He's leading the Utes to a possible upset win over #21 Colorado on FOX right now.
24-21 in the 3rd quarter.
24-21 in the 3rd quarter.
Nice run. Nobody could ever question Jake’s heart or effort. Wish him nothing but success.Jake playing tough in the snow.
Agreed, I don't get the angst some GC fans have with him.Nice run. Nobody could ever question Jake’s heart or effort. Wish him nothing but success.
Should have ran him more at USC. He's a solid runner.Jake playing tough in the snow.
Agreed. Our best coaches have always been able to make do with less. CWM seemed to have a team that was consistently LESS than the sum of its parts.CWM with the anti Midas touch...
Here and at florida before we hired him. I think he'd be a great motivational speaker, because he has a track record of short term improvements. However, his ability to actually teach and grow talent seem pretty limited.Agreed. Our best coaches have always been able to make do with less. CWM seemed to have a team that was consistently LESS than the sum of its parts.
The crazy thing is that he always seemed to do that as a DC - he vastly improved the Auby defense, for example. But UF and USC under his leadership always played down, not up.Here and at florida before we hired him. I think he'd be a great motivational speaker, because he has a track record of short term improvements. However, his ability to actually teach and grow talent seem pretty limited.
He didn't helped Auburn's defense that much the second time around. He lowered their points allowed from 26.7 to 26.0. His defense also gave up 34 to Idaho that year. FWIW, Auburn's defense did a about 7-10 points better the year after he left. Maybe we get the muschamp exodus bounce next year?The crazy thing is that he always seemed to do that as a DC - he vastly improved the Auby defense, for example. But UF and USC under his leadership always played down, not up.
From what I remember reading at the time, he got credit for instilling a new sense of toughness and fight to a unit that was sort of on the downswing, and when he left many players credited him with reignited that. As for the bounce, sign me up, lol - those guys need something. I know all eyes are on the OC, but the DC will be just as crucial a hire given how these guys regressed and the talent we lost to the NFL. Think about it: most projections have our starting CBs going in round 1 and round 2 ... our DL is STOCKED with 4- and 5-star talent. And we gave up, what, 120 points in three games?He didn't helped Auburn's defense that much the second time around. He lowered their points allowed from 26.7 to 26.0. His defense also gave up 34 to Idaho that year. FWIW, Auburn's defense did a about 7-10 points better the year after he left. Maybe we get the muschamp exodus bounce next year?
I'm just not a believer in the subjective positives of cwm. That's all we heard when we hired him. It smelled like shit then. Still does if you ask me. Also 34 points to Idaho?From what I remember reading at the time, he got credit for instilling a new sense of toughness and fight to a unit that was sort of on the downswing, and when he left many players credited him with reignited that. As for the bounce, sign me up, lol - those guys need something. I know all eyes are on the OC, but the DC will be just as crucial a hire given how these guys regressed and the talent we lost to the NFL. Think about it: most projections have our starting CBs going in round 1 and round 2 ... our DL is STOCKED with 4- and 5-star talent. And we gave up, what, 120 points in three games?
Yeah, it's not a quantifiable, for sure.I'm just not a believer in the subjective positives of cwm. That's all we heard when we hired him. It smelled like shit then. Still does if you ask me. Also 34 points to Idaho?
Completely agree with needing a spark. Plenty of talent. Just need to ignite the fire
It's less that I don't believe in subjective influences in sports. More so that if Muschamp had all these non measurable positives, he would've won at Florida and we would never have had the chance to watch him fail here.Yeah, it's not a quantifiable, for sure.
You have to wonder if a solid character and a set of these intangibles - or subjective influences as you call them - have kept CWM in coaching discussions ever since he was coach-in-waiting at Texas ... as opposed to quantifiable number-based success that is based on data.It's less that I don't believe in subjective influences in sports. More so that if Muschamp had all these non measurable positives, he would've won at Florida and we would never have had the chance to watch him fail here.
I think if he actually had those attributes he would have been more successful. Seems more likely that he has the ability to present himself as having these intangibles. At least that fits with someone who has initial success that they struggle to sustain (or early here and at Florida).You have to wonder if a solid character and a set of these intangibles - or subjective influences as you call them - have kept CWM in coaching discussions ever since he was coach-in-waiting at Texas ... as opposed to quantifiable number-based success that is based on data.
Especially if the interviewer doesn't know the difference. But it ain't the first time an interviewer has been bamboozled and it won't be the last.More directly, it's easier to project yourself as something that you aren't during an interview than it is to be that person day in and day out. The rah rah starts to fade and you find yourself in the emperor's new clothes with a 2-8 record