AU alum 2 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 i still say the "CNS doesn't like some of the players and vice versa" excuse is complete BS kool aid. if you do not believe that is actually part of the problem, then you are misinformed. certainly not the WHOLE problem, but a good chunk of it from what i understand. If $aban does like some players and doesn't like others, isn't that awfully childish of him? I can see not wanting to play some players because they aren't good at their position, but not playing them because you don't like them? That sounds like a 14 year old girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runswithscissors 33 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Oh, no I understand perfectly. And again, I ask, why play them if they are a "bad apple"? Wouldn't you want to play the guy who wants to play? How else will they get "skill" to play? And if he's such a bad apple, toss him. And I am a firm believer that if the team wins, the coach gives credit to the players. If the team loses, the coach should be a man, and accept fault. Edit to remove quotes. say you have a DB that is a freshman on the team that could get beaten on a route by my grandmother. say that is the only depth behind said "bad apple". so, do you put the guy on the field and let him get beaten every play and let the other team beat you senseless? so, if a few guys on AU's team had a bad attitude, but had skill and CTT pulled them and you guys lost every game, you would be perfectly fine with him saying "well, i don't like their attitude so i'm going to play these guys who don't even belong on a field instead." you would be fine losing every game under that scenario? didn't think so. and as far as "if he's such a bad apple, toss him." well, thats what is going to happen after this season. bank on it. but the problem is at some of these positions the players behind the person that needs to be tossed haven't quite developed well. then what if you have total corruption of a certain position down the depth chart? as far as accepting fault, he said in his post-game PC that he harped on some of the upsets earlier in the season by small programs and tried to make them respect their opponents, but that he "obviously failed in that aspect" of getting them ready for the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU alum 2 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 certain members of the team want pie in the sky and do not want to put forth the level of effort that CNS wants them to put forth. they want to put forth whatever effort they feel like putting forth because that is just part of their character. But isn't it the job of the head coach to decide who to play? I mean, if you got a guy not giving effort, why play him? Send him a message to either get his act together, or he's riding the pine. I'm sorry, I just don't buy the whole excuse for losing to ULM as the players fault. This is all on Saban. of course its AAAAALLLLLL on Saban....because you just want it to be. i don't expect you to understand, because i know you don't want to. the problem is when you have someone behind that bad apple that say is a freshman and really does not have the skill to play, you are kind of between a rock and a hard place. but then you have certain positions where you never know who is starting that game because there is a player with good skill behind that bad apple. then the bad apple gets all fussy because an underclassman deserves to play. some positions you just don't have the skill to put in front of that bad apple. if you think hard about a few positions on the team, you could probably figure out some of the folks who might not be around next season. bookmark this thread and lets revisit at a later time if you don't believe me. even when riding the pine players can be poisonous to the morale of the team. i'm not saying its ALL on the players. the coaches certainly share some of that blame. but as it is not right to 100% blame the players, it is not 100% the coaches fault either. try to be at least a little bit objective. It better all be on Saban. If not, what's the $4M for? Who will you blame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU alum 2 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Oh, no I understand perfectly. And again, I ask, why play them if they are a "bad apple"? Wouldn't you want to play the guy who wants to play? How else will they get "skill" to play? And if he's such a bad apple, toss him. And I am a firm believer that if the team wins, the coach gives credit to the players. If the team loses, the coach should be a man, and accept fault. Edit to remove quotes. say you have a DB that is a freshman on the team that could get beaten on a route by my grandmother. say that is the only depth behind said "bad apple". so, do you put the guy on the field and let him get beaten every play and let the other team beat you senseless? so, if a few guys on AU's team had a bad attitude, but had skill and CTT pulled them and you guys lost every game, you would be perfectly fine with him saying "well, i don't like their attitude so i'm going to play these guys who don't even belong on a field instead." you would be fine losing every game under that scenario? didn't think so. and as far as "if he's such a bad apple, toss him." well, thats what is going to happen after this season. bank on it. but the problem is at some of these positions the