Chemistry wasn't there

[tigerwings 75]

What I don't understand about this is how our defense was the strongest during Whitehead's suspension. He comes back against USCe (even if just for special teams) and our defense all of a sudden crumbles. If he was such a vital part of the team, you'd have thought the defense would've been better when he came back. Maybe he should've just been straight up kicked off he team.

Miss St, OM, early part of TAMU game before they realized they needed him on defense. Defense was bad without him

But he played against OM and TAMU. Only game we lost that he didn't play in was Miss St.

He was special teams only against OM and TAMU per his punishment. He didn't return to D until UGA after missing 6 weeks on D.

[ShocksMyBrain 9,362]

BOTTOM LINE: raise your hand if you think a "verbal altercation" with a defensive position coach will happen under Boom's watch? No. Because Boom's presence is that of demanding respect.

Next order of business.

That, and he will eat your head off if you decide to get sassy.

[Randman5000 4,223]

BOTTOM LINE: raise your hand if you think a "verbal altercation" with a defensive position coach will happen under Boom's watch? No. Because Boom's presence is that of demanding respect.

Next order of business.

That, and he will eat your head off if you decide to get sassy.

After he head butts you to death. Ha

[Maverick.AU 13,279]

What I don't understand about this is how our defense was the strongest during Whitehead's suspension. He comes back against USCe (even if just for special teams) and our defense all of a sudden crumbles. If he was such a vital part of the team, you'd have thought the defense would've been better when he came back. Maybe he should've just been straight up kicked off he team.

Miss St, OM, early part of TAMU game before they realized they needed him on defense. Defense was bad without him

But he played against OM and TAMU. Only game we lost that he didn't play in was Miss St.

He was special teams only against OM and TAMU per his punishment. He didn't return to D until UGA after missing 6 weeks on D.

NotTAMU, he played. He had a tackle on the first defensive snap and had an int in the 2nd quarter

[caleb1633 1,418]

I think the Whitehead incident being what lead to our defense's downfall is a straw-man excuse. If we played terrible when he was gone and better when he returned, I'd believe it, however we played better when he was gone and terrible when he came back. I think senior leadership on this team was piss poor in general and, if anything, his return hurt the defense.

[cooltigger21 0]

I think the Whitehead incident being what lead to our defense's downfall is a straw-man excuse. If we played terrible when he was gone and better when he returned, I'd believe it, however we played better when he was gone and terrible when he came back. I think senior leadership on this team was piss poor in general and, if anything, his return hurt the defense.

He wasn't there for the Ole Miss or South Carolina games. We could have used him both times. His absence threw the secondary, which already featured a lot of people shuffled around even more into chaos. Yes they looked good against LSU but w know what they're about on offense. Once they got sort of settled in without him then he comes back. You can't have that sort of thing go on without it disrupting things.

[caleb1633 1,418]

Whether his suspension hurt the defense or not, you can't tolerate that kind of behavior out of a player, and I think Gus did the right thing in suspending him. A problem unenforced becomes the standard (ala Gene Chizik). It still requires someone stepping up and being that leader on the team after the disciplinary action has taken place.

[Threedog79 0]

Don't get me wrong discipline is a good thing. But I don't think they would even raise a voice to our head defense now. I DARE them to go rouge now.

[Threedog79 0]

By the way, the Whitehead incident is a scapegoat. Our defense was way off the grid.

[Dixie1860 27]

"The Whitehead Incident", as it shall forever be known, was a re-surfacing of the prevailing attitude among many players pre-Gus. It would have been the miracle, of all miracles, had all Chizik era players exhausted their eligibility without old attitudes surfacing somewhere.

[keesler 5,922]

"The Whitehead Incident", as it shall forever be known, was a re-surfacing of the prevailing attitude among many players pre-Gus. It would have been the miracle, of all miracles, had all Chizik era players exhausted their eligibility without old attitudes surfacing somewhere.

Players spend more time with their position coaches and the coordinators than they do the head coach. I know these are "Chizik era players" but Gus was part of that era too. And the off the field issues we had during the Chizik era appeared to still raise their ugly heads in the Malzhan era last summer....I'm hoping better days ahead.

[AUIH1 1,515]

Whether his suspension hurt the defense or not, you can't tolerate that kind of behavior out of a player, and I think Gus did the right thing in suspending him. A problem unenforced becomes the standard (ala Gene Chizik). It still requires someone stepping up and being that leader on the team after the disciplinary action has taken place.

Gus should have thrown him off of the team. The D staff was less than average, but Gus could have helped out more if he had kicked him from the team. IF we had chemistry issues because of this, then that was on Gus for allowing him to remain on the team.

wde

[auburn2oregon 0]

"The Whitehead Incident", as it shall forever be known, was a re-surfacing of the prevailing attitude among many players pre-Gus. It would have been the miracle, of all miracles, had all Chizik era players exhausted their eligibility without old attitudes surfacing somewhere.

