PJ Fleck is 0-2

[WDE_OxPx_2010 5,297]

Does that bring his price/interest down? Losing to Michigan convincingly and now Maryland in a close game. The boat isn't rowing right now.

[augolf1716 21,123]

Maryland got destroyed by Northwestern last week 43-3................boat may sink

[LKEEL75 2,566]

[jared52 4,354]

I was never interested. At least 4-5 guys I’ve seen named over the last 2-3 years I want over PJ. 

[CameronCrazy 1,059]

I don’t want to hear PJ Fleck’s name anymore associated with the Auburn search. Why pay $20 million to get rid of a guy when you’re just going to replace him with someone equivalent or worse than what you have.

[Mikey 16,589]

So, is Fleck now joining the long list of coaches who posters on this board wanted  to replace Gus with?  I could start with Bobby Petrino, jump over a few to Scott Frost, Jeff Brohm and now Fleck. I suppose when Cristobal loses two games he'll be in the garbage can too.

But, we sure have dodged some bullets by standing pat, haven't we?

[The Freak 2,528]

Fleck priced himself out of an upgrade last year.

[PigskinPat 2,579]

And is now 1-3 after losing 35-7 at home to Iowa last night.

[Hopsing 577]

17 minutes ago, PigskinPat said:

And is now 1-3 after losing 35-7 at home to Iowa last night.

Doesn’t look like everyone is rowing hard enough! LOL!

[AUwent 3,748]

On 11/1/2020 at 9:26 AM, Mikey said:

So, is Fleck now joining the long list of coaches who posters on this board wanted  to replace Gus with?  I could start with Bobby Petrino, jump over a few to Scott Frost, Jeff Brohm and now Fleck. I suppose when Cristobal loses two games he'll be in the garbage can too.

But, we sure have dodged some bullets by standing pat, haven't we?

I would still happily take Scott Frost—Nebraska should’ve never left the Big 12.

What’s important is that we find someone who can save our OL recruiting. Perhaps promoting T-Will as Beaker suggested would help, IDK.

[WDE_OxPx_2010 5,297]

James Franklin is staring 0-4 in the face as well.

Crazy how unpredictable this year has been across the board.

[AUwent 3,748]

1 hour ago, WDE_OxPx_2010 said:

James Franklin is staring 0-4 in the face as well.

Crazy how unpredictable this year has been across the board.

You could have Indiana in the NY6 (given that the Rose is a semi this year, a little less likely).

[Mikey 16,589]

10 hours ago, AUwent said:

What’s important is that we find someone who can save our OL recruiting. Perhaps promoting T-Will as Beaker suggested would help, IDK.

Although we ended up with three solid LB prospects last year, we got them after we whiffed on our three main targets. 0-3, and two of them were committed to AU at one time. So far this recruiting cycle we haven't got a commitment from a single LB target. T-Will's recruiting has slipped several notches in the past two years.

[AUwent 3,748]

26 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Although we ended up with three solid LB prospects last year, we got them after we whiffed on our three main targets. 0-3, and two of them were committed to AU at one time. So far this recruiting cycle we haven't got a commitment from a single LB target. T-Will's recruiting has slipped several notches in the past two years.

Well then, I stand corrected. Changes still need to be made soon.

[metafour 4,969]

On 11/1/2020 at 9:26 AM, Mikey said:

So, is Fleck now joining the long list of coaches who posters on this board wanted  to replace Gus with?  I could start with Bobby Petrino, jump over a few to Scott Frost, Jeff Brohm and now Fleck. I suppose when Cristobal loses two games he'll be in the garbage can too.

But, we sure have dodged some bullets by standing pat, haven't we?

This is such an overly simplistic and immensely problematic stance for a wide multitude of reasons. Your entire premise is built around the false equivalency that college coaching exists in a vacuum wherein every job is equivalent in nature and thus a 1-to-1 comparison is possible. Any deep analysis of the actual nature of college football however shows the complete opposite: the same exact head coach would have grossly different outcomes at 5 different schools. Every job in the country presents its own unique challenges and benefits, such that this childish argument of "hey this one guy some people wanted is now losing games, aren't we glad we didn't hire him?" is a complete fallacy. All of those coaches you named, regardless of whatever struggles they are facing at their current school, would have different results at Auburn - because Auburn is NOT whatever school they are currently coaching at. In some individual cases it is likely that the results would be worse, in others it would be much better.

