Re: Recruiting rankings and coaching performance

deleted

Rock Defender [53]

TigerPulse: 90%

Posts: 35

Joined: 11/30/98

Gave your OP a point. I think the key is, even if you don't

Oct 13, 2012, 1:22 PM

agree with me, you recognize most of my posts are objective, well reasoned, and supported by numbers, facts, evidence. As such, they deserve respect and legit debate, not angry childish attacks.

The only reason people get angry, defensive, and nasty is because they know the facts aren't on their side. They know they are wrong, but unwilling to admit it.

Look at criminal trials. You know the defendant is guilty when the defense team's only strategy is be as nasty as possible and try and discredit every witness and muddle the facts with high paid experts willing to say anything for a fat check. If the facts were on their side they'd present them and win.

Look at the election. If Obama had been successful, had he not failed on almost every campaign promise, if he had anything positive to run on, he would. But he doesn't, so he resorts to class warfare, phony wars on women, panders to every special interest group he can dig up, and is running the dirtiest, most divisive campaign in American history. The only group of kool aid drinkers with more lame excuses than tnetters is the Obama campaign.

Twice in the past week there have been tnet articles making the exact same points I have made for years and been viciously attacked. I've said for years we needed to tackle and be more physical in practice and supported that with quotes from our past DC's and ex-Tiger greats. I've also been posting for years that talent alone will not win. It takes player development and superior coaching as well.

I am on record saying give me average talent with great coaching and I love my odds vs. great talent and poor coaching. VT has proved this for years, as have many other programs. Great coaches get immediate results and show significant improvement in years two and three. This has been proven over and over.

Additionally, coaching turnover does not hurt a program when the goal is winning and finding a great coach. Again, anyone knowledgeable and objective can clearly see within 3 years if a coach is making significant progress. If it were me, I'd hire and fire every 3 to 4 years till I found a winner. People will say no coach will go to a program like that, but they are wrong and history has proven that. Clemson has everything to be great except the desire to be great, which comes from the top. If we still had Bill Atchley as president and Bill McClellan as AD we'd be a top 10 program.

That's another point I've been right about yet attacked relentlessly. I've said for years that Barker's actions speak infinitely louder than his words. Now suddenly we have a new COB who has said enough is enough and winning matters. Tnet is all giddy about it and we're spending big money on coordinators to compensate for Dabo's lack of ability, but it proves I was right all along.

Coaches aren't concerned with turnover because it shows a commitment to winning. They have huge egos and unlimited confidence in their abilities. When a program with Carolina's history can get the Tanners, Holtzs, and Spurriers of the world, Clemson can get ANY coach it wants if it shows it is committed to winning and willing to pay. And only someone ignorant would think we can't afford it, we certainly can.

From '69 to '78 Clemson had 5 coaches - Howard, Hootie, Red, Pell, and Ford. How did 5 coaches in 9 years turn out? GREAT! Pell went 11-1 his 2nd year and Ford won the national championship his 3rd year.

Compare that to 14 years of TB and Dabo.

I'll take Ford's '81, '82, '83, '87, '88, or '89 teams over Dabo's 2012 team every day and twice on Sundays.

Stability has NOT gotten us back to where we were under Ford. Beamer at VT is the exception to the rule. Contrary to myth, Bobby Bowden made an immediate impact at FSU, just like Spurrier at Duke and Florida.

We are NOT significantly better under Dabo even with more games and a much weaker ACC. YES the ACC was in fact better in the late 70s and 80s and a scan of the final AP top 20 polls since 1975 proves it.

Teams take on the personality of the head coach and play like they practice. Stereotypes and cliches persist because they are largely true.

Getting back to the OP, people don't have to agree with me, but they lose the argument when they avoid debate and go straight to flames and personal attacks. If they really thought I was wrong they'd engage me, rather than harass me and bait me till I defend myself poorly using their tactics. I don't get in trouble with the powers that be because I'm wrong, but because it's easier to silence me than the drunk and ignorant masses. The reality is, they know I'm right and they are wrong, but they are personally invested in Dabo, which objective people avoid. Our loyalties are to Clemson, not people. As it should be. Pumpers are like Obama supporters and the MSM. They refuse to admit they are wrong. They refuse to admit they made poor emotional choices versus rational thought based ones. Thus, they double down and keep drinking the kool aid and attack those that dare question them.

Another quick analogy. Secretariat is the greatest horse of all time. Yet only a fool or someone ignorant of horse racing would think Secretariat would have been just as great with any trainer and jockey. Horse, jockey, and trainer are a team and each is critical to success just like players, coaches, S&C, and leadership from the top. Secretariat only finished out of the money in 1 race, his first. They immediately changed jockeys and Big Red won the next 5 and the rest is history.

Until Wilkins forces Barker to make more changes and cut out all of his interference, and until we get a better head coach that cleans house, including s&c, and starts over and changes our soft emotional culture, we aren't going to get significantly better.

My worst nightmares of hiring Dabo are coming true. We're doing slightly better, making it hard to fire him, but we are not making significant improvement, we are not any tougher, and we are still grossly under achieving.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

To say we are not better? you have got to be joking. solid recruiting for several years - and not just a couple of 5 stars that bring up the average. We have an amazing group of receivers, another good group of linemen coming in, we now are recruiting a bigger circle than just SC. Some times defenses or offenses just don't work. Case in point - UGA defense (and sometimes offense), UF Offense, LSU Offense, and did anyone watch Oklahoma blast Texas today? does that mean all of those coaches are bad? of course not. The root issue of so many complainers here is simply that while Clemson is better, SC is ahead of us right now. If SC was 2-9ish like they generally have been over the past 100 years - would you still think that our coaches are bad? of course not. Things cycle - it is SC's time - but like most class programs - they win more than they lose. SC will go back to their average and Clemson will continue to be a very good program. I would rather have a class program like Clemson without coaches peeing on the street, many arrests, Garcia's, etc - than a short term winning streak.
Just my opinion.
Go Tigers - I for one - am proud to be a Tiger and support you all the way!