Has the coaching staff overachieved?

[BanditQb 13]

Is the attempted coaching coup in 2003 hurting us now? I have heard it described as the equivalent to a self imposed probation.

What Auburn starters would start for other teams in the SEC? Groves, D. Irons, K. Irons, Grubbs, Duckworth, C. Taylor.

I am not being down on the players. I think they are great Auburn men and give their all. Case in point, Dede is great, a leader and all heart, but would he start at Middle Linebacker anywhere else? I am impressed that with his size he is able do as well as he has. What an athlete.

Are freshmen are good athletes, but would they start as freshmen and sophs at other schools?

I don't think we are reloading just yet. We will be starting a lot of redshirt fresh and sophs next few years (especially O-line). The plane ride and maybe SACS could be hurting more than we know.

While I don't agree with everything that Muschamp and Borges may do, I think they may have pulled out a 2-loss season when a 4 loss season may have been staring them in the face.

[abrnfanatc 6]

I think that the combination of a new DC and linebackers coach and a young Defense have made this year more challenging than it should have been.

I do not think, as you said, that 2003 hurt the team more than maybe not getting one or two playmakers that they could have possibly gotten that year otherwise.

If anything, the offensive coaching staff has underachieved. They have a great set of Guards and a capable Center along with a stable of quality running backs, and have not used them as much as they should this year IMO.

[BanditQb 13]

I tend to agree with you about the offense. Know your strength, running. Arkansas knows running is their bread and butter and runs 90% of the time, and they don't apologize for it!

Who cares for flash, if I wanted flash and no substance, I would be a Big East or Pac-10 fan.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

add dunlap to that list and remember that cole bennett was a pre-season all-sec selection by the coaches; oh and brandon was all-conference last year. so that brings the offensive talley to: brandon, kenny, grubbs, duck, dunlap, bennett, and taylor.

on defense, you can throw gunn (our best dlineman over the last two years) on the list along with brock who has been brilliant all season. so that's groves, gunn, irons and brock. i think some would even argue that herring (all-conference the past two years) could be in that discussion.

this is a talented team. they didn't fit well together for whatever reason, but i don't think the coaches should get a pass for revisionist history. guys might've had down years, but that doesn't mean they were less talented than we thought at the start of the year. it just means they were either banged up, off, or poorly coached. we were/are still loaded with talent.

[WarTim 3,457]

What a bunch of pathetic coaches we have. And, not to mention a lack of talent to boot!

COME ON PEOPLE ! ! ! ! !

Jimminy Christmas ! ! ! ! ! !

[eagle76 1]

Bash if you want but this is my $.02

I've been around football my whole life. My dad was an Ala HS football coach the day I was born and then officiated in North Ala for many more years after his coaching days. The last thing that my dad and I did before he passed away was to watch the 2004 Wisconsin bowl game. 8 days later he was gone. During all those years, the one thing my dad kept insisting on was that talent and coaching were just 2 legs of a 3 legged stool. The third leg was chemistry. That is none more evident than the 2004 AU season and this season. We have good talent and coaching this yaer but the chemistry is just not there. My dad said the the most frustrating part of coaching is to coach the best you can with talented kids and nothing seems to go right or work. Is it the kids --- NO. Is it the coaches --- NO. Chemistry is the intangible that some teams have and some don't. Some teams can wins games on talent alone. Same for coaching. But to win consistently in a good league or division, the team has to have unity, trust, faith, and cohesiveness --CHEMISTRY. At times this year, I thought we were developing some team chemistry. LSU game. 2nd half of the UF game. But it did not last. My dad said that you can teach and preach and coach and yell and holler and crawl up a player's behind, but you can not force unity and build chemistry that is not there.

This team is who they are. I have faith and confidence in the players and coaches that they wiil give their best. I just hope that for 2 games - ESPECIALLY THIS NEXT ONE - that they can play as a group and save their best for last.

[tigerfan1234 0]

The main problem with Auburn has been the same issue for a few years now, We are too small on defense! Tubby believes in the system of using smaller guys who are fast as lightning and that's great, but many teams have figured out our system and are exploiting it. We continue to get burned by the same type of offenses(Wisconsin, Arkansas). Concerning the other recent blowout losses(Georgia, USC), our secondary plays very poorly. I do not think it is Muschamp's fault because he is working with the personnel that was here when he arrived and he is doing the best he can. We need soem bigger linebackers and interior defensive lineman or the same types of teams will continue ot manhandle us. We most definitely do not have a standout secondary core and that will have to change for next year. I know Stattiger showed that we are pretty close to on par with Auburn defensive in the past, but this year's defense gives up wayyyy too many big plays. There are huge gashes up the middle every game because our front seven is too small and are getting pushed around. Also, we give up two or three long passes a game because our secondary gets burned like in the Georgia game. There is no excuse to come out flat for any Georgia game, much less one that had SEC title and national title implications. This team is obviously not the 2004 team and we may never have another team like 2004, but we have to find the chemistry and intensity again or we will have a bunch of individual stars and no team.

