is there anyone here against this hire?

[Guest PCBull14]

8 minutes ago, Bull94 said:

that had nothing to do with 94th rated defense. perhaps this did though

http://www.barkingcarnival.com/2016/10/28/13458220/the-texas-football-sophomore-slump-charlie-strong-longhorns

Actually yes it did, but continue to believe what you want to believe. Was the guy a failure at Texas? Yes. Is he to blame? Yes. But I gave CWT a fair chance knowing what he had to work with. Charlie never got a fair chance, but he also didn't win at Texas. No matter how much extra stuff happens you are supposed to win there..end of story.

Having said that, looking at wins and losses alone in this case is wrong. You can continue to give him a hard time for holding good true core values..the same ones Coach Taggart instilled in this team. Players know what they sign up for playing football. Shame on him for holding them accountable!

Mack ran a loose ship and Tom will to. They'll love'em at the Texas!

[Guest PCBull14]

21 minutes ago, JTrue said:

I like how he didn't want to keep players convicted of sexual assault on the roster. That was a solid coaching move.

Shame on him! What terrible values to up hold!

[BrandonUSFSig]

I am. He's a poor choice. If he were such a great option, another P5 program (like Oregon) would have pursued him as head coach. Too many people see the coach strong from the UF and UL days. Those days are gone. Regardless of all the reasons, he failed at UT. The idea of a complete 180 here with less resources and access to a national championship isnt realistic. There were other candidates with more upside. 

[Triple B]

4 minutes ago, BrandonUSFSig said:

I am. He's a poor choice. If he were such a great option, another P5 program (like Oregon) would have pursued him as head coach. Too many people see the coach strong from the UF and UL days. Those days are gone. Regardless of all the reasons, he failed at UT. The idea of a complete 180 here with less resources and access to a national championship isnt realistic. There were other candidates with more upside. 

He was a rousing success at UL. Did a 180 at UT. A 180 at USF will complete the circle. It's always about the math. 

[Bull94]

33 minutes ago, BullyPulpit said:

Charlie Strong's recruiting chops are well documented as well, so it wasn't all Hurtt. 

So you wanted to take a shot-in-the-dark with Clemson's OC who has exactly 2 years experience as a "co-coordinator" and 1 year as a high school head coach? CWT and company did a remarkable job rebuilding our program and I would feel uneasy giving the keys to this car to a guy who still has a learner's permit. 

I think switching from an offensive minded coach to a defensive one is a huge mistake. they have different mindsets. Strong was forced to go to the spread in his 3rd year there.

 

I think if Strong doesn't work out then we would have to literally bankrupt our athletic department in order to get rid of him

[Bull94]

31 minutes ago, BullyPulpit said:

Also, I'm not saying that Scott won't be an amazing head coach one day, I'm just illustrating that you can poke holes and find flaws in any candidates' resume. 

absolutely I just think there is huge risk in hiring Strong. We won't be able to afford to buy him out if he fails

[Bull94]

16 minutes ago, PCBull14 said:

Shame on him! What terrible values to up hold!

they weren't convicted yet. just accused. same as Jameis Winston.BTW I have no problem with those 2 being let go.

Let's face it the guy gutted the program basically because some college students were smoking pot. kind of dumb. it's not like they were hardened criminals. heck look at most successful programs in the country and I bet they have quite a few pot smokers.

[TarHeel_Bull]

4 minutes ago, Bull94 said:

I think switching from an offensive minded coach to a defensive one is a huge mistake. they have different mindsets. Strong was forced to go to the spread in his 3rd year there.

 

I think if Strong doesn't work out then we would have to literally bankrupt our athletic department in order to get rid of him

Our offense literally couldn't be much better and we only got up to the 20's ranking wise. Our defense has plenty of room to improve. Bringing in a defensive coach will allow our defense to improve a lot and our offense may get a little bit worse, even though I think it will be the same. An offensive coach keeps the current offensive me doesn't really help the defense.

[Skingraft]

I'm 80/20: I'm just wondering about the offensive side of the ball.  I just want to make sure he doesn't try to fix something that is clearly not broken.  We keep it wide open, then I'm 100%

[Bull94]

1 minute ago, Viking_Bull said:

Our offense literally couldn't be much better and we only got up to the 20's ranking wise. Our defense has plenty of room to improve. Bringing in a defensive coach will allow our defense to improve a lot and our offense may get a little bit worse, even though I think it will be the same. An offensive coach keeps the current offensive me doesn't really help the defense.

defensive coaches are more conservative . they tend to play field position football.we aren't a program built to be conservative offensively. I know our defense needs to improve. personally I felt Woodie was too conservative in his play calling. we needed to blitz more and play more press coverage. that's what Allen did and it's why we ranked in top 25 for scoring defense, turnovers, sacks and tackles for loss. I think an aggressive offensive minded coach with an aggressive DC would have been perfect.