Welcome to Hogville!      Do Not Sell My Personal Information

CBB... #7 on Coaches Hot Seat

Started by moses_007, May 13, 2017, 04:08:58 am

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Al Boarland

May 17, 2017, 10:48:27 am #450 Last Edit: May 17, 2017, 01:04:16 pm by Al Boarland
Quote from: EastexHawg on May 17, 2017, 09:43:45 am
So now it takes 5-8 years for a coach to start winning.  Because...because I said so.  And because the first four are already gone.

Frank Beamer is the guy whose chute didn't open but landed in a wet cornfield and survived the fall.  He's the outlier.  But because he took a while to start winning, and because he's pretty much the only example anyone can find, that's the way any program, including Arkansas, is supposed to do it. 

We have never had a successful coach who didn't start winning big by his third year.  Great coaches win, and they start winning right away.  For every Frank Beamer who didn't go 9-3 until year seven there are dozens of outstanding coaches who hit the ground running and won big within a couple of years.  Making up bedtime stories about how it is done "the right way" instead of "plug and play" is entertaining to say the least...and a bunch of hooey to say the most.

You make a good point.  What puzzles me by those that just think it's a matter of time.  How do you explain the losses to team we should have won against?  I'm not talking about the MS schools because we are in the same boat they are.  Good coaches have their team ready to play.  At a minimum, good coaches beat the teams they should.  That's hasn't happened and it's a huge read flag.

LR54

Quote from: BigE_23 on May 17, 2017, 09:28:31 am
Just when I think you can't get any more idiotic with the crap you post...you go and prove me wrong. The guy is 47 years old and going into his 13th season as Power 5 coach, but he still needs on the job training?? Do you really believe the junk you come up with, or are you just that much of a troll?

However ignorant you may be, you might have accidentally been right about one thing - Bielema will probably find greater success somewhere else because his next stop will likely be the broadcast booth if things don't end well here.

Based on the last couple of years, he has a lot of company.

SEC-W Records 2015-2016.

CBB 8-8
Freeze 8-8
Sumlin 8-8
Mullen 7-9
Malzahn 7-9


 

Deep Shoat

Quote from: Al Boarland on May 17, 2017, 10:39:45 am
I can only speak for myself.  The recruiting isn't that much better.  I've seen the posts saying that if we don't see it we aren't looking, but when you compare what we have to the teams we play we are so far away it's not really worth mentioning the incremental improvement. We still don't have elite LB's.  We don't have 8 DL we can rotate with no drop off.  We have maybe one DB that would start on another team.  It's just not there.  Not from an impact player perspective and not from a quality depth perspective.  So, 6-8 wins is about right if you look at what we have compared to our schedule and base your W/L's on talent.
The recruiting is about 3 spots better, and without significant fluctuation.  Additionally, there is far greater retention. Those three things are where we have to place our hope.  Slightly better recruiting that is consistent year to year and players staying long enough to develop into what they are ranked. 

It isn't going to win the SEC this season, most likely.  But, it SHOULD pay off in more consistent winning on the field.  That, in turn, should lead to better recruiting over the next few years.  And the cycle continues.

No coach is going to consistently recruit in the top 15 at Arkansas.  You want to know how I know that?  Because no one ever has.  But if we can keep improving, we can have full rosters of top 20-25 talent that stays for 4+ years.
All Gas, No Brakes!

Deep Shoat

Quote from: Al Boarland on May 17, 2017, 10:48:27 am
You make a good point.  What puzzles me by those that just think it's a matter of time.  How do you explain the losses to team we shouldhave won against?  I'm not talking about the MS schools because we are in the same boat they are.  Good coaches have their team ready to play.  At a minimum, good coaches beat the teams they should.  That's hasn't happened and it's a huge read flag.
It's really simple.  Emotion plays a part in this game.  So does attrition.  So does psychology.  The Auburn game was one of those that was clearly a risk of exactly what happened because of all of those factors.

Gus wanted it badly because of the way we won the previous year + It's Arkansas.  8th game in a row, we were beat up and exhausted.  Physically and mentally.  I told a mod on here all week before the game that we would have to withstand the early onslaught and not go down 21-0 in the first.  If we did, we would have had a chance to come back.  We didn't, and emotion, attrition, exhaustion, and negative psychology all came together to lead to an ass whipping.  After that, Robb Smith never got the team back.  Why?  Because every week his scheme put players in positions that didn't allow them to maximize their strengths and/or put them in positions where their weaknesses were abused.  And they knew it. 

That led to teams that looked great until adjustments were made, but folded at the first sign of trouble.  The "here we go again" factor.  They were fragile, because they were asked to do things they shouldn't have been asked to do, and they failed.

Is that on Coach B?  Yes.  If I were him, I would have demoted Smith the first time I asked him to ramp up the attack and he didn't.  But I respect him for staying true to his word, which was that he would let Robb Smith be the DC. 

All Gas, No Brakes!

Al Boarland

Quote from: Deep Shoat on May 17, 2017, 10:50:43 am
The recruiting is about 3 spots better, and without significant fluctuation.  Additionally, there is far greater retention. Those three things are where we have to place our hope.  Slightly better recruiting that is consistent year to year and players staying long enough to develop into what they are ranked. 

It isn't going to win the SEC this season, most likely.  But, it SHOULD pay off in more consistent winning on the field.  That, in turn, should lead to better recruiting over the next few years.  And the cycle continues.

No coach is going to consistently recruit in the top 15 at Arkansas.  You want to know how I know that?  Because no one ever has.  But if we can keep improving, we can have full rosters of top 20-25 talent that stays for 4+ years.

