@CFetters_Nacho_Lover: Point is: 8-4 vs 10-2 doesn't change the argument, so pettifoggery is redundant. 8-4 vs 4-8, for example, is quite different. Next, read the title of this thread, which you don't support and neither do I, but for different reasons. I think it's ignorant and irresponsible to ignore the foundation in place when CK arrived at Oregon and to de-couple, as many are doing, that from CK's success. He did a good job at taking a program on the upswing and pushing it higher. Does that necessarily make him a better choice than CP at UW? That's the billion dollar question. I won't make that leap, nor do I see the line as short and straight as some do between CK and UofO's success. So, while others are ready to pull the trigger, I say No, the jury is still out. Take that any way you want.
@CFetters_Nacho_Lover: Point is: 8-4 vs 10-2 doesn't change the argument, so pettifoggery is redundant. 8-4 vs 4-8, for example, is quite different. Next, read the title of this thread, which you don't support and neither do I, but for different reasons. I think it's ignorant and irresponsible to ignore the foundation in place when CK arrived at Oregon and to de-couple, as many are doing, that from CK's success. He did a good job at taking a program on the upswing and pushing it higher. Does that necessarily make him a better choice than CP at UW? That's the billion dollar question. I won't make that leap, nor do I see the line as short and straight as some do between CK and UofO's success. So, while others are ready to pull the trigger, I say No, the jury is still out. Take that any way you want.
Chip is a better coach. So unless you enjoy mediocrity, he's a better choice.
@ThomasFremont: I understand you're simple Tommy. Didn't have to tell me. Look kid, I know Middle School is tough, but hang in there and you'll learn how to avoid false choice and straw man arguments, which impregnate every one of your posts.
@ThomasFremont: I understand you're simple Tommy. Didn't have to tell me. Look kid, I know Middle School is tough, but hang in there and you'll learn how to avoid false choice and straw man arguments, which impregnate every one of your posts.
Middle school superiority guy?
Fuck off, Spooge. I thought we ran your pedo ass back to Mexico.
Chip took his talent, won Pac 12 championships and went to a natty. He won two Pac 12 titles over very good Stanford teams with Andrew Luck. This is one of the dumbest threads, at least for a serious one, in the history of HardcoreHusky.
But we can't emphasize a very good Oregon team with Marcus Mariota. Logical consistency is dumb. Okay.
I must have forgotten when Chip coached Mariota in his sophomore and junior year. Chip beat a Stanford team with Luck, Baldwin, Fleenor, Ertz, DeCastro, Murphy, Taylor, and probably 5-10 more NFL players that was coached by Jim Harbaugh. Either of those teams would absolutely plunger Stanford or Oregon of 2015. If the playoffs were around abck then, Stanford might have even won a title. I normally hate comparing teams from other years, but it's true.
I'm a Pac 12 supporter. It's a legitimately good conference, but when Chip, Harbaugh, and Carroll were around it was on another level. Chip was good until he got complete control. That shit don't work in the NFL unless you're Belichick. Same thing happened with Saban. Carroll is his own entity because his style won't work for anyone else.
Chip took his talent, won Pac 12 championships and went to a natty. He won two Pac 12 titles over very good Stanford teams with Andrew Luck. This is one of the dumbest threads, at least for a serious one, in the history of HardcoreHusky.
But we can't emphasize a very good Oregon team with Marcus Mariota. Logical consistency is dumb. Okay.
I must have forgotten when Chip coached Mariota in his sophomore and junior year. Chip beat a Stanford team with Luck, Baldwin, Fleenor, Ertz, DeCastro, Murphy, Taylor, and probably 5-10 more NFL players that was coached by Jim Harbaugh. Either of those teams would absolutely plunger Stanford or Oregon of 2015. If the playoffs were around abck then, Stanford might have even won a title. I normally hate comparing teams from other years, but it's true.
I'm a Pac 12 supporter. It's a legitimately good conference, but when Chip, Harbaugh, and Carroll were around it was on another level. Chip was good until he got complete control. That shit don't work in the NFL unless you're Belichick. Same thing happened with Saban. Carroll is his own entity because his style won't work for anyone else.
TL, DR: Chip is a great coach
Of the three coaches you mention, Carroll and Harbaugh are great. Kelly may also be but he just had an epic fail. Kelly had a great run at Oregon, but IMO, as a head coach, he's now in the lipo camp. And since you mentioned all three, there was only one season of overlap with Carroll, his last and one of the worst of his tenure in the PAC and two with Harbaugh, in which they split games. I support the PAC too, but not blindly. It hasn't been an "SEC" like power for a long time. It's also been a long while since the PAC has produced a team capable of squaring with teams like Alabama and Ohio State when they're cranked up.
