- 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: Who was a more questionable hire Mike Archer, Curley Hallman, Gerry DiNardo or Ed Orgeron?
Posted on 2/12/18 at 8:16 am to The First Cut
Posted on 2/12/18 at 8:16 am to The First Cut
quote:
Orgeron had a sliver of fan support behind his hire; DiNardo had none. Fans warmed up after his 6-4-1 first year, but no one liked the hire at the time.
quote:
someone from the Bronx that didn’t know recruiting in the Deep Sout
I really don’t remember DiNardo being all that controversial. We had 6 straight losing seasons at that point. As for recruiting concerns one of his first press conferences he said he had to leave for Carencro to recruit which everyone knew was Kevin Faulk. When Faulk signed people where pretty happy
2
Posted on 2/12/18 at 8:35 am to H-Town Tiger
I find it comical that in a thread where the question is "who was the most questionable HIRE?" we have people taking about their records once they were coach to determine the answer. 
Are you guys simple or something? What they did AFTER their hire has nothing at all to do with whether or not their actual HIRING was questionable...and this has been part of what many Orgeron defenders have been missing for over a year as many of us have continued to rail against his HIRING.
Even at the time, there were many solid reasons for the hiring of the three other coaches mentioned in the OP's question and Scoob has essentially nailed all of them earlier. Regardless of how their tenures turned out, each one of them had solid reasons for being either a solid hire or a worthwhile risk given the circumstances and the state of the LSU program at the time of their hiring. Only their actual tenures once hired, and being able to look back at other potential hires and how they ultimately turned out even remotely make them look bad...and that's simply intellectually dishonest given the question at hand.
There will NEVER be a good reason other than "every other coach in America with head coaching experience with a greater winning percentage than .500 turned us down AND all potential up and coming coordinators ALSO turned us down" that makes sense to have turned over the 2016 LSU Football program to Ed Orgeron and his career 10-25 head coaching record. Even if he turns a cross between Vince Lombardi and Nick Saban his HIRING will always be the worst we've ever had at LSU even if his ultimate win/loss record is spectacular. If he suceeds it wil not suddenly be the template all other Power 5 Programs use to hire their future coaches...look for abject failures and hire them anyway and hope for the best. Seriously...what's wrong with some of you?
** This is not a response to the poster I responded to...I just responded to the last post in the thread. FYI.
Are you guys simple or something? What they did AFTER their hire has nothing at all to do with whether or not their actual HIRING was questionable...and this has been part of what many Orgeron defenders have been missing for over a year as many of us have continued to rail against his HIRING.
Even at the time, there were many solid reasons for the hiring of the three other coaches mentioned in the OP's question and Scoob has essentially nailed all of them earlier. Regardless of how their tenures turned out, each one of them had solid reasons for being either a solid hire or a worthwhile risk given the circumstances and the state of the LSU program at the time of their hiring. Only their actual tenures once hired, and being able to look back at other potential hires and how they ultimately turned out even remotely make them look bad...and that's simply intellectually dishonest given the question at hand.
There will NEVER be a good reason other than "every other coach in America with head coaching experience with a greater winning percentage than .500 turned us down AND all potential up and coming coordinators ALSO turned us down" that makes sense to have turned over the 2016 LSU Football program to Ed Orgeron and his career 10-25 head coaching record. Even if he turns a cross between Vince Lombardi and Nick Saban his HIRING will always be the worst we've ever had at LSU even if his ultimate win/loss record is spectacular. If he suceeds it wil not suddenly be the template all other Power 5 Programs use to hire their future coaches...look for abject failures and hire them anyway and hope for the best. Seriously...what's wrong with some of you?
** This is not a response to the poster I responded to...I just responded to the last post in the thread. FYI.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 12:03 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
As for recruiting concerns one of his first press conferences he said he had to leave for Carencro to recruit which everyone knew was Kevin Faulk.
Hallman already had Faulk committed, DiNardo went to Carencro to keep him.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News