I keep seeing the retention/attrition argument, but I need a little more than just that makes things better.  So, you don't have a few knuckleheads that have to get run off.  Not sure what that equates to over 4 years.  4-5 players maybe?  Is it retention/attrition compared to our competition?  Hell, if they lose a guy they just recruit another very talented player and develop them.  If you are relying on 4 years to get the best out of your player you've got a development problem on your hands.  If you have players leave early for the NFL and they get drafted high that's good for recruiting.  It's also attrition, so what are we really talking about?  Are we putting all our eggs the basket of hope that all 22 players on the field will be wily veterans developed to such a magnificent level that they play above their perceived talent?  Does that get us 1 or 2 more wins?  If it's one I guess that scratches away a loss that we shouldn't have which has been consistent under CBB.

BigE_23

Quote from: LR54 on May 17, 2017, 10:49:52 am
Based on the last couple of years, he has a lot of company.

SEC-W Records 2015-2016.

CBB 8-8
Freeze 8-8
Sumlin 8-8
Mullen 7-9
Malzahn 7-9



I'm not sure how those conference records indicate that a 47 year-old, 12+ season veteran coach still needs on the job training...

The SEC-W is a tough conference, that's not news to anyone.

Al Boarland

Quote from: Deep Shoat on May 17, 2017, 10:58:56 am
It's really simple.  Emotion plays a part in this game.  So does attrition.  So does psychology.  The Auburn game was one of those that was clearly a risk of exactly what happened because of all of those factors.

Gus wanted it badly because of the way we won the previous year + It's Arkansas.  8th game in a row, we were beat up and exhausted.  Physically and mentally.  I told a mod on here all week before the game that we would have to withstand the early onslaught and not go down 21-0 in the first.  If we did, we would have had a chance to come back.  We didn't, and emotion, attrition, exhaustion, and negative psychology all came together to lead to an ass whipping.  After that, Robb Smith never got the team back.  Why?  Because every week his scheme put players in positions that didn't allow them to maximize their strengths and/or put them in positions where their weaknesses were abused.  And they knew it. 

That led to teams that looked great until adjustments were made, but folded at the first sign of trouble.  The "here we go again" factor.  They were fragile, because they were asked to do things they shouldn't have been asked to do, and they failed.

Is that on Coach B?  Yes.  If I were him, I would have demoted Smith the first time I asked him to ramp up the attack and he didn't.  But I respect him for staying true to his word, which was that he would let Robb Smith be the DC.

Sure all those things matter.  Just like it matters that LSU always plays Bama before they play us and that gives us a shot to beat them, but the most important factor is talent.  Start there and you can stack all those other factors in any order you want to under it.

Deep Shoat

Quote from: Al Boarland on May 17, 2017, 11:02:33 am
I keep seeing the retention/attrition argument, but I need a little more than just that makes things better.  So, you don't have a few knuckleheads that have to get run off.  Not sure what that equates to over 4 years.  4-5 players maybe?  Is it retention/attrition compared to our competition?  Hell, if they lose a guy they just recruit another very talented player and develop them.  If you are relying on 4 years to get the best out of your player you've got a development problem on your hands.  If you have players leave early for the NFL and they get drafted high that's good for recruiting.  It's also attrition, so what are we really talking about?  Are we putting all our eggs the basket of hope that all 22 players on the field will be wily veterans developed to such a magnificent level that they play above their perceived talent?  Does that get us 1 or 2 more wins?  If it's one I guess that scratches away a loss that we shouldn't have which has been consistent under CBB.
Who is more physically mature, an 18-19 year old 5 Star or a 22-23 year old 4 star?  Who is more mentally mature?  Who is more emotionally mature?

When you don't get elite talent (Arkansas, as a rule, doesn't), doesn't it seem more likely you would have a chance to compete with elite talent by having mature players who understand the system inside and out?

If you aren't a blue blood or a serious cheater, you don't stockpile early NFL entrants.  You make up for it (If it's possible) by getting the best talent you can and keeping it until it is grown. 

The goal is to play our grown men 4 stars against their barely out of high school 5 stars.

It's just not that hard to figure it out.
All Gas, No Brakes!

Deep Shoat

Quote from: Al Boarland on May 17, 2017, 11:06:41 am
Sure all those things matter.  Just like it matters that LSU always plays Bama before they play us and that gives us a shot to beat them, but the most important factor is talent.  Start there and you can stack all those other factors in any order you want to under it.
Dude, you whine about talent CONSTANTLY.  There is no way short of cheating like Ole Miss or SMU that we are going to, significantly, close the talent gap.

That means we have to come up with something different or we have to close the program down.  Which do you prefer?
All Gas, No Brakes!

LR54

Quote from: BigE_23 on May 17, 2017, 11:03:52 am
I'm not sure how those conference records indicate that a 47 year-old, 12+ season veteran coach still needs on the job training...

The SEC-W is a tough conference, that's not news to anyone.

That's the point, the SEC-W is a different animal no matter how much experience or success a coach may have from somewhere else.

It's gonna take some OJT for anyone that comes in.

Wildhog

Quote from: Deep Shoat on May 17, 2017, 11:30:48 am
Dude, you whine about talent CONSTANTLY.  There is no way short of cheating like Ole Miss or SMU that we are going to, significantly, close the talent gap.

That means we have to come up with something different or we have to close the program down.  Which do you prefer?

It means that we have to out-scheme our opponents. 
Arkansas Razorbacks Football National Championships:
1909/1964/1965/1977

LZH

This is priceless.....a couple of you guys are really something. Even your hyperpro-Bielema buddies have to be rolling their eyes. You are to your base what communists are to democrats.

