- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Beating Bama will impact their program
Posted on 4/17/08 at 8:31 am to cajunbama
Posted on 4/17/08 at 8:31 am to cajunbama
quote:Because you are too stupid to realize that 8-3-1 is a winning record.
some else said he was a bad coach that LSU turned into a winner. I say bullshite
quote:They do when they are coaches so bad that they could never coach a winning season anywhere in the country EXCEPT at LSU.
winners don't get fired and then never get a chance to be head coaches again.
quote:Yes, that is why the only person stupid enough to say, "LSU made them successes" in this thread is the stupid gump (that's YOU, by the way).
Wow, that sounds remarkably different than LSU made them successes don't you think
quote:Name some other schools that have had no more than one coach in the last 50 years whose most successful season anywhere was at that school.
LSU, is not unique in the sense that they had some poor coaches have nice seasons here and there.
quote:This is the entire debate, dipshit. YOU are the one too stupid to realize that no one ever suggested these were good coaches; the whole POINT has always been that -- as bad as they were, so bad that they could not get decent jobs anywhere else -- the situation at LSU was so good that they were still able to have success here. Just like Saban -- who actually was a good coach -- was able to take advantage of the great situation and have FAR more success at LSU than he has ever enjoyed anywhere else in his career.
think you missed the entire debate because this has never been argued either way. Please stay on topic and try to keep up.
2
Posted on 4/17/08 at 8:41 am to King Joey
I can't decide whether cajunbama is too stubborn to admit he's wrong, or too dumb to realize it
Posted on 4/17/08 at 8:50 am to cajunbama
quote:cajunbama, still missing the point.
Excuse me if I'm not impressed with as you call it these coaches successes at LSU.
successful in relation to the rest of their careers.
is that clear enough for you?
Posted on 4/17/08 at 8:55 am to cajunbama
quote:you can say crash and burn all you want, but they still had more success at lsu than they did anywhere else.
They all had lots of potential, coach LSU, and then crash and burn at LSU.
quote:there is no revised edition. what has been posted are coaching records. they're not revised. you can look them up yourself. well, maybe i'm giving you too much credit. ok, most people can look them up themselves and comprehend this seemingly simple point
I guess their is more than one way to look at this, and before you hired Saban, I seem to remember most of college football seeing it very differently than the new revised edition.
Posted on 4/17/08 at 9:00 am to cajunbama
cajunbama still missing the point:
quote:
winners don't get fired and then never get a chance to be head coaches again.
quote:again for the slow, winning and success relative to the rest of their career
LSU made them successes
quote:but that's not the point being made. the point made is that lsu is almost batting 1.000 in this regard. name the other schools who can say the same or else go play in traffic.
Their have been many, many coaches that had one or two good years at a school, that later turned out to be terrible failures. LSU, is not unique in the sense that they had some poor coaches have nice seasons here and there.
Posted on 4/17/08 at 9:38 am to NaturalBeam
quote:
I can't decide whether cajunbama is too stubborn to admit he's wrong, or too dumb to realize it
Either way he has officially achieved the status of a gumptard...
Posted on 4/17/08 at 9:52 am to cajunbama
quote:
Ok, now you don't know what you are talking about. Hallman played at Texas A and M. How does that make him a gump?
just look at him. he looks like a gump, he walks like a gump, he talks like a gump, and he coached at Alabama under Drunkie McCheatsalot. He's a gump, plain and simple.
quote:
I think you missed the entire debate because this has never been argued either way. Please stay on topic and try to keep up.
That's the essence of the whole debate. If thats not what you're arguing, then what the hell are you doing?
This post was edited on 4/17/08 at 9:54 am
Posted on 4/17/08 at 10:43 am to King Joey
quote:
never said LSU made them successful. Here is the post I made:
quote:
They did make Archer and DiNardo.
Well what did it make them exactly then? 2 year wonders??? Not impressed at all.
quote:
Simple yes or no question:
quote:
all the LSU coaches in the last half century except for Hallman have never had as much success coaching anywhere else as they have had coaching at LSU?
This is not a simple yes or no becaus you keep changing what we are talking about. I have stated over and over and over that Stoval, Hallman, Dinardo, and Archer were not made successes by LSU. Now you want to add Miles and Saban to the discussion. Of the 4 I mentiones I would say NO, because only one was a head coach before or after his LSU years. So you can also say their worst failures happpened at LSU.
Posted on 4/17/08 at 11:02 am to cajunbama
quote:Yes, and it is quite bizarre, considering no one has suggested they were.
I have stated over and over and over that Stoval, Hallman, Dinardo, and Archer were not made successes by LSU.
quote:In Archer's case, basically yes. And in DiNardo's, more like a 3 year wonder.
