Jump to content

Grade each hire so far


AUwent

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, W.E.D said:

You're getting way too caught up in a detail that doesn't help you.

Show me how many 5* Vandy has had.  Show me how many top 10 classes they've had in the last decade.  Show me how many top 20 classes Vandy has had.

The answer to all over those is 0 for Vandy.  Now do Stanford.

Stanford isn't Vandy.  They recruit well, regardless of academic restrictions.  Take your L

I don't have an L because I didn't have to change my words or try to manipulate anything to pass off. Also I'm not dumb and wouldn't ever say Stanford is vandy. That's why you keep repeating it because you would need me to make a mistake like that to even pass off this argument. 

What I said recruiting at Stanford is hard compared to most other schools.

Btw you'd have to be an absolute moron to come to the conclusion they were in the top 20 a few years so it's not hard to recruit there

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 minutes ago, W.E.D said:

You're getting way too caught up in a detail that doesn't help you.

Show me how many 5* Vandy has had.  Show me how many top 10 classes they've had in the last decade.  Show me how many top 20 classes Vandy has had.

The answer to all over those is 0 for Vandy.  Now do Stanford.

Stanford isn't Vandy.  They recruit well, regardless of academic restrictions.  Take your L


For the last decade, Stanford has been in the top 20 every other year.  Top 25 80% of the time.  Here's their last decade of rankings

21, 19, 40, 14, 16, 24, 13, 52, 7, 22

Vandy is consistently between 45 and 65.  Again, Stanford isn't Vandy in terms of recruiting 

Oh so you lied at first? Ok. Hold that L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, cole256 said:

Btw you'd have to be an absolute moron to come to the conclusion they were in the top 20 a few years so it's not hard to recruit there

A few years?  They've been in the top 25 for 8 of the last 10 years.  Top 20 50% of the time.  Stanford isn't hard to recruit to.  They are consistently successful recruiting.

They are an elite academic school that consistently pulls highly rated athletes from across the country.  Their annual ranking speaks for itself 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, W.E.D said:

A few years?  They've been in the top 25 for 8 of the last 10 years.  Top 20 50% of the time.  Stanford isn't hard to recruit to.  They are consistently successful recruiting.

They are an elite academic school that consistently pulls highly rated athletes from across the country.  Their annual ranking speaks for itself 

 

Oh now it's top 25 since top 20 wasn't working for you huh? You probably should look up the definition of consistent. 

What you should do is find somebody that wants to argue Stanford vs vandy then maybe you'd make a point. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cole256 said:

Oh now it's top 25 since top 20 wasn't working for you huh? You probably should look up the definition of consistent. 

What you should do is find somebody that wants to argue Stanford vs vandy then maybe you'd make a point. 

 

Yes, that is one number out of many.  They've had a top 10 class, been top 20 50% of the time (mostly top 15), top 25% 80% of the time.

They aren't hard to recruit to.

  

14 hours ago, cole256 said:

It's hard to recruit at Stanford as well

Do you not know what as well means?  Vandy is hard to recruit to, Stanford is not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, W.E.D said:

Yes, that is one number out of many.  They've had a top 10 class, been top 20 50% of the time (mostly top 15), top 25% 80% of the time.

They aren't hard to recruit to.

  

Do you not know what as well means?  Vandy is hard to recruit to, Stanford is not

It is. I'm off this week I can do this all day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harsin B+:very successful where he’s been, but a little unsure how he’ll do in the power 5 and the southeast.

Bobo C-: I didn’t watch his offenses at CSU admittedly. People are calling him “multiple,” but he looks more straight pro style to me. His offenses at UGA and South Carolina were in my opinion too old school.

Friend A-: People wanted better OL recruiting, and he seems to be able to do that. 

CWill C. There’s potential, but he’s really unproven. 

Caddy A: It wasn’t sexy because it was just a retained coach, but he was doing a good job. Glad we kept him. 

Beddell C. : He coached OL in the past. Not sure what to think of him working with TE. 

Mason B-: His defenses at Stanford were good. His defenses at Vandy were good for 2 years, then fell off. Not sure if it was a player development issue, a recruiting issue, or that the shotgun spread heavy offenses have passed him. Either way, there’s some room for concern. But then again, it was Vandy. It’s hard to fault someone for not being successful there. 

