Direct from the spin machine
I heard year 7 is going to be special
Comments
-
Gary Pinkel is lucky that Missouri is not a football school.
-
Lambo, Pinkle, and Tormy - the holy trinity of doogdumb
-
If we are referring to Missouri Gary Pinkel then where is Sark's 27 years of coaching experience, 7 years of coordinating experience and 10 years of head coaching experience?
After his first two seasons, Pinkel was 38-27 in conference play for a school with no tradition and no advantage and in a conference that included Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas A&M and Colorado.
Sven, your fill of shit. Missouri has been very lucky to have Pinkel. The shame or joke is that UW hired Gilby & Lambo with Pinkel never getting a shot. Pinkel probably would have kept UW in the top 15 regularly. I don't think he's a top 10 coach and I wouldn't hire him now but I think he would have done quite well at UW over a long period. Comparing Sark to Pinkel is way beyond me. Someone pulled that one deep from their fartbox. -
Pinkel had had a CONTRACT!!!!HeretoBeatmyChest said:If we are referring to Missouri Gary Pinkel then where is Sark's 27 years of coaching experience, 7 years of coordinating experience and 10 years of head coaching experience?
After his first two seasons, Pinkel was 38-27 in conference play for a school with no tradition and no advantage and in a conference that included Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas A&M and Colorado.
Sven, your fill of shit. Missouri has been very lucky to have Pinkel. The shame or joke is that UW hired Gilby & Lambo with Pinkel never getting a shot. Pinkel probably would have kept UW in the top 15 regularly. I don't think he's a top 10 coach but I think he would have done quite well at UW over a long period. Comparing Sark to Pinkel is way beyond me. Someone pulled that one deep from their fartbox. -
Never hire an offensively minded coach....never. Look at the statistics.
-
Harbaugh, Chip, Urban Meyer, Chris Petersen... Curious why you would say that?vadawg said:Never hire an offensively minded coach....never. Look at the statistics.
-
Certainly not one that can't coach. Part of Sark's trouble is his skills positions' myopia. We need real talent on the lines. Going to be interesting seeing how well the OL plays this season.vadawg said:Never hire an offensively minded coach....never. Look at the statistics.
-
Based on the coaching effect statistics stuff Pinkel is one of the top 20 coaches over the past several year. Regardless of how good he is in an absolute sense, he does more with less - unlike Sark who does less with more.
-
Throw in Don James too who was a former QB who became a defensive minded coach.RoadDawg55 said:
Harbaugh, Chip, Urban Meyer, Chris Petersen... Curious why you would say that?vadawg said:Never hire an offensively minded coach....never. Look at the statistics.
But to VaDawg's point, I think after the last four coaches we've had, its time to bring on a defensive minded HC. -
I was just talking to a Mizzou fan today who thinks that: (1) Mizzou is going win ten games this year, and (2) Washington will be much improved and will push Oregon and maybe even beat us.
/dismissivewankingmotion -
Sounds like Fleenor.AZDuck said:I was just talking to a Mizzou fan today who thinks that: (1) Mizzou is going win ten games this year, and (2) Washington will be much improved and will push Oregon and maybe even beat us.
/dismissivewankingmotion
-
i'll get roasted here, but there is evidence that pinkel is one of the better coaches in the country
-
Pinkel's first six years at Missouri:HeretoBeatmyChest said:If we are referring to Missouri Gary Pinkel then where is Sark's 27 years of coaching experience, 7 years of coordinating experience and 10 years of head coaching experience?
After his first two seasons, Pinkel was 38-27 in conference play for a school with no tradition and no advantage and in a conference that included Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas A&M and Colorado.
Sven, your fill of shit. Missouri has been very lucky to have Pinkel. The shame or joke is that UW hired Gilby & Lambo with Pinkel never getting a shot. Pinkel probably would have kept UW in the top 15 regularly. I don't think he's a top 10 coach and I wouldn't hire him now but I think he would have done quite well at UW over a long period. Comparing Sark to Pinkel is way beyond me. Someone pulled that one deep from their fartbox.
2001 Missouri 4–7 3–5 T–4th (North)
2002 Missouri 5–7 2–6 5th (North)
2003 Missouri 8–5 4–4 3rd (North) L Independence
2004 Missouri 5–6 3–5 T–3rd (North)
2005 Missouri 7–5 4–4 T–2nd (North) W Independence
2006 Missouri 8–5 4–4 T–2nd (North)
Name one REAL football school in America that would have kept him after year 4, much less year 6.
He's done some nice things there, but he is only 49-48 career at Missouri in conference play. Sark's conference record is better than that. -
Yet despite being so average unlike Sark still managed to win more than 7 games a few times in his career.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Pinkel's first six years at Missouri:HeretoBeatmyChest said:If we are referring to Missouri Gary Pinkel then where is Sark's 27 years of coaching experience, 7 years of coordinating experience and 10 years of head coaching experience?