players behind the person that needs to be tossed haven't quite developed well. then what if you have total corruption of a certain position down the depth chart? as far as accepting fault, he said in his post-game PC that he harped on some of the upsets earlier in the season by small programs and tried to make them respect their opponents, but that he "obviously failed in that aspect" of getting them ready for the game. For that matter, if the player(s) are such "bad apples", why even give them a free education? Pull their scholarship(s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runswithscissors 33 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 i still say the "CNS doesn't like some of the players and vice versa" excuse is complete BS kool aid. if you do not believe that is actually part of the problem, then you are misinformed. certainly not the WHOLE problem, but a good chunk of it from what i understand. If $aban does like some players and doesn't like others, isn't that awfully childish of him? I can see not wanting to play some players because they aren't good at their position, but not playing them because you don't like them? That sounds like a 14 year old girl. its not a "oh he's one of the cool kids" or a "oh he's one of the dorks" type of like/dislike that you try to make it out to be. for example, we have this one guy in our department who just complains and complains and complains about EVERYTHING under the sun. every minor thing. yet, he refuses to step up and be part of the solution to the problem, and he does not contribute anything significant to our "team". as a "coach" of our "team", i am not going to like this person because he is poisonous to the rest of our "team", is unstable, and promotes instability throughout the rest of our "team". he tries to disrupt the leadership of our "team" in any way possible. his behavior also makes other members of our "team" who want to accomplish the same goals as the leadership upset. as a leader, you are always taught to build your "bench". you want a bench full of "players" who can step up and take the place of that one bad "player". now, i have been a chief for 4 years now and in our department we do have a "bench" and can replace said bad apple. however, if i don't have a skilled enough firefighter to take his place, then what good is that going to do for the rest of my "team"? you're caught between a rock and a hard place and you develop that bench and when the time is right, cut him loose. that may not be a good analogy, but its the best i can come up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECEstudentUA 9 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Wow, way to blow an analogy out of prospective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUChizad 0 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Wow, way to blow an analogy out of prospective. Like the 9-11/WWII analogy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runswithscissors 33 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 For that matter, if the player(s) are such "bad apples", why even give them a free education? Pull their scholarship(s). DING DING DING! we have a winner! its going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUChizad 0 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Look, rws, the bottom line is this. Mike Shula beat ULM 41-7. With essentially the same "bad apples". Answer my question. What is the one biggest difference between last year's team that won 41-7, and this year's team that lost 21-14? If this year's team got last year's score and vice versa, you'd be able to see the answer just fine. But since it doesn't fit the Saban = God mantra, you refuse to face reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECEstudentUA 9 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Wow, way to blow an analogy out of prospective. Like the 9-11/WWII analogy? Yea, like the 9-11/WWII analogy. All he was saying is that the players must try and look past the bad and move on. He isnt saying that it (the lost) even holds a candle to 9-11/WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumbo 0 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Wow, way to blow an analogy out of prospective. Like the 9-11/WWII analogy? Well played sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuburnChopper1 0 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 He's getting roasted on ESPN2 right now for those comments. HAHA... Calling for Mal Moore to censure Saban.... Seems the ONLY ones trying to make sense of this is bama fans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runswithscissors 33 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Look, rws, the bottom line is this. Mike Shula beat ULM 41-7. With essentially the same "bad apples". Answer my question. What is the one biggest difference between last year's team that won 41-7, and this year's team that lost 21-14? If this year's team got last year's score and vice versa, you'd be able to see the answer just fine. But since it doesn't fit the Saban = God mantra, you refuse to face reality. i agree, essentially the same bad apples beat ULM. i agree, the big difference is the coach. i completely agree with that and that is part of the point you are not seeing. they weren't considered "bad apples" to the previous coaching staff because the previous coaching staff was fine with that type of behavior. the previous