Rocker B+: He was a great coach when he was here before. Minor apprehension though over the fact that he somehow ended up at the dumpster fire that was South Carolina. 

Schmeddinhg C+: Another somewhat unproven guy. 

Etheridge B-: Also unproven, but he’s believed to be a promising up and comer. I trust this one more than the other unprovens. 

Pittman B: Never cared for Russell. This guy seems to have an edge about him that Russell never seemed to have. I think this seems like a major upgrade. 
 

T WillA++++: Grading this because I really want it to happen. 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how is you showing what shaw and harbaugh doing proving it's not hard? Are you really saying it's not hard because this guy has made them a top 25 team? 🤡

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, cole256 said:

It is. I'm off this week I can do this all day

Sounds like lots of fun.  You're really enjoying yourself.

So, a school that pulls 5* players, consistently has numerous 4* players in each class, is consistently in the top 25 with many 7-15 class....that's hard to recruit to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, W.E.D said:

Sounds like lots of fun.  You're really enjoying yourself.

So, a school that pulls 5* players, consistently has numerous 4* players in each class, is consistently in the top 25 with many 7-15 class....that's hard to recruit to?

We already established the consistent 5 star thing is alie. And whose to say that shaw is just amazing? Just because he can do it doesn't mean any coach that goes to Stanford can keep them top 25.

Recruiting goes off of winning. That's it. If you're a top recruiter but go to a loser program and you don't get wins you won't be a top recruiter anymore. I graduate student coach could join Alabama right now and he'd pull recruits because they have established winning. You can't win in the SEC with vandy. You can win in the pac whatever with Stanford.

I can't help that you're not smart. There's nothing I can do for that. But if you can't have an understanding that every school recruits from the same pool of people in the United States. If a school has a higher restriction than another school then it's harder for that school. Every year Stanford has a couple of guys that they want that they can't bring in because they didn't have the grades. Yes that makes it harder for them. Saying well in the past 10 years they have gotten 5 5 star guys doesn't prove anything.

That's simple if you don't understand that you're just stupid. Also if it's not a thing then you wouldn't have multiple articles on it. If it's not anything to consider you wouldn't have the coach saying it. But I guess Shaw is just lying to spite you right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understanding quantum physics is hard.

There are 100's of people that understand quantum physics....

Becoming a millionaire is difficult...there are 46 million millionaires! It's not hard at all. Are you a millionaire? Uh huh no. But I win the argument inmy mind!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, cole256 said:

We already established the consistent 5 star thing is alie. And whose to say that shaw is just amazing? Just because he can do it doesn't mean any coach that goes to Stanford can keep them top 25.

Recruiting goes off of winning. That's it. If you're a top recruiter but go to a loser program and you don't get wins you won't be a top recruiter anymore. I graduate student coach could join Alabama right now and he'd pull recruits because they have established winning. You can't win in the SEC with vandy. You can win in the pac whatever with Stanford.

I can't help that you're not smart. There's nothing I can do for that. But if you can't have an understanding that every school recruits from the same pool of people in the United States. If a school has a higher restriction than another school then it's harder for that school. Every year Stanford has a couple of guys that they want that they can't bring in because they didn't have the grades. Yes that makes it harder for them. Saying well in the past 10 years they have gotten 5 5 star guys doesn't prove anything.

That's simple if you don't understand that you're just stupid. Also if it's not a thing then you wouldn't have multiple articles on it. If it's not anything to consider you wouldn't have the coach saying it. But I guess Shaw is just lying to spite you right?

Correct, you can't consistently win in the SEC with Vandy.  But a good coach has shown you can avoid being an abject failure, which Mason was.

To your point about Stanford.  It goes beyond 5 star guys.  They get plenty of 4* guys as well.  They consistently have a top 25 class.  Just b/c they have an academic restriction doesn't mean they can't recruit.  That is why Vandy hired Mason.  They want to be Stanford.  Have academic restrictions, but be able to recruit and have a capable football team.

You call me stupid, but you keep implying a school that consistently has quality recruiting class "can't recruit".  One road block doesn't mean a school can't recruit.  

