|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 19, 2010 14:34:34 GMT -8
Never said 100% wanted him fired. Never said any of the players wanted him fired. Said they didn't respect him. The man cried on camera with joy after both of the 2 victories that year. All the other points aside, he fostered a culture of being ok with losing and that alone should be grounds for firing him. Do you disagree? Yes, I disagree. Chuck Long was told to build the program from the bottom up. He was doing that and doing it correctly. When you have one of the worst 5 programs in the nation, and are told to not bring in JC players (because it would affect APR), and to build the program from the bottom up, and you were left with no OLineman.....Every win is important in the building process. Homie, if you were a little league coach and had a team full of 9 year olds, would you treat them just a little different than if you had a team of 12 year olds? Which would you be more proud of if you were a coach (and be more emotional, remember Dick Vermeil cried all the time).... Your 12 year olds that won game 10 to go 10-1.......Or your 9 years olds that lost every game and then finally won a game to go 1-9? |
|
|
|
Post by montyismyhomie on Jul 19, 2010 14:58:49 GMT -8
you did not address my point at all.
CULTURE OF LOSING
all you just told me was that you were ok with him treating the team like a 9 year old peewee squad where all that matters is effort and a pizza party afterwards. These are adults not children, and as such the approach to handling them should not be compared to children. Being proud doesn't put W's on the board.
|
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 19, 2010 15:35:31 GMT -8
you did not address my point at all. CULTURE OF LOSING all you just told me was that you were ok with him treating the team like a 9 year old peewee squad where all that matters is effort and a pizza party afterwards. These are adults not children, and as such the approach to handling them should not be compared to children. Being proud doesn't put W's on the board. No, that is not what I told. What I was telling you is that you treat 9 year olds different than 12 year olds. You have to nurture 9 year olds. You don't have to nurture 12 year olds. You treat an extremely young team different than a veteran. Every coach at every level will tell you that. I'm sorry you missed my point. Lets face it Homie....Chuck Long wasn't a great coach. After all, it was his first experience at being a head coach. That does not mean he shouldn't have got a 4th year. Hell, his players are just hitting the field this year. Anybody you talk to says you can't judge a coach until he gets his players on the field (with exception of many Aztec fans). |
|
|
|
Post by montyismyhomie on Jul 19, 2010 16:28:43 GMT -8
Actually I would typically agree with you as far as letting a coach have enough time to get his own players into the system. I generally feel that it should be 4 years at a minimum before you can start expecting serious return on your "coaching investment," however I still feel that Long's coaching philosophy would never have gotten us to where we are capable of going. Hoke is a night and day difference as far as instilling work ethic and motivating these guys.
if we had given Long a 4th year then yeh maybe we would have gotten to 6, 7, 8 win seasons, but I don't think he would ever have taken us to 10, 11, 12 win seasons. I believe Hoke is capable of doing that if he stays long enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecs76 on Jul 19, 2010 17:10:47 GMT -8
Score more points....
Come on folks it's summer time and enjoy it....we will have plenty more time for this later on..!!
Go Aztecs..!
|
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 19, 2010 17:19:16 GMT -8
Actually I would typically agree with you as far as letting a coach have enough time to get his own players into the system. I generally feel that it should be 4 years at a minimum before you can start expecting serious return on your "coaching investment," however I still feel that Long's coaching philosophy would never have gotten us to where we are capable of going. Hoke is a night and day difference as far as instilling work ethic and motivating these guys. if we had given Long a 4th year then yeh maybe we would have gotten to 6, 7, 8 win seasons, but I don't think he would ever have taken us to 10, 11, 12 win seasons. I believe Hoke is capable of doing that if he stays long enough. Amazing and once again, here we have someone who agrees with exactly what I have been saying all along. (And I agree that in the long run, Chuck Long would not get us to 10 wins) My thoughts are that Chuck Long should have got a 4th year based on our program. He would have won 6 or 7 in that 4th year, and maybe one more game in his 5th year. At that point he would have moved on OR we could fire him and bring in the guy to take us to the next level. (A Terry Bowden, Dennis Erickson, or Skippy type) At that point we would have... -Given the man a fair chance. -We would have let him have that chance with his own players on the field. -He would have cleaned up our APR, he would have filled in the spots that were empty when he came (OLine and DLine). -We would be coming off two straight winning seasons. -We would be coming off two straight bowl games. -And we would have saved some of our integrity at the same time. Homie hit it right on the head. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 19, 2010 17:33:23 GMT -8
good lord.
