Null



AUght2win

Verified Member
  • Content Count

    1,411
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by AUght2win

  1. And the one thing we are all forgetting is Nick Coe is not a DT. Not BUILT like a DT. Not VIOLENT like a DT. He is strong, athletic, long but not a DT.
  2. Honey, do you know how substitution packages work?
  3. People don't realize the detriment that practicing out of position (or at multiple positions) can have. I am sure the majority of the spring, offseason, and preseason camp were devoted to getting Nick ready to play more inside. So no wonder his production fell off. No wonder his head wasn't right. Bottomline, the coaches did not put him in a position to succeed. But he should have been an adult and had a conversation with them about it.
  4. Coe never started at DT. Truesdell and Brown were 1st string. Here is the depth chart for Oregon. They should have left him alone at buck. He was never going to be better than Truesdell inside, and Big Kat was never going to be better than him at Buck.
  5. Look I am certainly open to believe Nick shares some guilt. But let's think about this reasonably. Nick has been a starter for a few years and never had an issue. He even turned down the NFL to come back last year. What's more plausible as to why he suddenly became a problem? A. Nick Coe suddenly gained an attitude out of nowhere for no reason. Which resulted in his benching. B. Nick Coe was benched as he describes due to positional experimentation, and he got an attitude afterward. C'mon y'all. The explanation that he "got benched because he just suddenly didn't act right" makes no sense.
  6. So Big Kat and Moultry are better???
  7. Uh no not really. Coe was benched after being a very productive starter and top draft prospect due to his level of play at Buck end. To suddenly move him and bench him SHOULD mess with his head. It isn't right. He was screwed over and got an attitude about it. It's really that simple.
  8. Don't you think he should have been left alone at Buck? Do you think he is worse than TD and Big Kat? He was rightfully pissed.
  9. I think coaches get enamored with the "idea" of what players could be. Not what they are or who they continually prove themselves to be. Coaches see the athleticism and try forcing them bloom. So they give them tons of chances and PT, hoping the "light will come on", and it doesn't. I think that's what happened here. Big Kat and TD both have had tremendous hype around them since setting foot on campus. They aren't the first. Ex: trying to force Trovon Reed (at WR), Tommy Trott, and DeAngelo Benton.
  10. Only really bad mistake Steele has made since he has been at Auburn. Sure, move Coe if he's holding up Jeff Holland or Quentin Groves. But you put him on the shelf for TD and Big Kat? Yeeeeeesh. Nick should have said something, though. Says he never even approached Garner or Steele.
  11. The title got changed??? Lololol c'monnnn fellas lighten up. It should AT LEAST have Notre Dame in the title.
  12. Are there any other major programs we have never faced?
  13. I do not get this joke. Nor do I wish to.
  14. ND was arrogant. In their defense, I think they've been humbled quite a bit since then. By 96 or whenever that game was, they still had the taste of national domination. But the BCS era proved that Notre Dame's days as a perennial top 5 power were over. If the game were held today, I imagine they'd walk to Shreveport to play us. Honestly, I think ND will slowly go the way of the service acadmies. They, along with Army/Navy, once took advantage of a niche recruiting pitch to reel in top talent. The service academies in the early half of the 20th century were just where the nation's finest and toughest young men went. ND once had the market cornered on Catholic athletes. Now, neither is true.
  15. My friend, that was NO accident. People are gonna come here with that burning desire in their heart, and then channel it into passionate emails to our fearless leader Comrade Greene.
  16. Y'all let Allen know you want it! 😄 athletic_director@auburn.edu
  17. Here is an ND article on it. https://www.onefootdown.com/platform/amp/2019/6/11/18661191/ridiculous-college-football-history-between-the-notre-dame-fighting-irish-and-the-auburn-tigers-bowl And here is a little juice to make you want to dome the domers even more. "Despite finishing the regular season 8-3, Notre Dame did not play in a bowl game. The Fighting Irish turned down an invitation to play the Auburn Tigers in the Independence Bowl, believing that Auburn was an unworthy opponent and that the Independence Bowl was an unworthy bowl destination."
  18. Title is WISHFUL thinking. But let's make this happen. For both teams, it's really the last major program neither has faced. It's bizarre we haven't locked down the Irish for a series. For a myriad of reasons. Firstly, our AD is a former ND athlete. Secondly, these two programs are Under Armour's biggest brands. Thirdly, ND has stated they want more SEC opponents. They've recently played Vandy, a series with UGA, and played Arkansas next year. They also have future series booked with Texas A&M and Alabama. For some reason, teams are booking these matchups waaaaay farther in advance these days. We now have our "big Power 5" OOC opponent scheduled through 2028 - home and aways with Penn State, Cal, Baylor, and UCLA. Here is the only way I could see this working. We go to South Bend in 2024. We currently only have 4 away games slated. And we play Cal at home. Conversely, ND does need another home game that year. And even though they travel to A&M, I think they'd still add us in a home game. ND pays us a return visit in 2027. We play at UCLA, so again, we could handle adding another big name team to the schedule (barring Chip Kelly turning UCLA into a juggernaut).