Back to the original point, since I've shown Stanford can pull numerous highly ranked players....Mason should have a resume of Players he recruited...right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W.E.D said:

Correct, you can't consistently win in the SEC with Vandy.  But a good coach has shown you can avoid being an abject failure, which Mason was.

To your point about Stanford.  It goes beyond 5 star guys.  They get plenty of 4* guys as well.  They consistently have a top 25 class.  Just b/c they have an academic restriction doesn't mean they can't recruit.  That is why Vandy hired Mason.  They want to be Stanford.  Have academic restrictions, but be able to recruit and have a capable football team.

You call me stupid, but you keep implying a school that consistently has quality recruiting class "can't recruit".  One road block doesn't mean a school can't recruit.  

Back to the original point, since I've shown Stanford can pull numerous highly ranked players....Mason should have a resume of Players he recruited...right?

Nah you're lying again. I didn't say they can't recruit, I said it's harder to recruit at Stanford than most places. I'm not you so I'm not just making up stuff. 

And you haven't shown anything but the coaching stuff there now recruits decent even though it's harder to do so. 

You shouldn't ever use quotation marks unless you are quoting them. When you do, you look desperate and it looks like you'd lie to try to win a debate

 

Interesting stat, the last 20 years Stanford averages a rank of 31.5 as far as ranking coincidentally their 2 highest years which is 7 and 13 Mason was on the staff those years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harsin - A. Most accomplished coach AU has ever hired. 
 

Bobo - B. Great recruiter. Known coach in SEC. compliments offensive minded head coach. 

Friend - A+. We have immediate interest from multiple OT. Fills biggest need of team

Bedell - B-. No previous experience coaching TE. But long relationship with coach before and TE is often seen as extension of OL anyway. 
 

Caddy - A. Great local connections. Great guy by all reports. He’ll have us in discussion for top backs every year. 
 

Williams - C-. Good young coach that is respected by former players. Has experience and success developing players. Have to see if he can reel in the big fish. 
 

Mason - A+. Everyone in the country wanted this guy and he came to AU. Speaks columns about Harsin and AU IMO 

Ethridge - C+. Not a proven coach but young former players always seem to work out so I’m giving benefit of doubt. Plus he’ll work with Mason who is an old DB guy. 
 

Rocker - B. Known great coach with lots of experience in SEC. Doesn’t love the recruiting side though he has track record of signing impact players. 
 

Schmedding - B-  Lots of experience and former DC. Has connections in different parts of country which could be useful. 
 

Pittman - B. Harsin has worked with him for a long time and likes his performance. Good enough for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, cole256 said:

Nah you're lying again. I didn't say they can't recruit, I said it's harder to recruit at Stanford than most places. I'm not you so I'm not just making up stuff. 

And you haven't shown anything but the coaching stuff there now recruits decent even though it's harder to do so. 

You shouldn't ever use quotation marks unless you are quoting them. When you do, you look desperate and it looks like you'd lie to try to win a debate

So, if it isn't hard to recruit to Stanford (which I've established) & it's just "harder" to recruit to Stanford against some scale even though they average 22nd out of 130 D1 teams over the last decade (which you've established)....

Where is Mason's resume?  That's the original topic.  Where is the proof Mason is a legit beast recruiter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, W.E.D said:

So, if it isn't hard to recruit to Stanford (which I've established) & it's just "harder" to recruit to Stanford against some scale even though they average 22nd out of 130 D1 teams over the last decade (which you've established)....

Where is Mason's resume?  That's the original topic.  Where is the proof Mason is a legit beast recruiter?

You haven't established anything. You just keep moving the posts and asking more questions. Hell you should know his resume because you keep bringing up stats that he was part of that you don't want to give him credit for. The best year Stanford had he was on that staff.

Stop trying to ignore when you were wrong, stop ignoring how you've tried to manipulate stats. Stop ignoring you quoting things that weren't said. Nobody is buying into the stupidity of asking for tremendous recruiting stats at schools that haven't ever been tremendous at recruiting. He's coached at Ivy League schools. 

I wouldn't have even engaged you but I knew the stuff you originally said about Stanford recruiting was a lie and I just wanted to point that out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, W.E.D said:

He was also at Stanford. He never had a massive recruiting resume. 