Apparently we have a guy that had seven years P5 head coaching experience before he got here but still needs OJT. And we lost to Auburn by 53 points because, among other reasons, Gus wanted it badly. This is getting good.

BTW, is it OK if we substitute BP's or HDN's name for BB's in your excuse-filled posts?.....'cause we could make that fit just as well.

EastexHawg

Quote from: Deep Shoat on May 17, 2017, 10:45:25 am
Good grief.  You are either the dumbest poster on the board or the biggest asshat.  I'm not sure which.

Show me the plug and play success stories anywhere besides the blue blood schools.  I'll wait.

Places like USC and Bama can fire coaches every 3-5 years and eventually hit the jackpot because they have a ridiculous amount of talent, both on campus and in their backyard, even when they suck.  So just keep rotating coaches until you strike paydirt.  That kind of crap obviously doesn't work anywhere else.  You want to know how I know?  Because everywhere else tries to be USC/Bama/Texas.  They keep firing coaches and hiring coaches and firing coaches and hiring coaches.  And they keep not being blue bloods.  The ones who succeed beyond historical norms?  They bring in a guy and give him time to build.  They let him build even when things don't look great.  Does it work everywhere, everytime?  Nope.  That's not how life works.  But what damn sure doesn't work, anywhere besides 8-10 universities nationwide (Alabama, USC, Texas, Miami, tOSU, Michigan, Florida State... 8-10 may be too many), is hiring and firing and hoping to hit the right guy.

I know, you are going to refute my argument with Bobby Petrino, or someone just as asinine.  But he didn't actually DO anything here.  Sure, winning 21 games in 2 years was awesome.  But we have no idea whether that was sustainable.  It's not like he has actually done anything anywhere else that matters.

Speaking of simplistic thinkers, you apparently think programs are great because they are great, and not because great coaches came in and made them great.  Maybe a fairy sprinkled them with pixie dust and made them that way.

In the seven years before Bear Bryant got to Maryland, the program was 21-42-3.  Bear coached there one year and went 6-2-1.  Before he went to his next stop, Kentucky, the Wildcats were 13-24-1 over five seasons and didn't even have a football team one of those years.  He went 7-3 and 8-3 in 1946 and 1947 and by 1950 Kentucky was 11-1 with a Sugar Bowl win over #1 and defending national champ Oklahoma, who came in riding a 30 game win streak.  That Kentucky team won at least some versions of the national championship.

From there he went to Texas A&M, a program that was 20-35-6 over the six years before he got there.  Bear's first team, the Junction Boys, went 1-9...but his second team was 7-2-1 and his third went undefeated.

Next, Alabama.  Ah, yes, I can hear you from here.  Who couldn't win at Alabama?  Apparently whoever they had coaching before him couldn't, because three years prior to his arrival they went 0-10 and their three year record before Bear got there was 4-24-2.  Bryant's first Tide team went 5-4-1.  His second was 7-2-2, his third lost one game, and his fourth was 11-0, national champions, and only allowed 25 points all year.

Well, okay, but that was the Bear.  It's a good story, but that's not how it happens at other schools.  They were great just because.  Or were they?

Penn State was a little over a .500 program before Joe Paterno arrived.  They went 6-4 and 5-5 in their two previous seasons.  Paterno's first four teams were 5-5, 8-2-1, 11-0, and 11-0.

USC was 13-16-1 over the three years before John McKay became their coach in 1960.  By year three he went 11-0 and won the national championship, the first of his three.

Nebraska?  Now there is a blue blood program.  In the six years before Bob Devaney took over, they went 19-40-1.  Devaney was 9-2 as a first year coach in 1962 and followed that up with records of 10-1, 9-2, and 10-1.

Then, of course, we have Texas...who always dominated the SWC, right?  In 1954-1956 they were 10-19-1 overall.  In 1956 they were 1-9, with a win Tulane and a winless record in the SWC.  That season included losses of 45-0 to Oklahoma and 46-0 to TCU.  In 1957 they hired Darrell Royal and he took them to the Sugar Bowl in his first year.  I think we know how the rest of his Texas career played out.

And finally...Arkansas.  The Hogs' record through the 1950s was 37-43-1 before Frank Broyles was hired in 1958.  Broyles lost his first six games, but turned it around with four straight wins to end the season...and won the conference his next three years.  A program that had gone 20-29 in SWC games over the previous eight years went 27-4 against the same league from the midpoint of the 1958 season through 1962.

Great programs aren't great when they don't have great coaches.  Your attempted point is flawed so you might want to go back to the drawing board.

 

Wildhog

Quote from: EastexHawg on May 17, 2017, 11:43:37 am
Speaking of simplistic thinkers, you apparently think programs are great because they are great, and not because great coaches came in and made them great.  Maybe a fairy sprinkled them with pixie dust and made them that way.

In the seven years before Bear Bryant got to Maryland, the program was 21-42-3.  Bear coached there one year and went 6-2-1.  Before he went to his next stop, Kentucky, the Wildcats were 13-24-1 over five seasons and didn't even have a football team one of those years.  He went 7-3 and 8-3 in 1946 and 1947 and by 1950 Kentucky was 11-1 with a Sugar Bowl win over #1 and defending national champ Oklahoma, who came in riding a 30 game win streak.  That Kentucky team won at least some versions of the national championship.

From there he went to Texas A&M, a program that was 20-35-6 over the six years before he got there.  Bear's first team, the Junction Boys, went 1-9...but his second team was 7-2-1 and his third went undefeated.