  19. Exactly. Exactly. So the entire virtue signaling argument of "the current system is unfair" is invalid. This movement isn't about fairness, it's about making money. And I personally am not down with it. The current system treats everyone more equally than what's being proposed. If we get to unfiltered likeness profiting, schools with large fanbases are basically going to become the Steinbrenner Yankees.
  20. You have latched to this and I don't know why. Did you even see the question I was replying to? It was the following: "You have fair points, but that brings up a question. Is it the bagmen and players that are in the wrong? Or is it the ncaa who enforces this ridiculous rules?" I said the former, not the NCAA. I didn't say the pay-for-play scheme was ONLY their fault. I just said out of the two, the players/bagmen are in the wrong. It's the NCAA's program and they have the right to make their own rules. Just like an employer. Just like the NFL and its specific policies for players. If you want to play NCAA football, then follow their rules. So yes, the players/bagmen are in the wrong for participating in the NCAA without following its rules.
  21. By this logic, college football's exposure will generate free advertising for players. In 2020 and the age of social media, everyone is their own brand. Why do you think every Auburn player gets a blue check mark by their name? Just using your logic. The problem is that we can tackle specific examples and do mental gymnastics, but there has to be a solid ethical principle upon which to build a foundation for these arguments. My principle as it applies to college football - Amateur sports are not about making money. No one is forced to play them. If you want fast cash, there are tons of professional sports leagues that you can get paid for at an early age (MLB, PGA, Soccer). There are 460,000 college athletes. The college system is built to allow lots of kids to play lots of sports while earning an education. It's. Not. About. Money. While I am fine with likeness profiting, we also need to figure out a rule there, too. Here's my principle in regards to that - it's not fair for some players to make more off their individual likeness than others. So take all money generated from likeness sales and distribute it equally to all players. If the outcry for all this is unfairness, and players getting "their piece of the pie", then this is the only way. It wouldn't be fair for a record-setting QB at Hawaii to make less in jersey sales just because of their small fan base, would it? It also wouldn't be fair for a QB to get autograph sessions, while the Left Tackle who makes it all possible gets nothing. How about smaller role players like long-snappers. Without them, the team can't compete and win. If kids want to cash in on their likeness, it should all go into one pot and be doled out evenly.
  22. Is it fair for Cam to make big bucks in college while his O-Line gets nothing? What about his receivers? What about the practice squad that gets him ready every week? And if it isn't a free-for-all, explain exactly how this fair system you want to implement will work.
  23. I wanted to repost this for those who haven't heard what KJ told the defense to inspire them late in the game. It shows KJ's heart as an Auburn man, and how great a leader he is. Pass it along so it can become part of the legend of this game! “It’s bigger than us, man,” Britt said. “I told the team today that everybody’s got their hometown; J.D. (Jeremiah Dinson) is from Miami; people are from Atlanta; people are from Alabama. But today, everybody is from Auburn. Just defend Auburn like it’s your hometown."
  24. While at Auburn I worked a ton of free internships to set up my career. Eventually, one of these did get me a job. A few years ago, that internship was forced, by law, to become paid. They cut down the spots from 30 to 8-9. It's nice to get paid, but now 20 people are shut out of that amazing career-opportunity. All because of short term cash. I can say for a fact that had the paid internship been in effect while I was in school, I would not have had the career I have been very blessed with. Will that happen to college football? Will teams be forced to have a 50ish man roster like the pros? Drastically decreasing the amount of kids that get to play and get their college paid for? We have to think about stuff like this. Everything has a cost. I just want to know what that cost is before changing the current system. Because currently it seems like a system chock full of pros.
  25. I work in entertainment and me and my coworkers all agreed KillMonger was actually TOO compelling of a character. He dwarfed T'Challa. They didn't do BP justice in how they built his character. He needed more edge and more personality.