Online Now 1303

Horns247 Board

The place to talk about the Texas Longhorns

On this Board 926
Record: 4156 (12/1/2012)

Online now 1318
Record: 7224 (2/22/2012)

Boards ▾

Horns247 Board

The place to talk about the Texas Longhorns

6th Street

The place for off topic discussion on Hookem

Reply

Just a Thought....

  • tschuette said...

    This whole conversation is ridiculous by the way. Mack Brown does not have a coaching tree. To argue that he does is absurd. You can credit Mack for things and get a pass from me, but suggesting that he is churning out talented coaches that are plucked by other programs is laughable. If anyone is trying to use revisionist history, it is those assigning people like Greg Robinson, Gene Chizik and Mushamp to Mack Brown's supposed coaching tree.

    Coaching trees happen when you have a strong X and O coach and the assistants under him learn that system. Bill Walsh had a coaching tree. Hal Mumme has a coaching tree. His protege, Mike Leach has a coaching tree. Chris Petersen has a tree. Bob Stoops has a tree. Mack Brown is tree-less.

    Mack imports the fruits of other people's trees. At best he has a rotting sapling.

    BS---all coaches go back to Knute Rockne and are ultimately part of his tree.

    biggrin

    JeezGuy

  • tschuette said...

    Bob Stoops has a BFODs

    FIFY

    RoyalwithCheese

  • BlondeBomber said...

    You rationalizing how every coordinator who has coached under MB is (1) not part of MB's coaching tree because they also coached under another coach or (2) was not a spectacular head coach when given the opportunity does not change the fact that MB has had many assistants move directly into head coaching positions following their time under MB.

    The OP is 100% correct that MB has a lot to offer an up-and-coming coach. While MB's Xs and Os ability will always be in question, for good reason, there is no doubting he is a world class program builder. While many will say that he has also led Texas to its current less-than-optimal position, that does not take away from the tremendous skill he showed building us into where we were from 2000-2010, and UNC prior to that. While he can't claim tons of top end success (a multitude of conference championships, more than 1 MNC), you wishing him gone now does not change the fact that MB has skills that almost every coach in the nation could use to make their program better.

    Case in point - Will Muschamp. Although you are correct that WM is much more "Saban-esque," WM has gone on the record since moving to Florida that he learned a lot under MB. Maybe this was only, as CTJ would put it, because MB is such a bad head coach that WM is just doing what MB wouldn't do; however, I would bet that WM is actually just telling the truth about having worked under one of the best in the business. Did WM adopt every policy of MB's? Definitely not, but I'm sure he took a lot of what he learned and tweaked it to fit his own style.

    The revisionist history around here that attempts to paint MB as some sort of clown is getting ridiculous....

    *cough* Belmont *cough*

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant". -Tacitus

    DharmaCombat

  • RoyalwithCheese said...

    clap very well put JFW.

    It is kind of sickening to think how one game or play is possibly responsible for the apparent downward (or at least stagnant) direction of this program. Frankly it's a shame.

    RWC, you are SO right!! My only argument with your OPs is: it was not "just one game or play" that is responsible for our 'actual' (not "apparent" downward direction of this program...there were many factors contributing, but the MOST damaging was piss poor execution by a multiple of players in critical games (our TOs by our QBs top the list, but so did poor execution AND scheme on D (the middle of our D was borderline inept til the last few games--only occasionally did our secondary bail us out with "sudden change" TOs & injuries & youth on D added significantly to our problems...

    CTJ & others who THINK they can blame 100% of our issues on Mack are simply looking for a simply way to describe a multi-facit problem with this team & I would seriously doubt they ever played a down of D-1 college football...Oh well, so much for the simpleton mentality...

    Do I think Mack is getting close to "worn-out" since that fateful night against Bama? Absolutely. Does he want to get the program back to a BCS-level? Certainly. Do I think he is capable with the players & coaches he has surrounding him? Yes, as long as he let's them have the reigns (save maybe Daiz, who he needed to & did reign in finally the last phase of our season)...

    Frankly, I was a bit shocked that Mack is publically supporting Manny's return, but that still could change post Alamo Bowl, I would guess...I WILL acknowledge that starting the 2nd half of the KS game I DID notice improved play with our D EVEN considering two very inexperienced LBs & limited duty by Oak down the stretch

    This post was edited by uttotop on 12/15/2012 at 10:21 AM

    uttotop