staff was fine with playing upperclassmen unconditionally even if the underclassman below them on the depth chart had much more talent because, well, he didn't want to huwt somebody's wittle feewings and have someone mad at him. the players that are a problem now were happy with this type of arrangement because that was their mentality. but now there is a problem with those players because that is not the mentality anymore. said players are upset that they are not guaranteed their starting slots just becuase they are upperclassmen. the new staff has brought more of a "you have to earn it" mentality and some want it handed to them, and don't want to have to earn it. but since it doesn't fit the Saban = the most horrible coach in the universe mantra, you refuse to face reality. it is not all of the players fault. it is not all of the coaches fault. both shoulder some blame. there is alot of division on that team, and it shows. like i've said before, i know you don't want to see it....so you won't. under your scenario, a player's attitude can never ever EVER change and will stay etched in stone forever. nothing can EVER change his attitude or work ethic and he will always work as hard every single game and every single season as he has always. you and i both know that isn't always true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runswithscissors 33 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 He's getting roasted on ESPN2 right now for those comments. HAHA... Calling for Mal Moore to censure Saban.... Seems the ONLY ones trying to make sense of this is bama fans... while i can see where he was trying to go with the comparison, i would agree it probably shouldn't have been made. he didn't sit there and say "THIS IS OUR WWII or THIS IS OUR 9/11", but people are still going to take it as that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUChizad 0 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Look, rws, the bottom line is this. Mike Shula beat ULM 41-7. With essentially the same "bad apples". Answer my question. What is the one biggest difference between last year's team that won 41-7, and this year's team that lost 21-14? If this year's team got last year's score and vice versa, you'd be able to see the answer just fine. But since it doesn't fit the Saban = God mantra, you refuse to face reality. i agree, essentially the same bad apples beat ULM. i agree, the big difference is the coach. i completely agree with that and that is part of the point you are not seeing. they weren't considered "bad apples" to the previous coaching staff because the previous coaching staff was fine with that type of behavior. the previous staff was fine with playing upperclassmen unconditionally even if the underclassman below them on the depth chart had much more talent because, well, he didn't want to huwt somebody's wittle feewings and have someone mad at him. the players that are a problem now were happy with this type of arrangement because that was their mentality. but now there is a problem with those players because that is not the mentality anymore. said players are upset that they are not guaranteed their starting slots just becuase they are upperclassmen. the new staff has brought more of a "you have to earn it" mentality and some want it handed to them, and don't want to have to earn it. but since it doesn't fit the Saban = the most horrible coach in the universe mantra, you refuse to face reality. it is not all of the players fault. it is not all of the coaches fault. both shoulder some blame. there is alot of division on that team, and it shows. Ok, then if this is your explanation, answer my follow-up question.Wouldn't the "bad apples" who didn't earn their PT because Almighty Saban puts good attitudes above seniority, NOT be the same players who couldn't get it done on the field against ULM? like i've said before, i know you don't want to see it....so you won't. under your scenario, a player's attitude can never ever EVER change and will stay etched in stone forever. nothing can EVER change his attitude or work ethic and he will always work as hard every single game and every single season as he has always. you and i both know that isn't always true. And who's job is it to make those attitude adjustments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAR-MATT 2 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 He's getting roasted on ESPN2 right now for those comments. HAHA... Calling for Mal Moore to censure Saban.... Seems the ONLY ones trying to make sense of this is bama fans... while i can see where he was trying to go with the comparison, i would agree it probably shouldn't have been made. he didn't sit there and say "THIS IS OUR WWII or THIS IS OUR 9/11", but people are still going to take it as that way. Aren't you guys sick of defending this a--hole? I saw a post on Bama-Gag yesterday that was titled "Saban gives inspirational speech in press conference". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runswithscissors 33 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Look, rws, the bottom line is this. Mike Shula beat ULM 41-7. With essentially the same "bad apples". Answer my question. What is the one biggest difference between last year's team that won 41-7, and this year's team that lost 21-14? If this year's team got last year's score and vice versa, you'd be able to see the answer just fine. But since it doesn't fit the Saban = God mantra, you refuse to face reality. i agree, essentially the same bad apples beat ULM. i agree, the big difference is the coach. i completely agree with that and that is part of the point you are not seeing. they weren't considered "bad apples" to the previous coaching staff because the previous coaching staff was fine with that type of behavior. the previous staff was fine with playing upperclassmen unconditionally even if the underclassman below them on the depth chart had much more talent because, well, he didn't want to huwt somebody's wittle feewings and have someone mad at him. the players that are a problem now were happy with this type of arrangement because that was their mentality. but now there is a problem with those players because that is not the mentality anymore. said players are upset that they are not guaranteed their starting slots just becuase they are upperclassmen. the new staff has brought more of a "you have to earn it" mentality and some want it handed to them, and don't want to have to earn it. but since it doesn't fit the Saban = the most horrible coach in the universe mantra, you refuse to face reality. it is not all of the players fault. it is not all of the coaches fault. both shoulder some blame. there is alot of division on that team, and it shows. like i've said before, i know you don't want to see it....so you won't. under your scenario, a player's attitude can never ever EVER change and will stay etched in stone forever. nothing can EVER change his attitude or work ethic and he will always work as hard every single game and every single season as he has always. you and i both know that isn't always true. Ok, then if this is your explanation, answer my follow-up question.Wouldn't the "bad apples" who didn't earn their PT because Almighty Saban puts good attitudes above seniority, NOT be the same players who couldn't get it done on the field against ULM? seniority means nil. zilch. nada. go look at the depth chart. http://alabama.rivals.com/cdepthtext.asp?teKey=2 how many times do i have to mention that skill is the big factor in PT? even if you have the player with a bad attitude but then say in that particular position all of the guys behind him don't even belong on the field. are you going to take a chance that your bad apple will work, or are you going to throw a bunch of guys who don't know what they're doing onto the field to be thrown to the wolves and beaten on every play? that's why you recruit some good guys with good skills, and then replace as possible. as i asked before in another post, would you be fine losing every game in a season if CTT took out say Blackmon, Groves, Cox, Davis because "well i just don't like their attitude?". he wouldn't pull them out unless there were people behind them that had the skill to function in the most fundamental way in that position. and if that were the case, hey that's great. but unfortunately some positions on the team are bad off to the point that there is no choice to put someone with a bad attitude starting because there is just no skill behind him. a somewhat large amount of those bad attitude type people were on the field against ULM from what i hear. but hey, who knows....i just hope that some current players can be developed better and some of the new talent is good, and then some of those bad guys can be replaced and not see too much of a drop off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runswithscissors 33 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Look, rws, the bottom line is this. Mike Shula beat ULM 41-7. With essentially the same "bad apples". Answer my question. What is the one biggest difference between last year's team that won 41-7, and this year's team that lost 21-14? If this year's team got last year's score and vice versa, you'd be able to see the answer just fine. But since it doesn't fit the Saban = God mantra, you refuse to face reality. i agree, essentially the same bad apples beat ULM. i agree, the big difference is the coach. i completely agree with that and that is part of the point you are not seeing. they weren't considered "bad apples" to the previous coaching staff because the previous coaching staff was fine with that type of behavior. the previous staff was fine with playing upperclassmen unconditionally even if the underclassman below them on the depth chart had much more talent because, well, he didn't want to huwt somebody's wittle feewings and have someone mad at him. the players that are a problem now were happy with this type of arrangement because that was their mentality. but now there is a problem with those players because that is not the mentality anymore. said players are upset that they are not guaranteed their starting slots just becuase they are upperclassmen. the new staff has brought more of a "you have to earn it" mentality and some want it handed to them, and don't want to have to earn it. but since it doesn't fit the Saban = the most horrible coach in the universe mantra, you refuse to face reality. it is not all of the players fault. it is not all of the coaches fault. both shoulder some blame. there is alot of division on that team, and it shows. Ok, then if this is your explanation, answer my follow-up question.Wouldn't the "bad apples" who didn't earn their PT because Almighty Saban puts good attitudes above seniority, NOT be the same players who couldn't get it done on the field against ULM? like i've said