metafour

1 hour ago, Mims44 said:

It's weird, right?

Every time Nix comes up there are a ton of "everybody hated this guy, but look at this!" type comments.

But going back to a lot of those threads, there wasn't a lot of hate. Unless you count comments like;

"He throws off his back foot a bit too much" or

""Sometimes I think he's too quick to run out of the pocket" or

"I wish he was more accurate on some of the passes over the middle"

It's weird to see things like that spun as 'constant hatred' 🤷‍♂️

I think they are going off of stats, his ORE vs UGA game was.... not stellar  

Seth Williams kept dropping the football because "Nix throws too hard".

On 1/29/2024 at 8:08 AM, metafour said:

 

He is NOT looking for a "co-DC". He is looking for a full DC. 

Charles Kelly has a "Co" tag as a title, he is not expected to be the actual playcaller. No different than when Kodi Burns was "Co-OC" here. Do you think Kodi Burns was doing any playcalling?

And there you have it.

Durkin is hired as the DC. Not "Co-DC", but DC.

8 hours ago, TeamZero77 said:

I'm sorry if it's already been mentioned and I just missed it but I wonder why Coach Freeze feels like we need co-DC's? 

As of right now, all of our position groups have their coach. D-Line is Jeremy Garrett, linebackers is Josh Aldridge, safeties and co-DC is Charles Kelly and cornerbacks is Crime Dog. 

I know Charles Kelly is co-DC as well as safeties coach. Will the other co-DC, whomever it will be, also be a position coach as well? If so, then what position will they coach since all of our defensive position groups already have their coach? 

It seems like Freeze could've named Charles Kelly the full DC and safeties coach kinda how he has Derrike Nix as OC and RB coach. WDE

 

He is NOT looking for a "co-DC". He is looking for a full DC. 

Charles Kelly has a "Co" tag as a title, he is not expected to be the actual playcaller. No different than when Kodi Burns was "Co-OC" here. Do you think Kodi Burns was doing any playcalling?

5 hours ago, Mims44 said:

To be fair, @HAPvsOA mentioned passion, recruiting, and alum connection. Then you spent a paragraph just on recruiting critique. I've never understood the side of this board that seems to operate on "They aren't playing at Auburn anymore, so to hell with'em".

I also liked Cadillacs passion and the way he lead, rare today to see outspoken Christians to the level he was doing... one of the things that makes his recent mistakes harder to take. 🤷‍♂️

People also tend to intermix recruiting with on-field success, Caddy and Zaks positions performed well. Therefore they must have recruited and trained well is how peoples minds work. Not everyone on here is gonna dig through On3 or call connects back in Auburn to try and figure out who really got the kid to sign.

I'd love to see more former AU players on staff, but the catch is they gotta earn it. If Takeo Spikes is considered one of the best LB coaches in the country and so is John Smith and they both want to come to Auburn... Takeo should be picked over him every time. But if Takeo is just starting out you pick the other guy... and maybe make some calls for Takeo to some HSs or small colleges.

Basically I still root for these dudes after they finish playing, and don't see that as a bad thing. 

I focused on recruiting because it's a tangible quality whereas the other two suggestions are comically irrelevant data points. Alum connections? Seriously? That's what I'm going to judge my coaching staff on? Are alum connections going to somehow translate into wins? It certainly hasn't during Cadillac's entire tenure here (fun fact: the last three years he has been a coach here have all been losing seasons).

"Passion and the way he led" - if he wasn't a former player these would never get brought up. What did he lead us to? Again, the team has been largely pathetic for the majority of his tenure here. Seems like a lot of praise over nothing, which is usually the case when we're talking about former players turned coaches here. If you actually follow the "story" of what he allegedly did and why he was forced to resign, how could you possibly ever call him a "Christian leader" lmao? What makes anyone conclude that Carnell was any more a "leader" than anyone else on the staff? He was actually awfully invisible this past season after the whole hoopla over his "magical tenure" (yes sarcasm) as the interim-HC. 

I disagree vehemently with "loving to see more former AU players on staff". Why? Because these guys are impossible to get rid of without half (or more) of the fanbase losing their s***. They get treated like immovable gods regardless of how good they are at their job. The rest of the time they're here is filled with nonstop nonsense about how they should be the next OC, DC, or even the ****ing HC. I'm not making this s*** up, last year after we finally passed the idiocy which was "hire Carnell for HC!" we immediately moved into a large portion of the fanbase talking about making him the freaking OC. There are guys on the off-field support staff who have 10x more qualification to be the OC; the idea of Carnell being an OC is an absolute joke to anyone who actually knows anything about football. He knows nothing about offense, but again, because he's a beloved former player you have to constantly entertain the casual AU fan who knows ****-all about football as they make these idiotic requests. Before that you had people seriously suggesting making Rodney Garner the DC. Garner has been coaching for 30+ years and not one HC has thought to make him his DC, but at Auburn this is actually seen as a viable option by the clueless faithful LMFAO. Want me to continue? How about T-Will being promoted as some no-brainer must have DC? How has that worked out for Arkansas so far? He may be a viable option some day, but he's not even close yet - and that's the problem: regardless of what is best for Auburn football, you're going to see the average AU fan call for what makes their orange and blue genitals tingle. And then they turn around and complain and cry when AU is an average program.