Next, Alabama.  Ah, yes, I can hear you from here.  Who couldn't win at Alabama?  Apparently whoever they had coaching before him couldn't, because three years prior to his arrival they went 0-10 and their three year record before Bear got there was 4-24-2.  Bryant's first Tide team went 5-4-1.  His second was 7-2-2, his third lost one game, and his fourth was 11-0, national champions, and only allowed 25 points all year.

Well, okay, but that was the Bear.  It's a good story, but that's not how it happens at other schools.  They were great just because.  Or were they?

Penn State was a little over a .500 program before Joe Paterno arrived.  They went 6-4 and 5-5 in their two previous seasons.  Paterno's first four teams were 5-5, 8-2-1, 11-0, and 11-0.

USC was 13-16-1 over the three years before John McKay became their coach in 1960.  By year three he went 11-0 and won the national championship, the first of his three.

Nebraska?  Now there is a blue blood program.  In the six years before Bob Devaney took over, they went 19-40-1.  Devaney was 9-2 as a first year coach in 1962 and followed that up with records of 10-1, 9-2, and 10-1.

Then, of course, we have Texas...who always dominated the SWC, right?  In 1954-1956 they were 10-19-1 overall.  In 1956 they were 1-9, with a win Tulane and a winless record in the SWC.  That season included losses of 45-0 to Oklahoma and 46-0 to TCU.  In 1957 they hired Darrell Royal and he took them to the Sugar Bowl in his first year.  I think we know how the rest of his Texas career played out.

And finally...Arkansas.  The Hogs' record through the 1950s was 37-43-1 before Frank Broyles was hired in 1958.  Broyles lost his first six games, but turned it around with four straight wins to end the season...and won the conference his next three years.  A program that had gone 20-29 in SWC games over the previous eight years went 27-4 against the same league from the midpoint of the 1958 season through 1962.

Great programs aren't great when they don't have great coaches.  Your attempted point is flawed so you might want to go back to the drawing board.

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn.
Arkansas Razorbacks Football National Championships:
1909/1964/1965/1977

BigE_23

Quote from: LR54 on May 17, 2017, 11:31:48 am
That's the point, the SEC-W is a different animal no matter how much experience or success a coach may have from somewhere else.

It's gonna take some OJT for anyone that comes in.
First of all the point that I was responding to was from another poster that CBB is a "young coach" that needs OJT, but let's get something straight - There's a difference between a learning curve and on-the-job training. No one in their right mind would try and pretend that there isn't an adjustment when coming in from other conferences.

Second, how much more 'training' does the guy need? I'm ok with giving him years 1-2 for the learning curve, but 53 point losses, catastrophic 2nd half collapses, and players embarrassing the program by spitting in the faces of opponents and stealing from bowl sponsors shouldn't happen in year 4...and that's the bottom line. I refuse to chalk that up as "on-the-job training."

Again, I feel like I have to preface all of my posts with this - I WANT CBB TO DO WELL - I like the guy...if he wins we all win. I'm just not naive enough to let my desire for his success preclude me from being objective and honest in my criticism.

BigE_23

Quote from: EastexHawg on May 17, 2017, 11:43:37 am
Speaking of simplistic thinkers, you apparently think programs are great because they are great, and not because great coaches came in and made them great.  Maybe a fairy sprinkled them with pixie dust and made them that way.

In the seven years before Bear Bryant got to Maryland, the program was 21-42-3.  Bear coached there one year and went 6-2-1.  Before he went to his next stop, Kentucky, the Wildcats were 13-24-1 over five seasons and didn't even have a football team one of those years.  He went 7-3 and 8-3 in 1946 and 1947 and by 1950 Kentucky was 11-1 with a Sugar Bowl win over #1 and defending national champ Oklahoma, who came in riding a 30 game win streak.  That Kentucky team won at least some versions of the national championship.

From there he went to Texas A&M, a program that was 20-35-6 over the six years before he got there.  Bear's first team, the Junction Boys, went 1-9...but his second team was 7-2-1 and his third went undefeated.

Next, Alabama.  Ah, yes, I can hear you from here.  Who couldn't win at Alabama?  Apparently whoever they had coaching before him couldn't, because three years prior to his arrival they went 0-10 and their three year record before Bear got there was 4-24-2.  Bryant's first Tide team went 5-4-1.  His second was 7-2-2, his third lost one game, and his fourth was 11-0, national champions, and only allowed 25 points all year.

Well, okay, but that was the Bear.  It's a good story, but that's not how it happens at other schools.  They were great just because.  Or were they?

Penn State was a little over a .500 program before Joe Paterno arrived.  They went 6-4 and 5-5 in their two previous seasons.  Paterno's first four teams were 5-5, 8-2-1, 11-0, and 11-0.

USC was 13-16-1 over the three years before John McKay became their coach in 1960.  By year three he went 11-0 and won the national championship, the first of his three.

Nebraska?  Now there is a blue blood program.  In the six years before Bob Devaney took over, they went 19-40-1.  Devaney was 9-2 as a first year coach in 1962 and followed that up with records of 10-1, 9-2, and 10-1.

Then, of course, we have Texas...who always dominated the SWC, right?  In 1954-1956 they were 10-19-1 overall.  In 1956 they were 1-9, with a win Tulane and a winless record in the SWC.  That season included losses of 45-0 to Oklahoma and 46-0 to TCU.  In 1957 they hired Darrell Royal and he took them to the Sugar Bowl in his first year.  I think we know how the rest of his Texas career played out.

And finally...Arkansas.  The Hogs' record through the 1950s was 37-43-1 before Frank Broyles was hired in 1958.  Broyles lost his first six games, but turned it around with four straight wins to end the season...and won the conference his next three years.  A program that had gone 20-29 in SWC games over the previous eight years went 27-4 against the same league from the midpoint of the 1958 season through 1962.