before, i know you don't want to see it....so you won't. under your scenario, a player's attitude can never ever EVER change and will stay etched in stone forever. nothing can EVER change his attitude or work ethic and he will always work as hard every single game and every single season as he has always. you and i both know that isn't always true. And who's job is it to make those attitude adjustments? that is a coach's job, of course. but you can't change somebody who doesn't want to change. that is a very fundamental part of life man, and is applicable in every aspect of life. also part of a coach's job is to weed out those people who refuse to adjust their attitudes. the off season will be interesting. scout's honor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAR-MATT 2 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Look, rws, the bottom line is this. Mike Shula beat ULM 41-7. With essentially the same "bad apples". Answer my question. What is the one biggest difference between last year's team that won 41-7, and this year's team that lost 21-14? If this year's team got last year's score and vice versa, you'd be able to see the answer just fine. But since it doesn't fit the Saban = God mantra, you refuse to face reality. i agree, essentially the same bad apples beat ULM. i agree, the big difference is the coach. i completely agree with that and that is part of the point you are not seeing. they weren't considered "bad apples" to the previous coaching staff because the previous coaching staff was fine with that type of behavior. the previous staff was fine with playing upperclassmen unconditionally even if the underclassman below them on the depth chart had much more talent because, well, he didn't want to huwt somebody's wittle feewings and have someone mad at him. the players that are a problem now were happy with this type of arrangement because that was their mentality. but now there is a problem with those players because that is not the mentality anymore. said players are upset that they are not guaranteed their starting slots just becuase they are upperclassmen. the new staff has brought more of a "you have to earn it" mentality and some want it handed to them, and don't want to have to earn it. but since it doesn't fit the Saban = the most horrible coach in the universe mantra, you refuse to face reality. it is not all of the players fault. it is not all of the coaches fault. both shoulder some blame. there is alot of division on that team, and it shows. like i've said before, i know you don't want to see it....so you won't. under your scenario, a player's attitude can never ever EVER change and will stay etched in stone forever. nothing can EVER change his attitude or work ethic and he will always work as hard every single game and every single season as he has always. you and i both know that isn't always true. Ok, then if this is your explanation, answer my follow-up question.Wouldn't the "bad apples" who didn't earn their PT because Almighty Saban puts good attitudes above seniority, NOT be the same players who couldn't get it done on the field against ULM? seniority means nil. zilch. nada. go look at the depth chart. http://alabama.rivals.com/cdepthtext.asp?teKey=2 how many times do i have to mention that skill is the big factor in PT? even if you have the player with a bad attitude but then say in that particular position all of the guys behind him don't even belong on the field. are you going to take a chance that your bad apple will work, or are you going to throw a bunch of guys who don't know what they're doing onto the field to be thrown to the wolves and beaten on every play? that's why you recruit some good guys with good skills, and then replace as possible. as i asked before in another post, would you be fine losing every game in a season if CTT took out say Blackmon, Groves, Cox, Davis because "well i just don't like their attitude?". he wouldn't pull them out unless there were people behind them that had the skill to function in the most fundamental way in that position. and if that were the case, hey that's great. but unfortunately some positions on the team are bad off to the point that there is no choice to put someone with a bad attitude starting because there is just no skill behind him. See Robert Dunn's suspension this year for two games (including LSU). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUChizad 0 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 seniority means nil. zilch. nada. go look at the depth chart. http://alabama.rivals.com/cdepthtext.asp?teKey=2 how many times do i have to mention that skill is the big factor in PT? even if you have the player with a bad attitude but then say in that particular position all of the guys behind him don't even belong on the field. are you going to take a chance that your bad apple will work, or are you going to throw a bunch of guys who don't know what they're doing onto the field to be thrown to the wolves and beaten on every play? that's why you recruit some good guys with good skills, and then replace as possible. as i asked before in another post, would you be fine losing every game in a season if CTT took out say Blackmon, Groves, Cox, Davis because "well i just don't like their attitude?". he wouldn't pull them out unless there were people behind them that had the skill to function in the most fundamental way in that position. and if that were the case, hey that's