forums

Some names to watch before it’s deleted

Status
Not open for further replies.
Travis Bickle said:
I know people have said we have a larger salary pool to play with, BUT when and where was this announced? I can't seem to find anything official about this aside from the constant posts on here about it. Hope it's not like how everyone believed the announcement would come January 3rd despite their being no indication from UM or Cristobal to that effect.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was made public.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
I freely admit that I have stood up to vouch for Dorsey's qualifications.
Click to expand...

Which are? ... never mind, I know that topic has been beaten like a

:dead: 🐴


But for the record, I would rather have a proven OC that a high-potential unproven one, even one with as much promise as Dorsey.
 
lf26soda said:
Looks like trob is back
Click to expand...



shake shaq GIF
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
I think you are missing the point on what I'm saying.

It's not a denial of something Cribby said a month ago.

It's a reflection of, more recently, and with more information, that there have been multiple people saying that they don't think it's Briles and that it was probably never going to be Briles. That's all. Which goes to my point, that if knowledgeable people are saying "highly unlikely" on Briles, but others are holding onto a comment from a month ago, then there might be some unreasonable expectations. Nothing more, nothing less. This is not about who "should" be hired, but whether some people are paying attention to changing assessments.

Again, I have no definitive information or super-solid viewpoint on this. Brady is a good coach. Briles is a good coach. Dorsey is a good coach. Other guys are good coaches. They are all qualified. I would not complain about any of those guys.

On the other hand, I have a strong feeling/opinion building inside of me that it will be none of those three names.

Conversation and sharing of viewpoints is great. But the overfocus on whether Factoid 57 means that Conclusion 14 is true and likely to transpire...is causing a lot of agita. I'm not getting too invested in any OC candidate, though I freely admit that I have stood up to vouch for Dorsey's qualifications.


View attachment 171837
Click to expand...
No, I'm agreeing with you. Briles had smoke but for the past few weeks, Cribby has completely shut that down. Briles' boys don't want to hear that though, they are still stock on page one, post one of this thread.
 
grover said:
Which are? ... never mind, I know that topic has been beaten like a

:dead: 🐴


But for the record, I would rather have a proven OC that a high-potential unproven one, even one with as much promise as Dorsey.
Click to expand...


And, again, this has been beaten like a dead horse, but...

You are entitled to your opinions on prior experience. And that still doesn't make Dorsey unqualified.

My primary concern is with unnecessary agenda. People can advocate for a favorite candidate without tearing down another. And people can say that a very talented and popular candidate is unlikely to get the job. It's just a discussion.

We can evaluate whose instincts were most accurate later.
 
Advertisement
P-Tizzle said:
No, I'm agreeing with you. Briles had smoke but for the past few weeks, Cribby has completely shut that down. Briles' boys don't want to hear that though, they are still stock on page one, post one of this thread.
Click to expand...


Oh, got it. If I misread your response, I humbly apologize.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
Back
Top