Just bc you're at a bad school doesn't mean you can't recruit 

I was watching the coaching clinic video that Bird posted. Mason said in there that at one point at Stanford, they only had 9 Defensive linemen on the roster because that's all that could get into the school. Therefore, they had to play a lot and his D-Line coach made them tougher by going old school and doing drills like monkey rolls and the like. It just reinforces the fact that recruiting the right student-athletes to those kind of schools is hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going with a B+ to A-  for the staff as a whole.  Some coaches like Harsin A, Mason A, Bobo B+, Caddy B but could move up easily, Rocker B, Friend A- because of his recruiting B on his development,  Some of the others I really don't know enough about to give an honest opinion I think some are young and up and coming but with that type hire you can hit a homerun, a ground rule double, a single, or a strikeout it will take a couple of years to find out. Can some of the Boise guys bring in a few quality players from outside of our normal recruiting area while getting their feet wet in the highly competitive states like Alabama, Georgia, Florida only time will tell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHITLOCK: BLACK MATRIARCHY PLAYS SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE PLIGHT OF BLACK COLLEGE FOOTBALL COACHES

by 5fec97f06ed9a-bpthumb.pngJASON WHITLOCKabout a month agoupdated about a month ago

 

An excerpt from the article on Stanford success:

So who has been the most successful?

It has to be Stanford’s David Shaw, followed by Penn State’s James Franklin, and then three guys who are sidelined as head coaches — Charlie Strong (Louisville, Texas and USF), Kevin Sumlin (Houston, Texas A&M and Arizona) and Tyrone Willingham (Stanford, Notre Dame and Washington.)

Shaw is the cream of the crop. He and Franklin are the only black coaches to win a Power Five conference title. Shaw has won the PAC-12 three times. His 2015 team finished 12-2 and ranked No. 3 in the country. Franklin won the Big Ten in 2016. Only three other black coaches have won a conference title. Turner Gill (2008), Michael Haywood (2010) and Dino Babers (2015) won the Mid-American Conference.

Shaw has won 88 games in 10 years at Stanford. 

Stanford is interesting. The school has had three black coaches, all of whom would have to be considered successful. Shaw, Willingham and Denny Green, the old Minnesota Vikings coach. Willingham won 44 games at Stanford, including a 9-3 season in 2001 that landed him the Notre Dame job

Why are black coaches successful at Stanford and not elsewhere?

So why have all three of Stanford’s black football coaches succeeded? 

I have a theory. 

Stanford isn’t a football factory. It caters to rosters filled primarily with legitimate student-athletes from stable family backgrounds. Stanford football is Duke basketball. The racial makeup of the Stanford football team is a bit different from the typical football factory. 

By my rough count and estimate, Stanford’s roster is 52% white, 46% black and 2% other. 

It’s easier for black coaches to lead teams filled with kids from nuclear families. Black kids from broken homes and/or with broken-father relationships struggle to submit to the leadership of black head coaches. They respond better when the ultimate authority is white or female.

I know that sounds crazy to some of you. I know that, as a member of the media, I’m supposed to just write that white racism is the explanation for every black problem. 

But the reality is that insecurity and self-hatred are bigger problems for black male athletes. You can see it in their attraction to the Black Lives Matter movement. BLM is a cry for white love and a white solution to black problems. BLM is a plea for a white daddy to save black culture. 

https://www.outkick.com/whitlock-black-matriarchy-plays-significant-role-in-the-plight-of-black-college-football-coaches/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Carnell Williams (2022 5* RB Emmanual Henderson), Bobo (2022 5* QB Gunner Stockton) and for Friend, (2021 3* OT Colby Smith) just take a peak in the Recruiting forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, japantiger said:

WHITLOCK: BLACK MATRIARCHY PLAYS SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE PLIGHT OF BLACK COLLEGE FOOTBALL COACHES

by 5fec97f06ed9a-bpthumb.pngJASON WHITLOCKabout a month agoupdated about a month ago

 

An excerpt from the article on Stanford success:

So who has been the most successful?

It has to be Stanford’s David Shaw, followed by Penn State’s James Franklin, and then three guys who are sidelined as head coaches — Charlie Strong (Louisville, Texas and USF), Kevin Sumlin (Houston, Texas A&M and Arizona) and Tyrone Willingham (Stanford, Notre Dame and Washington.)