Players spend more time with their position coaches and the coordinators than they do the head coach. I know these are "Chizik era players" but Gus was part of that era too. And the off the field issues we had during the Chizik era appeared to still raise their ugly heads in the Malzhan era last summer....I'm hoping better days ahead.

They are, without question. Muschamp is infinitely better than Johnson, and that isn't even taking scheme into consideration.

WDE from Eugene Oregon!

[McLoofus 35,182]

"The Whitehead Incident", as it shall forever be known, was a re-surfacing of the prevailing attitude among many players pre-Gus. It would have been the miracle, of all miracles, had all Chizik era players exhausted their eligibility without old attitudes surfacing somewhere.

Players spend more time with their position coaches and the coordinators than they do the head coach. I know these are "Chizik era players" but Gus was part of that era too. And the off the field issues we had during the Chizik era appeared to still raise their ugly heads in the Malzhan era last summer....I'm hoping better days ahead.

Offensive coordinators don't spend much time with safeties. So, no, Gus wasn't really a part of Whitehead's Chizik experience.

And I'll keep reminding folks: let the weed stuff go. Seriously. Most college football players possess and smoke marijuana. That is a simple statement of fact. Being a normal college kid is not a sign of poor character.

Insubordination of the caliber that Whitehead must have shown is a different story. Disrespect, laziness, entitlement... those are attitudes that can be cancerous to the team.

Gus should have thrown him off of the team. The D staff was less than average, but Gus could have helped out more if he had kicked him from the team. IF we had chemistry issues because of this, then that was on Gus for allowing him to remain on the team.

wde

That doesn't make sense. The chemistry issues began in Whitehead's absence, according to the article, which means that they would have still existed had he been kicked off the team. Additionally, if the defense was one malcontent safety's absence away from crumbling, then the problems were far bigger than Whitehead. The fact that he was at the bowl game and Ellis Johnson wasn't would support that.

Not to mention, you imply that you know exactly what happened. I mean, I personally would have to know that before suggesting that a senior's entire career- and possibly his future- should just be flushed down the drain. If you do know exactly what happened, then it would be great if you could provide a detailed account, since nobody else has been able to.

[AUIH1 1,515]

"The Whitehead Incident", as it shall forever be known, was a re-surfacing of the prevailing attitude among many players pre-Gus. It would have been the miracle, of all miracles, had all Chizik era players exhausted their eligibility without old attitudes surfacing somewhere.

Players spend more time with their position coaches and the coordinators than they do the head coach. I know these are "Chizik era players" but Gus was part of that era too. And the off the field issues we had during the Chizik era appeared to still raise their ugly heads in the Malzhan era last summer....I'm hoping better days ahead.

Offensive coordinators don't spend much time with safeties. So, no, Gus wasn't really a part of Whitehead's Chizik experience.

And I'll keep reminding folks: let the weed stuff go. Seriously. Most college football players possess and smoke marijuana. That is a simple statement of fact. Being a normal college kid is not a sign of poor character.

Insubordination of the caliber that Whitehead must have shown is a different story. Disrespect, laziness, entitlement... those are attitudes that can be cancerous to the team.

Gus should have thrown him off of the team. The D staff was less than average, but Gus could have helped out more if he had kicked him from the team. IF we had chemistry issues because of this, then that was on Gus for allowing him to remain on the team.

wde

That doesn't make sense. The chemistry issues began in Whitehead's absence, according to the article, which means that they would have still existed had he been kicked off the team. Additionally, if the defense was one malcontent safety's absence away from crumbling, then the problems were far bigger than Whitehead. The fact that he was at the bowl game and Ellis Johnson wasn't would support that.

• Not to mention, you imply that you know exactly what happened. I mean, I personally would have to know that before suggesting that a senior's entire career- and possibly his future- should just be flushed down the drain. If you do know exactly what happened, then it would be great if you could provide a detailed account, since nobody else has been able to.
  

It was obvious that the problems on D were bigger than Whitehead (that is why we only have one D coach remaining on the staff). I don't know exactly what happened, but if Whitehead accosted a coach (whether verbally and or physically) to the point that he received a 4 game suspension, then he should have been kicked off of the team.

wde

[McLoofus 35,182]

It was obvious that the problems on D were bigger than Whitehead (that is why we only have one D coach remaining on the staff). I don't know exactly what happened, but if Whitehead accosted a coach (whether verbally and or physically) to the point that he received a 4 game suspension, then he should have been kicked off of the team.

wde

No offense, but I can't see any logic whatsoever in that idea.

[Tiger 8,817]

I think there could be different layers to this. The team could've responded poorly to the suspension because they possibly could've felt what Whitehead did warranted him being kicked off the team or something of that nature. That would've led to a loss of respect for the coaches and at that point...you're done.

Or maybe the team had Whitehead's side and not Harbison's, which also if an unfair suspension occurred the team also would not react positively to it. Who knows, though?

Pure speculation.

[AUIH1 1,515]

It was obvious that the problems on D were bigger than Whitehead (that is why we only have one D coach remaining on the staff). I don't know exactly what happened, but if Whitehead accosted a coach (whether verbally and or physically) to the point that he received a 4 game suspension, then he should have been kicked off of the team.

wde

No offense, but I can't see any logic whatsoever in that idea.