IMO, Turd is right in that it is proper to consider initial program trajectories when evaluting coaches. Oregon was on very solid footing and heading up when Kelly took over. USC was middling when Carroll took over. Stanford was historically bad when Harbaugh took over. Carroll raised USC to historic heights, and repeated that act in the NFL at Seattle. Harbaugh rapidly turned Stanford into a power, and repeated that act in the NFL by taking over a shit 49ers team and leading them to the Superbowl in very short order. And at Michigan, he is again proving himself to be a great coach. Kelly does not have a comparable track record to either Harbaugh or Carroll. He may some day, but it's not there yet. Is he better than Petersen? Maybe, but IMO, regardless of the obviously justifiable frustration with Pete's offense, the culture he inherited matters, as does his track record and obvious signs of progress, so IMO, that debate is premature.
Chip took his talent, won Pac 12 championships and went to a natty. He won two Pac 12 titles over very good Stanford teams with Andrew Luck. This is one of the dumbest threads, at least for a serious one, in the history of HardcoreHusky.
But we can't emphasize a very good Oregon team with Marcus Mariota. Logical consistency is dumb. Okay.
I must have forgotten when Chip coached Mariota in his sophomore and junior year. Chip beat a Stanford team with Luck, Baldwin, Fleenor, Ertz, DeCastro, Murphy, Taylor, and probably 5-10 more NFL players that was coached by Jim Harbaugh. Either of those teams would absolutely plunger Stanford or Oregon of 2015. If the playoffs were around abck then, Stanford might have even won a title. I normally hate comparing teams from other years, but it's true.
I'm a Pac 12 supporter. It's a legitimately good conference, but when Chip, Harbaugh, and Carroll were around it was on another level. Chip was good until he got complete control. That shit don't work in the NFL unless you're Belichick. Same thing happened with Saban. Carroll is his own entity because his style won't work for anyone else.
TL, DR: Chip is a great coach
Of the three coaches you mention, Carroll and Harbaugh are great. Kelly may also be but he just had an epic fail. Kelly had a great run at Oregon, but IMO, as a head coach, he's now in the lipo camp. And since you mentioned all three, there was only one season of overlap with Carroll, his last and one of the worst of his tenure in the PAC and two with Harbaugh, in which they split games. I support the PAC too, but not blindly. It hasn't been an "SEC" like power for a long time. It's also been a long while since the PAC has produced a team capable of squaring with teams like Alabama and Ohio State when they're cranked up.
IMO, Turd is right in that it is proper to consider initial program trajectories when evaluting coaches. Oregon was on very solid footing and heading up when Kelly took over. USC was middling when Carroll took over. Stanford was historically bad when Harbaugh took over. Carroll raised USC to historic heights, and repeated that act in the NFL at Seattle. Harbaugh rapidly turned Stanford into a power, and repeated that act in the NFL by taking over a shit 49ers team and leading them to the Superbowl in very short order. And at Michigan, he is again proving himself to be a great coach. Kelly does not have a comparable track record to either Harbaugh or Carroll. He may some day, but it's not there yet. Is he better than Petersen? Maybe, but IMO, regardless of the obviously justifiable frustration with Pete's offense, the culture he inherited matters, as does his track record and obvious signs of progress, so IMO, that debate is premature.
You might well be right about Peterman needing more time and his track record, but I'd still take Chip any day. If Chip was interested in UW right now and I was AD, Pete would have his buyout check on Monday.
Chip took his talent, won Pac 12 championships and went to a natty. He won two Pac 12 titles over very good Stanford teams with Andrew Luck. This is one of the dumbest threads, at least for a serious one, in the history of HardcoreHusky.
But we can't emphasize a very good Oregon team with Marcus Mariota. Logical consistency is dumb. Okay.
I must have forgotten when Chip coached Mariota in his sophomore and junior year. Chip beat a Stanford team with Luck, Baldwin, Fleenor, Ertz, DeCastro, Murphy, Taylor, and probably 5-10 more NFL players that was coached by Jim Harbaugh. Either of those teams would absolutely plunger Stanford or Oregon of 2015. If the playoffs were around abck then, Stanford might have even won a title. I normally hate comparing teams from other years, but it's true.
I'm a Pac 12 supporter. It's a legitimately good conference, but when Chip, Harbaugh, and Carroll were around it was on another level. Chip was good until he got complete control. That shit don't work in the NFL unless you're Belichick. Same thing happened with Saban. Carroll is his own entity because his style won't work for anyone else.