Great programs aren't great when they don't have great coaches.  Your attempted point is flawed so you might want to go back to the drawing board.


MuskogeeHogFan

Quote from: jkstock04 on May 17, 2017, 08:18:26 am
If we win 8 games it will be considered a major success. Since I'm gonna be in the 6-8 win range I probably will as well considering all.

What's weird here though is that supposedly this is the deepest and most well recruited team we have had since being in the SEC. Petrino didn't care about recruiting, but Bielema does. The people who follow recruiting would have you believe things have been awesome during the Bielema era and are only getting better.

If this is true why are expectations so freaking low? Legitimately if we are this deep as a team shouldn't we have a legit shot at a 10 win year and have a chance to win every game?

We do have pretty good depth. Best I've seen in a long time at every position. I have a spreadsheet with everyone including the incoming freshmen that I will be glad to email you if you want to p.m. me your email address.
Go Hogs Go!

hogcard1964

Quote from: EastexHawg on May 17, 2017, 11:43:37 am
Speaking of simplistic thinkers, you apparently think programs are great because they are great, and not because great coaches came in and made them great.  Maybe a fairy sprinkled them with pixie dust and made them that way.

In the seven years before Bear Bryant got to Maryland, the program was 21-42-3.  Bear coached there one year and went 6-2-1.  Before he went to his next stop, Kentucky, the Wildcats were 13-24-1 over five seasons and didn't even have a football team one of those years.  He went 7-3 and 8-3 in 1946 and 1947 and by 1950 Kentucky was 11-1 with a Sugar Bowl win over #1 and defending national champ Oklahoma, who came in riding a 30 game win streak.  That Kentucky team won at least some versions of the national championship.

From there he went to Texas A&M, a program that was 20-35-6 over the six years before he got there.  Bear's first team, the Junction Boys, went 1-9...but his second team was 7-2-1 and his third went undefeated.

Next, Alabama.  Ah, yes, I can hear you from here.  Who couldn't win at Alabama?  Apparently whoever they had coaching before him couldn't, because three years prior to his arrival they went 0-10 and their three year record before Bear got there was 4-24-2.  Bryant's first Tide team went 5-4-1.  His second was 7-2-2, his third lost one game, and his fourth was 11-0, national champions, and only allowed 25 points all year.

Well, okay, but that was the Bear.  It's a good story, but that's not how it happens at other schools.  They were great just because.  Or were they?

Penn State was a little over a .500 program before Joe Paterno arrived.  They went 6-4 and 5-5 in their two previous seasons.  Paterno's first four teams were 5-5, 8-2-1, 11-0, and 11-0.

USC was 13-16-1 over the three years before John McKay became their coach in 1960.  By year three he went 11-0 and won the national championship, the first of his three.

Nebraska?  Now there is a blue blood program.  In the six years before Bob Devaney took over, they went 19-40-1.  Devaney was 9-2 as a first year coach in 1962 and followed that up with records of 10-1, 9-2, and 10-1.

Then, of course, we have Texas...who always dominated the SWC, right?  In 1954-1956 they were 10-19-1 overall.  In 1956 they were 1-9, with a win Tulane and a winless record in the SWC.  That season included losses of 45-0 to Oklahoma and 46-0 to TCU.  In 1957 they hired Darrell Royal and he took them to the Sugar Bowl in his first year.  I think we know how the rest of his Texas career played out.

And finally...Arkansas.  The Hogs' record through the 1950s was 37-43-1 before Frank Broyles was hired in 1958.  Broyles lost his first six games, but turned it around with four straight wins to end the season...and won the conference his next three years.  A program that had gone 20-29 in SWC games over the previous eight years went 27-4 against the same league from the midpoint of the 1958 season through 1962.

Great programs aren't great when they don't have great coaches.  Your attempted point is flawed so you might want to go back to the drawing board.

Now that's a post!

+1000000000

phadedhawg

This season is going to seem longer than usual if this is what's passing for Razorback talk in May. 

The first loss meltdown will be epic. 

Deep Shoat

Quote from: LZH on May 17, 2017, 11:42:01 am
This is priceless.....a couple of you guys are really something. Even your hyperpro-Bielema buddies have to be rolling their eyes. You are to your base what communists are to democrats.

Apparently we have a guy that had seven years P5 head coaching experience before he got here but still needs OJT. And we lost to Auburn by 53 points because, among other reasons, Gus wanted it badly. This is getting good.

BTW, is it OK if we substitute BP's or HDN's name for BB's in your excuse-filled posts?.....'cause we could make that fit just as well.
For a guy who puports to be so damn smart, you just won't get it, will you.

There are no excuses.  There are facts.  Arkansas is in the piss poorest recruiting area of the whole SEC.  We actually SIGNIFICANTLY outrecruit our base.  You don't fix that kind of problem overnight, and you don't fix it just by "outscheming" your opponents.  Particularly when your opponents include Nick Fricking Saban.

It's like we have a board full of Delta's today. 
All Gas, No Brakes!

Hogs-n-Roses

Quote from: EastexHawg on May 17, 2017, 11:43:37 am
Speaking of simplistic thinkers, you apparently think programs are great because they are great, and not because great coaches came in and made them great.  Maybe a fairy sprinkled them with pixie dust and made them that way.

In the seven years before Bear Bryant got to Maryland, the program was 21-42-3.  Bear coached there one year and went 6-2-1.  Before he went to his next stop, Kentucky, the Wildcats were 13-24-1 over five seasons and didn't even have a football team one of those years.  He went 7-3 and 8-3 in 1946 and 1947 and by 1950 Kentucky was 11-1 with a Sugar Bowl win over #1 and defending national champ Oklahoma, who came in riding a 30 game win streak.  That Kentucky team won at least some versions of the national championship.