great. but unfortunately some positions on the team are bad off to the point that there is no choice to put someone with a bad attitude starting because there is just no skill behind him. a somewhat large amount of those bad attitude type people were on the field against ULM from what i hear. but hey, who knows....i just hope that some current players can be developed better and some of the new talent is good, and then some of those bad guys can be replaced and not see too much of a drop off. that is a coach's job, of course. but you can't change somebody who doesn't want to change. that is a very fundamental part of life man, and is applicable in every aspect of life. also part of a coach's job is to weed out those people who refuse to adjust their attitudes. the off season will be interesting. scout's honor My head's spinning trying to figure all of this out. So it's the players' fault rather than the coach's. The most talented guys on the team are getting all the PT, but also have bad attitudes because they're not playing as much as they feel they deserve. Those bad attitudes were so bad, that they caused an otherwise talented team to lose to an otherwise untalented team. These same kids with the same bad attitudes where able to beat the same untalented team by 35 points last year. These attitudes were present last year because "you can't change someone who doesn't want to change." What am I missing here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runswithscissors 33 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Look, rws, the bottom line is this. Mike Shula beat ULM 41-7. With essentially the same "bad apples". Answer my question. What is the one biggest difference between last year's team that won 41-7, and this year's team that lost 21-14? If this year's team got last year's score and vice versa, you'd be able to see the answer just fine. But since it doesn't fit the Saban = God mantra, you refuse to face reality. i agree, essentially the same bad apples beat ULM. i agree, the big difference is the coach. i completely agree with that and that is part of the point you are not seeing. they weren't considered "bad apples" to the previous coaching staff because the previous coaching staff was fine with that type of behavior. the previous staff was fine with playing upperclassmen unconditionally even if the underclassman below them on the depth chart had much more talent because, well, he didn't want to huwt somebody's wittle feewings and have someone mad at him. the players that are a problem now were happy with this type of arrangement because that was their mentality. but now there is a problem with those players because that is not the mentality anymore. said players are upset that they are not guaranteed their starting slots just becuase they are upperclassmen. the new staff has brought more of a "you have to earn it" mentality and some want it handed to them, and don't want to have to earn it. but since it doesn't fit the Saban = the most horrible coach in the universe mantra, you refuse to face reality. it is not all of the players fault. it is not all of the coaches fault. both shoulder some blame. there is alot of division on that team, and it shows. like i've said before, i know you don't want to see it....so you won't. under your scenario, a player's attitude can never ever EVER change and will stay etched in stone forever. nothing can EVER change his attitude or work ethic and he will always work as hard every single game and every single season as he has always. you and i both know that isn't always true. Ok, then if this is your explanation, answer my follow-up question.Wouldn't the "bad apples" who didn't earn their PT because Almighty Saban puts good attitudes above seniority, NOT be the same players who couldn't get it done on the field against ULM? seniority means nil. zilch. nada. go look at the depth chart. http://alabama.rivals.com/cdepthtext.asp?teKey=2 how many times do i have to mention that skill is the big factor in PT? even if you have the player with a bad attitude but then say in that particular position all of the guys behind him don't even belong on the field. are you going to take a chance that your bad apple will work, or are you going to throw a bunch of guys who don't know what they're doing onto the field to be thrown to the wolves and beaten on every play? that's why you recruit some good guys with good skills, and then replace as possible. as i asked before in another post, would you be fine losing every game in a season if CTT took out say Blackmon, Groves, Cox, Davis because "well i just don't like their attitude?". he wouldn't pull them out unless there were people behind them that had the skill to function in the most fundamental way in that position. and if that were the case, hey that's great. but unfortunately some positions on the team are bad off to the point that there is no choice to put someone with a bad attitude starting because there is just no skill behind him. See Robert Dunn's suspension this year for two games (including LSU). WOW. a punt returner. yeah, i mean there needs to be some serious development to the players behind him for someone to be able to take his place. you need someone with mad skills to fill those shoes. point proven. while i agree in principle, yes that's great that CTT was able to suspend him because of his practice efforts, or the lack thereof. however, that is just 1 position and it