What part of the lack of logic did you see in my post? Explain and I will reply. I thought I was clear that if Whitehead accosted a coach verbally or physically that resulted in a 4 game suspension then he should have been kicked off of the team instead of getting only a 4 game suspension.

wde

[McLoofus 35,182]

It was obvious that the problems on D were bigger than Whitehead (that is why we only have one D coach remaining on the staff). I don't know exactly what happened, but if Whitehead accosted a coach (whether verbally and or physically) to the point that he received a 4 game suspension, then he should have been kicked off of the team.

wde

No offense, but I can't see any logic whatsoever in that idea.

What part of the lack of logic did you see in my post? Explain and I will reply. I thought I was clear that if Whitehead accosted a coach verbally or physically that resulted in a 4 game suspension then he should have been kicked off of the team instead of getting only a 4 game suspension.

wde

Yes, you were clear what your thought is. Your thought is illogical.

Your if>then statement is completely invalid. "If a 4-game suspension is the correct punishment, then expulsion is the correct punishment." That's the opposite of logic. 1 does not equal 2.

Add in the fact that you're basing this on no real knowledge of what the punishment is in response to and the lack of logic becomes even more acute- and a bit galling.

You're hoping for an Auburn player to lose quite a bit more than he already has without knowing why. I find that odd behavior for an Auburn fan.

[auburn2oregon 0]

It was obvious that the problems on D were bigger than Whitehead (that is why we only have one D coach remaining on the staff). I don't know exactly what happened, but if Whitehead accosted a coach (whether verbally and or physically) to the point that he received a 4 game suspension, then he should have been kicked off of the team.

wde

No offense, but I can't see any logic whatsoever in that idea.

What part of the lack of logic did you see in my post? Explain and I will reply. I thought I was clear that if Whitehead accosted a coach verbally or physically that resulted in a 4 game suspension then he should have been kicked off of the team instead of getting only a 4 game suspension.

wde

I think he is trying to say that since Tubberville, there have been countless incidents, and prior to this suspension, Whitehead had not been a problem (quite the opposite in my opinion.)

You dont just kick a SR off the team for his first incident.

[ShocksMyBrain 9,362]

I think there could be different layers to this. The team could've responded poorly to the suspension because they possibly could've felt what Whitehead did warranted him being kicked off the team or something of that nature. That would've led to a loss of respect for the coaches and at that point...you're done.

Or maybe the team had Whitehead's side and not Harbison's, which also if an unfair suspension occurred the team also would not react positively to it. Who knows, though?

Pure speculation.

I've been of this opinion ever since it happened and the defense tanked.

[AUIH1 1,515]

It was obvious that the problems on D were bigger than Whitehead (that is why we only have one D coach remaining on the staff). I don't know exactly what happened, but if Whitehead accosted a coach (whether verbally and or physically) to the point that he received a 4 game suspension, then he should have been kicked off of the team.

wde

No offense, but I can't see any logic whatsoever in that idea.

What part of the lack of logic did you see in my post? Explain and I will reply. I thought I was clear that if Whitehead accosted a coach verbally or physically that resulted in a 4 game suspension then he should have been kicked off of the team instead of getting only a 4 game suspension.

wde

Yes, you were clear what your thought is. Your thought is illogical.

Your if>then statement is completely invalid. "If a 4-game suspension is the correct punishment, then expulsion is the correct punishment." That's the opposite of logic. 1 does not equal 2.

Add in the fact that you're basing this on no real knowledge of what the punishment is in response to and the lack of logic becomes even more acute- and a bit galling.

You're hoping for an Auburn player to lose quite a bit more than he already has without knowing why. I find that odd behavior for an Auburn fan.

I get your point, but what I am saying, clumsily at this point, is that I do not believe the 4 game suspension was the correct punishment (being kicked off of the team was) and it ultimately hurt the team.

There were reports on other boards that this was not the 1st time Whitehead had caused problems with the coaching staff. Connecting the dots, if the incident this past season was the first and only time Whitehead had caused problems (in a verbal manner), then I doubt he would have suspended for 4 games.

I never "hope" that an AU football player does anything that causes him to get kicked off of the team, but if they earn getting kicked off, then they deserve it. In this case, based on what I have read, Whitehead deserved to get kicked off of the team. Of course I could be wrong and you can certainly disagree. I am totally OK with both.

wde

[cole256 17,038]

Reports on the boards?

[alexava 6,972]

I don't think any of us could possibly determine the correct degree of discipline. That situation certainly didn't help the defensive woes but i doubt it was the cause of 5 loses.

[PowerOfDixieland 3,225]

Insubordination of the caliber that Whitehead must have shown is a different story.

Do as I say and not as I do?

And weed, just like assault, is illegal. Even the Washington and Colorado schools enforce it. Oregon just did this week.

Not to mention, you imply that you know exactly what happened.

You are inferring something that was not implied.