From there he went to Texas A&M, a program that was 20-35-6 over the six years before he got there.  Bear's first team, the Junction Boys, went 1-9...but his second team was 7-2-1 and his third went undefeated.

Next, Alabama.  Ah, yes, I can hear you from here.  Who couldn't win at Alabama?  Apparently whoever they had coaching before him couldn't, because three years prior to his arrival they went 0-10 and their three year record before Bear got there was 4-24-2.  Bryant's first Tide team went 5-4-1.  His second was 7-2-2, his third lost one game, and his fourth was 11-0, national champions, and only allowed 25 points all year.

Well, okay, but that was the Bear.  It's a good story, but that's not how it happens at other schools.  They were great just because.  Or were they?

Penn State was a little over a .500 program before Joe Paterno arrived.  They went 6-4 and 5-5 in their two previous seasons.  Paterno's first four teams were 5-5, 8-2-1, 11-0, and 11-0.

USC was 13-16-1 over the three years before John McKay became their coach in 1960.  By year three he went 11-0 and won the national championship, the first of his three.

Nebraska?  Now there is a blue blood program.  In the six years before Bob Devaney took over, they went 19-40-1.  Devaney was 9-2 as a first year coach in 1962 and followed that up with records of 10-1, 9-2, and 10-1.

Then, of course, we have Texas...who always dominated the SWC, right?  In 1954-1956 they were 10-19-1 overall.  In 1956 they were 1-9, with a win Tulane and a winless record in the SWC.  That season included losses of 45-0 to Oklahoma and 46-0 to TCU.  In 1957 they hired Darrell Royal and he took them to the Sugar Bowl in his first year.  I think we know how the rest of his Texas career played out.

And finally...Arkansas.  The Hogs' record through the 1950s was 37-43-1 before Frank Broyles was hired in 1958.  Broyles lost his first six games, but turned it around with four straight wins to end the season...and won the conference his next three years.  A program that had gone 20-29 in SWC games over the previous eight years went 27-4 against the same league from the midpoint of the 1958 season through 1962.

Great programs aren't great when they don't have great coaches.  Your attempted point is flawed so you might want to go back to the drawing board.
Can't wait to hear this spin.Nice job.

GuvHog

Quote from: LZH on May 17, 2017, 01:29:57 am
This is bs. His "recruiting"? We had just finished 5th in the country when he was fired....best season in 25 years. No one, no one thought to say a word about his recruiting until it took BB nearly two full seasons to win an SEC game.


Well said. It didn't take CBB almost 2 years to win an SEC game because of lack of talent. It was because when he was hired, he inherited a team that was recruited to run an offense the exact opposite of the one CBB runs. It was like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. CBB was put in a bad position and had to rebuild. This season however, that rebuilding excuse just won't fly because every player on the team was recruited and signed by CBB's staff. All of Bobby's players are gone so this year we get so see just how good of a coach and recruiter CBB is. The ball is in his hands.
Bleeding Razorback Red Since Birth!!!

GuvHog

Quote from: Al Boarland on May 17, 2017, 08:12:26 am
No one will be disappointed if CBB manages to win 9 games.  Will there still be concerns?  Sure.  Will some still question if he can consistently contend in the SEC?  Probably.  However, those voices won't be as loud.

Exactly. If this years team does indeed win 9 games in regular season play, A whole lot of people will begin to believe that maybe, just maybe CBB really can turn the program around. I would be delighted.
Bleeding Razorback Red Since Birth!!!

Lanny

With Bielema's buyout there's not enough money for him to be on any hot seat
"It's only a game if you win but if you lose it's a stinking waste of time."

Al Bundy

 

Hawgar The Horrible

Quote from: Deep Shoat on May 17, 2017, 12:51:41 pm
Hey!  Look everybody!  Eastex came up with one example post Reconstruction. 

Yeah, and he coached in the most talent rich state in the country, running an offense that does offer some equalization BEFORE ANYBODY ELSE RAN IT.

When everyone is prepared for your equalizer, it stops being such an equalizer.

Oh, and at SCe, he was average to bad for several years before he built the program up beyond historical levels for a short time.  Oh, and finally, USCe has more available talent than Arkansas in a 250 mile radius.

Holy crap you're dense.

I was about to ask him if Spurrier replicated his Florida success at SC. How about National Championship winning Lou Holtz?

There's that damn talent boogaboo again. He just made your point.
There are fans and there are supporters. The latter carries the weight.

phadedhawg

Quote from: hogcard1964 on May 17, 2017, 01:02:55 pm
How was Alabama before Saban arrived?   ;)

I think they were already used to winning national championships before Saban...he just does it more often.

ricepig

Quote from: hogcard1964 on May 17, 2017, 01:02:55 pm
How was Alabama before Saban arrived?   ;)

They had won 12 National Championships, before his arrival.

hogcard1964

Quote from: phadedhawg on May 17, 2017, 01:05:09 pm
I think they were already used to winning national championships before Saban...he just does it more often.

So they were good at one time?  Ah got it.

That kind of negates the excuse of what "Beilema had to inherit" doesn't it?

EastexHawg

Quote from: ricepig on May 17, 2017, 01:06:38 pm
They had won 12 National Championships, before his arrival.

LSU was 4-7 and 3-8 the last two seasons before Saban got there and Bama was 46-40 overall, with three losing seasons and another at .500, in the decade of the 2000s before he went to Tuscaloosa. 

Apparently even the "historically great" programs aren't very good when they don't have great coaches.  Who'd a thunk it?

