Aubie7

Banned
  • Content count

    816
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Aubie7

  • Rank
    Asst Professor
  1. Gibbs and AU DB's

    Oh, now we all see...coaches like you Will you please post your resume now?? Did you only start this thread to getting into pissing matches with everybody or to just continue your usual negativity. Stat shot down your posts. The AU coaching staff is going to recruit the best athletes that fit into the Auburn system, whether it is the quickest and fastest 5'5" 250# DB, with a 43" vert or a 6'6" fast and quick BD with a 12" vert. Height a great DB does not make. Great DBs (as everyone else has said) are the ones that are in position where and when they should be. They have great closing speed and great instincts. Carlos Rogers had these...his INT against UGA. He fell down...recovered, b/c of closing speed got back in position quick enought to bait Greene into throwing to the "open" WR in the endzone. To which CR picked it off. I think one of our biggest problems last year was the inexperience we did have back there. We had some talented guys step in who were young and inexpereinced, but they won't be next year. The schemes we ran maybe were too complicated for the young guys, who knows. The UK game saw a lot of the 3rd teamers playing. The UGA game was destined to be a shoot out from the get go. I think if Sears played LB that game, we had a better matchup on their big TE and the game is a little different, IMO. I think we were not ready to play in the bowl game all around from the coaches to the players to the water boys/girl. I think you just wanted an argument. 218343[/snapback] Finally, some sign of intelligent life. I do disagree about the UGA game being destined to be a shootout. I feel we had a much better defense than they had offense. Poor play and poor schemes didn't help that night. With any amount of effort, from both players and coaches, that game would not have been close. 218464[/snapback] I actually thought the UGA game was a well played offensive game by both teams and not necessarily bad D. Of course the Ds could have been better, but I think those two Os were just that good. I think our coaches and players played with plenty of effort. I for one have never been a fan of the cover 2. I liked the way Chizik and Muschamp (in '03) mixed it up on D. I like man on the corners, if you got the CBs to do it, ala CR and JR in '04, and the LSU CBs of the '03 NC team. I look for AU to run a different secondary scheme next year that really utilizes our speed more, even from the LB spot. heck, Trey Blackmon could play safety!!! But more effective as a LB I think, as he gains weitght. 218507[/snapback] Let's hope this new coach is a teacher, not just a preacher.
  2. Finescum yesterday

    I don't see this anywhere, but I will ask. I heard that Shane tried to get PF to talk about possible rules violations concerning a #24 at Auburn. PF said he would not discuss it yet, but had good sources that say something is amiss. Anyone heard?
  3. BREAKING NEWS: Willis named our new LB Coach

    Your link/source? Don't know how you can say that since it wasn't firmed up until a coaches meeting this morning. 218338[/snapback] Some people just know these before you do! My source? You have to be kidding me!
  4. Gibbs and AU DB's

    Oh, now we all see...coaches like you Will you please post your resume now?? Did you only start this thread to getting into pissing matches with everybody or to just continue your usual negativity. Stat shot down your posts. The AU coaching staff is going to recruit the best athletes that fit into the Auburn system, whether it is the quickest and fastest 5'5" 250# DB, with a 43" vert or a 6'6" fast and quick BD with a 12" vert. Height a great DB does not make. Great DBs (as everyone else has said) are the ones that are in position where and when they should be. They have great closing speed and great instincts. Carlos Rogers had these...his INT against UGA. He fell down...recovered, b/c of closing speed got back in position quick enought to bait Greene into throwing to the "open" WR in the endzone. To which CR picked it off. I think one of our biggest problems last year was the inexperience we did have back there. We had some talented guys step in who were young and inexpereinced, but they won't be next year. The schemes we ran maybe were too complicated for the young guys, who knows. The UK game saw a lot of the 3rd teamers playing. The UGA game was destined to be a shoot out from the get go. I think if Sears played LB that game, we had a better matchup on their big TE and the game is a little different, IMO. I think we were not ready to play in the bowl game all around from the coaches to the players to the water boys/girl. I think you just wanted an argument. 218343[/snapback] Finally, some sign of intelligent life. I do disagree about the UGA game being destined to be a shootout. I feel we had a much better defense than they had offense. Poor play and poor schemes didn't help that night. With any amount of effort, from both players and coaches, that game would not have been close.
  5. BREAKING NEWS: Willis named our new LB Coach

