Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2010 10:12:19 GMT -8
You see it one way, I see it another. With all due respect Andre......You aren't if you are evaluating somebody and don't factor in an abnormal amount of injuries. Especially with a young team and no depth. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2010 10:24:49 GMT -8
Steve, I don't think we disagree that to completely turn around Aztecs football shouldn't be expected to be done in less than four years. Where we apparently disagree is giving anyone a full four years regardless of how they're doing. To me, if it's obvious that progress is being made, an absence of a bowl appearance might be tolerable. But if on the whole things are stagnant, as with Craft, or there is actually regression, as with Chuck, there's no reason to give them that fourth year unless SDSU can't afford to show them the door.
With Brady, you and I agree that progress was made in 2009. However, I recall thinking the same after Craft's first year and even his second. It wasn't until Tom's third year with the losing streak combined with all the highly touted recruits who never qualified academically and the ludicrous beach workouts and other off-field distractions that told me he wasn't the guy we needed for the long term.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2010 10:29:19 GMT -8
I don't like quotes like that coming from people who don't know the facts. "But from what everyone COULD TELL, Craft did absolutely NOTHING about it." Things were done to those who were late, like extra work and such. I remember talking to Craft about just those things. Don't ass u me. If you're accusing me of talking out of my ass, so be it. I was merely relating what a former beat reporter who attended most or all of the fall practices told me. Maybe he didn't have all the facts, I'll concede that. But you should acknowledge that although Craft DID have all the facts, he wasn't exactly an unbiased reporter of them. |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 8, 2010 10:29:38 GMT -8
Steve, I don't think we disagree that to completely turn around Aztecs football shouldn't be expected to be done in less than four years. Where we apparently disagree is giving anyone a full four years regardless of how they're doing. To me, if it's obvious that progress is being made, an absence of a bowl appearance might be tolerable. But if on the whole things are stagnant, as with Craft, or there is actually regression, as with Chuck, there's no reason to give them that fourth year unless SDSU can't afford to show them the door. With Brady, you and I agree that progress was made in 2009. However, I recall thinking the same after Craft's first year and even his second. It wasn't until Tom's third year with the losing streak combined with all the highly touted recruits who never qualified academically and the ludicrous beach workouts and other off-field distractions that told me he wasn't the guy we needed for the long term. I am very excited to see what type of progress we show this year....and I think we will see a lot. At least I Hoke so. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 8, 2010 10:31:59 GMT -8
Steve, I don't think we disagree that to completely turn around Aztecs football shouldn't be expected to be done in less than four years. Where we apparently disagree is giving anyone a full four years regardless of how they're doing. To me, if it's obvious that progress is being made, an absence of a bowl appearance might be tolerable. But if on the whole things are stagnant, as with Craft, or there is actually regression, as with Chuck, there's no reason to give them that fourth year unless SDSU can't afford to show them the door. With Brady, you and I agree that progress was made in 2009. However, I recall thinking the same after Craft's first year and even his second. It wasn't until Tom's third year with the losing streak combined with all the highly touted recruits who never qualified academically and the ludicrous beach workouts and other off-field distractions that told me he wasn't the guy we needed for the long term. He DID land some of those highly touted recruits. He was under pressure to go after the best and to win now with no resources. Also remember, alot of those highly touted recruits were offered scholorships by BCS schools, so those schools were willing to give them a chance as well. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 8, 2010 12:27:44 GMT -8
Craft's team quit on him and themselves, Long's team quit - that is the measuring stick. The UNLV game was troubling from that aspect, the team surely got flustered and 'here we go' against WYO, after coming out pretty solidly against UCLA it was sort of a resignation after the first quarter. That to me is the 'woefully weak team' aspect - we have lacked mental toughness. Sure we need to get stronger and tougher (and we mind find we become healthier as well), but we need a team that doesn't fold when a team makes a big 4th quarter run or doesn't pack in games during a losing streak.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2010 12:37:22 GMT -8
seems pretty simple to me To me, if it's obvious that progress is being made, an absence of a bowl appearance might be tolerable. But if on the whole things are stagnant, or there is actually regression, there's no reason to give them that fourth year unless SDSU can't afford to show them the door. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 8, 2010 12:51:09 GMT -8
Craft's team quit on him and themselves, Long's team quit - that is the measuring stick. The UNLV game was troubling from that aspect, the team surely got flustered and 'here we go' against WYO, after coming out pretty solidly against UCLA it was sort of a resignation after the first quarter. That to me is the 'woefully weak team' aspect - we have lacked mental toughness. Sure we need to get stronger and tougher (and we mind find we become healthier as well), but we need a team that doesn't fold when a team makes a big 4th quarter run or doesn't pack in games during a losing streak. Crafts team never quit on him. Go look at their last four games of his final year which is when a team would normally quit on someone and you'll change your opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 8, 2010 13:23:47 GMT -8
In the case of a school suffering from a long string of losing seasons, a new coach's third and fourth years are critical. That's assuming that he has not pulled off a miracle and made it to a bowl in year one or two.
