio show hosts and boosters. This is about proven performance (read credentials) over a long period of time.
Posted on 11/3/16 at 1:44 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
Somehow the history of Ole Miss is relevant to the fact that O had losing seasons, but Coach O's losing record as a head coach has no relevance to his future success.
This...
I just don't understand how people say that because ole miss had bad coaches it makes sense (or acceptable) that O was bad, and we should not focus on his ole miss time.
If we're going to say that it was expected or acceptable to be that bad as HC, that means Cutcliffe and Freeze should be higher up on the list for LSU head coach than Orgeron.
Posted on 11/3/16 at 1:49 am to molsusports
quote:
This kind of false equivalency is completely dishonest
I find that most anti o people would be happy with getting any one of the top tier candidates (o should not be one as of now), but the pro o people seem to be more O or bust.
There are some pro o people who like several candidates, but i feel that is the exception and not the rule. I just find it interesting that they already have it narrowed down to O or bust. We haven't even played a good team or road game. Hopefully the AD isn't as short sighted as these people.
ETA: I think a lot of these people are scared tbh. Not saying that to be mean, btw. I simply mean that Les had taken us down such a spiral with the offense that wheb O came in it excited everyone, understandably. They're scared that if something changes you may destroy the formula. Which, again, i totally understand.
I think a lot of the die hard O fans will come back down to reality if he drops one or two. Right now, they're just too happy to want to look at other coaches. I get it, but please don't try and make terrible arguments of why O is the best man for the job because you know there are several (at least one) better candidates on the table right now.
This post was edited on 11/3/16 at 2:08 am
Posted on 11/3/16 at 2:16 am to Tiger Tracker
O's time at Ole Miss was as bad as it was largely because of his approach while there he recruited very well for Ole Miss standard at the time, but was treating a head coaching job like he was still coaching the DL. Screaming and yelling at everyone including his staff the same as he did at his DL players as their position coach. That is destined to fail.
He's seemed to have learned from that, but that doesn't mean he will make a great coach. His time at USC as the interim proves he improved but it was a very different setup there and they were still dealing with sanctions at the time. They had no depth.
In the end, no judgement needs to be made on O either way until at least the end of the regular season plus SEC CG if that ends up in play. So far he's doing everything right. Let's see how things play out though.
He's seemed to have learned from that, but that doesn't mean he will make a great coach. His time at USC as the interim proves he improved but it was a very different setup there and they were still dealing with sanctions at the time. They had no depth.
In the end, no judgement needs to be made on O either way until at least the end of the regular season plus SEC CG if that ends up in play. So far he's doing everything right. Let's see how things play out though.
Posted on 11/3/16 at 2:25 am to Geauxgurt
quote:
Let's see how things play out though.
I agree. I'm just saying we don't ignore the past OR any future success he has. It all has to be taken in to account when evaluating him.
It's just weird to me how people pretend like he already earned the job in the long term. O is a dark horse candidate, let's face it. He has a troubling past as HC compared to other candidates out there. He's gonna have to do a lot more than beat bama to prove he is really the man for the job. Although beating bama would be a damn good statement, it's not enough to sign him.
This post was edited on 11/3/16 at 2:26 am
Posted on 11/3/16 at 6:40 am to molsusports
quote:
3) Almost all of the candidates are viewed as superior football minds by their proponents - notably Orgeron is an exception.
but if he goes undefeated the rest of the season, along with what he did at usc, he will have proven that either he does have a "superior football mind" or that having a "superior football mind" really isn't relevant to being a great college football HC.
Posted on 11/3/16 at 7:40 am to boxcar willie
quote:
but if he goes undefeated the rest of the season, along with what he did at usc, he will have proven that either he does have a "superior football mind" or that having a "superior football mind" really isn't relevant to being a great college football HC.
Along with what he did at USC? Isn't relevant?
Posted on 11/3/16 at 7:50 am to LesGeaux45
quote:
Why is everyone calling Jimbo old? The dude is 51. You guys talk like he's got a foot in the grave
Wasn't Saban 50 years old when he took the LSU job?
Jimbo isn't old at all.