    What' s breaking about it? That was known last week.
  6. Gibbs and AU DB's

    What is BU$$? What is that...BU money? What is BUmoneymoney then? What are you about? Is it because you can't write complete sentences or is it becasue you are tired of being you? What? PS
  7. Gibbs and AU DB's

    "usually" "more times than not" "if" "but I'd bet the average" "I didn't do the math" These are your words. Not very convincing. 217297[/snapback] Trey steps in to clarify and elaborate on Wade's original post: Ahem... 5'8" with a 41" vertical is better than 6'1" with a 36" vertical. Why? Because usually a short guy with a higher vertical is going to be more athletic, have a lower center of gravity, better hips and a much better back pedal...and if given the choice, I'd rather have the guy who is USUALLY more athletic, with a lower center of gravity, who has better hips and better back pedal over the one who USUALLY DOES NOT have those things., more times than not he's faster, as well But in the minority of times, he is less athletic, and I'd rather take my chances with the guy who is more athletic more often than not. Editor's note: Does it not go without saying that the quicker, more athletic guy will usually be faster, as well? Surely, this goes without saying MORE TIMES THAN NOT. 6ft plus guys with good footwork, good hips, high verticals, and great closing speed aren't exactly falling of of trees, I assure you if they were, we'd have a crop of them. I have no idea how to clarify or elaborate the word IF. Instead, I'll just remove it. That should make the sentence more convincing according to Aubie7's logic..."I assure you they were, we'd have a crop of them." (Yep, that fixed it). And BTW, of the 23 CBs at the NFL combine last year, only 2 were 6'1"+. None were any taller than 6' 1 1/4". I didn't do the math but I'd bet the average for these guys was about 5'10 1/2". Translation: I just gave the numbers a cursory glance, but I can tell you that 21 of the 23 were shorter than 6'1". None were taller than 6' 1 1/4". I didn't do the math, but before you fire back and refute my argument and scream like a six year old, how about you do your homework and go over there and tell me what the average is. I just made a quick guess. This isn't exactly NASA here where we need exact figures. If the numbers are wrong...prove it. Why don't you inform us of the real average height of the NFL Rookie CB's? 6'2" cornerbacks will be a neccessity in about 25 or 30 years I'd bet, but right now, the best corners in the country sit between 5'9" and 6'0". Really? I would believe you but you used words like "OR," "I'D BET," "BETWEEN," "THE," and then to prove your lack of mental prowess, you used "THE" again. You even used the word 6. Nothing kills an argument like 6. Seriously Aubie, I don't have all the facts and numbers right in front of me like some others do, but I can make some logical statements. Lower center of gravity = good. WR's know where they are going, CB's don't know where the WR is going, so they need to be shifter, thus low is good. I'm between 6'2" and 6'3" depending on how happy I am, and weigh 185 lbs. You don't want to see me try to change directions quickly. (I'm also white, but I digress...) Also, remember something else CB's do that wideouts don't....tackle. When (insert favorite Non-AU running back here) is running at you, being shifty and low helps. If Ken Darby hits a corner, and Darby is lower, there is a good chance that Darby is not going to get tackled. Short = Low --> Closer to the knees. Finally, learn to construct an argument. Several different people have told you they disagree with you, or attempted to point out that they thought you were wrong. Not once have you refuted any one's claims or numbers, nor have you told them why they were wrong. All you have done is responded with Mickey Mouse comments like "And your point is," or "Good thing you were there! I guess you didn't make it to the bowl game to help the secondary out? What about the jump ball vs. UAT, at the goal-line? Maybe if they could have heard you, our guys could have OUTJUMPED THE BIGGER RECEIVER!" Did you even watch the play? I'll wait while you go review it........ok, good. Did you notice how it went through the arms of AU players before it was caught? That's because size was irrelevant on that play. Anyway, back to studying. Have a nice day all. 217329[/snapback] I hope you aren't studying to be a lawyer. If so, your client fries. You took a whole lot of "nothing" , added more "nothing" and put back a heaping pile of..."nothing"! It always makes me laugh when these "coaches" get on here and start talking like they have been at NFL combines for years, or they pretend to be experts in areas they are generally clueless. Such is the case with your "argument". Keep watching SportsCenter, or wherever you got your mumbo-jumbo reply from. That should really help pay off on those exams. 217534[/snapback] Yessir, I am studying to be a lawyer. Also thank you for noticing my heaping pile of nothing. This is very observant, since I didn't make an argument. Didn't try to. In fact, I even pointed out that I DID NOT have the facts and numbers in front of me...that I was just stating an off the cuff opinion. The only thing I was trying to do was point out how you were not refuting anyone's comments...they were apparently just wrong because you willed it to be wrong. You are yet to provide any basis for why you believe what you believe, especially considering that several here have shown FACTS that show that our DB's have not been as short as you claim they have been, as well as other FACTS that show that statistically the majority of DB's are not terribly tall. It has also been explained why it makes sense that a DB is going to be shorter than a WR. Also, thank you for the personal attack and the whole armchair quarterback who thinks he's an expert thing. Don't know where that came from, since again, I didn't make an argument. I just pointed out what you were doing and the facts others had stated that you were ignoring. You may be right. Or maybe not. I do know that at this rate we will never know because you are yet to show why you are right, and you are yet to show why the mountain of evidence that others have posted is wrong. All you've done is come up with inflammatory replies that have avoided the issue every time someone has said anything contrary to what you believe. I'm sure everyone here will be more than willing to agree with you as soon as you can explain why I am taller than any of the 26 primary cover corners on Titan's list. Surely if taller is better, then they would be there. I mean after all, there are plenty of 6'2" + receivers. Right? Discuss amongst yourselves. 217663[/snapback] Why are you taller than 6-2? I have no idea. What does that have to do with this thread? Maybe your mamma and daddy are tall? Who knows. However, that one statement alone makes about as much sense as the rest of your ramblings. Please don't get in the way if you have nothing to add (which it is obvious that you don't).
  8. Gibbs and AU DB's