is a punt returner position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUChizad 0 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 seniority means nil. zilch. nada. go look at the depth chart. http://alabama.rivals.com/cdepthtext.asp?teKey=2 how many times do i have to mention that skill is the big factor in PT? even if you have the player with a bad attitude but then say in that particular position all of the guys behind him don't even belong on the field. are you going to take a chance that your bad apple will work, or are you going to throw a bunch of guys who don't know what they're doing onto the field to be thrown to the wolves and beaten on every play? that's why you recruit some good guys with good skills, and then replace as possible. as i asked before in another post, would you be fine losing every game in a season if CTT took out say Blackmon, Groves, Cox, Davis because "well i just don't like their attitude?". he wouldn't pull them out unless there were people behind them that had the skill to function in the most fundamental way in that position. and if that were the case, hey that's great. but unfortunately some positions on the team are bad off to the point that there is no choice to put someone with a bad attitude starting because there is just no skill behind him. a somewhat large amount of those bad attitude type people were on the field against ULM from what i hear. but hey, who knows....i just hope that some current players can be developed better and some of the new talent is good, and then some of those bad guys can be replaced and not see too much of a drop off. that is a coach's job, of course. but you can't change somebody who doesn't want to change. that is a very fundamental part of life man, and is applicable in every aspect of life. also part of a coach's job is to weed out those people who refuse to adjust their attitudes. the off season will be interesting. scout's honor My head's spinning trying to figure all of this out. So it's the players' fault rather than the coach's. The most talented guys on the team are getting all the PT, but also have bad attitudes because they're not playing as much as they feel they deserve. Those bad attitudes were so bad, that they caused an otherwise talented team to lose to an otherwise untalented team. These same kids with the same bad attitudes where able to beat the same untalented team by 35 points last year. These attitudes were present last year because "you can't change someone who doesn't want to change." What am I missing here? Oh, and I forgot, it's Shula's fault that he left Saban with untalented players. But the most talented players' only flaws are their bad attitudes? And they had good enough attitudes to beat ULM 41-7 under Shula, but under Saban it is impossible to change their bad attitudes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAR-MATT 2 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Look, rws, the bottom line is this. Mike Shula beat ULM 41-7. With essentially the same "bad apples". Answer my question. What is the one biggest difference between last year's team that won 41-7, and this year's team that lost 21-14? If this year's team got last year's score and vice versa, you'd be able to see the answer just fine. But since it doesn't fit the Saban = God mantra, you refuse to face reality. i agree, essentially the same bad apples beat ULM. i agree, the big difference is the coach. i completely agree with that and that is part of the point you are not seeing. they weren't considered "bad apples" to the previous coaching staff because the previous coaching staff was fine with that type of behavior. the previous staff was fine with playing upperclassmen unconditionally even if the underclassman below them on the depth chart had much more talent because, well, he didn't want to huwt somebody's wittle feewings and have someone mad at him. the players that are a problem now were happy with this type of arrangement because that was their mentality. but now there is a problem with those players because that is not the mentality anymore. said players are upset that they are not guaranteed their starting slots just becuase they are upperclassmen. the new staff has brought more of a "you have to earn it" mentality and some want it handed to them, and don't want to have to earn it. but since it doesn't fit the Saban = the most horrible coach in the universe mantra, you refuse to face reality. it is not all of the players fault. it is not all of the coaches fault. both shoulder some blame. there is alot of division on that team, and it shows. like i've said before, i know you don't want to see it....so you won't. under your scenario, a player's attitude can never ever EVER change and will stay etched in stone forever. nothing can EVER change his attitude or work ethic and he will always work as hard every single game and every single season as he has always. you and i both know that isn't always true. Ok, then if this is your explanation, answer my follow-up question.Wouldn't the "bad apples" who didn't earn their PT because Almighty Saban puts good attitudes above seniority, NOT be the same players who couldn't get it done on the field against ULM? seniority means nil. zilch. nada. go look at the depth chart. http://alabama.rivals.com/cdepthtext.asp?teKey=2 how many times do i have to mention that skill is the big factor in PT? even if you have the player with a bad attitude but