After his first two seasons, Pinkel was 38-27 in conference play for a school with no tradition and no advantage and in a conference that included Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas A&M and Colorado.
Sven, your fill of shit. Missouri has been very lucky to have Pinkel. The shame or joke is that UW hired Gilby & Lambo with Pinkel never getting a shot. Pinkel probably would have kept UW in the top 15 regularly. I don't think he's a top 10 coach and I wouldn't hire him now but I think he would have done quite well at UW over a long period. Comparing Sark to Pinkel is way beyond me. Someone pulled that one deep from their fartbox.
2001 Missouri 4–7 3–5 T–4th (North)
2002 Missouri 5–7 2–6 5th (North)
2003 Missouri 8–5 4–4 3rd (North) L Independence
2004 Missouri 5–6 3–5 T–3rd (North)
2005 Missouri 7–5 4–4 T–2nd (North) W Independence
2006 Missouri 8–5 4–4 T–2nd (North)
Name one REAL football school in America that would have kept him after year 4, much less year 6.
He's done some nice things there, but he is only 49-48 career at Missouri in conference play. Sark's conference record is better than that.
Sark is a worse version of stellar coaches like Pinkel, Gailey, Neuheisel, and Tedford. -
Pinkel in the 2 hole for a big surprise in 2013???
-
Is it Fleenor who is the big fan of Gary Pinkell?
-
Is it the 0 conference championships in 12 years at Missouri?greenearplugs said:i'll get roasted here, but there is evidence that pinkel is one of the better coaches in the country
Or perhaps it's the two Big 12 championship game appearences that he lost by a combined 62 points? -
I'm not sure about that, but they did share some pops at Butler Cabin quite a few times.He_Needs_More_Time said:Is it Fleenor who is the big fan of Gary Pinkell?
-
Agree.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
Throw in Don James too who was a former QB who became a defensive minded coach.RoadDawg55 said:
Harbaugh, Chip, Urban Meyer, Chris Petersen... Curious why you would say that?vadawg said:Never hire an offensively minded coach....never. Look at the statistics.
But to VaDawg's point, I think after the last four coaches we've had, its time to bring on a defensive minded HC.
If he continues his upward trend a hot name is going to be Bob Diaco.
Just don't listen to his dating advice.
-
Win a BCS bowl and you don't deserve to be in that list.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Yet despite being so average unlike Sark still managed to win more than 7 games a few times in his career.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Pinkel's first six years at Missouri:HeretoBeatmyChest said:If we are referring to Missouri Gary Pinkel then where is Sark's 27 years of coaching experience, 7 years of coordinating experience and 10 years of head coaching experience?
After his first two seasons, Pinkel was 38-27 in conference play for a school with no tradition and no advantage and in a conference that included Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas A&M and Colorado.
Sven, your fill of shit. Missouri has been very lucky to have Pinkel. The shame or joke is that UW hired Gilby & Lambo with Pinkel never getting a shot. Pinkel probably would have kept UW in the top 15 regularly. I don't think he's a top 10 coach and I wouldn't hire him now but I think he would have done quite well at UW over a long period. Comparing Sark to Pinkel is way beyond me. Someone pulled that one deep from their fartbox.
2001 Missouri 4–7 3–5 T–4th (North)
2002 Missouri 5–7 2–6 5th (North)
2003 Missouri 8–5 4–4 3rd (North) L Independence
2004 Missouri 5–6 3–5 T–3rd (North)
2005 Missouri 7–5 4–4 T–2nd (North) W Independence
2006 Missouri 8–5 4–4 T–2nd (North)
Name one REAL football school in America that would have kept him after year 4, much less year 6.
He's done some nice things there, but he is only 49-48 career at Missouri in conference play. Sark's conference record is better than that.
Sark is a worse version of stellar coaches like Pinkel, Gailey, Neuheisel, and Tedford.
-
As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.
-
Bingo. And that's why trying to remove the players variable from college coaching doesn't tell us much, IMO, because the coaches are largely responsible for obtaining the players. Obviously recruiting to Alabama is easier than recruiting to Michigan State, and we need to adjust for context. But Pinkel's recruiting is nothing special, even for Mizzu. He'd probably be better at UW since UW naturally attracts better players than Mizzu, and he can clearly coach 'em up, but we'd still likely be dissatisfied with him, just not as dissatisfied as we have been the last couple of clowns (Sark is better than Ty!)Mad_Son said:As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.
-
Yeah kinda seems like it. I was basing my previous statement on Pinkel (which may have been a bit overboard) based on the fact that he does seem to do well with the talent he has (not great, but clearly is above average in the "coaching effect" stats).Mad_Son said:As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.
But i guess that is a major flaw in some of these stats. A coach could have a good "coaching effect" simply because he is a shitty recruiter but a decent developer of talent/gameday coach. Obviously you need some way to factor in recruiting ability as well.