Deep Shoat

Eastex, I saw your urban Meyer post.  Did you realize you were proving my point? 

In fact, your entire response to me proves my point.  "Let's list 6-8 of the greatest coaches in history as proof that the norm is for a new coach to immediately turn a program around."

Unless your argument is that we should fire every coach who doesn't make a huge turnaround in the first two seasons and start over.  In which case you are a moron.
All Gas, No Brakes!

code red

Quote from: Deep Shoat on May 17, 2017, 09:15:10 am
I know you have a problem with anything but strictly linear thinking, but I'll try to help.

1. This is the deepest talent pool we've had, at least since Danny Ford.  Probably ever.  What we seem to lack, at the moment, is the one or two sublime talents to put us over the top.  No Matt Jones or DMac, so far.

2. Even though we have a solid depth of talent, there isn't a lot of experience.  Couple that with a shift in D scheme, and people don't know what to expect.  Therefore, most prognosticators are being very careful, based on last season.

3. We play in the SEC West.  We could improve 50-fold and still end up 3rd or 4th in the division.  You do realize the other teams don't stay static, right?

4. Historically, since integration, we are a 7 win football team.  We've outperformed that for a year or two here and there, but we tend to return to the norm pretty quickly.  Same for underperforming.  Reporters don't stick their necks out on these things, and sports books use historical models as one of their primary means of projecting a season.

We are recruiting better.  But not so much better that a major jump can be predicted.  It will happen, probably soon.  But no one with actual skin in the game is going to bet on it.  And when it does, we'll be primed to take the next step.  It works like this, for schools like Arkansas:

1. Learn to win consistently and get in the game against the big boys.
2. Recruiting uptick.
3. Breakout Year in or around years 5-8.
4. Recruiting Uptick.
5. Consistency in the top 10.
6. Recruiting uptick.
7. Hit the big time (playoffs, BCS, Conference championships, etc)
8. Ride the wave until major change happens (Coach leaves, is fired, etc.)

I'd say we are currently somewhere in step 3.  I believe we will see a breakout year in the next two, based on looking at the success trajectory of other, similar programs (Michigan State, Stanford).

I know I'm going to get roasted by the impatient children, Bielema and Long haters, and the football ignorant on the board.  But i's not hard to research this and see it work in other places.  Sadly, most don't have the patience for this type of build, and it will likely fail due to the pressure from people who think winning is just a plug and play thing.
Politely saying.  The post said....Petrino didn't care about recruiting....which is debatable but, its about wins.  Petrino got em....CBB success has not come...for whatever reason.  These kids may have stars by their name but it is not transitioning to the field.  Period.  When LSU houses you at home and you are beat after the first play in the Plains....there is a problem...that problem still exists.
"If what you did yesterday seems big, you haven't done anything today."  Dr. Lou

ricepig

Quote from: hogcard1964 on May 17, 2017, 01:11:12 pm
So they were good at one time?  Ah got it.

That kind of negates the excuse of what "Beilema had to inherit" doesn't it?

Are you comparing the history of Alabama football, to ours?

EastexHawg

Quote from: Deep Shoat on May 17, 2017, 01:15:16 pm
Eastex, I saw your urban Meyer post.  Did you realize you were proving my point? 

In fact, your entire response to me proves my point.  "Let's list 6-8 of the greatest coaches in history as proof that the norm is for a new coach to immediately turn a program around."

Unless your argument is that we should fire every coach who doesn't make a huge turnaround in the first two seasons and start over.  In which case you are a moron.

You have made one fallacious "point" after another that has been easily and systematically shot down, so now you are resorting to name calling.  You must have been the star of your debate team, right?

ricepig

Quote from: code red on May 17, 2017, 01:16:10 pm
Politely saying.  The post said....Petrino didn't care about recruiting....which is debatable but, its about wins.  Petrino got em....CBB success has not come...for whatever reason.  These kids may have stars by their name but it is not transitioning to the field.  Period.  When LSU houses you at home and you are beat after the first play in the Plains....there is a problem...that problem still exists.

We housed LSU at their place the year before, so the problem was fixed that day, correct?

Deep Shoat

Quote from: ricepig on May 17, 2017, 01:16:40 pm
Are you comparing the history of Alabama football, to ours?
It's like we have a board full of Corky.
All Gas, No Brakes!

Deep Shoat

Quote from: EastexHawg on May 17, 2017, 01:17:08 pm
You have made one fallacious "point" after another that has been easily and systematically shot down, so now you are resorting to name calling.  You must have been the star of your debate team, right?
I'm only "name calling" if that is, in fact, your argument.  As to being easily shot down?  You've proved my point at every turn.  Blue blood programs and top coaches of all time have the ability to turn programs quickly.  Everyone else needs to build and be patient.

Are you suggesting we just keep firing coaches until we find the next Nick or Urban?
All Gas, No Brakes!

ricepig

Quote from: EastexHawg on May 17, 2017, 01:12:08 pm
LSU was 4-7 and 3-8 the last two seasons before Saban got there and Bama was 46-40 overall, with three losing seasons and another at .500, in the decade of the 2000s before he went to Tuscaloosa. 

Apparently even the "historically great" programs aren't very good when they don't have great coaches.  Who'd a thunk it?

Then I don't think you could put Arkansas in the "historically great" since joining the SEC, do you?

