Grade each hire so far

[W.E.D 11,070]

5 hours ago, cole256 said:

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

I'm not manipulating anything. You keep trying to dodge the question.  So we have no proof he's going to be a recruiting beast?

Just b/c he's on the staff doesn't mean he was responsible for the players.  Players typically have lead recruiters

PS. He's not coached at Ivy League Schools

[AUx 3,001]

[cole256 17,039]

1 hour ago, W.E.D said:

I'm not manipulating anything. You keep trying to dodge the question.  So we have no proof he's going to be a recruiting beast?

Just b/c he's on the staff doesn't mean he was responsible for the players.  Players typically have lead recruiters

PS. He's not coached at Ivy League Schools

You have been trying to manipulate, I showed that, you're quoted things that aren't true, I showed that as well, the facts you showed wasn't true, I showed that as well. Now you're just talking to be talking. 

Stats shows the last 20 years Stanford averages to rank 31. You even tried to say they were top ten just because they did that one year because you felt that would strengthen your argument. 

Now you're struggling but it is what it is. It's your hole, you dug it ✌🏾

[cole256 17,039]

3 hours ago, japantiger said:

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.  

Whitlock may be the least credible writer that can be found on the internet. The fact that somebody on this board has cited him is truly pathetic

[j0hnnyRingo 1,445]

Ive thought a lot about each hire that CBH has made so far, and to grade them as individuals, I just can’t do... Looking at the cohesive unit is what I am doing, and in the grand scheme of things, a solid group of recruiters and assessors of talent is what we have, along with Coaches with history of great development of positional players.

That makes it a solid group.  The grade will be determined on the field, will it be 2021?  Not sure, but I think CBH has a plan.

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,641]

14 hours ago, metafour said:

This is an interesting exercise, but I'm very interested in finding out what the parameters are behind some of these grades. For example, I can't imagine any scenario wherein Harsin is a "B-" and yet Cadillac is an "A-"? What exactly is your rating scale based around? 

It is something to me that BSU kinda dropped from the pre-eminent group of 5 program to more of a tier 2 one in the last few years. You could come up with reasons for that, but that's just my take. I'm also not grading him on the same scale you'd grade a RB coach. Out of the HC candidates that were feasible and were on our board, he was a B- compared to guys I considered an A.  And obviously, no tangible history in this area, and not much on this level. 

As far as Cadillac, the RB position as a whole looked better, he was able to get arguably a top 5 RB in 3 cycles (until Armoni decommitted) for a sinking ship. Those athletes also had other schools recruiting them that could offer them guaranteed NFL status, which is not something Caddy had going for him. Was able to convince the offensive play callers to try a bit more diversity with how they split carries, made guys better in their roles (DJ an elite pass blocker, Tank = Tank, Shivers looked far more decisive and seemingly improved his vision, etc.) Compared to Dell Mcgee, who's an A+, I had Caddy as an A- RB coach 

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,641]

14 hours ago, Swamp Eagle said:

Something close to this...

very funny! 

[bigbird 60,368]

[augolf1716 21,096]

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

 

[W.E.D 11,070]

10 hours ago, cole256 said:

You have been trying to manipulate, I showed that, you're quoted things that aren't true, I showed that as well, the facts you showed wasn't true, I showed that as well. Now you're just talking to be talking. 

Stats shows the last 20 years Stanford averages to rank 31. You even tried to say they were top ten just because they did that one year because you felt that would strengthen your argument. 

Now you're struggling but it is what it is. It's your hole, you dug it ✌🏾

So I give you 10 years/avg 22, you say I'm manipulating and give me 20 years, which is only 9 spots worse??

I think I said top 10 classes on accident, nothing else has been incorrect.  You seem mad they don't get enough 5* players.  6 isn't enough for you.

You continue to avoid the question and argue pointless details.  

Let's circle back the the question that started all of this, ok?  I'm questioning the notion that Mason will be an immediate impact beast recruiter like say Muschamp, Kirby, Pruitt, etc were as DCs.  I've asked for a resume, b/c he's been at a P5 school that can recruit talent.  You've even pointed out he was there when they had a top 10 class.  What recruits was he the lead on?  Which ones was he responsible for?  If was was an ace recruiter, someone would have mentioned that...right?

[cole256 17,039]

50 minutes ago, W.E.D said:

So I give you 10 years/avg 22, you say I'm manipulating and give me 20 years, which is only 9 spots worse??

I think I said top 10 classes on accident, nothing else has been incorrect.  You seem mad they don't get enough 5* players.  6 isn't enough for you.

You continue to avoid the question and argue pointless details.  

Let's circle back the the question that started all of this, ok?  I'm questioning the notion that Mason will be an immediate impact beast recruiter like say Muschamp, Kirby, Pruitt, etc were as DCs.  I've asked for a resume, b/c he's been at a P5 school that can recruit talent.  You've even pointed out he was there when they had a top 10 class.  What recruits was he the lead on?  Which ones was he responsible for?  If was was an ace recruiter, someone would have mentioned that...right?

This will be my last response because this could go forever since you keep moving the posts and accidentally typing things. 

