- 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: Thank You Gerry D
Posted on 4/7/09 at 1:40 pm to heartbreakTiger
Posted on 4/7/09 at 1:40 pm to heartbreakTiger
quote:
Him getting faulk to stay home turned us around.
+abazillion
0
Posted on 4/7/09 at 1:50 pm to roygu
quote:
Gerry coined the phrase but Saban brought back the Magic.
quote:I disagree. DiNardo brought "back" the magic that LSU football had been for the decades preceding Archer's collapse and the Hallman debacle. He brought us successful seasons of 9 and 10 wins, occasional top 10 rankings, bowl wins, and classic Tiger Stadium moments like '95 Auburn and '97 Florida.
Saban didn't make LSU football but he brought it all the way back from its dormancy.
What Saban brought was something completely different, and something never before seen at LSU. He brought the program to a sustained level of eliteness, where championships became an expectation and a sustained one.
I think DiNardo did indeed "Bring Back the Magic", and I believe that is a standard significantly lower than the one Saban met.
Posted on 4/7/09 at 2:24 pm to King Joey
quote:
Basic common sense says that the 100% Hallman team went 4-7, the slightly DiNardo team went 7-4-1, and the significantly more DiNardo teams went 10-2 and then 9-3. Was Hallman improving the talent from '95 to '97, or was DiNardo? If you are going to attribute the success of '97 to the few Hallman players playing key roles then, then how can you dismiss the contributions of DiNardo's true freshmen playing QB, RB and DT on the '95 team? Either a few key players are a significant difference, or they aren't. If they are, then DiNardo significantly improved the talent with his few key guys in '95. If they aren't, then DiNardo significantly improved the talent by '97 when only a few key Hallman guys were left and the team was significantly better.
I have not discounted the contributions of DiNardo's freshman. I have simple refused to give them 100% or the majority of credit for the team's success as you seem to. Who were the Jrs and Srs in 95-97? I give DiNardo credit for actually coaching them, but it was Hallman who provided him something to work with. My only point is that those who refuse to recognize any contribution by Hallman and say that DiNardo started from a zero point are being willfully obtuse. He wasn't up to the task, but he improved on what he started with. BTW, the 100% DiNardo team in 99 went 3-8 (4-7 in 98 but there may have still been a Hallman guy on the team).
quote:
The whole point is that DiNardo stopped the losing seasons; Hallman didn't.
You really should understand that when I say that Hallman doesn't get the credit he deserves I don't mean that he deserves all the credit and that when I say that people try to give DiNardo more credit than he deserves I don't mean he doesn't deserve any credit.
I really don't have time to go on with this so I'll just summarize some thoughts that we'll just have to agree to disagree on.
o I think Hallman inherited a much worse situation than DiNardo. You seem to underestimate the damage done by the Archer era. Nothing you said persuades me otherwise.
o Hallman was not up to the task of fixing what he inherited, but he did improve the infrastructure, however, it didn't show up in wins for him. DiNardo deserves credit for actually winning, but he needed that improvement in infrastructure to actually do it. He didn't do it with FR and soph only. To say Hallman contributed nothing is to ignore the obvious.
Posted on 4/7/09 at 5:25 pm to Indiana Tiger
Hallmans staff did recruit tons of talent. It never showed on the field.
Posted on 4/8/09 at 11:47 am to Indiana Tiger
quote:In talent only. The program as a whole was significantly worse off when he left than when he came.
He wasn't up to the task, but he improved on what he started with.
quote:I never said they did it alone. I said that if the true freshmen were making that sort of contribution, common sense would suggest that the talent level in that class was greater than the general talent level of the previous classes.
I have not discounted the contributions of DiNardo's freshman. I have simple refused to give them 100% or the majority of credit for the team's success as you seem to.
quote:We can agree to disagree all you want, but there is no question the program was in better shape in 1990 than it was in 1994. The talent was not quite as good, but the program was stronger.
I think Hallman inherited a much worse situation than DiNardo. You seem to underestimate the damage done by the Archer era.
quote:I don't know what you mean by "infrastructure", but in all areas other than talent, the program was weaker. The fan base was smaller and less energized, the fundraising was eroded, the national image was shattered; all of these things occurred on Hallman's watch.
Hallman was not up to the task of fixing what he inherited, but he did improve the infrastructure
quote:I never said he contributed nothing. I said he eroded more than he contributed. To ignore the impact of 4 more seasons of losing is to ignore the extremely obvious.
To say Hallman contributed nothing is to ignore the obvious
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News