    "usually" "more times than not" "if" "but I'd bet the average" "I didn't do the math" These are your words. Not very convincing. 217297[/snapback] Trey steps in to clarify and elaborate on Wade's original post: Ahem... 5'8" with a 41" vertical is better than 6'1" with a 36" vertical. Why? Because usually a short guy with a higher vertical is going to be more athletic, have a lower center of gravity, better hips and a much better back pedal...and if given the choice, I'd rather have the guy who is USUALLY more athletic, with a lower center of gravity, who has better hips and better back pedal over the one who USUALLY DOES NOT have those things., more times than not he's faster, as well But in the minority of times, he is less athletic, and I'd rather take my chances with the guy who is more athletic more often than not. Editor's note: Does it not go without saying that the quicker, more athletic guy will usually be faster, as well? Surely, this goes without saying MORE TIMES THAN NOT. 6ft plus guys with good footwork, good hips, high verticals, and great closing speed aren't exactly falling of of trees, I assure you if they were, we'd have a crop of them. I have no idea how to clarify or elaborate the word IF. Instead, I'll just remove it. That should make the sentence more convincing according to Aubie7's logic..."I assure you they were, we'd have a crop of them." (Yep, that fixed it). And BTW, of the 23 CBs at the NFL combine last year, only 2 were 6'1"+. None were any taller than 6' 1 1/4". I didn't do the math but I'd bet the average for these guys was about 5'10 1/2". Translation: I just gave the numbers a cursory glance, but I can tell you that 21 of the 23 were shorter than 6'1". None were taller than 6' 1 1/4". I didn't do the math, but before you fire back and refute my argument and scream like a six year old, how about you do your homework and go over there and tell me what the average is. I just made a quick guess. This isn't exactly NASA here where we need exact figures. If the numbers are wrong...prove it. Why don't you inform us of the real average height of the NFL Rookie CB's? 6'2" cornerbacks will be a neccessity in about 25 or 30 years I'd bet, but right now, the best corners in the country sit between 5'9" and 6'0". Really? I would believe you but you used words like "OR," "I'D BET," "BETWEEN," "THE," and then to prove your lack of mental prowess, you used "THE" again. You even used the word 6. Nothing kills an argument like 6. Seriously Aubie, I don't have all the facts and numbers right in front of me like some others do, but I can make some logical statements. Lower center of gravity = good. WR's know where they are going, CB's don't know where the WR is going, so they need to be shifter, thus low is good. I'm between 6'2" and 6'3" depending on how happy I am, and weigh 185 lbs. You don't want to see me try to change directions quickly. (I'm also white, but I digress...) Also, remember something else CB's do that wideouts don't....tackle. When (insert favorite Non-AU running back here) is running at you, being shifty and low helps. If Ken Darby hits a corner, and Darby is lower, there is a good chance that Darby is not going to get tackled. Short = Low --> Closer to the knees. Finally, learn to construct an argument. Several different people have told you they disagree with you, or attempted to point out that they thought you were wrong. Not once have you refuted any one's claims or numbers, nor have you told them why they were wrong. All you have done is responded with Mickey Mouse comments like "And your point is," or "Good thing you were there! I guess you didn't make it to the bowl game to help the secondary out? What about the jump ball vs. UAT, at the goal-line? Maybe if they could have heard you, our guys could have OUTJUMPED THE BIGGER RECEIVER!" Did you even watch the play? I'll wait while you go review it........ok, good. Did you notice how it went through the arms of AU players before it was caught? That's because size was irrelevant on that play. Anyway, back to studying. Have a nice day all. 217329[/snapback] I hope you aren't studying to be a lawyer. If so, your client fries. You took a whole lot of "nothing" , added more "nothing" and put back a heaping pile of..."nothing"! It always makes me laugh when these "coaches" get on here and start talking like they have been at NFL combines for years, or they pretend to be experts in areas they are generally clueless. Such is the case with your "argument". Keep watching SportsCenter, or wherever you got your mumbo-jumbo reply from. That should really help pay off on those exams. 217534[/snapback] Yessir, I am studying to be a lawyer. Also thank you for noticing my heaping pile of nothing. This is very observant, since I didn't make an argument. Didn't try to. In fact, I even pointed out that I DID NOT have the facts and numbers in front of me...that I was just stating an off the cuff opinion. The only thing I was trying to do was point out how you were not refuting anyone's comments...they were apparently just wrong because you willed it to be wrong. You are yet to provide any basis for why you believe what you believe, especially considering that several here have shown FACTS that show that our DB's have not been as short as you claim they have been, as well as other FACTS that show that statistically the majority of DB's are not terribly tall. It has also been explained why it makes sense that a DB is going to be shorter than a WR. Also, thank you for the personal attack and the whole armchair quarterback who thinks he's an expert thing. Don't know where that came from, since again, I didn't make an argument. I just pointed out what you were doing and the facts others had stated that you were ignoring. You may be right. Or maybe not. I do know that at this rate we will never know because you are yet to show why you are right, and you are yet to show why the mountain of evidence that others have posted is wrong. All you've done is come up with inflammatory replies that have avoided the issue every time someone has said anything contrary to what you believe. I'm sure everyone here will be more than willing to agree with you as soon as you can explain why I am taller than any of the 26 primary cover corners on Titan's list. Surely if taller is better, then they would be there. I mean after all, there are plenty of 6'2" + receivers. Right? Discuss amongst yourselves. 217663[/snapback] Is there any way that you could possibly take up more space to say NOTHING, than what you just did?
  9. Gibbs and AU DB's