[RadioWryn 0]

We are a running football team.. but when you're down so much early to teams like Arkansas and Georgia, you're forced to throw it.

Tell me this - when's the last time Auburn had a team by 10 points and lost? I can't remember Auburn losing a lead (of even 7) in ages.

[tigerfan1234 0]

I also believe the coaching staff needs to develop a lights out mentality. We need to start blowing people out if the opportunity is there. I understand Tubby likes to win with dignity, but reigning in a team when they find their stride is frustarting and boring to watch so I know it is the same for the players. I don't care if we are up 30 points on someone, keep running that offense like the score was 0-0. These guys train their rearends off year-round for 12 to 14 60 minute games. By God let them go out there and show the world what they are made of. If a team doesn't belong on the same field with Auburn then that team won't schedule us again, but don't penalize the kids because they are that much better. It leads to playing emotionless and complacency.

[80Tiger 899]

The main problem with Auburn has been the same issue for a few years now, We are too small on defense! Tubby believes in the system of using smaller guys who are fast as lightning and that's great, but many teams have figured out our system and are exploiting it. We continue to get burned by the same type of offenses(Wisconsin, Arkansas). Concerning the other recent blowout losses(Georgia, USC), our secondary plays very poorly. I do not think it is Muschamp's fault because he is working with the personnel that was here when he arrived and he is doing the best he can. We need soem bigger linebackers and interior defensive lineman or the same types of teams will continue ot manhandle us. We most definitely do not have a standout secondary core and that will have to change for next year. I know Stattiger showed that we are pretty close to on par with Auburn defensive in the past, but this year's defense gives up wayyyy too many big plays. There are huge gashes up the middle every game because our front seven is too small and are getting pushed around. Also, we give up two or three long passes a game because our secondary gets burned like in the Georgia game. There is no excuse to come out flat for any Georgia game, much less one that had SEC title and national title implications. This team is obviously not the 2004 team and we may never have another team like 2004, but we have to find the chemistry and intensity again or we will have a bunch of individual stars and no team.

A kewpie doll for this man. By design we have recruited to what we have on defense. It is not an accident. This is what the coaches wanted. This is not Muschamps fault. Unfortunatly it wil take a couple of years recruiting to resolve this. I would hope that the coaching staff recognizes this and tries to resolve. Defensive ends that weigh 250 to 260 do have a place on this team. It is for pass situations and speed rush. Ends in college football and espicially the SEC have to weigh close to 280 lbs. Linebackers have to be 220 plus. It is o.k. to have smaller ones on the team. It is just they have to be situation players. Dontarius Thomas and Karlos Dansby both weigh in the 220 to 230 lb range. Brett Eddins and Doug Langefield were probably close to 280 lbs each.

I hope the impact this weekend will be minimal, but I am not so sure. Teams with a somewhat mobile QB have been a problem for us.

[SKCAUB 0]

I tend to agree with you about the offense. Know your strength, running. Arkansas knows running is their bread and butter and runs 90% of the time, and they don't apologize for it!

Who cares for flash, if I wanted flash and no substance, I would be a Big East or Pac-10 fan.

EGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG-ZACTLY...and I pray we've AT LAST learned that lesson, and torch Bamar with the running game!!!

[JB33 1]

While I'll concede that the tried and true "too small" argument is not entirely without merit, I don't think that's the main issue. Seems to me that our D is at least sometimes "overcoached." What I mean is that our "defensive coordinator" (READ: CTT, not Muschamp, not Gibbs, not Chizik) often seems to be too enamored with his defensive "philosophies," "techniques," and so forth -- that is, he's so determined to implement "his defense," he sometimes doesn't see that something else (READ: simpler) might work better. CTT has also (at least purportedly) placed a high premium on getting DC's with NFL experience. Maybe the problem is that he's trying to teach NFL-style defense to 18-22 year old kids (i.e., the players can't be "coached up" to the level CTT aspires to), and the result is what we've seen every now and again, including this past Saturday - mass confusion and, ultimately, disaster. I won't deny that our execution on both sides of the ball was poor and that the team seemed to lack fire (though not necessarily effort) - all those things are certainly true. That said, I WOULD argue that, even if our (offensive) execution had been good, and even if we'd played with great intensity, the result probably wouldn't have been much different. (The problem wasn't that we couldn't tackle Matthew Stafford, for example - although we weren't real good at that, either - the problem was that there was NO ONE THERE to tackle him. Not a problem of execution, but a problem of game-planning.) The game Saturday was over before it began - CTT (once again, in my view) outschemed himself. He said as much after the game: "I probablly tried to do a little too much [on defense]," or something to that effect. He said so after the Florida game - "After halftime, we simplified some things defensively," etc. Same thing against LSU (this year and last year) and So Car -- refusal to pressure the QB, etc. (Do you seriously think what we've seen this year is a Will Muschamp defense???) And, although no one's said as much, there's a pile of evidence (namely in the form of two - soon to be three?? - recently departed DCs) to suggest that CTT's determination to run his system (and not letting the DC run his) has had a deteriorating effect on the head coach - (official) DC relationship.