To beat Mizzou we have to be able to cover well, hit the QB and get the ball out (hell, until we do 2/3 - we're not even at 1/3 right now - we won't stand a chance in many games).
|
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 19, 2010 19:34:05 GMT -8
good lord. To beat Mizzou we have to be able to cover well, hit the QB and get the ball out (hell, until we do 2/3 - we're not even at 1/3 right now - we won't stand a chance in many games). Hopefully Rocky has one hell of a game plan. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 19, 2010 21:15:37 GMT -8
good lord. To beat Mizzou we have to be able to cover well, hit the QB and get the ball out (hell, until we do 2/3 - we're not even at 1/3 right now - we won't stand a chance in many games). Hopefully Rocky has one hell of a game plan. If the baseball player or the young dudes can cover, he'll be able to. |
|
|
|
Post by Village Aztec on Jul 19, 2010 22:06:41 GMT -8
Is BYU better then Missouri? We have to play like we played BYU last year. This year we will be better then last year. We can win any where at any time. We need to play a good game and get some breaks. The Aztecs way is to put a lot of points on the board early and not let the defense wear down. When you don't have depth you give up to many points at the end. We never have depth and Missouri will. I saw us not give up a first down 30 years ago in the first half.
|
|
|
|
Post by carpediemaztec on Jul 20, 2010 7:37:06 GMT -8
Offense: 75% conversion rate on 3rd Down.
2 Sustained Drives for Points per quarter.
Defense: At least 1 "3 and out" per quarter.
Don't tell me - show me.
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 20, 2010 13:06:19 GMT -8
Offense: 75% conversion rate on 3rd Down. 2 Sustained Drives for Points per quarter. Defense: At least 1 "3 and out" per quarter. Don't tell me - show me. I think we'd win 40-17 if we do that. |
|
|
|
Post by carpediemaztec on Jul 20, 2010 13:38:02 GMT -8
I would gladly take it, but actually, even if we reach these doable goals (except for maybe the 3rd down conversion - 60% conversion rate is probably more like it), its possible that we would win a squeaker:
1st: 6 - SDSU - 7 MU = 6-7
2nd 10 -SDSU - 7 MU = 16-14
3rd 7 - SDSU - 10 MU = 23-24
4th 10 -SDSU - 7 MU = 33-31 - AZZZZZTECS. '
Point is we cannot let them have a blow-out 14-0 quarter (especially early obviously). We need to "stay close" and to do that we have to control the clock by converting on 3rd down and holding onto the ball and stopping them early in their drives at least once or twice.
Oh yeah . . . and no turnovers!
Man plans and god laughs of course but these are my hopes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2010 15:36:37 GMT -8
The good news is that even in our leanest worst years, we've always played pretty well for that big OOC game back east. Just not good enough to win. Played tough with Ohio St, Notre Dame (really should have won that game) Michigan, Wisconsin was close for much fo the game...although Illinois pounded us pretty well.
Let's hope we once again get up and this time get over.
I think we win it 27-23.
|
|
|
|
Post by seasonticketholder on Jul 20, 2010 18:44:23 GMT -8
Actually I would typically agree with you as far as letting a coach have enough time to get his own players into the system. I generally feel that it should be 4 years at a minimum before you can start expecting serious return on your "coaching investment," however I still feel that Long's coaching philosophy would never have gotten us to where we are capable of going. Hoke is a night and day difference as far as instilling work ethic and motivating these guys. if we had given Long a 4th year then yeh maybe we would have gotten to 6, 7, 8 win seasons, but I don't think he would ever have taken us to 10, 11, 12 win seasons. I believe Hoke is capable of doing that if he stays long enough. Amazing and once again, here we have someone who agrees with exactly what I have been saying all along. (And I agree that in the long run, Chuck Long would not get us to 10 wins) My thoughts are that Chuck Long should have got a 4th year based on our program. He would have won 6 or 7 in that 4th year, and maybe one more game in his 5th year. At that point he would have moved on OR we could fire him and bring in the guy to take us to the next level. (A Terry Bowden, Dennis Erickson, or Skippy type) At that point we would have... -Given the man a fair chance. -We would have let him have that chance with his own players on the field. -He would have cleaned up our APR, he would have filled in the spots that were empty when he came (OLine and DLine). -We would be coming off two straight winning seasons. -We would be coming off two straight bowl games. -And we would have saved some of our integrity at the same time. Homie hit it right on the head. So you believe the same head coach that only won two games in 2008, 8 of those losses by 25 points or more (including a 70-7 loss to New Mexico), would have suddenly won 7 games in 2009 and would win 8 this year? Did I read that correctly? |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 21, 2010 10:36:41 GMT -8
Hopefully Rocky has one hell of a game plan. If the baseball player or the young dudes can cover, he'll be able to. I know Rocky likes the young dudes a lot. Says they are talented and have the needed speed. They just need the experience. |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 21, 2010 10:40:54 GMT -8