    Please re-read your post here. You make no sense at all. What 'makes sense" to you? So, in your thinking a 6-3 290 pound guy will make a better receiver than a 5-10 185 guy? Right? I mean, after all the 290 pound guy is taller! 217204[/snapback] Wow that was stupid of you. Obviously I meant kids in the weight range of recievers. Next time you are trying to make a point you probably shouldn't twist someone's words to do so. I'm just amazed that you would actually think you made a legitimate argument. Let me rephrase so you can understand. You stick your tallest players at reciever if they have decent hands and have the speed. Don't lose me here though, this only applies to people the appropriate size for wide reciever. You still with me? Okay, so then you might end up with a 5'10" corner because you've got your playmakers on offense. What do you think it is harder to do in HS, defend the pass or complete one? I will not help you if you have any further comprhension difficulties. 217307[/snapback] And how many years of coaching experience do you have? Obviously none. Which is harder in high school? Well, if I have a 6-5 receiver, who is also the center on my basketball team, and you run your 5-8 point guard out there to cover him, I am going to burn your A$$ all night rookie! However, in high school..., (stay with me now, I know someone is probably having to read this to you, but hang on)... my best reciever is 99% of the time going to be my best cover guy, so it doesn't matter. If you have EVER coached high school ball or knew ANYTHING about it, you know that is true. Talk about STUPID...quit looking in that mirror. 217521[/snapback] Why are you talking about basketball? That is not even relevant. So if your best reciever is your best cover guy do you play him both ways the whole game? No(unless you have serious depth problems). They have already explained to you why shorter guys are better at covering due to low center of gravity, being able to shift easier, etc. Why do you continue to argue. Obviously if we could have 6'3"corners that could play the position that would be great, but these player are not to common. It is an issue of availibility that you just don't seem to understand. How many people have to tell you you are wrong before you realize you are? 217564[/snapback] Once again, you are clueless when it comes to high school football. You put your best 11 players out there, and yes Sherlick, some play both ways at a lot of high schools.
  10. 2006 schedule

