forums

A Few Guys Arguing Non-Stop [F/K/A "Let’s check on Lane Kiffen"]

razrcane said:
A lot of things. Hence why I said it will be interesting to see how it pans out
Click to expand...


Riiight.

But, again, you are refusing to acknowledge the difference between "strategy" and "success at implementing ANY particular approach to problem-solving".

You also refuse to acknowledge that "heavy portal" has only REALLY been a "thing" for two cycles. BEFORE that, you had to mix-and-match HS and Portal recruiting WHILE following the IC rules.

So only last year and this year FOR ANYONE...for ANY UNIVERSITY...have actually allowed for heavy Portal numbers. Yet you try to pretend that this is a long-standing strategery, when it is not.

Anyone can get lucky for one year. And two-in-a-row is nice. NOBODY has proven that this can work over the long haul, and ANNUAL success will be a product of scouting, not of "strategy".
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Riiight.

But, again, you are refusing to acknowledge the difference between "strategy" and "success at implementing ANY particular approach to problem-solving".

You also refuse to acknowledge that "heavy portal" has only REALLY been a "thing" for two cycles. BEFORE that, you had to mix-and-match HS and Portal recruiting WHILE following the IC rules.

So only last year and this year FOR ANYONE...for ANY UNIVERSITY...have actually allowed for heavy Portal numbers. Yet you try to pretend that this is a long-standing strategery, when it is not.

Anyone can get lucky for one year. And two-in-a-row is nice. NOBODY has proven that this can work over the long haul, and ANNUAL success will be a product of scouting, not of "strategy".
Click to expand...
I'm not commenting on anything more than that is his strategy. That's all I was saying. How and whether it succeeds or fails is a different discussion. I was saying just saying his strategy unlike other coaches is to go heavy on the portal every year since it has been available. I actually said he articulated his strategy in 2021. No where did I say or allude to that it is long standing.
 
TimeBum said:
Clemson had elite QB, WRs, RBs, and an elite overall defense overall. The OL was above average, but not elite (UM had nearly twice as many OL drafted as Clemson from 2011 to 2020). Mario can recruit elite RBs and a defense, but elite WRs and QBs aren't interested in playing in a Cristobal offense.
Click to expand...
If people go back and look at the recruiting classes that built those Clemson championship teams, they might be surprised.
 
Advertisement
DTP said:
If people go back and look at the recruiting classes that built those Clemson championship teams, they might be surprised.
Click to expand...

No, no one should be surprised. It’s called evaluation, & coaching. Yes, Clemson hit on some 5 star players, but as I’ve pointed out numerous times, Clemson also hit on a lot of 3 star guys who were outstanding.

-Leggett
-Renfrow (not rated iirc)
-Tankersley
-Simmons
-Muse
-Wallace
-The LB w/ the roll on the back of his neck whose name escapes me.

There’s others but the names escape me.
 
Rellyrell said:
No, no one should be surprised. It’s called evaluation, & coaching. Yes, Clemson hit on some 5 star players, but as I’ve pointed out numerous times, Clemson also hit on a lot of 3 star guys who were outstanding.

-Leggett
-Renfrow (not rated iirc)
-Tankersley
-Simmons
-Muse
-Wallace
-The LB w/ the roll on the back of his neck whose name escapes me.

There’s others but the names escape me.
Click to expand...
**** every lil slot receiver they’ve had were not highly recruited guys. Clemson got on the most important position twice, QB with deshuan in then Lawrence..and now klubnik looks like a player. They always hit on that front 7 and usually it’s filled with blue chip guys. But their evaluation on lesser guys has been elite..you could also say the same about Bama at certain times under Saban. Their stars and face of the program type guys weren’t always their most highly touted recruits
 
crossover22[]_[] said:
Lmao.

One is 67-67 as the head man. The other is 85-46.

Lets see the gymnastics you have to do to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...


As per usual, you have missed the point.

DEFENSE. Meaning, you can't call someone a "better coach" based on being a better OC. You have to factor in all facets of the game.

But kudos on going back to "overall wins" for the millionth time, because, you know, FIU is sooooo important to this discussion.
 
razrcane said:
I'm not commenting on anything more than that is his strategy. That's all I was saying. How and whether it succeeds or fails is a different discussion. I was saying just saying his strategy unlike other coaches is to go heavy on the portal every year since it has been available. I actually said he articulated his strategy in 2021. No where did I say or allude to that it is long standing.
Click to expand...
They have to make up things at this point to discredit him as if it propels Mario as a better coach or something?.