The problem with former players coaching at Auburn is that the average Auburn fan is not capable of behaving properly to the idea. The campaign to try to make Carnell the permanent HC just a season ago is like the icing on the cake of a million examples of this.

Just now, PotPot said:

Charles Kelly is not replacing Etheridge. Kelly presumably replaced McGriff since that was the open position at the time of his hire. Or Roberts, since that position was also open. Does not change my point either way. My point was, new head coaches always replace the previous staff with their own guys. They don’t have to have coached with them previously to be “their own guy” now.

The DB coaches were McGriff and Etheridge. They will now be McGriff and Kelly. If McGriff is a constant, then the replacement is pretty obvious now isn't it?

The fact that McGriff "left" for a hot second doesn't change who is replacing who IN REALITY. Kelly isn't replacing Roberts lmao; what a massive leap in logic.

5 minutes ago, PotPot said:

 I guess we will see, soon, why Etheridge has to go. I guess that won’t have anything to do with just bringing in Freeze’s guy either?

Charles Kelly is replacing Etheridge. Charles Kelly is not a "Freeze guy".

So your point here is non-existent.

One of the two is allegedly being replaced by a "Freeze guy"; who just so happens to be a very competent candidate that Ole Miss really doesn't want to lose (Derrick Nix).

Both replacements are actually upgrades over the two guys they are replacing, so in end this actually worked out from a staffing perspective how Freeze would have liked anyway. Bringing in Charles Kelly (who is an elite recruiter in the state of Alabama) with Saban simultaneously retiring is huge.

59 minutes ago, maryland tiger said:

Dude, you are smoking crack! Who held the team together when Harsin left? Did you see how the entire Auburn family came together behind Caddy and looked like a better coached team? Somethings should be thought but never spoken.

Yawn.

When a universally hated HC (or clearly failing HC) gets fired midway through the season, the only natural response is an uptick in morale. These are kids at the end of the day so the emotional swings are going to be even more obvious. This is almost always the case; do you think the case at Auburn post Harsin would have been any different had say Zac Etheridge been named "interim HC"? How about anyone else on who remained the staff? I don't think you fully comprehend how bad team morale was by the end of Harsin's time here. The team was relieved and elated when he was removed from the position.

When Nebraska fired Scott Frost at around the same time as we fired Harsin, they saw a very similar uptick in competitiveness under interim HC Mickey Joseph. They even had a similar under-tide of small support to consider Mickey Joseph as the permanent HC - until he got arrested for domestic violence.

When LSU fired Les Miles during the season after a 2-2 start, the team turned around and finished 6-2 under Ed Orgeron. In this case, LSU actually gave in to team pressure and hired Orgeron as the permanent HC.

This is why failing to take into account the built-in "high" that occurs with an interim HC when deciding on a permanent replacement for a fired HC is so dangerous.

4 hours ago, e808 said:

Do you recall that long winded speech he gave about Caddy when CHF came on. Then even have Caddy to give the team a motivational pregame speech. Only to come back to say Caddy doesn’t fit his plan. This really doesn’t make much sense to me but I am not making millions to make these decisions if true. Maybe Caddy moves on voluntarily. Let’s see what happens

Given how last season concluded and that stupid fan-driven attempt at pumping Caddy into the HC spot, it was very obvious that Freeze was backed into keeping him on the staff and singing his praises to appease that whole situation from an optics perspective. You are kind of missing that major part of the story. Now that we are past that whole saga, we are at a point where these two parties can go their own ways if that is the choice that is being made. This isn't the first time this type of scenario has played out (new incoming HC retains some fan-favorite coach on the staff, then a year or two later a change is made).

If Freeze is actually going for Derrick Nix as his in-title OC then the picture seems very clear here. Nix is a RB or WR coach. They obviously aren't canning Marcus Davis, and Nix can't coach QB's which is now void with the dismissal of Montgomery. So what's the move? Kent Austin to the staff as QB coach and Nix as OC/RB is the most obvious play.

50 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

On a hail Mary where you have 8 defenders in the endzone indefinitely would be the correct answer.

LOL.