Well what did it make them exactly then? 2 year wonders???
quote:Congratulations. No one is trying to impress you with their success at LSU. What we are trying to get you to realize is the significance of the fact that their success at LSU -- like Saban's, Miles', Dietzel's and that of every other LSU coach save Hallman -- significantly exceeded the success they enjoyed anywhere else. As you keep reiterating without appreciating, two of them (Archer and Stovall) could not even get head coaching jobs anywhere else. And yet, they both had multiple successful seasons at LSU. Why were they able to do that at LSU when their coaching ability was so poor that they could not even get a heach coach job anywhere else?
Not impressed at all.
quote:I would say being able to get hired as a head coach of an SEC football team is not as bad a failure as not being able to get hired at all.
So you can also say their worst failures happpened at LSU
quote:Saban has been the point of the discussion the entire time. Have you followed this at all?
Now you want to add Miles and Saban to the discussion.
Here is the recap: Saban was a good coach before he got to LSU. He kicked major arse at LSU. He has not kicked anywhere near that level of arse either before or after LSU. Because that has been true of all but one of LSU's former coaches, we expect it to continue to be true of Saban. Thus, we do not expect him to be as successful at Bama as he was at LSU. That's the discussion, that's the point.
The only other point discussed in this thread was way back in the beginning when we were talking about how losing to LSU last year could have a severe negative impact on the remainder of Bama's season, and how that could conceivably include a loss to UL-M. According to the billboard on I-20, the Warhawks pretty much settled that point, so the conversation moved on to the current topic.
Posted on 4/17/08 at 11:11 am to King Joey
quote:
Because you are too stupid to realize thatquote:
8-3-1 is a winning record.
I never said he didn't have a winning record once or twice, I said that he failed and was fired. That is not what I call a winner. That sounds like failure.
Stoval was 22-21-2. .500 winning percentage. Then he was fired.
quote:
They do when they are coaches so bad that they could never coach a winning season anywhere in the country EXCEPT at LSU.
I agree, a couple of these guys were such disasters at LSU that their careers were effectively over after LSU fired them, but LSU maed them winners. Got it.
Yes, that is why the only person stupid enough to say, "LSU made them successes" in this thread is the stupid gump (that's YOU, by the way).
Really did you forget about saying this on pager 14 of this thread.
quote:
Gerry DiNardo -- mediocre success before coming to LSU, big success at LSU,
I will now wait on you to spin this and tell me what you really meant by big success. (snicker)
quote:
Name some other schools that have had no more than one coach in the last 50 years whose most successful season anywhere was at that school.
Gene Stallings at Alabama. (snicker)
Bill Curry at Alabama.
Mike Dubose at Alabama.
Mike Shula at Alabama.
I don't have time right now for a list of others from other schools as I don't feel like looking up every insignificant coach that had a winning season at a school.
If you are trying to argue that this happens a lot more at LSU than other schools you will have your bubble busted on that. One, as I said before, out of Stoval, Archer, Dinardo, and Hallman, only
1.Dinardo. Head coach before and after LSU.
Loser at all stops.
2.Stoval, Head coach at LSU only, fired by LSU
3.Archer, Head coach at LSU only, fired by LSU
4. Hallman, better coach before he got to LSU. fired by LSU and never been a head coach again.
When only one was a head coach before and after, except for Hallman who was better before he got to LSU and the other two were never coaches before or since you are left with Dinardo. That is a piss poor argument.
quote:
the situation at LSU was so good that they were still able to have success here.
quote:
I think you guys have real short memories. The situation was not that good at LSU.
The situation was so good you went through a coach every 4 years from 1980 to 1999. Like I said, there are two ways to look at this. The way you see it, and the way the rest of the world saw it in 1999.
Posted on 4/17/08 at 11:18 am to cajunbama
you are fricking stupid
Posted on 4/17/08 at 11:26 am to cajunbama
quote:10-2, top 10 ranking. That's pretty big success AT LSU.
I will now wait on you to spin this and tell me what you really meant by big success.
I keep telling you they had success at LSU. You keep saying they weren't successful coaches. Do you not see the difference between being a successful coach and having success at LSU? Because that's pretty key to the entire point you are missing: UNsuccessful coaches having success at LSU. See?
quote:Dennis Franchione (1) and Nick Saban (2) both had more successful seasons elsewhere than they ever had at Bama, and both were within the last 50 years. So, you failed. Want to try again?
Gene Stallings at Alabama. (snicker)
Bill Curry at Alabama.
Mike Dubose at Alabama.
Mike Shula at Alabama.
quote:That's pretty funny, considering both the rest of the world and us saw it exactly the same way: LSU kept making dumbshit hires for head coach. The point you are missing is that while hiring all these dumbshits, all but one of them still managed far more success at LSU than they did anywhere else.
The situation was so good you went through a coach every 4 years from 1980 to 1999. Like I said, there are two ways to look at this. The way you see it, and the way the rest of the world saw it in 1999.
quote:No, we had dumbshits making such dumbshit hires at head coach that we went through a coach every 3-5 years during those two decades. And every one of those dumbshits besides Hallman were significantly more successful at LSU than they were anywhere else. Then in 2000, we got smarter people making smarter hires for head coach. And both of the good coaches we've hired since then have also been significantly more successful at LSU than they have ever been anywhere else. And before 1980, when we had other smarter people making smarter hires for head coach, all of those good coaches had significantly more success at LSU than they ever did anywhere else.
