Did we hire the Charlie Strong of Texas or Louisville?

[El_Toro_86]

I'm leaning more towards Texas.  Bridgwater and Clint Hurt were the main reasons for success at Louisville.

Time will tell...

[Bull94]

2 minutes ago, El_Toro_86 said:

I'm leaning more towards Texas.  Bridgwater and Clint Hurt were the main reasons for success at Louisville.

Time will tell...

exactly only reason he was successful at UofL was Clint Hurtt and Teddy and the Miami 5. that entire athletic department is corrupt.

[El_Toro_86]

CCS is a below average game day coach.  He needs talent to overcome his mediocre coaching to win.

 

Edited October 29, 2017 by El_Toro_86

[Rex Havoc]

CCS got out coached tonight and only wins when we have superior talent. I think the ucf game will be close only because of the senior leadership, not because of his coaching 

[Bulls On Parade]

From  what ive seen so far this year Texas.

[NewEnglandBull]

Can’t believe he brought Gilbert with him. That dude was an intrical reason why CCS was fired. Why bring that crap here?

[Wildrover]

CCS at Texas and Louisville are the same animal.  He was successful at Louisville because he had a stacked cupboard facing inferior competition.  he was hired away before getting exposed.  Many will say I'm saying this tonight as an emotional reaction to a sore loss.  That's a fair counterpoint since I haven't been here in a while.  My evidence,  which is future evidence,  will be how much of a step back we take next year.

Nebraska's three yards and a cloud of dust doesn't exist anymore, not even in Nebraska.  yet,  we have a coach who has so much faith in an OC who seems to believe in that,  despite having a stable of thoroughbreds built for speed and not a lot of corn-fed bovine built to push the smaller opponent aside, this is the best system for us.  It suggests an old school 'I'm right caused it worked before"  mentality and not a "build around the strengths of the players I have mentality" 

Coaches should have no system in my opinion except that they build around the players they have.  Forcing players to adhere to systems that are not suited to their talents is folly yet something we are seeing not only in CCS and Gilbert but around the country in all kinds of sports.  As a business scholar its management 101,  you as the boss do what needs to be done to provide the environment that will get the most out of your people.  the old school way of forcing your people to bend to you will doesn't yield the best results in business,  why haven't htey figured that out in football? 

$0.02

[George_Bullnard_Shaw]

1 minute ago, Wildrover said:

Coaches should have no system in my opinion except that they build around the players they have.  Forcing players to adhere to systems that are not suited to their talents is folly yet something we are seeing not only in CCS and Gilbert but around the country in all kinds of sports.  As a business scholar its management 101,  you as the boss do what needs to be done to provide the environment that will get the most out of your people.  the old school way of forcing your people to bend to you will doesn't yield the best results in business,  why haven't htey figured that out in football? 

$0.02

Not only Management 101, it's obvious. A manager has to be flexible enough to change the system to fit the employees/players. As far as I can tell Strong just felt it didn't matter and he could out talent the opposition this year with his system that didn't fit the players then work his system with his players next year.

[GaUSFBull]

4 minutes ago, Wildrover said:

CCS at Texas and Louisville are the same animal.  He was successful at Louisville because he had a stacked cupboard facing inferior competition.  

Wait a minute ... he was supposed to have that here.  Why aren't we getting pre-exposition Strong right now?

[Brad]

55 minutes ago, GaUSFBull said:

Wait a minute ... he was supposed to have that here.  Why aren't we getting pre-exposition Strong right now?

Mistake by the fans ever thinking we were as good without Mack and Adams.  

So, fair point to the argument.