then say in that particular position all of the guys behind him don't even belong on the field. are you going to take a chance that your bad apple will work, or are you going to throw a bunch of guys who don't know what they're doing onto the field to be thrown to the wolves and beaten on every play? that's why you recruit some good guys with good skills, and then replace as possible. as i asked before in another post, would you be fine losing every game in a season if CTT took out say Blackmon, Groves, Cox, Davis because "well i just don't like their attitude?". he wouldn't pull them out unless there were people behind them that had the skill to function in the most fundamental way in that position. and if that were the case, hey that's great. but unfortunately some positions on the team are bad off to the point that there is no choice to put someone with a bad attitude starting because there is just no skill behind him. See Robert Dunn's suspension this year for two games (including LSU). WOW. a punt returner. yeah, i mean there needs to be some serious development to the players behind him for someone to be able to take his place. you need someone with mad skills to fill those shoes. point proven. while i agree in principle, yes that's great that CTT was able to suspend him because of his practice efforts, or the lack thereof. however, that is just 1 position and it is a punt returner position. He's also our second best wide out and starting slot receiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runswithscissors 33 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 seniority means nil. zilch. nada. go look at the depth chart. http://alabama.rivals.com/cdepthtext.asp?teKey=2 how many times do i have to mention that skill is the big factor in PT? even if you have the player with a bad attitude but then say in that particular position all of the guys behind him don't even belong on the field. are you going to take a chance that your bad apple will work, or are you going to throw a bunch of guys who don't know what they're doing onto the field to be thrown to the wolves and beaten on every play? that's why you recruit some good guys with good skills, and then replace as possible. as i asked before in another post, would you be fine losing every game in a season if CTT took out say Blackmon, Groves, Cox, Davis because "well i just don't like their attitude?". he wouldn't pull them out unless there were people behind them that had the skill to function in the most fundamental way in that position. and if that were the case, hey that's great. but unfortunately some positions on the team are bad off to the point that there is no choice to put someone with a bad attitude starting because there is just no skill behind him. a somewhat large amount of those bad attitude type people were on the field against ULM from what i hear. but hey, who knows....i just hope that some current players can be developed better and some of the new talent is good, and then some of those bad guys can be replaced and not see too much of a drop off. that is a coach's job, of course. but you can't change somebody who doesn't want to change. that is a very fundamental part of life man, and is applicable in every aspect of life. also part of a coach's job is to weed out those people who refuse to adjust their attitudes. the off season will be interesting. scout's honor My head's spinning trying to figure all of this out. So it's the player's fault rather than the coaches. The most talented guys on the team are getting all the PT, but also have bad attitudes because they're not playing as much as they feel they deserve. Those bad attitudes were so bad, that they caused an otherwise talented team to lose to an otherwise untalented team. These same kids with the same bad attitudes where able to beat the same untalented team by 35 points last year. These attitudes were present last year because "you can't change someone who doesn't want to change." What am I missing here? at some positions, the starting slot is almost on a weekly basis. for example, Prince Hall and Rolondo McClain. one week one starts. one week the other might start. Rolo is a true freshman. Prince is a sophomore. you think, depending on personalities, there will be no strife there? even if you have a bad guy starting he still knows that he didn't get to start or play much in last game, and he might not get to play much in the next, depending on how he practices and how the coaches feel he is playing. now i will give you, that may be a flawed system to begin with, and might be a clue to consistancy problems. i don't know. and you are not reading my posts all the way through. this bad attitude was not present last season because the coaches last season allowed them to do as they please and guaranteed starting time based off of seniority and not talent. so hey no problems, we can do what we want and still start. they were happy then. now, they are not happy. now they are upset that they might not have played in the game before, but they're playing in this one, and might not play in the next one depending on if they earn the spot. and they're not going to be happy unless things go back to the way they used to be. and that isn't going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUJarhead 70 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 What am I missing here? The process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.