During year three one should be able to look at the team on the field and say, "Well, these guys are playing much better than when that turkey Lossbottom was in charge. I can really see a winning season and a bowl invitation in a year or two." If, on the other hand, the average loyal fan cannot observe such progress, the head coach is probably in trouble.
If year three is mediocre, the fourth year becomes really problematic, and not just for the coach. The AD has to consider what would happen if, after the end of year four, he does not feel comfortable with offering the coach an extension. How can a coach and his staff recruit for the next year when the HC is a lame duck? Therefore, by the middle of the fourth season, the team had better be on track to recording a winning season.
Brady Hoke is certainly going to get a third year. Furthermore, unless there is a Chuck Long type melt-down in that third year, he is going to get a fourth. Year four had better be pretty impressive or some long, hard reassessment is going to have to be done on the Mesa.
If you are the SDSU AD, and the Aztecs have finished below .500 in Hoke's first four seasons, what do you do? Do you consider 5-7 finishes, augmented perhaps by an impressive upset or two, evidence that Hoke will eventually reach the 7-9 win level on a consistent basis? Do you want to take the chance that after awarding a three year extension, Hoke's fifth year ends up 4-8 and we are still riding a 15 year non-winning streak?
Finishing .500 or above this season will help make it much easier to produce a winner in 2012. I can guarantee that is what Jim Sterk is hoping for.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 8, 2010 13:27:56 GMT -8
Craft's team quit on him and themselves, Long's team quit - that is the measuring stick. The UNLV game was troubling from that aspect, the team surely got flustered and 'here we go' against WYO, after coming out pretty solidly against UCLA it was sort of a resignation after the first quarter. That to me is the 'woefully weak team' aspect - we have lacked mental toughness. Sure we need to get stronger and tougher (and we mind find we become healthier as well), but we need a team that doesn't fold when a team makes a big 4th quarter run or doesn't pack in games during a losing streak. Crafts team never quit on him. Go look at their last four games of his final year which is when a team would normally quit on someone and you'll change your opinion. I agree with this! We were in that last game at Hawaii and fighting against a much better team than we were. Longs teams quit early in a lot of games and they were soft for sure. That is what Hoke has been fighting. I think we will be tougher this year, but we need to see the last of those Long guys out of the system before we have across the board commitment to playing every down. They were not all that way, but some were and some are hard to tell what kind of effort they are giving. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2010 14:37:19 GMT -8
Crafts team never quit on him. Go look at their last four games of his final year which is when a team would normally quit on someone and you'll change your opinion. I agree with this! We were in that last game at Hawaii and fighting against a much better team than we were. Actually, that was the second worst team June Jones had at Hawaii. Hawaii was just 5-7 that year, with 5-win SDSU being the best team they beat all year, the other four having compiled a miserable collective record of 8-37. The fact we were a 3-point underdog in the Islands suggests Vegas considered the game a push on a neutral field. I'll agree, however, that the team didn't quit on Tom. Not that year, not ever that I noticed. Not like the following year at TCU, which although the scoreboard didn't show it was in some ways a worse loss than 70-7. In 70-7, we were out-gained by 339 yards, with UNM pretty much using the same offense the entire time. In the 2006 52-0 loss to TCU, if a Frogs fan on the MWC board is correct, they passed the ball just twice in the second half yet out-gained us 624-89. Had Gary Patterson wanted to, I think he might have put up 100 on us and two Aztec defenders were quoted after the game as having said most of their peers stopped trying midway through the second quarter. I assume most posters have heard rumors as to why so I won't repeat them but THAT team definitely DID quit and it was only Chuck's 10th game at SDSU. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2010 14:46:27 GMT -8
FWIW . . .
Craft's record versus the point spread: 22-21-2
Chuck's record versus the point spread: 15-18
(Source: Phil Steele's College Football Preview.)