LZH

Quote from: Lanny on May 17, 2017, 01:00:40 pm
With Bielema's buyout there's not enough money for him to be on any hot seat

But if my powerball numbers ever hit.....

code red

Quote from: ricepig on May 17, 2017, 01:18:05 pm
We housed LSU at their place the year before, so the problem was fixed that day, correct?
He got out coached by Orgeron for goodness sake I fail to see how 2 yrs ago applies to our problems at this point and time.
"If what you did yesterday seems big, you haven't done anything today."  Dr. Lou

ricepig

Quote from: LZH on May 17, 2017, 01:21:39 pm
But if my powerball numbers ever hit.....

Would absolutely do nothing......

hogcard1964

Quote from: ricepig on May 17, 2017, 01:16:40 pm
Are you comparing the history of Alabama football, to ours?

No

I'm comparing the level of suck at Alabama before Saban arrived there to our level of suck in 2012.

bkjbearcat

Quote from: EastexHawg on May 17, 2017, 01:12:08 pm
LSU was 4-7 and 3-8 the last two seasons before Saban got there and Bama was 46-40 overall, with three losing seasons and another at .500, in the decade of the 2000s before he went to Tuscaloosa. 

Apparently even the "historically great" programs aren't very good when they don't have great coaches.  Who'd a thunk it?

After Gene Stallings and Pre Saban these were AL's HC's excluding interim. Mike DuBose, Dennis Franchione, Mike Price (Didn't coach a game) and Mike Shula.

At Oklahoma post Barry and pre Stoops the Sooners had  Gary Gibbs, Howard Schnellenberger and John Blake.

Maybe your theory is sound.
B-E-A-R-C-A-T-S BEARCATS, BEARCATS GOOOOOOO BEARCATS!!!!!!!<br /><br />D2 National Champs in Football: 1998, 1999, 2009, 2013, 2015, 2016<br /><br />D2 National Champs in Mens Basketball: 2017, 2019, No.1 team in 2020,2021, 2022

jkstock04

Quote from: Deep Shoat on May 17, 2017, 01:18:06 pm
It's like we have a board full of Corky.
Lol...you should try the politics board out sometime and see what they think of your brand of political correctness.
Thanks for the F Shack. 

Love,

Dirty Mike and the Boys

LZH

Quote from: ricepig on May 17, 2017, 01:23:31 pm
Would absolutely do nothing......

If I offered to pay off the NEZ expansion and matched that amount with a $160M gift to the college surely that would get me somewhere. If anything I could have Bielema MC my daughter's 21st birthday party..... that kind of dough should score me plenty of good one-liners.

ricepig

Quote from: LZH on May 17, 2017, 01:45:03 pm
If I offered to pay off the NEZ expansion and matched that amount with a $160M gift to the college surely that would get me somewhere. If anything I could have Bielema MC my daughter's 21st birthday party..... that kind of dough should score me plenty of good one-liners.

I guess you plan on hitting it when it pays $500m+ after taxes, good luck!

EastexHawg

Quote from: Deep Shoat on May 17, 2017, 01:21:00 pm
I'm only "name calling" if that is, in fact, your argument.  As to being easily shot down?  You've proved my point at every turn.  Blue blood programs and top coaches of all time have the ability to turn programs quickly.  Everyone else needs to build and be patient.

Are you suggesting we just keep firing coaches until we find the next Nick or Urban?

We were 10-3 and 11-2 within this decade and we didn't have Nick, Urban, or Pete Carroll either of those years.

I only scratched the surface with my list of coaches.  Check out what Bob Stoops has done at Oklahoma vs. what had been going on there before his arrival.  Jim Harbaugh and Stanford.  Art Briles at both Houston and Baylor.

Why don't you just come out and say it?  "I don't think we should expect to be very good and neither should any of you"?

GuvHog

May 17, 2017, 01:54:04 pm #496 Last Edit: May 17, 2017, 02:04:17 pm by GuvHog
Quote from: ricepig on May 17, 2017, 01:06:38 pm
They had won 12 National Championships, before his arrival.

In the years prior to Saban's arrival at Bama, they were not very good under Mike Shula. The year before Saban's arrival, they lost in Tuscaloosa to Miss State.. Between the time of the Bear's departure and Saban's arrival I believe they won very few national titles. they were desperate to get back to what they were under the Bear and that's why they offered Saban a massive amount of money to take the job.
Bleeding Razorback Red Since Birth!!!

hogcard1964

Quote from: Deep Shoat on May 17, 2017, 01:21:00 pm
I'm only "name calling" if that is, in fact, your argument.  As to being easily shot down?  You've proved my point at every turn.  Blue blood programs and top coaches of all time have the ability to turn programs quickly.  Everyone else needs to build and be patient.

Are you suggesting we just keep firing coaches until we find the next Nick or Urban?

Aren't the Razorbacks historically a "top program"?  Aren't we consistently ranked in or near the all time top 20-25 programs of all time?  You're almost acting like we're worse historically, than we actually are?  Aren't we a bit better than schools like Wisconsin, Oregon, Texas A & M, Stanford...???????? 

twistitup

Quote from: GuvHog on May 17, 2017, 01:54:04 pm
In the years prior to Saban's arrival at Bama, they were not very good under Mike Debose. The year before Saban's arrival, they lost in Tuscaloosa to Miss State.. Between the time of the Bear's departure and Saban's arrival I believe they won very few national titles. they were desperate to get back to what they were under the Bear and that's why they offered Saban a massive amount of money to take the job.

Ding, Ding...you said Bear. Bama had an enourmous amount of tradition that Debose & Co. couldnt erase with a handful of average seasons- Saban is adding to an already legendary program...
How you gonna win when you ain't right within?

Here I am again mixing misery and gin....

LZH

Quote from: ricepig on May 17, 2017, 01:48:48 pm
I guess you plan on hitting it when it pays $500m+ after taxes, good luck!

I dream big....