The longer a play is allowed to develop, the more thinking enters the mind of any DB trying to play coverage. The more thinking that takes place, the higher the probability of a blunder. These guys are normally playing on instincts 95% of the time because the QB has such limited time on most pass attempts that take place in a game.

The reason why these gimmick defensive calls which "on paper" should work are in fact stupid decisions is because you are asking a bunch of guys to all of a sudden play a certain way which you otherwise never call in a game. It introduces too much volatility.

It was a stupid defensive call, and the player in coverage made a mistake. They actually had 3 defenders doing literally nothing (two DL who weren't even trying to pressure the QB and a spy literally just standing pointlessly). If you are hell bent on applying zero pressure, why waste those 3 men on the field at all? Why not just put in 11 DB's? 

They actually rushed 0; which was stupid because you are playing a QB with otherwise shoddy decision making. Why make his job easy? If you bring SOME pressure and force him to move left or right out of the pocket, it effectively cuts the field in half because a throw across the field to the opposite side of the endzone is absurdly difficult. If you effectively cut the endzone in half, it forces the receivers to bunch together which is what creates those unlikely jump-ball plays. When you leave the entire endzone open from sideline to sideline,  you are just inviting space for a WR to do something.

5 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

We got somebody good enough to go pro? In football??

He has 7 sacks as a DT and is one of the highest graded DL in the country. You tell me, dumbass?

5 minutes ago, Hank2020 said:

Players must own some responsibility for this loss. You say zero, I say 50%. Agree to disagree.

Where did I say it was zero % on the players? Players still play with the attitude that the coaches instill in them. Name me one team that has a weak-willed HC who's players play like demons? It doesn't exist.

But let me take it further: did the coaches give off any sense of edge in their demeanor or game-calling yesterday? When Freeze left two timeouts hanging and let New Mexico run the clock out on their field goal before half which gave them the lead, did that instill a fighting spirit in his players or any sense of urgency? They barely had the ball offensively in the first half, so why didn't he try to play for one final possession after it became clear that New Mexico was going to settle for a field goal? 

You are asking the players to play with urgency and yet the staff seemed content to just let New Mexico hold the ball for what seemed like 3/4ths of the game. My man, it's a hard ask on players to do their part when the coaching staff seemed oblivious to what was happening in the game.

By the way, even spinning this discussion to "we don't have SEC talent" seems silly. What is "SEC talent"? We beat 3 SEC teams this season and came within a combined 14 points of two of the best teams in the SEC (one of which is the #1 team in the country).

This roster clearly doesn't have the talent to be a top SEC team. But it has SEC talent, otherwise we would have been winless in the SEC. Only 2 out of the 7 SEC games we played were dominated by the opponent.

This is not even close to being the least talented roster in the SEC, hence why it is absolutely hilarious to suggest that a 21 point beatdown at home against a G5 team which had NEVER beaten an SEC opponent was due to a lack of "talent". 

1 minute ago, NWALA Tiger said:

The proof is in the fact these guys are G5 transfers. There is a reason they signed G5 to begin with. Why didn't Bama, GA LSU sign them?

Why are Ole Miss' two best receivers G5 transfers? You realize that Tre Harris, and Dayton Wade, who are #6 and #7 in the conference in receiving yards both came from La Tech and WKU respectively?

How are they so good? 

Your attempt to now shift this argument to "we took G5 players and G5 players are bad" might be even worse than whatever your first point was. Josh Allen played for a G5 school, as did hundreds of other NFL players lmao.

1 minute ago, NWALA Tiger said:

U can't honestly believe we have a SEC roster that can compete week in and week out. I don't care about transfer rankings.  My eyes tell me it's not SEC level. There was a reason all those cats signed with G5 schools

So we need SEC players at every starting position to beat New Mexico State?

Does Hawaii therefore have SEC players? UMASS has SEC players? 

If we don't have adequate SEC players, how did we keep it within 7 against both Georgia and Ole Miss? I take it that must have simply been prodigious coaching then? 

Fun fact: Ole Miss' two best receivers are both from G5 schools. Or is the point here supposed to be that our G5 transfers are just really really bad? 

6 minutes ago, Hank2020 said:

Well our “better” players absolutely did not play better yesterday. It definitely was not all plan or scheme so I put equal amounts of blame on the players as the coaches.

It's the coaches responsibility to make sure their players are playing with the appropriate effort and intensity. Certain coaches keep their teams laser focused, others do not. These same players were plenty ready to take on #1 Georgia and go step for spte against them. If you actually look at Freeze's history, there is a repeated pattern which proves that he does not seem to possess the focus to keep his team ready week in and week out. This is becoming all too much a worrying pattern with him.

1 minute ago, NWALA Tiger said:

And what does it accomplish.  Nothing changes. 