-
There is a lot of football talk in this thread. Somebody call IMALOSER. Wait, he died in a fire.
-
Problem is if you're going to look at it that way then if you find the guys who bring in the best talent and are also great at developing talent, then you might as well just look at winsgreenearplugs said:
Yeah kinda seems like it. I was basing my previous statement on Pinkel (which may have been a bit overboard) based on the fact that he does seem to do well with the talent he has (not great, but clearly is above average in the "coaching effect" stats).Mad_Son said:As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.
But i guess that is a major flaw in some of these stats. A coach could have a good "coaching effect" simply because he is a shitty recruiter but a decent developer of talent/gameday coach. Obviously you need some way to factor in recruiting ability as well.
What you need to do is find a way to remove the circumstance variables - tradition, location, etc. That would be the golden goose but I suspect some of those factors are temporally variable enough that it would be possible to de-trend. -
See Oregon and Washington for details.Mad_Son said:
Problem is if you're going to look at it that way then if you find the guys who bring in the best talent and are also great at developing talent, then you might as well just look at winsgreenearplugs said:
Yeah kinda seems like it. I was basing my previous statement on Pinkel (which may have been a bit overboard) based on the fact that he does seem to do well with the talent he has (not great, but clearly is above average in the "coaching effect" stats).Mad_Son said:As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.
But i guess that is a major flaw in some of these stats. A coach could have a good "coaching effect" simply because he is a shitty recruiter but a decent developer of talent/gameday coach. Obviously you need some way to factor in recruiting ability as well.
What you need to do is find a way to remove the circumstance variables - tradition, location, etc. That would be the golden goose but I suspect some of those factors are temporally variable enough that it would be possible to de-trend. -
Where's AuburnDave when you need him?Mad_Son said:
Problem is if you're going to look at it that way then if you find the guys who bring in the best talent and are also great at developing talent, then you might as well just look at winsgreenearplugs said:
Yeah kinda seems like it. I was basing my previous statement on Pinkel (which may have been a bit overboard) based on the fact that he does seem to do well with the talent he has (not great, but clearly is above average in the "coaching effect" stats).Mad_Son said:As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.
But i guess that is a major flaw in some of these stats. A coach could have a good "coaching effect" simply because he is a shitty recruiter but a decent developer of talent/gameday coach. Obviously you need some way to factor in recruiting ability as well.
What you need to do is find a way to remove the circumstance variables - tradition, location, etc. That would be the golden goose but I suspect some of those factors are temporally variable enough that it would be possible to de-trend.
-
the fuck is de-trend?Mad_Son said:
Problem is if you're going to look at it that way then if you find the guys who bring in the best talent and are also great at developing talent, then you might as well just look at winsgreenearplugs said:
Yeah kinda seems like it. I was basing my previous statement on Pinkel (which may have been a bit overboard) based on the fact that he does seem to do well with the talent he has (not great, but clearly is above average in the "coaching effect" stats).Mad_Son said:As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.
But i guess that is a major flaw in some of these stats. A coach could have a good "coaching effect" simply because he is a shitty recruiter but a decent developer of talent/gameday coach. Obviously you need some way to factor in recruiting ability as well.
What you need to do is find a way to remove the circumstance variables - tradition, location, etc. That would be the golden goose but I suspect some of those factors are temporally variable enough that it would be possible to de-trend.
#ihatewhenpeoplearesmarterthanme -
To remove the trend!Swaye said:
the fuck is de-trend?Mad_Son said:
Problem is if you're going to look at it that way then if you find the guys who bring in the best talent and are also great at developing talent, then you might as well just look at winsgreenearplugs said:
Yeah kinda seems like it. I was basing my previous statement on Pinkel (which may have been a bit overboard) based on the fact that he does seem to do well with the talent he has (not great, but clearly is above average in the "coaching effect" stats).Mad_Son said:As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.
But i guess that is a major flaw in some of these stats. A coach could have a good "coaching effect" simply because he is a shitty recruiter but a decent developer of talent/gameday coach. Obviously you need some way to factor in recruiting ability as well.
What you need to do is find a way to remove the circumstance variables - tradition, location, etc. That would be the golden goose but I suspect some of those factors are temporally variable enough that it would be possible to de-trend.
#ihatewhenpeoplearesmarterthanme
Some of the coaches a result produces will be inherent in his own capabilities but part of it will be result of the circumstances he is provided. Obviously any given coach will probably get different results if he coaches at WSU versus if he coaches at Alabama. Ok, maybe that is a bad example. #HiMikePrice Anyways, if the amount of help you got from coaching at Bama was constant over time and the amount of hurt you got from coaching at WSU was also constant over time, it would be easy by comparing different coaches to remove the effect (trend) of the school. Since that effect surely changes over time (Minnesota was probably an easier place to coach at in 1960 than it is now) it makes it hard to identify the trend and remove it to isolate a coach's contribution to the results. -
Winners win. HTH
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