Posted on 11/3/16 at 7:52 am to molsusports
quote:
Along with what he did at USC? Isn't relevant?
I don't understand. Are you asking is it relevant or are you saying it isn't relevant?
Of course it is relevant. It is part of his head coaching history. It is more recent than what he did at Ole Miss, so if people want to bring up Ole Miss, then what he did at USC is further proof that he isn't the same coach he was then. But to me, none of that is as relevant as what he does AT LSU. His coaching ability in the right here and now, at LSU, is what is most relevant. So how the tigers finish out the season is his most telling test of his abilities as a HC for LSU.
Posted on 11/3/16 at 7:59 am to boxcar willie
quote:
Of course it is relevant.
And it wasn't very remarkable when you notice the results. He was interim coach for USC when they played three good teams. They lost two of those three games and one of them was a blowout at home.
After he quit they played a good Fresno State team and won that game without him.
quote:
So how the tigers finish out the season is his most telling test of his abilities as a HC for LSU.
If he had some sort of positive history as a head coach then I would be fine with this argument. But he doesn't have a Miles at Ok State or Fedora at North Carolina kind of record. He has a terrible record as head coach.
Basing a hire on a few games as interim makes no sense. Unless you think LSU is a terrible program with no reason to think they should expect an accomplished head coach - or at a minimum a young and super talented guy who might turn out to be the next Spurrier or Saban level mind.
Posted on 11/3/16 at 8:19 am to molsusports
quote:
Basing a hire on a few games as interim makes no sense
it won't be based on a few games, it will be based on the majority of the season. If he finishes out with a great finish, he should at least get serious consideration.
quote:
accomplished head coach - or at a minimum a young and super talented guy who might turn out to be the next Spurrier or Saban level mind.
well yes, if we can get the next meyer or Saban then we need to get them and not Orgeron. Also who are the accomplished great coaches that want to come coach LSU? If we can't get one of them or the next meyer/saban then we may go with Orgeron if he shows he has a "superior football mind" or it is proven that a "superier football mind" isn't that important as some other qualities may be.
Posted on 11/3/16 at 8:32 am to boxcar willie
quote:
it won't be based on a few games, it will be based on the majority of the season. If he finishes out with a great finish, he should at least get serious consideration.
No. The baseball equivalent would be giving a pitcher with a very inconsistent history the same money and opportunity as one of the best pitchers in the game who has been consistent for half a decade or more.
Only an incredibly foolish general manager would pick that questionable pitcher over a more proven, consistent, or promising pitcher. Keep in mind we're not talking about a shooting star who just burst onto the scene. We're talking about a guy who has been in the business for more than a decade and, at best, would have most of a single season to point to as really good.
quote:
well yes, if we can get the next meyer or Saban then we need to get them and not Orgeron.
Yes well. You don't know who the next one will be but you either take a proven commodities like Fisher or Kelly or you take a shot on a young guy who might be that like Aranda, Herman, or Fleck.
Posted on 11/3/16 at 10:19 am to boxcar willie
quote:
it won't be based on a few games, it will be based on the majority of the season
That's a few games
quote:
but if he goes undefeated the rest of the season, along with what he did at usc, he will have proven that either he does have a "superior football mind" or that having a "superior football mind" really isn't relevant to being a great college football HC.
No we won't have. Winning games as an IHC is not the same as running the program for multiple years, it's just not. When you take over in mid-season with a talent roster, all you need to do get the kids refocused and energized and game plan. And when you take over in midseason, then something went wrong so you can fix it and win some games. As has been pointed out at USC, he beat mostly scrubs and went 1-2 against the better teams. So far at LSU he's beaten 2 scrubs and a reeling OM. People are getting too emotional about the stark contrast to Miles, who had clearly burnt out. If O goes Steve Fisher and wins it all, then give him the job, short of that, I want either a proven guy or and up and comer like molsu said.
This post was edited on 11/3/16 at 10:30 am
Posted on 11/3/16 at 11:02 am to boxcar willie
Just make sure when you keep discussing his HC record you throw the word interim in front of HC. That way people don't think you're seriously trying to compare winning 11 games as an interim hc to winning 11 games after building your own program as an actual HC because they are not the same thing.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News