    Just out today: The Auburn football team will play a 12-game schedule in 2006, which includes eight home games and two nationally televised games on ESPN. The Tigers will play 12 consecutive weeks starting on Sept. 2 and concluding on Nov. 18. Sept. 2 Washington State (ESPN) Auburn Sept. 9 at Mississippi State Starkville, Miss. Sept. 16 LSU Auburn Sept. 23 Buffalo Auburn Sept. 28 at South Carolina (ESPN) Columbia, S.C. Oct. 7 Arkansas Auburn Oct. 14 Florida Auburn Oct. 21 Tulane Auburn (HC) Oct. 28 at Ole Miss Oxford, Miss. Nov. 4 Arkansas State Auburn Nov. 11 Georgia Auburn Nov. 18 at Alabama Tuscaloosa
  11. Gibbs and AU DB's

    Thanks for playing!
  12. Gibbs and AU DB's

    "usually" "more times than not" "if" "but I'd bet the average" "I didn't do the math" These are your words. Not very convincing. 217297[/snapback] Trey steps in to clarify and elaborate on Wade's original post: Ahem... 5'8" with a 41" vertical is better than 6'1" with a 36" vertical. Why? Because usually a short guy with a higher vertical is going to be more athletic, have a lower center of gravity, better hips and a much better back pedal...and if given the choice, I'd rather have the guy who is USUALLY more athletic, with a lower center of gravity, who has better hips and better back pedal over the one who USUALLY DOES NOT have those things., more times than not he's faster, as well But in the minority of times, he is less athletic, and I'd rather take my chances with the guy who is more athletic more often than not. Editor's note: Does it not go without saying that the quicker, more athletic guy will usually be faster, as well? Surely, this goes without saying MORE TIMES THAN NOT. 6ft plus guys with good footwork, good hips, high verticals, and great closing speed aren't exactly falling of of trees, I assure you if they were, we'd have a crop of them. I have no idea how to clarify or elaborate the word IF. Instead, I'll just remove it. That should make the sentence more convincing according to Aubie7's logic..."I assure you they were, we'd have a crop of them." (Yep, that fixed it). And BTW, of the 23 CBs at the NFL combine last year, only 2 were 6'1"+. None were any taller than 6' 1 1/4". I didn't do the math but I'd bet the average for these guys was about 5'10 1/2". Translation: I just gave the numbers a cursory glance, but I can tell you that 21 of the 23 were shorter than 6'1". None were taller than 6' 1 1/4". I didn't do the math, but before you fire back and refute my argument and scream like a six year old, how about you do your homework and go over there and tell me what the average is. I just made a quick guess. This isn't exactly NASA here where we need exact figures. If the numbers are wrong...prove it. Why don't you inform us of the real average height of the NFL Rookie CB's? 6'2" cornerbacks will be a neccessity in about 25 or 30 years I'd bet, but right now, the best corners in the country sit between 5'9" and 6'0". Really? I would believe you but you used words like "OR," "I'D BET," "BETWEEN," "THE," and then to prove your lack of mental prowess, you used "THE" again. You even used the word 6. Nothing kills an argument like 6. Seriously Aubie, I don't have all the facts and numbers right in front of me like some others do, but I can make some logical statements. Lower center of gravity = good. WR's know where they are going, CB's don't know where the WR is going, so they need to be shifter, thus low is good. I'm between 6'2" and 6'3" depending on how happy I am, and weigh 185 lbs. You don't want to see me try to