Top 25 job! Expect more! Time for a CHANGE!!!!!!!

[bryanwxbulldog]

I wasn't for it or against it; I had an open mind. But now I've realized the ramifications: that we are going to be stuck down in the cellar portion of the SEC with Auburn, et al. I know some claim we would suck next season no matter what, but I don't buy that. The post-season situation left a lot to be desired, but Stans kept in the upper portion of our conference with teams that almost always had a chance to win the game at hand. Now that we have blown up our program, I am skeptical that we can recover within five years. I hope to be wrong, of course, but I do think this is a fiasco right now. The comparison to Jackie's last years is not on the mark imo. I'm not even sure that Jackie was trying at the end, but I am certain that Stans was. I do agree that Stans was in a difficult transition with our program, but I'm not convinced right not that anyone else will be better able to solve the dilemma. We'll see what happens, but it ain't looking pretty to me right now.

I was pretty much neutral on the Stans debacle, too. We were in a downward spiral with Stans at the wheel. Have faith in Strick to bring in someone who can turn the program around.Yes, some will say we will suck next year. We probably will. Stans kept us in the game and while we had a chance to win, our team would **** the bed. However, WE (the fans)did notblow up our program.Did we blow up the football program when we wanted Croom gone? Come on, dude. The team was stagnating andthe blame lies directly on thecoaches.For what it's worth, Stans was not trying his hardest. Hell, he tried to retire or join another team just a couple years ago. I'm ready for something new. Remember Mullen? Let's get someexcitement going for basketball. Don't be so short-sighted.

 

[SchruteDog]

right now, i'd rather have Stans and a full recruting class and potential 18-20 wins next year vs what we're about to be in for. the problem children were leaving anyway.

go ahead -flame away.

What would be different next year to make you think Bury could pull 18 wins out? Moultrie, Sidney, Deville are still gone. Would Stans have dug deep to the bottom of the page of his 1 page playbook and run the plays for
Hood to score 55 per game? About the only disadvantage we will have without Bury at the helm is that we could have used his sons to run 2nd string at practice next season.

 

[idog]

right now, i'd rather have Stans and a full recruting class and potential 18-20 wins next year vs what we're about to be in for. the problem children were leaving anyway.

go ahead -flame away.

What would be different next year to make you think Bury could pull 18 wins out? Moultrie, Sidney, Deville are still gone. Would Stans have dug deep to the bottom of the page of his 1 page playbook and run the plays for
Hood to score 55 per game? About the only disadvantage we will have without Bury at the helm is that we could have used his sons to run 2nd string at practice next season.

i believe Sydwas the root of all evil on this year's team. remove him and the team would have stayed together. it's Stans' fault(and our administration's)that Syd was even there so he deserves most of the heat, although not all of it, bc he was allowed to take Syd and our Univ., by putting money into Syd, agreed with it. That's how the cookie crumbled. Stans paid for it and now our univseems to be as well.

Hood is a great kid. From what i've heard so is Pollard. No idea about Gray or our other recruits. Time will tell but I still believe, at this point, that getting Pollard and keeping this class together, along with Syd leaving would have left a better unit than most of you believe leading to a better year in 2012 than projected at this moment.

all that said, what's done is done and our only hope now is for Stricklin to pull a rabbit out of his ***.

 

[ckDOG]

There were 2 other teams in our own conference, you guys and UT, that could have made decent arguments on why they deserved to be in the NCAAT over us. Our RPI was dismal and we had a terrible record over the last 10 games. We might have been in the first 8-10, but on the bottom side of that. I'm not too comfortable in calling that a bubble. I think the only reason ESPN felt like talking about us was the fact they could talk about how talented we were with Moultrie/Bost/Sidney. We made a good 1-2 minute discussion point on the nightly bubble watch. We were the talented, but dysfunctional Bulldogs struggling to do enough to make it in...

 

[Repeat Offender]

and sometimes 4 players at a time when we jumped out to an early lead? That was clearly evident this year? Please list ONE time this year when we subbed in 4 guys at one time early in a game. We only had 8 players that saw considerable playing time this yearand that is counting Deville Smith who missed most of the season. Sidney, Moultrie, and Hood all missed several games too, so who did we sub in every time that we got these leads? Yes, I realize that S. Smith played about 30 total minutes this year year due to lack of depth and injuries. Stans had many flaws and he lost his job because of them, but don't make up **** about his job performancejustfor the hell of it. If youtruly believe that we frequentlysubbed 3 and 4 guys at a time this year after jumping out to early leads, you may want to start actually attending and watching our games instead of posting about **** that you know nothing about.

 

[FireworksForJeffy]

<span style="font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">

We made a good 1-2 minute discussion point on the nightly bubble watch.

</span>

<div><span style="font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">The media considered you contenders. State certainly had enough talent.</span></div>