Shaw is the cream of the crop. He and Franklin are the only black coaches to win a Power Five conference title. Shaw has won the PAC-12 three times. His 2015 team finished 12-2 and ranked No. 3 in the country. Franklin won the Big Ten in 2016. Only three other black coaches have won a conference title. Turner Gill (2008), Michael Haywood (2010) and Dino Babers (2015) won the Mid-American Conference.

Shaw has won 88 games in 10 years at Stanford. 

Stanford is interesting. The school has had three black coaches, all of whom would have to be considered successful. Shaw, Willingham and Denny Green, the old Minnesota Vikings coach. Willingham won 44 games at Stanford, including a 9-3 season in 2001 that landed him the Notre Dame job

Why are black coaches successful at Stanford and not elsewhere?

So why have all three of Stanford’s black football coaches succeeded? 

I have a theory. 

Stanford isn’t a football factory. It caters to rosters filled primarily with legitimate student-athletes from stable family backgrounds. Stanford football is Duke basketball. The racial makeup of the Stanford football team is a bit different from the typical football factory. 

By my rough count and estimate, Stanford’s roster is 52% white, 46% black and 2% other. 

It’s easier for black coaches to lead teams filled with kids from nuclear families. Black kids from broken homes and/or with broken-father relationships struggle to submit to the leadership of black head coaches. They respond better when the ultimate authority is white or female.

I know that sounds crazy to some of you. I know that, as a member of the media, I’m supposed to just write that white racism is the explanation for every black problem. 

But the reality is that insecurity and self-hatred are bigger problems for black male athletes. You can see it in their attraction to the Black Lives Matter movement. BLM is a cry for white love and a white solution to black problems. BLM is a plea for a white daddy to save black culture. 

https://www.outkick.com/whitlock-black-matriarchy-plays-significant-role-in-the-plight-of-black-college-football-coaches/

Good grief. Take this somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gravejd said:

Harsin - A. Most accomplished coach AU has ever hired. 
 

Bobo - B. Great recruiter. Known coach in SEC. compliments offensive minded head coach. 

Friend - A+. We have immediate interest from multiple OT. Fills biggest need of team

Bedell - B-. No previous experience coaching TE. But long relationship with coach before and TE is often seen as extension of OL anyway. 
 

Caddy - A. Great local connections. Great guy by all reports. He’ll have us in discussion for top backs every year. 
 

Williams - C-. Good young coach that is respected by former players. Has experience and success developing players. Have to see if he can reel in the big fish. 
 

Mason - A+. Everyone in the country wanted this guy and he came to AU. Speaks columns about Harsin and AU IMO 

Ethridge - C+. Not a proven coach but young former players always seem to work out so I’m giving benefit of doubt. Plus he’ll work with Mason who is an old DB guy. 
 

Rocker - B. Known great coach with lots of experience in SEC. Doesn’t love the recruiting side though he has track record of signing impact players. 
 

Schmedding - B-  Lots of experience and former DC. Has connections in different parts of country which could be useful. 
 

Pittman - B. Harsin has worked with him for a long time and likes his performance. Good enough for me. 

Put me down as the same except I’d pump Corn up to a C+

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, japantiger said:

WHITLOCK: BLACK MATRIARCHY PLAYS SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE PLIGHT OF BLACK COLLEGE FOOTBALL COACHES

by 5fec97f06ed9a-bpthumb.pngJASON WHITLOCKabout a month agoupdated about a month ago

 

An excerpt from the article on Stanford success:

So who has been the most successful?

It has to be Stanford’s David Shaw, followed by Penn State’s James Franklin, and then three guys who are sidelined as head coaches — Charlie Strong (Louisville, Texas and USF), Kevin Sumlin (Houston, Texas A&M and Arizona) and Tyrone Willingham (Stanford, Notre Dame and Washington.)

Shaw is the cream of the crop. He and Franklin are the only black coaches to win a Power Five conference title. Shaw has won the PAC-12 three times. His 2015 team finished 12-2 and ranked No. 3 in the country. Franklin won the Big Ten in 2016. Only three other black coaches have won a conference title. Turner Gill (2008), Michael Haywood (2010) and Dino Babers (2015) won the Mid-American Conference.