Don't get me wrong. As a head coach, CTT has been a godsend to Auburn football; he's reruited well, stayed out of trouble, surrounded himself (for the most part) with great assistants and built a (borderline) powerhouse program. I'm just expressing my honest opinion that, as a defensive coach, he often outsmarts himself.

Anyway, just my $.02. Don't know if I did a very good job expressing myself, but hopefully you get the idea.

WAR EAGLE!!! BEAT !!!

[aucanucktiger 1,798]

Eagle76, I'd add that @ different LEVELS of football, different parts of that 3-prong formula are more important. In college football, I'd say TALENT is most of the story. That's why guys in the college game like Fulmer...that can't coach their way out of a paper bag...go on & on, they can RECRUIT. Tater Tot was the opposite, he couldn't recruit worth a flip but outcoached some pretty good coaches w/ 3 times his experience @ Div 1. You can recruit chemistry to a degree, but those HS superstars change when they're just another guy @ AU. A few coaches can CREATE chemistry, not sure where we stand in that regard.

Tubs is a GREAT recruiter and he has Bowden & Patrino's rare staff administering talent. He clearly has a brilliant D mind too. His game plans and ability to create chemistry are maybe inconsistent.

(FWIW, I think the high school game can be ALL about chemistry, adolescent young men can move mountains if they're feeling good...and dig a hole a mile deep if they're depressed. The pro game is front office ("our millionaires can beat your millionaires") so great coaches like Spurrier and John McKay can BOMB if they can't heard all the talent their front office gets them...and there are not a lot of bums in the NFL).

[eagle76 1]

Eagle76, I'd add that @ different LEVELS of football, different parts of that 3-prong formula are more important. In college football, I'd say TALENT is most of the story. That's why guys in the college game like Fulmer...that can't coach their way out of a paper bag...go on & on, they can RECRUIT. Tater Tot was the opposite, he couldn't recruit worth a flip but outcoached some pretty good coaches w/ 3 times his experience @ Div 1. You can recruit chemistry to a degree, but those HS superstars change when they're just another guy @ AU. A few coaches can CREATE chemistry, not sure where we stand in that regard.

Tubs is a GREAT recruiter and he has Bowden & Patrino's rare staff administering talent. He clearly has a brilliant D mind too. His game plans and ability to create chemistry are maybe inconsistent.

(FWIW, I think the high school game can be ALL about chemistry, adolescent young men can move mountains if they're feeling good...and dig a hole a mile deep if they're depressed. The pro game is front office ("our millionaires can beat your millionaires") so great coaches like Spurrier and John McKay can BOMB if they can't heard all the talent their front office gets them...and there are not a lot of bums in the NFL).

I agree. But my point is that a 3 legged stool will always be somewhat stable but not level. As long as you have some mix of coaching, talent, and chemistry, a team can survive. If any of those legs gets too short (in our case - chemistry), we can survive most game on talent/coaching, but the real big competitive games need a more balanced method. All I'm saying is that chemistry is important (not most important) and that is our shortest leg.

Also, I'm not sure a coach can CREATE chemistry. He may can build on what is there. I think that whatever team chemistry we may have had at the beginning of the year was based on the abilities and play of 2 players - Cox and K Irons. When both of those got banged up and could not compete at the highest level, the team lost its edge and confidence and chemistry.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

eagle76....I think your Dad nailed it. I also agree with the comments about us being small and have said that since Wisconsin ran all over us. But chemistry is the key. Teams like ND, Texas, USC, etc., seem to always have great recruiting and sign a lot of studs. Yet they don't win the MNC every year. Often those studs come from all over the country and just never seem to meld as a team. Sometimes it becomes a bunch of individuals wanting to show how good they are. But I think chemistry is always a key ingredient to focus on.