Amazing and once again, here we have someone who agrees with exactly what I have been saying all along. (And I agree that in the long run, Chuck Long would not get us to 10 wins) My thoughts are that Chuck Long should have got a 4th year based on our program. He would have won 6 or 7 in that 4th year, and maybe one more game in his 5th year. At that point he would have moved on OR we could fire him and bring in the guy to take us to the next level. (A Terry Bowden, Dennis Erickson, or Skippy type) At that point we would have... -Given the man a fair chance. -We would have let him have that chance with his own players on the field. -He would have cleaned up our APR, he would have filled in the spots that were empty when he came (OLine and DLine). -We would be coming off two straight winning seasons. -We would be coming off two straight bowl games. -And we would have saved some of our integrity at the same time. Homie hit it right on the head. So you believe the same head coach that only won two games in 2008, 8 of those losses by 25 points or more (including a 70-7 loss to New Mexico), would have suddenly won 7 games in 2009 and would win 8 this year? Did I read that correctly? You read it "semi correctly".  I said he would have won 6 OR 7 in his fourth year (2 more than Hoke did) and "maybe" one more in his fifth year. In case you've been a cave for the last two years (and no problem if you have).....I feel the massive injuries his team had in year 3 is the only reason he did not win 6 games and THE ONLY reason for a couple of big blow outs including the New Mexico you are hung up on. ***Disclaimer....I see that this is your first post, so possibly you don't know that many on the board (and I) have been arguing about this for two years. Most (like you do) disagree with me. Thats ok. We will just have to agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 21, 2010 11:13:30 GMT -8
If the baseball player or the young dudes can cover, he'll be able to. I know Rocky likes the young dudes a lot. Says they are talented and have the needed speed. They just need the experience. That is the word around the campfire - Throw them out there into the fire and season them, the quicker they get up to speed the better we'll be. |
|
|
|
Post by seasonticketholder on Jul 21, 2010 12:52:58 GMT -8
So you believe the same head coach that only won two games in 2008, 8 of those losses by 25 points or more (including a 70-7 loss to New Mexico), would have suddenly won 7 games in 2009 and would win 8 this year? Did I read that correctly? You read it "semi correctly". I said he would have won 6 OR 7 in his fourth year (2 more than Hoke did) and "maybe" one more in his fifth year. In case you've been a cave for the last two years (and no problem if you have).....I feel the massive injuries his team had in year 3 is the only reason he did not win 6 games and THE ONLY reason for a couple of big blow outs including the New Mexico you are hung up on. ***Disclaimer....I see that this is your first post, so possibly you don't know that many on the board (and I) have been arguing about this for two years. Most (like you do) disagree with me. Thats ok. We will just have to agree to disagree. I wish I was in a cave for the past few seasons - then I wouldn't have paid to watch Chuck Long teams try to play football. Unfortunately I was in attendance for Cal Poly I & II among other great showings. Thank goodness my road trip to San Jose was cancelled... I wouldn't say I am "hung up on" the New Mexico game, it's just an example of his teams not competing to the best of their ability. Claiming that massive injuries are THE ONLY reason for his winning 2 games instead of 6 (or 7), and THE ONLY reason for losing 8 games by 25 or more points is simply too much for me to agree with. I'm not trying to get into if he should or should not have had a 4th year, but after watching the 2006, 2007, & 2008 seasons, it seems a little farfetched to assume that same coaching staff would have suddenly won 6 (or 7) games in 2009, deserved an extension, and then maybe won as many as 8 in 2010. |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jul 21, 2010 14:49:42 GMT -8
You read it "semi correctly". I said he would have won 6 OR 7 in his fourth year (2 more than Hoke did) and "maybe" one more in his fifth year. In case you've been a cave for the last two years (and no problem if you have).....I feel the massive injuries his team had in year 3 is the only reason he did not win 6 games and THE ONLY reason for a couple of big blow outs including the New Mexico you are hung up on. ***Disclaimer....I see that this is your first post, so possibly you don't know that many on the board (and I) have been arguing about this for two years. Most (like you do) disagree with me. Thats ok. We will just have to agree to disagree. I wish I was in a cave for the past few seasons - then I wouldn't have paid to watch Chuck Long teams try to play football. Unfortunately I was in attendance for Cal Poly I & II among other great showings. Thank goodness my road trip to San Jose was cancelled... I wouldn't say I am "hung up on" the New Mexico game, it's just an example of his teams not competing to the best of their ability. Claiming that massive injuries are THE ONLY reason for his winning 2 games instead of 6 (or 7), and THE ONLY reason for losing 8 games by 25 or more points is simply too much for me to agree with. I'm not trying to get into if he should or should not have had a 4th year, but after watching the 2006, 2007, & 2008 seasons, it seems a little farfetched to assume that same coaching staff would have suddenly won 6 (or 7) games in 2009, deserved an extension, and then maybe won as many as 8 in 2010. We will just have to disagree. Above are just my opinions and have been for 2 years. My opinions on that situation will not change. I am very excited about this year though.  |
|