Shaw has won 88 games in 10 years at Stanford. 

Stanford is interesting. The school has had three black coaches, all of whom would have to be considered successful. Shaw, Willingham and Denny Green, the old Minnesota Vikings coach. Willingham won 44 games at Stanford, including a 9-3 season in 2001 that landed him the Notre Dame job

Why are black coaches successful at Stanford and not elsewhere?

So why have all three of Stanford’s black football coaches succeeded? 

I have a theory. 

Stanford isn’t a football factory. It caters to rosters filled primarily with legitimate student-athletes from stable family backgrounds. Stanford football is Duke basketball. The racial makeup of the Stanford football team is a bit different from the typical football factory. 

By my rough count and estimate, Stanford’s roster is 52% white, 46% black and 2% other. 

It’s easier for black coaches to lead teams filled with kids from nuclear families. Black kids from broken homes and/or with broken-father relationships struggle to submit to the leadership of black head coaches. They respond better when the ultimate authority is white or female.

I know that sounds crazy to some of you. I know that, as a member of the media, I’m supposed to just write that white racism is the explanation for every black problem. 

But the reality is that insecurity and self-hatred are bigger problems for black male athletes. You can see it in their attraction to the Black Lives Matter movement. BLM is a cry for white love and a white solution to black problems. BLM is a plea for a white daddy to save black culture. 

https://www.outkick.com/whitlock-black-matriarchy-plays-significant-role-in-the-plight-of-black-college-football-coaches/

Grade the AU hires and you throw this in here... truly special. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ClaytonAU said:

Grade the AU hires and you throw this in here... truly special. 

In case you hadn't read the conversation for the last two pages it was on "was Stanford any good" and "what it is like to coach there" trying to understand if Mason's capabilities are still current and applicable at Auburn....and one poster referenced that Mason was hired to do at Vandy what Stanford was doing.  So, yeah, this is pretty relevant.  

The article addresses Stanfords success for the last 10 years (pretty impressive; Mason was part of that); the coaches; and why these particular black coaches are successful/or aren't.  Mason, Sumlin, etc.,  for examples referenced as unsuccessful; Shaw, etc., as successful.  This black sportswriter has a theory.  Just like he says; you can like it or lump it.  A little outside reading shows that Shaw had a higher graduation rate for his athletes vs Vandy (~86%); Shaw at Stanford (~92%); but Vandy had a higher grad rate for black athletes which it has more of vs Stanford.  A little more reading shows different racial makeups of the two teams...Vandy is not Stanford demographically.  I can't find other demographic data on Vandy players to understand family dynamics, etc..  

If you don't think being a black head coach (or a black business leaders, etc.) carries particular challenges; then you've got your head in the sand.  I don't know if this guy has the answer; but there is something paradoxical in the current rate of success @ Stanford vs elsewhere.  Everything, from getting the job in the 1st place, is different for a black coach...I've had that conversation with my black business leaders.  Training, development, mentoring, coaching needs to reflect this.  Not sure where Mason gets his support.  Stanford facilities are also light years better than anything Vandy has...I don't think any coach is going to be very successful there given that disparity and lack of fan support.  I think it would be easy to get  exhausted as a coach there given all the rocks on your pile.  Not an excuse for him; because he took the job and got the big bucks for it (almost $3m annually).  But if you aren't getting the right mentoring,  development and  program support on how to manage a big business; (which any SEC football program is); then you're going to get ground down.  I think coronavirus was  just the coup-de-grace...without it he might have lasted one more year.

Mason gets the benefit of the doubt because Harsin gets the benefit of the doubt currently.  Same for Bobo or any of these guys.  I hope Mason recruits lights-out and gets these guys to think they are the meanest mother****ers in the history of Auburn football.  We need some hunger and toughness.  I hope the entire secondary plays like David Langner (or Ethridge).  As for some of the other things I've seen on Mason on here; I'd grade Mason's dancing about like Gus's...nothing special.  I don't think pre-game talks mean a great deal so nothing particularly impressive there.  No one is listening to anything at that point.  Post game speeches matter...people actually listen to those...they want to celebrate and be lifted up in tuff times.  Lastly, I hope he goes to the intramural field to find a kicker before going to the women's soccer team if we get that hard up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...