A 20 year snapshot tells an entire story. We are talking about the school's history why would 20 years bother you as opposed to 10.

The reason I don't answer your questions is you either tried to be dishonest or you ignored mine. And also you don't dictate what I say. No matter what I don't care about this argument you want to have. What I talked about was this, it's more difficult to recruit at Stanford compared to everywhere else. That's it. I'm not trying to argue that you don't like him or whatever. I don't care. I inserted a fact and that's all there is to it. 

[bigbird 60,368]

4 minutes ago, cole256 said:

it's more difficult to recruit at Stanford compared to everywhere else

I agree. Scores alone eliminate >75% of the available player pool.

[cole256 17,039]

4 minutes ago, bigbird said:

I agree. Scores alone eliminate >75% of the available player pool.

You'd think that wouldn't be difficult to understand.

[toddc 13,194]

6 minutes ago, cole256 said:

You'd think that wouldn't be difficult to understand.

It’s not. He just likes to argue and got in over his head on this one.

[W.E.D 11,070]

20 minutes ago, bigbird said:

I agree. Scores alone eliminate >75% of the available player pool.

Yet they still get plenty of talented players b/c smart kids that are very good football players flock to Stanford.  Hence consistently having a top 25 recruiting class, landing plenty of 5* and 4* players.  They have a limitation, but have shown they can recruit and attract top players.....

15 minutes ago, cole256 said:

You'd think that wouldn't be difficult to understand.

 

[W.E.D 11,070]

21 minutes ago, cole256 said:

This will be my last response because this could go forever since you keep moving the posts and accidentally typing things. 

A 20 year snapshot tells an entire story. We are talking about the school's history why would 20 years bother you as opposed to 10.

The reason I don't answer your questions is you either tried to be dishonest or you ignored mine. And also you don't dictate what I say. No matter what I don't care about this argument you want to have. What I talked about was this, it's more difficult to recruit at Stanford compared to everywhere else. That's it. I'm not trying to argue that you don't like him or whatever. I don't care. I inserted a fact and that's all there is to it. 

"My timeline is better than your timeline"

So, I asked a question and you never responded to it...tired to add other variables to help suit your narrative & then demanded your question to be answer first.  lmao.  That's some quality deflection from my original comment on Mason & his recruiting. 

"Compared to everywhere else"??  That is not true.  

I like Mason, I just question the fact that many assume he'll immediately be an elite recruiter.  You can be critical/ask questions and not hate the guy.

[W.E.D 11,070]

7 minutes ago, toddc said:

It’s not. He just likes to argue and got in over his head on this one.

Agree on the 1st part, disagree on the 2nd.

[bigbird 60,368]

5 minutes ago, W.E.D said:

Agree on the 1st part...

So you agree it's more difficult to recruit at Stanford, Great!

Can we now move on from this discussion or take it to PMs, thanks

[cole256 17,039]

He really really wants someone to argue on prove Mason can recruit 😂🤡😂  I look forward to the posts when he recruits well!

 

[W.E.D 11,070]

43 minutes ago, cole256 said:

He really really wants someone to argue on prove Mason can recruit 😂🤡😂  I look forward to the posts when he recruits well!

 

Yeah, crazy to ask for some proof of it or point out he's never done something people claiming he'll be elite at?

And just b/c something might be an unknown doesn't mean he will not do it well.  We've got a couple young guys on our staff that have never recruited SEC level players.  Does that mean we aren't going to get good DBs/WRs??? No.  T-Will, Carnell, and by god even Kodi burns recruited good players w/out prior experience. 

[metafour 4,958]

11 hours ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

It is something to me that BSU kinda dropped from the pre-eminent group of 5 program to more of a tier 2 one in the last few years. You could come up with reasons for that, but that's just my take. I'm also not grading him on the same scale you'd grade a RB coach. Out of the HC candidates that were feasible and were on our board, he was a B- compared to guys I considered an A.  And obviously, no tangible history in this area, and not much on this level. 

As far as Cadillac, the RB position as a whole looked better, he was able to get arguably a top 5 RB in 3 cycles (until Armoni decommitted) for a sinking ship. Those athletes also had other schools recruiting them that could offer them guaranteed NFL status, which is not something Caddy had going for him. Was able to convince the offensive play callers to try a bit more diversity with how they split carries, made guys better in their roles (DJ an elite pass blocker, Tank = Tank, Shivers looked far more decisive and seemingly improved his vision, etc.) Compared to Dell Mcgee, who's an A+, I had Caddy as an A- RB coach 

Thanks for the response.

The only thing I'd state is that you seem to be looking at one guy with a clearly negative set of glasses, and the other with a clearly positive set. That's a normal reaction given that one is a known legendary player with a lot of goodwill built up (Cadillac), and the other is an outsider from a different region (Harsin).