The situation was so good you went through a coach every 4 years from 1980 to 1999.
The consistent thread there, and the relevant point, is that almost all the coaches -- the good ones and the bad ones -- were far more successful at LSU than they ever were anywhere else. And Saban is included in that trend, and for all appearances seems likely to continue that trend at Bama.
Posted on 4/17/08 at 11:30 am to cajunbama
quote:
and the way the rest of the world saw it in 1999.
what does it matter how things were in 1999?
Live in the now.
Posted on 4/17/08 at 11:31 am to King Joey
quote:
Saban has been the point of the discussion the entire time.
Dude, stop. No, it has been where I took exception to the the fact that you said LSU made Archer, Dinardo, Hallmand, and Stovall "big success".
Posted on 4/17/08 at 11:33 am to bfniii
quote:
cajunbama, still missing the point.
successful in relation to the rest of their careers.
is that clear enough for you?
I think you must be missing something. 2 of these coaches had no careers other than LSU as far as being head coaches. They were both fired.
One had a better career before LSU(Hallman) and he was fired.
Dinardo is the only one that you can say that about.
Posted on 4/17/08 at 11:41 am to cajunbama
quote:
Successful head coaches don't end their careers as head coaches being fired.
Under your terms gumptard Tom Landry was a miserable failure also and not a success, he did get fired at the end of his career...
I can't wait for the spin on this one...
Posted on 4/17/08 at 11:50 am to cajunbama
quote:No, that was your attempt to spin the conversation away from the uncomfortable (for you) truth that Saban will most likely never be the success at Bama that he was at LSU. Remember:
No, it has been where I took exception to the the fact that you said LSU made Archer, Dinardo, Hallmand, and Stovall "big success".
quote:orquote:Right. Why didn't they make Hallman, and Dinardo, or Archer then
LSU made Saban
quote:or
None. They (like Saban) weren't good enough to win big anywhere in football . . . except at LSU, where the school makes the coach. See how that works?
The only difference is that Saban was enough smarter than them to convince some dumbasses to pay him $4 million a year because he won bigger at LSU than he ever did anywhere else . . . just like DiNardo, Archer, Arnsparger, Stovall, McClendon, Dietzel, etc., etc.
quote:or
Nick Saban -- mediocre to better-than-average success before LSU, big success at LSU, hired by Miami Dolphins where he sucked, then hired for $4 million per year by bama where he stands one game above .500.
Recognize the pattern yet? If the success was "all about Nick", then why is it that all five of his seasons at LSU were better than seven of his nine seasons everywhere else in football combined?
quote:or
DiNardo had precisely three winning seasons in his head football coaching career. All three were at LSU, including a 10-2 top 10 ranked season. Relative to the rest of his career in college and pro coaching, he was a huge success at LSU, just like Saban.
quote:etc., etc.?
What you are still failing to note (deliberately, I think) is that the common thread is still common to all these coaches including Saban -- they never had the kind of success anywhere else in football that they had at LSU. Granted, Saban is a better coach than DiNardo was, but like Indiana, Bama should expect pre-LSU and/or pro-football Saban results more so than at-LSU Saban results.
WE have been discussing Saban all along. YOU have been trying to spin and twist the discussion to something else because you know our point is 100% valid: virtually all of LSU's coaches are less successful everywhere else than they are at LSU, so history suggests that Saban is very unlikely to have as much success at Bama as he had at LSU. Oh, which you -- by the way -- have already conceded when you "weren't" discussing Saban:
quote:
As far as how Saban will do at Bama, time and history will tell. I am not predicting NC or anything
Posted on 4/17/08 at 11:51 am to cajunbama
quote:And that does not seem to you to be less successful than being a head coach?
2 of these coaches had no careers other than LSU as far as being head coaches.
Posted on 4/17/08 at 2:12 pm to King Joey
Joey...
No offense, but after reading this entire debacle, this post really begs the question who is the bigger dumbass -Cajunbama for missing the point for 18+ pages, or you for actually thinking he would eventually get it.
Cajundumbass...from here on in, the only ranter dumber than you will be the one who actually reads your posts. You really, really need an alter in a big way.
No offense, but after reading this entire debacle, this post really begs the question who is the bigger dumbass -Cajunbama for missing the point for 18+ pages, or you for actually thinking he would eventually get it.
Cajundumbass...from here on in, the only ranter dumber than you will be the one who actually reads your posts. You really, really need an alter in a big way.
Posted on 4/17/08 at 2:24 pm to 19
quote:You know, you are right. Thanks. I needed a wake up call to snap me out of that gump-fever.
who is the bigger dumbass -Cajunbama for missing the point for 18+ pages, or you for actually thinking he would eventually get it.
Page 19 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News