New thought, and this is on Dan.
- Thread starter mcdawg22
- Start date
This is what happens when you smoke weed.... You post comments like... You don't have QB. And the Coach gets a free pass for this team playing poorly. 4 turn overs and now they're rolling in the run game.
#1 weed= Short term memory loss, Apparently you missed the this is on Dan part. So who's toking.
#2 TO's, 4 by a sophomore QB, all resulted in TD, and SC has none. Have you just started watching football? If so -4 in TO's on the road normally result in losses, unless you are Texas A&M.
It depends on what you are talking about. Its the coach's responsibility to get good players and put them in positions to win. And that is what the original poster seemed to be taking off of the coach's shoulders.
Every now and then, you come out in a game and players make mistakes that cost you the game. A QB misses throws or throws bad picks, or a kicker misses field goals, or the balls just take some bounces against you. That is the "that's baseball" equivalent in football.
Every now and then, you come out in a game and players make mistakes that cost you the game. A QB misses throws or throws bad picks, or a kicker misses field goals, or the balls just take some bounces against you. That is the "that's baseball" equivalent in football.
I have an honest question here based on this mentality. At one point does the play of a football team become the coaches fault. It's my understanding that a college football coach is paid large amounts of money to recruit talent and train them to play against college level competition. I understand COMPLETELY having some issues with certain offense of defensive players every now and then but when it becomes a teams MO for...what...13 games straight now...when does it become the responsibility of the coach? I'm not being confrontational it's just I hear this a lot....it's not the coach it's the players but isn't the coach supposed to prepare his athletes for competition and recruit the best players to be able to compete?
Its always on both groups. But there are lots of moving parts to a football team, and its ultimately the coach's job to get them going together. But sometimes it just needs more work than can get done in the short term. Look at Missouri last year to this year. They obviously had some talent on their squad, but it just didn't come together. But it wasn't because they had a bad coach.
That is the difficult thing about being an AD. How do you know when its time? Croom made it easy for Byrne. Frankly, I don't think MSU are even in the neighborhood of making it a decision yet.
That is the difficult thing about being an AD. How do you know when its time? Croom made it easy for Byrne. Frankly, I don't think MSU are even in the neighborhood of making it a decision yet.
There is definitely an "ultimate responsibility" argument to be made in evaluating a coach. But I don't think that it does you much good if you are an athletic director. I think one does have to look at what is happening and why it is happening.
If you look at our team statistics compared to last year, we've improved both offensively and defensively, but are younger and making more mistakes. There has got to be a more calculating, objective evaluation process than incredibly emotional message board fans.
If you look at our team statistics compared to last year, we've improved both offensively and defensively, but are younger and making more mistakes. There has got to be a more calculating, objective evaluation process than incredibly emotional message board fans.