I think you overstate or exaggerate any "drop-off" in Boise, because there really is none. Most people don't consider that during Chris Petersen's 8 year tenure, 5 of those those years were playing within the WAC. After they moved to the MWC (a better conference) they went 12-1, 11-2, and then 8-4 under him (ie: downward trend). Bryan Harsin has coached his entire tenure at Boise in the MWC, and he's never won less than 9-games and has more or less maintained Petersen's year over year mark despite playing better competition. They went 12- 2 just last season, and won 10+ games in each of the three seasons before that - so I'm not really sure what drop-off you're seeing. As for stating that he was a "B-" hire on your board, again, you're welcome to that opinion - but I have a hard time seeing a coach of his pedigree and success as what you essentially graded as a barely acceptable hire. Bryan Harsin has arguably the best track-record of any coach we've hired - ever. Who were your "A" hire candidates?

Now onto Cadillac, who I'm actually really glad we retained and like a lot: an A- grade implies that we'd be hard pressed to find a better RB coach than him. Which seems extremely silly given that his track-record is extremely limited. When I state that you're clearly looking at him with a "positive" set of glasses, just consider what you gave as your proof for his rating. He's landed one elite recruit who he really didn't "coach" into being an elite player (these are RB's, they can either run or they can't) but otherwise none of the other backs on roster did much of anything noteworthy. Cadillac doesn't get any blame for that, but it's silly to try to play up DJ's "blocking" as some sort of high point. He also had two of those backs transfer out, and lost our only commitment this year. The way you worded that makes it out as if it was some minor miracle that we signed Tank - when really we are a premier SEC program who runs the ball a ton and have put a million backs into the league historically. Tank is a great signing and a great recruiting job by Cadillac, but Auburn is expected to land those backs and always has been. The fact that we signed him also has something to do with who our rivals are recruiting: Bama, Georgia, etc. are loaded with 5-star backs themselves already. They can only land so many of those recruits before the next guy up decides to go to Auburn instead to be the star.

[cole256 17,039]

57 minutes ago, W.E.D said:

Yeah, crazy to ask for some proof of it or point out he's never done something people claiming he'll be elite at?

And just b/c something might be an unknown doesn't mean he will not do it well.  We've got a couple young guys on our staff that have never recruited SEC level players.  Does that mean we aren't going to get good DBs/WRs??? No.  T-Will, Carnell, and by god even Kodi burns recruited good players w/out prior experience. 

Cool story. I'm not interested in your argument though

[Rednilla 5,383]

Well, everyone else is doing it...

Harsin: A
The more I've learned about him, the more I've liked the hire. Seems like a hard nosed guy who knows how to run an offense.

Bobo: B+
Grading more on the hire as QB coach than OC, because I think we'll still see a great deal of Harsin's offense, but he has a great track record with signal callers.

Carnell Williams: B+
Nice to keep him on the staff, because I think he did about as well as he could under the circumstances. I'm not completely sold on his ability to get the extra yard out of his running backs, but he's a stellar recruiter, and he DEFINITELY knows how to do what he's teaching, so I can't imagine he's less than average (at least) in development.

Cornelius Williams: B+
Had a great deal of success at Troy producing All-Conference receivers, purported to be a good recruiter who is relatable to players, and should get a bump in recruiting with the prestige of Auburn.

Bedell: C+
Don't really know how he will stack up in the SEC, but it seems he produced a pretty good unit at Boise

Friend: B+
I like what I've read about him, but he's essentially Bobo's tagalong, so it's difficult to gauge how good a hire it is. Supposed to be a good recruiter, and has a solid record of putting guys in the League, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Mason: A+
This was, in my mind, the home run hire of the coaching staff. I've respected Mason since he came on my radar while at Stanford, and his tenure at Vandy might well be perfect for us to have him run the defense for a few years while he rebuilds his stock as a head coach.

Rocker: A-
Loses points for not liking the recruiting part of the job (reportedly) too much, but honestly, I can't say that I blame him...and he's exactly what we need with the defensive line right now, because he's a fantastic teacher of the game.

Schmedding: B-
Underwhelming on face value, but he has a pretty solid record with turning in quality LBs at Boise, so we shall see.

Etheridge: C+
Obviously I love it from the standpoint that he's a former AU player (not to mention the scary moment we ALL felt during his career), and it seems like whenever we have such a coach on staff, he is an outstanding recruiter. The fact that he's young and not long out of the game makes him relatable to the players, and the mere fact of having gone here, IMO, aides the recruiting sales pitch. Throw in that Mason is a DB specialist, and I think it makes for an outstanding opportunity for Zac to learn from one of the best. He just doesn't have a track record to justify giving him a higher grade than that.

[AU-24 3,063]

48 minutes ago, cole256 said:

Cool story. I'm not interested in your argument though

I know how you can shut him up. Just name all the elite players he’s recruited and sent on to the NFL. I mean he’s an elite recruiter, a recruiting beast. Go ahead and give us a list of the five star players your coach has recruited.

[W.E.D 11,070]

3 minutes ago, AU-24 said:

I know how you can shut him up. Just name all the elite players he’s recruited and sent on to the NFL. I mean he’s an elite recruiter, a recruiting beast. Go ahead and give us a list of the five star players your coach has recruited.

Wild, right?  I've asked it a bunch of times.

Just b/c something is a question or an unknown it doesn't mean he's going to suck, but we can live in the now vs just saying he's going to be elite b/c that's what we want to happen.