Dude says his strategy, implements his strategy, and dude is arguing if its long standing. Also is carrying on about his class as if its a failure when there is 2 months still left to go in recruiting.

Hate having to schill for someone who aint our coach this much but got****.lol Yall did the exact same thing last year and looked stupid doing so.
 
Advertisement
305to954 said:
**** every lil slot receiver they’ve had were not highly recruited guys. Clemson got on the most important position twice, QB with deshuan in then Lawrence..and now klubnik looks like a player. They always hit on that front 7 and usually it’s filled with blue chip guys. But their evaluation on lesser guys has been elite..you could also say the same about Bama at certain times under Saban. Their stars and face of the program type guys weren’t always their most highly touted recruits
Click to expand...
You need to go back longer than Deshaun.....they have been hitting on qbs for their system for almost ages at this point.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
As per usual, you have missed the point.

DEFENSE. Meaning, you can't call someone a "better coach" based on being a better OC. You have to factor in all facets of the game.

But kudos on going back to "overall wins" for the millionth time, because, you know, FIU is sooooo important to this discussion.
Click to expand...
FAU and FIU are on the same level playing field. **** im an FAU alumni. Matter of fact FIU was in a better position when Mario was there recruiting wise than FAU and we routinely beat his *** lol
 
razrcane said:
I'm not commenting on anything more than that is his strategy. That's all I was saying. How and whether it succeeds or fails is a different discussion. I was saying just saying his strategy unlike other coaches is to go heavy on the portal every year since it has been available. I actually said he articulated his strategy in 2021. No where did I say or allude to that it is long standing.
Click to expand...


I realize you don't like me pinning you down on details, but the details matter, even if you don't want to be inextricably linked to such details. So whether YOU make the argument and stand behind it or not, this isn't personal to you, so let's all relax.

My point is simple. Prior to two years ago, you "could" use your 25 ICs judiciously. You had to CHOOSE how to allocate them, and I've never seen a coach CONSISTENTLY go "11 high school, 14 Portal". Except...MAYBE...Bill Snyder at K-State. But definitely not Lane Kiffin.

Now there is the STATED CLAIM (and not just by you) that "heavy portal" is a "strategy". But I could name dozens of coaches who have doubled or tripled their "normal" haul of transfers in the last two IC-free cycles, including Kiffin and Norvell and Tucker.

Thus, if "everyone's doin' it, man", then it is the "new game", and not a "strategy", particularly when Dabo "I hate Portal" Swinney has jumped in.

And if everyone's doin' it, man, then the conversation shifts to "who does it best, man".

I realize you may have been caught in the crossfire. I should really be blasting dudes who tell me about how Kiffin has always taken around 20, man. But you stepped up, so you took the shrapnel.

Bottom line, this thread STARTED OUT by talking about Lane's paltry recruiting, thus far. And, right on schedule, the Lane Train rolled in to defend their boy wonder, by citing (who-gives-a-****) offensive production stats, which you can admit, IS A CHANGE OF SUBJECT.

Why can nobody on the Lane Train admit that ELEVEN high school signees is a ridiculously low number in a non-IC year and with the success that Kiffin has displayed on the field and with the SEC resources that Ole Miss enjoys? And why can nobody on the Lane Train admit that ELEVEN high school signees is NOT, in fact, a "strategy", it's just a failure?

And the Lane Train can take all the O-stats and the Mario-FIU-record...and shove that irrelevant ****e back into their collective ******.
 
Advertisement
Again all
TheOriginalCane said:
I realize you don't like me pinning you down on details, but the details matter, even if you don't want to be inextricably linked to such details. So whether YOU make the argument and stand behind it or not, this isn't personal to you, so let's all relax.

My point is simple. Prior to two years ago, you "could" use your 25 ICs judiciously. You had to CHOOSE how to allocate them, and I've never seen a coach CONSISTENTLY go "11 high school, 14 Portal". Except...MAYBE...Bill Snyder at K-State. But definitely not Lane Kiffin.