TL, DR: Chip is a great coach
Of the three coaches you mention, Carroll and Harbaugh are great. Kelly may also be but he just had an epic fail. Kelly had a great run at Oregon, but IMO, as a head coach, he's now in the lipo camp. And since you mentioned all three, there was only one season of overlap with Carroll, his last and one of the worst of his tenure in the PAC and two with Harbaugh, in which they split games. I support the PAC too, but not blindly. It hasn't been an "SEC" like power for a long time. It's also been a long while since the PAC has produced a team capable of squaring with teams like Alabama and Ohio State when they're cranked up.
IMO, Turd is right in that it is proper to consider initial program trajectories when evaluting coaches. Oregon was on very solid footing and heading up when Kelly took over. USC was middling when Carroll took over. Stanford was historically bad when Harbaugh took over. Carroll raised USC to historic heights, and repeated that act in the NFL at Seattle. Harbaugh rapidly turned Stanford into a power, and repeated that act in the NFL by taking over a shit 49ers team and leading them to the Superbowl in very short order. And at Michigan, he is again proving himself to be a great coach. Kelly does not have a comparable track record to either Harbaugh or Carroll. He may some day, but it's not there yet. Is he better than Petersen? Maybe, but IMO, regardless of the obviously justifiable frustration with Pete's offense, the culture he inherited matters, as does his track record and obvious signs of progress, so IMO, that debate is premature.
You might well be right about Peterman needing more time and his track record, but I'd still take Chip any day. If Chip was interested in UW right now and I was AD, Pete would have his buyout check on Monday.
Ya, I get that, and would agree, but with some trepidation. I think the picture will be more clear regarding both coaches after next year.
BTW Kelly has reached out to the Niners organization, it will be interesting to see where that goes.
@RoadDawg55: Points taken Roady. I've heard the podcasts. But, you know, Bama, Oh State, Auburn, etc. have gone up and down in talent, especially at skill positions, while also remaining at the top of their conferences, and one of them would've stood in UofO's way back then as well. Mariota brought mass media coverage to Oregon during Chip's last year, and he was a fucking dagger, especially on 3rd down, unlike anything we'd seen since Reggie Bush. Remember, how we thought UW was getting better and might compete, then he kicked our fucking ass, ripping off several 20 yard runs on 3rd & longs? I still see that fucker in my nightmares.
CK can't take credit for Mariota's magic that year, the last one on his resume before he went to the NFL, anymore than we can say Helfrich is an awesome coach because UofO made the title game last year. I believe Mariota increased CKs' stock because that year, plus all the media attention convinced many that UofO was here to stay among the elite programs and no fluke, and CK got a big extra bump for that. I think he's a good coach, maybe great, while many others think he's THE SHIT of shits. Better than CP? Too early, premature, and therefore unwise. One other thing is CK longs to be in the NFL, while CP, if we take him at his word, wants to be here a long time. I think a program like Washington won't return to prominence without a good, long-term coach, but maybe that's just me.
Lastly, we can't reliably extrapolate backwards to say whatever coach had future NFL players on his roster should've won more games without the rest of the story. Many NFL players were ho-hum in college playing for the Purdues, Iowa States, etc. where they didn't have chances to show their talents until the combines. It's one indicator - maybe a strong one - but in a sea of other variables. Key? Were they great college players? If not, why not? Maybe coaching, maybe not. Can't know without asking.
@TurdBuffer you are all over the place. All great coaches have great players. Identifying guys that fit your system and successfully getting them to commit to your program is a big part of being a great coach.
You want to say Chip was only good because of his QB, but Mariota wasn't a can't miss prospect. They found him and developed him. They also found Manziel before he got in trouble and stayed at Texas.
Saban would suck if it wasn't for his Line play. Roadie just threw out the talent Stanford was working with. Look at the recruiting rankings and Oregon has always been closer to UW than the Bama's and the ohio states. Chip found the players that worked for him and won.
Also, you attribute Kelly's success to Belotti, but then use Helfrich going to the title game as proof Kelly sucks.
So is the new guy elevating the program or is he riding the coattails? With Helfrich's sophomore collapse, Kelly is looking great on both fronts.
And for the record, Pete deserves a third year and has a ton to prove. If I was AD and Kelly came to me interested in the job, I'd be negligent for not thinking it through and letting the current regime know the seat is officially boiling, so win or GTFO.
@Doogles: No, I'm not saying CK was only good because of Mariota. I'm saying we can't conclude he was "great" on his own, without considering the foundation, the trend of the program, and key players especially Mariota.
Roadie has many times pointed to the talent on the roster to argue coaches like Sark should've done better, and while that makes sense to a point, it's not always the case. There are great college players who peak at that level, and there are mediocre college players (or good players held back by bad teams) who peak after college. Then there are those who were great in college and the NFL, of course.
There are also teams loaded with talent that can't play together and under achieve, despite great coaches, for a myriad of reasons.