It accomplishes the truth, which is that we simply came unprepared to play and let a less talented G5 team whoop us from start to finish in our own house. Unfortunately this is a repeated pattern with Freeze coached teams.

Versus what you are trying to argue which is that apparently the loss wasn't that bad because New Mexico State has more talent, which is absurd and outright a lie. That New Mexico State team has losses to 4-8 Hawaii, 3-8 UMASS (a team we KILLED), and 11-0 Liberty.

So am I to believe that Hawaii has more talent than us? UMASS has more talent? But wait, we killed UMASS.

New Mexico State put a bigger beating on us than they did against a bunch of legitimately crap G5 schools. Just two weeks ago they barely won 13-7 against a 4-7 MTSU team. So I guess I'm to conclude that MTSU has more talent than us too lmao?

Just now, DAG said:

No I don't understand what you are saying. You are naming single individuals then saying our roster as a whole is G5 status.

His point is non-extant.

The G5 players we took were largely the best players from their G5 teams. Even if they are all "G5 players", that still doesn't put us at 21 point deficit against New Mexico State who isn't even the best G5 team in their own conference, let alone the best G5 team in the country.

The idea that New Mexico State has more talent than us is absolutely moronic. I'm embarrassed for @NWALA Tiger. Dude needs to grow a pair and just admit that our coaching let an unacceptable loss occur. That's it.

Just now, NWALA Tiger said:

And they never played together till this yr

So our G5 roster who has never played together can lose by 7 in close games against #1 Georgia and a Top 15 Ole Miss team, but they can't stand within 21 points of a lesser talented New Mexico State teams that isn't even the best team in their own G5 conference?

That makes sense to you?

So I guess New Mexico State has comparable talent to Georgia in your mind? 

9 minutes ago, NWALA Tiger said:

I wonder what Bamas roster was that year compared to ours this year

Who gives a s***? What does that have ANYTHING to do with the facts I just laid out for you?

Bama had more talent than ULM and lost by 7 because they went -4 in the turnover column.

Auburn had more talent than NMST and lost by 21 in a game wherein neither team turned the ball over.

That makes you feel better? Get ******* real and lose the nonsense.

Generally speaking, an inferior team needs a s*** ton of turnovers to beat a superior team, OR they need to completely outcoach them.

How did NMST beat us?

I'm tired of hearing about Saban's loss to ULM.

Look at the actual box score of that game. Bama turned the ball over 4 times, forced 0 turnovers, and lost by one score. Bama had nearly 150 more offensive yards in that game. Their kicker even missed his lone attempt.

They beat themselves with turnovers. That is VERY different from what you just witnessed yesterday. We lost by 21 points in a game wherein we didn't even turn the ball over once. We simply got manhandled from the first snap of the game to the last.

Anyone with even a modicum of football knowledge knows that if you go -4 in the turnover column, anyone can beat you. ULM doesn't beat Bama without those turnovers. Again, this is drastically different from NMSU outright throttling us.

7 minutes ago, aublaise said:

There is a good chance that FSU will suck again and he will reopen his commitment 

What a silly comment. Florida State is coming off a 10-win season and has a lot of talent. Particularly at QB and WR. They will not "suck". 

3 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I disagree. If you take every student athlete who can get into Stanford and has the talent and build to be in the NFL and offer them Auburn vs Stanford, I would be willing to bet anything that we don't get the majority.

I have no clue if there is any documentation of this, and I don't even know how to find out. So I'm strictly just going off of opinion here. 

Auburn doesn't have any evidence to back up that it's significantly better for a football plater who is interested in going pro. So how would they even begin to make that pitch?

The mistake you are making is assuming that 4 and 5 star football recruits care that much about "academics". The vast majority don't, especially in the South where most of the talent resides. These are career athletes groomed by families who are certain an NFL future is in their cards.

Most of them can't get into Stanford because they have no interest in a career outside football. That's the point. 

Yes, there are some - and Stanford has been able to sway some 4-star talents away from traditional football powers using their educational pitch. But let's cut the crap here: of the Top 250 football recruits each year, what percentage do you think care so much about academics that they would make it a sticking point in their recruitment? Again, it's a small percentage.

Theoretically one can make the NFL out of anywhere. It happens every year. Stanford has an empty stadium and they're currently lost in a dying conference.

33 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I agree with you there. But we have a long long way to go, to offer so much that a kid would give up that kind of opportunity to come play at Auburn. Bama and Georgia are there. 

We don't have a "long way to go". The vast majority of the level of athletes that a football program such as Auburn will want to entice will have little interest in a "Stanford education". The Stanford effect entices a small segment of "top" football recruits per year; the rest of them (ie: the majority) think they're going to the NFL and will make millions - they aren't going to be choosing a school because they think they'll be working for the UN ten years from now.