If you want a perfect example look no further than Chip Kelly. He produced absolutely elite results at Oregon, and legitimate success (and failure) in the NFL as a head coach. And yet at UCLA he is currently sitting 8-18. So what happened, did he all of a sudden turn into a "bad" coach over night? His record at UCLA certainly seems to indicate that he is not a good head coach, but then how did he win so much at Oregon, and how did he manage even ANY success at the highest level of coaching (the NFL)? His NFL winning percentage (44%) is actually greater than his current winning percentage at UCLA (31%). Even if you want to take the stance that he was massively overrated at Oregon/the NFL and was just "lucky" for whatever reason, surely the drop off to UCLA can't be this severe? So then what is the explanation? Could the explanation be that there is something in the water at UCLA which makes that job extremely difficult to succeed at? That certainly seems to be the case as they seem to see varying degrees of failure regardless of who takes the head coaching position there. Now, the school that you are comparing all of these coaches to - Auburn - seems to do the complete opposite in the sense that no matter who we've hired or where we've dug them up from, they've been able to experience almost immediate national success followed by an eventual tapering off to mediocrity before dismissal. 

In a sense you are advocating for the current mediocrity by falsely assuming that any other number of coaches wouldn't at minimum produce the same level of mediocrity. The failure that you are taking into account is that Auburn historically makes coaches, coaches don't make Auburn. Now, Auburn also seems to break coaches as well, which is another point of discussion in itself. So why should anyone care that 'X' coach isn't winning their games at Purdue as if that somehow concludes that they couldn't achieve 8-9 wins at Auburn, which is what we're currently sitting at? Surely if 5-19 Gene Chizik can magically win games at Auburn, the idea of 'X' coach losing elsewhere isn't exactly a 1-to-1 indicator of what they could do here.

[DAG 33,982]

10 minutes ago, metafour said:

This is such an overly simplistic and immensely problematic stance for a wide multitude of reasons. Your entire premise is built around the false equivalency that college coaching exists in a vacuum wherein every job is equivalent in nature and thus a 1-to-1 comparison is possible. Any deep analysis of the actual nature of college football however shows the complete opposite: the same exact head coach would have grossly different outcomes at 5 different schools. Every job in the country presents its own unique challenges and benefits, such that this childish argument of "hey this one guy some people wanted is now losing games, aren't we glad we didn't hire him?" is a complete fallacy. All of those coaches you named, regardless of whatever struggles they are facing at their current school, would have different results at Auburn - because Auburn is NOT whatever school they are currently coaching at. In some individual cases it is likely that the results would be worse, in others it would be much better.

If you want a perfect example look no further than Chip Kelly. He produced absolutely elite results at Oregon, and legitimate success (and failure) in the NFL as a head coach. And yet at UCLA he is currently sitting 8-18. So what happened, did he all of a sudden turn into a "bad" coach over night? His record at UCLA certainly seems to indicate that he is not a good head coach, but then how did he win so much at Oregon, and how did he manage even ANY success at the highest level of coaching (the NFL)? His NFL winning percentage (44%) is actually greater than his current winning percentage at UCLA (31%). Even if you want to take the stance that he was massively overrated at Oregon/the NFL and was just "lucky" for whatever reason, surely the drop off to UCLA can't be this severe? So then what is the explanation? Could the explanation be that there is something in the water at UCLA which makes that job extremely difficult to succeed at? That certainly seems to be the case as they seem to see varying degrees of failure regardless of who takes the head coaching position there. Now, the school that you are comparing all of these coaches to - Auburn - seems to do the complete opposite in the sense that no matter who we've hired or where we've dug them up from, they've been able to experience almost immediate national success followed by an eventual tapering off to mediocrity before dismissal. 