In other words, it's a fair theory, but not a law.
Also, you attribute Kelly's success to Belotti, but then use Helfrich going to the title game as proof Kelly sucks.
So is the new guy elevating the program or is he riding the coattails? With Helfrich's sophomore collapse, Kelly is looking great on both fronts.
And for the record, Pete deserves a third year and has a ton to prove. If I was AD and Kelly came to me interested in the job, I'd be negligent for not thinking it through and letting the current regime know the seat is officially boiling, so win or GTFO.
@Doogles: There it is. Well put. It's fair to say CK elevated it, but does that make him a great coach, a good one, or a good seat warmer. I wouldn't say he's a seat warmer, but I can't get to great, either. Others can. Fine. Helfrich? Maybe. Could be. I think the VAJ factor makes that a tougher call than many feel after that loss, but only time will tell (if UofO gives it to him), which of the three he is. I can't think of a time CK had QB as ineffective as Locke, so why that's the case is another issue. Are the UofO boosters asking for Helfrich's head right now? Or are they out beating the bushes for another top QB recruit asafp?
Comments
Is that simple enough for you, water brains?
Fuck off, Spooge. I thought we ran your pedo ass back to Mexico.
How many years has Peterman been 7 wins?
Oh that's right, he's only been coach two years.
I'm a Pac 12 supporter. It's a legitimately good conference, but when Chip, Harbaugh, and Carroll were around it was on another level. Chip was good until he got complete control. That shit don't work in the NFL unless you're Belichick. Same thing happened with Saban. Carroll is his own entity because his style won't work for anyone else.
TL, DR: Chip is a great coach
IMO, Turd is right in that it is proper to consider initial program trajectories when evaluting coaches. Oregon was on very solid footing and heading up when Kelly took over. USC was middling when Carroll took over. Stanford was historically bad when Harbaugh took over. Carroll raised USC to historic heights, and repeated that act in the NFL at Seattle. Harbaugh rapidly turned Stanford into a power, and repeated that act in the NFL by taking over a shit 49ers team and leading them to the Superbowl in very short order. And at Michigan, he is again proving himself to be a great coach. Kelly does not have a comparable track record to either Harbaugh or Carroll. He may some day, but it's not there yet. Is he better than Petersen? Maybe, but IMO, regardless of the obviously justifiable frustration with Pete's offense, the culture he inherited matters, as does his track record and obvious signs of progress, so IMO, that debate is premature.
BTW Kelly has reached out to the Niners organization, it will be interesting to see where that goes.
CK can't take credit for Mariota's magic that year, the last one on his resume before he went to the NFL, anymore than we can say Helfrich is an awesome coach because UofO made the title game last year. I believe Mariota increased CKs' stock because that year, plus all the media attention convinced many that UofO was here to stay among the elite programs and no fluke, and CK got a big extra bump for that. I think he's a good coach, maybe great, while many others think he's THE SHIT of shits. Better than CP? Too early, premature, and therefore unwise. One other thing is CK longs to be in the NFL, while CP, if we take him at his word, wants to be here a long time. I think a program like Washington won't return to prominence without a good, long-term coach, but maybe that's just me.
Lastly, we can't reliably extrapolate backwards to say whatever coach had future NFL players on his roster should've won more games without the rest of the story. Many NFL players were ho-hum in college playing for the Purdues, Iowa States, etc. where they didn't have chances to show their talents until the combines. It's one indicator - maybe a strong one - but in a sea of other variables. Key? Were they great college players? If not, why not? Maybe coaching, maybe not. Can't know without asking.
You want to say Chip was only good because of his QB, but Mariota wasn't a can't miss prospect. They found him and developed him. They also found Manziel before he got in trouble and stayed at Texas.
Saban would suck if it wasn't for his Line play. Roadie just threw out the talent Stanford was working with. Look at the recruiting rankings and Oregon has always been closer to UW than the Bama's and the ohio states. Chip found the players that worked for him and won.
So is the new guy elevating the program or is he riding the coattails? With Helfrich's sophomore collapse, Kelly is looking great on both fronts.
And for the record, Pete deserves a third year and has a ton to prove. If I was AD and Kelly came to me interested in the job, I'd be negligent for not thinking it through and letting the current regime know the seat is officially boiling, so win or GTFO.
Roadie has many times pointed to the talent on the roster to argue coaches like Sark should've done better, and while that makes sense to a point, it's not always the case. There are great college players who peak at that level, and there are mediocre college players (or good players held back by bad teams) who peak after college. Then there are those who were great in college and the NFL, of course.
There are also teams loaded with talent that can't play together and under achieve, despite great coaches, for a myriad of reasons.
In other words, it's a fair theory, but not a law.