re: Clancy Pendergast - Defensive Records - updated with his Professional Rankings

quote:

---

MOT - that game seemed to be one of his signature games at Cal, even though they had to take the L. His future ventures against them were not so kind.

---

No problem, just wanted to point that out.

You could also nitpick any potential resume, outside of Smart who isn't realistic, and find bad games or seasons somewhere along the way. As for Cal's W/L record, I can only assume you are blaming LSU's 5 losses this year and 3 last year on Chavis correct?

How do the other candidates compare?

Not really MOT. I thought Chavis was ok, but I think he's lost us several games in the 4th that he actually won for us in the first 3 quarters - if that makes any sense.

I'm not really judging CP based on Cal's W-L record other than pointing out to redfield that Cal was very relevant in the early 2000's. The excuse of "there's no talent there" is kind of a cop-out IMO.

The other poster pointed out CP's D ranked #1 in 3 of the 4 years he was there, which is something I did not research and is a pretty damn valid point. I looked it up and he's right. The one thing he didn't mention is that the one year they didn't rank #1 they dropped all the way from #1 to #10 (2012 his last year at Cal). Take what you want from that.

In light of these revelations, I will now be devastated if CP is hired.

quote:

---

You seem to be infatuated with the number 17. Why 17? After 17... It's 30+. You really seem to be trying hard to find weaknesses in Pendergast.

---

I was trying to come up with a number that anyone would say "that's a good number to keep our opponents under. I originally thought of 14, but figured that's maybe a little too low. 17 seemed like a good number to judge the effectiveness of limiting opponents points.

Secondly, the # of times of holding opponents under 17 points is only compared to his other years. For Cal it went from Year 1 - 8 times under 17, to Year 2 - 4 times under 17 to Year 3 - 2 times under 17. It denotes a trend.

Same 30 points. A universally accepted "poor" number that everyone would say "that's too many points for us to allow".

quote:

---

All I need to know is his defenses rankings.

---

Cal - #1, #1, #10
USC - #1

quote:

---

I'd like you to tell me Chavis 17 numbers along with his 30+, 40 +, 50+ etc numbers.

---

It took a little time and since I'm not your pet monkey why don't you do it yourself. I think you'll find it's a lot better overall than CP's, since Cheif has only allowed an opponent over 40 points like once.

quote:

---

I think all that work you did was a big pile of crap

---

thanks.

You could at least do his entire body of work in before that time and compare it too. You only started from 2010 to reinforce your point he's no good. What about when he was in the NFL?

I used his college information only bc it was most relevant and bc I didn't want to spend an entire day breaking his info down, I'm not getting paid for this

Exactly. This guy is leaving out facts like he coached a shitty Cal team and USC was on sanctions. That's completely different. He has elite NFL athletes at LSU. Not surprisingly, USC has some good athletes usually and he did better with them than Cal. Look at how long he was in the NFL and also look who he's been under over the years. Some really big names. The guy has to know how to coach if all those guys were letting him sit under them.

My concern with him is his recruiting and if he's good at identifying talent. I don't think coaching is the problem. I also wonder why he was fired after having a decent Arizona defense in the SB. Is he not likeable in the locker room?

I remember watching Arizona. His defense wasn't that bad. I don't think it was ranked that low was it?

Remember Chavis didn't look so hot either when he came to LSU. He showed he was good early and then fizzled out over the years at Tenn. The second he got elite athletes the defense was turned around although you could argue he kinda fizzled out here too with 3rd and Chavis losing us games.