change directions quickly. (I'm also white, but I digress...) Also, remember something else CB's do that wideouts don't....tackle. When (insert favorite Non-AU running back here) is running at you, being shifty and low helps. If Ken Darby hits a corner, and Darby is lower, there is a good chance that Darby is not going to get tackled. Short = Low --> Closer to the knees. Finally, learn to construct an argument. Several different people have told you they disagree with you, or attempted to point out that they thought you were wrong. Not once have you refuted any one's claims or numbers, nor have you told them why they were wrong. All you have done is responded with Mickey Mouse comments like "And your point is," or "Good thing you were there! I guess you didn't make it to the bowl game to help the secondary out? What about the jump ball vs. UAT, at the goal-line? Maybe if they could have heard you, our guys could have OUTJUMPED THE BIGGER RECEIVER!" Did you even watch the play? I'll wait while you go review it........ok, good. Did you notice how it went through the arms of AU players before it was caught? That's because size was irrelevant on that play. Anyway, back to studying. Have a nice day all. 217329[/snapback] I hope you aren't studying to be a lawyer. If so, your client fries. You took a whole lot of "nothing" , added more "nothing" and put back a heaping pile of..."nothing"! It always makes me laugh when these "coaches" get on here and start talking like they have been at NFL combines for years, or they pretend to be experts in areas they are generally clueless. Such is the case with your "argument". Keep watching SportsCenter, or wherever you got your mumbo-jumbo reply from. That should really help pay off on those exams.
  13. Gibbs and AU DB's

    Here is a "stat" for you: All 7 of CTT's years are on this list vs. only 4 of CPD's What does this mean?
  14. Gibbs and AU DB's

    All 7 years of CTT tenure are in there. Irony? I think not. So, is there a problem? What does 18.7 attemtpts prove anyway? Is that a national average for "greatness" or just another "stat" that is useless? Discuss among yourselves.
  15. Gibbs and AU DB's

    So intelligent feedback has to agree with your point of view or it's just "sunshine." Interesting world you live in. I am just trying to follow the rules as you have set them. The "agree with me or you are wrong attitude" seems to be the norm around here. You are one of the biggest proponents of this style. Now, go ahead and disagree with me on that! 217200[/snapback] You post something that's basically pessimistic, then tell people not to post "sunshine" remarks in response....and you're accusing me and others of an "agree with me or you are wrong attitude"? Beyond that confusion, care to discuss the rest of my post where the actual of our DB recruiting irking you is addressed? 217241[/snapback] And your point is...? 217292[/snapback] My point is, seeing how you live in a glass house, skipping stones across the floor might not be wise. BUT PUTTING THAT IRONY ASIDE, please address what I said regarding what we have coming back, how people over 6ft have performed, and so on. Otherwise, just admit you don't know what you're griping about and move on. 217311[/snapback] I said I don't want us recrutign 5-8 DB"S. In Addition the "big DB's" we have aren't covering, but I feel do have a better chance. Why are they not doing a great job? Why did we give up HUGE yardgage to , , and UW? Was it coaching, or lack of ability. Were our guys physically out manned, as the linemen were?