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 8, 2010 16:00:22 GMT -8
I agree with this! We were in that last game at Hawaii and fighting against a much better team than we were. Actually, that was the second worst team June Jones had at Hawaii. Hawaii was just 5-7 that year, with 5-win SDSU being the best team they beat all year, the other four having compiled a miserable collective record of 8-37. The fact we were a 3-point underdog in the Islands suggests Vegas considered the game a push on a neutral field. I'll agree, however, that the team didn't quit on Tom. Not that year, not ever that I noticed. Not like the following year at TCU, which although the scoreboard didn't show it was in some ways a worse loss than 70-7. In 70-7, we were out-gained by 339 yards, with UNM pretty much using the same offense the entire time. In the 2006 52-0 loss to TCU, if a Frogs fan on the MWC board is correct, they passed the ball just twice in the second half yet out-gained us 624-89. Had Gary Patterson wanted to, I think he might have put up 100 on us and two Aztec defenders were quoted after the game as having said most of their peers stopped trying midway through the second quarter. I assume most posters have heard rumors as to why so I won't repeat them but THAT team definitely DID quit and it was only Chuck's 10th game at SDSU. You are right about the Hawaii record, but they were still better by far than we were. Look at what they did later with most of those kids and what we did. Granted it was Long, but just saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 8, 2010 18:30:27 GMT -8
Crafts team never quit on him. Go look at their last four games of his final year which is when a team would normally quit on someone and you'll change your opinion. I agree with this! We were in that last game at Hawaii and fighting against a much better team than we were. Longs teams quit early in a lot of games and they were soft for sure. That is what Hoke has been fighting. I think we will be tougher this year, but we need to see the last of those Long guys out of the system before we have across the board commitment to playing every down. They were not all that way, but some were and some are hard to tell what kind of effort they are giving. Be that as it may, the simple fact is this - Craft was in no way prepared to be a D1-A head coach. Maybe with another year he might have won 6 games and maybe gotten to a bowl game, but we were facing schools that had hired coaches way beyond his ability and at best with him we would have been a middle of the pack school. Clearly hiring Long just made the situation worse, but I see no reason to engage in revisionist history when it comes to Craft. He wasn't up to the job and I see no reason to amend that opinion. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 8, 2010 18:40:11 GMT -8
I agree with this! We were in that last game at Hawaii and fighting against a much better team than we were. Longs teams quit early in a lot of games and they were soft for sure. That is what Hoke has been fighting. I think we will be tougher this year, but we need to see the last of those Long guys out of the system before we have across the board commitment to playing every down. They were not all that way, but some were and some are hard to tell what kind of effort they are giving. Be that as it may, the simple fact is this - Craft was in no way prepared to be a D1-A head coach. Maybe with another year he might have won 6 games and maybe gotten to a bowl game, but we were facing schools that had hired coaches way beyond his ability and at best with him we would have been a middle of the pack school. Clearly hiring Long just made the situation worse, but I see no reason to engage in revisionist history when it comes to Craft. He wasn't up to the job and I see no reason to amend that opinion. =Bob No one is making that arguement. This is about if it is better to have Lung Cancer or Liver Cancer! Long and Craft were both bad for different reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 8, 2010 18:42:57 GMT -8
Yep...This is a dead topic...  Aztec fans don't want to talk about it.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 8, 2010 18:46:17 GMT -8
Yep...This is a dead topic... Aztec fans don't want to talk about it. We are only up to page 9.  |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 8, 2010 21:32:48 GMT -8
Yep...This is a dead topic... Aztec fans don't want to talk about it. We are only up to page 9. Hey, I gave you all a chance to see this thread closed, but there was no outpouring of support for that. Actually, the opposite was true. You had your chance! ! ! ;D AzWm (or WLR as the situation dictates) |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 9, 2010 6:56:36 GMT -8
We are only up to page 9. Hey, I gave you all a chance to see this thread closed, but there was no outpouring of support for that. Actually, the opposite was true. You had your chance! ! ! ;D AzWm (or WLR as the situation dictates) No problem for me on having the topic William.  I was just always amazed on the other boards that this topic would come up and people would keep saying...."Steve, Stop talking about this. No one wants to talk about this. Let it go." Yet every time the topic came up, posters would come out of the woodwork to comment on it. I purposely stayed off this thread for approx 3 pages. I had about 2 posts of the first 60. So 58 other posters drove this thread before I ever got involved. "Long" Live this topic. |
|
|
|
Post by McQuervo on Jul 9, 2010 12:20:34 GMT -8
ugghhhhhh, kill this horse God please... |
|