Now there is the STATED CLAIM (and not just by you) that "heavy portal" is a "strategy". But I could name dozens of coaches who have doubled or tripled their "normal" haul of transfers in the last two IC-free cycles, including Kiffin and Norvell and Tucker.

Thus, if "everyone's doin' it, man", then it is the "new game", and not a "strategy", particularly when Dabo "I hate Portal" Swinney has jumped in.

And if everyone's doin' it, man, then the conversation shifts to "who does it best, man".

I realize you may have been caught in the crossfire. I should really be blasting dudes who tell me about how Kiffin has always taken around 20, man. But you stepped up, so you took the shrapnel.

Bottom line, this thread STARTED OUT by talking about Lane's paltry recruiting, thus far. And, right on schedule, the Lane Train rolled in to defend their boy wonder, by citing (who-gives-a-****) offensive production stats, which you can admit, IS A CHANGE OF SUBJECT.

Why can nobody on the Lane Train admit that ELEVEN high school signees is a ridiculously low number in a non-IC year and with the success that Kiffin has displayed on the field and with the SEC resources that Ole Miss enjoys? And why can nobody on the Lane Train admit that ELEVEN high school signees is NOT, in fact, a "strategy", it's just a failure?

And the Lane Train can take all the O-stats and the Mario-FIU-record...and shove that irrelevant ****e back into their collective ******.
Click to expand...
Again all I said was that is his strategy (as in planned and not just falling into it). It's like if it's fourth and 1 and gattis said he is running up the gut every time bc that's his strategy and I tell you hey gattis said he is running it up the gut bc he said it's his strategy. In no way shape or form was I commenting on execution, analysis, good/bad over the long-term. Only thing I was relaying was he said it's his strategy moving forward in this environment.

And again we all will see how it plays out long term ...*It's a bold strategy cotton"
 
gogeta4 said:
FAU and FIU are on the same level playing field. **** im an FAU alumni. Matter of fact FIU was in a better position when Mario was there recruiting wise than FAU and we routinely beat his *** lol
Click to expand...


I am impressed by the time-space-continuum distortions that are going on in this thread.

I realize that TODAY...yes, FAU and FIU may be on the "same level playing field". But that was not my original comparison.

My comparison was...where was FIU when Mario took over...compared to FAU when Lane Train took over...

A. FIU when Mario took over - First, FIU had only had a football program for 5 seasons. Don Strock was the head coach for those 5 seasons. Only the final 2 of those seasons were Division I-A seasons. The prior 3 seasons were as a I-AA independent. And while we can argue about the NCAA vacating 10 wins over FIU's second, third, and fourth years, we cannot argue with the fact that FIU lost all 12 games in the year before Mario was hired.

B. FAU when Lane Train took over - First FAU had a football program for 16 seasons, 13 of which were in Division I-A. FAU won two bowl games before Lane Train's arrival, and had been conference co-champ for one of those years. And FAU was coached by Howard Schnellenberger, Carl Pellini, and Charlie Partridge before Lane's arrival, not Don Strock. There was enough talent stocked on FAU to allow Lane Train to actually do something more than 1-11 in Year 1. Plus, FAU was already in C-USA when Lane Train pulled in, while Mario was at FIU when they were in the Sunbelt, and it was Mario's success than enabled FIU to jump into the C-USA.

Different situations.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
As per usual, you have missed the point.

DEFENSE. Meaning, you can't call someone a "better coach" based on being a better OC. You have to factor in all facets of the game.

But kudos on going back to "overall wins" for the millionth time, because, you know, FIU is sooooo important to this discussion.
Click to expand...
As head coach ALL you are judged on is wins.


Get that beta **** outta here.

If saban was .500 for his career he wouldn't be elite. Because of his overall record he is elite.


Simple really.
 
Advertisement
crossover22[]_[] said:
As head coach ALL you are judged on is wins.


Get that beta **** outta here.

If saban was .500 for his career he wouldn't be elite. Because of his overall record he is elite.


Simple really.
Click to expand...


You should work on a grounds crew, because you are an expert at moving the goalposts.
 
crossover22[]_[] said:
Lmao.

One is 67-67 as the head man. The other is 85-46.

Lets see the gymnastics you have to do to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
Larry Coker is 86-47 as head coach, won a national championship and would have won a second if it hadn't been for the ******* Terry Porter.

Larry Coker is a better head coach than Lane Kiffin. Prove me wrong.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top