In a sense you are advocating for the current mediocrity by falsely assuming that any other number of coaches wouldn't at minimum produce the same level of mediocrity. The failure that you are taking into account is that Auburn historically makes coaches, coaches don't make Auburn. Now, Auburn also seems to break coaches as well, which is another point of discussion in itself. So why should anyone care that 'X' coach isn't winning their games at Purdue as if that somehow concludes that they couldn't achieve 8-9 wins at Auburn, which is what we're currently sitting at? Surely if 5-19 Gene Chizik can magically win games at Auburn, the idea of 'X' coach losing elsewhere isn't exactly a 1-to-1 indicator of what they could do here.

You can add a school like LSU with Les Miles and Coach O to that list. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

Would love to know what Gus's record at Minnesota would be right now. 

I wonder if Fleck could've beaten USC with our players.

I wish we'd hired Cristobal last year. 

[metafour 4,969]

21 minutes ago, DAG said:

You can add a school like LSU with Les Miles and Coach O to that list. 

Bingo. Apart from his incomplete 2-2 season, he only had two seasons at LSU where he won LESS than 9-games. And he never won fewer than 8-games. At Kansas he is currently sitting at 3-16. And I've seen Mikey use the logic of "these other guys are also playing in weaker conferences against inferior opponents so they should in fact be winning even more games than they would at a school like Auburn" countless times before. Now, using that logic, how is it that Les Miles looks like one of the worst coaches in the country in an easier conference? He's certainly not competing with Nick Saban at Kansas. Might it have something to do with the fact that LSU is a little different a job than Kansas? 

[metafour 4,969]

39 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Would love to know what Gus's record at Minnesota would be right now. 

One could certainly argue that it wouldn't look good considering that he is an offensive HC who has shown zero ability in developing and rolling forward the two most important positions on offense: the QB and OL. If you actually break his tenure at Auburn down; many of his "good" seasons were in fact carried by strong defensive play. At a school like Minnesota he certainly wouldn't have Muschamp and Steele running his defense for him, or the SEC talent that we employ on defense. The majority of our highest NFL picks during his tenure have been on defense, and again, Derrick Brown isn't going to Minnesota to play football. One would also question what his coaching staff would look like if it was just him picking and choosing his assistants without the invisible hand of Auburn feeding him SEC coaches and recruiters.

[penguin149 391]

Well this might lead one to believe that an up and coming or established successful coach might fail at AU.  Nick Saban at another school might fall into mediocrity.  Dabo at a school other than Clemson might be an 8-5 coach.  Hugh Freeze was successful at OM (in their terms anyway) and has done well at Liberty but put him at FSU or Texas or AU and that gambler's mentality might be viewed as reckless.  There were some on this board that drooled over the idea of Chip Kelley at AU (or feared him at another SEC school).  Perhaps he would have been wildly successful or maybe 8-18?  It's all a crap shoot!!  Let's pay Gus $21,000,000 and see if we get lucky with someone else!!!!  

[Mikey 16,589]

12 hours ago, metafour said:

Surely if 5-19 Gene Chizik can magically win games at Auburn, the idea of 'X' coach losing elsewhere isn't exactly a 1-to-1 indicator of what they could do here.

So, according to your logic there is zero reason to look at a coach's resume. His history doesn't matter, "Auburn will make him successful anyway".  Not buying it.

[Barnacle 9,064]

9 hours ago, Mikey said:

So, according to your logic there is zero reason to look at a coach's resume. His history doesn't matter, "Auburn will make him successful anyway".  Not buying it.

That's not what he said. Not at all.

[DAG 33,982]

10 hours ago, Mikey said:

So, according to your logic there is zero reason to look at a coach's resume. His history doesn't matter, "Auburn will make him successful anyway".  Not buying it.

Reading comprehension 101. Try it. 

[Mikey 16,589]

52 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

That's not what he said. Not at all.

 

 

10 hours ago, Mikey said:

Surely if 5-19 Gene Chizik can magically win games at Auburn, the idea of 'X' coach losing elsewhere isn't exactly a 1-to-1 indicator of what they could do here.

He said this:  ^

[DAG 33,982]

1 minute ago, Mikey said:

 

 

He said this:  ^

Exactly . Reading comprehension 101. In that post he is looking at the coaches whole resume so how is it that you are acting like he said you shouldn’t do that?