Bear Down Wildcats

Harvey Specter wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:I love how people here think the Yorks (niners ownership) have no role to play in the perminanet suckitude of the niners. Harbaugh won despite them.

Yeah... Funny how many ignore the 10 (of the last 14) years that the Niners have sucked when Harbaugh was not there, and don't assume that ownership (the one constant) has ANY culpability.

The one period when 49ers were VERY good had one difference: the head coach.

azgreg wrote:Anybody who thinks Hairballs can't coach is a moron.

MrMeow wrote:

azgreg wrote:Anybody who thinks Hairballs can't coach is a moron.

Greg, from you that comment surprises me. It's something I would expect from Hater, but not you. Oh well.

Harbaugh can obviously coach, but those who followed his situation in SF know his personality was not suited for longevity in the pro game. He burned people out. He will do fine (again) with college kids. Young kids are more malleable, and more eager to please. Seasoned pros, not so much. Actually, not at all. Can he learn from his mistakes with the Niners and re-emerge in the pros? Harvey thinks so. I don't. In my opinion, he is where he belongs. He will likely give OSU and Michigan State a good run for their money.

3 good seasons in 4 years is how you would classify it?

He went to a franchise that had not had a winning record in 9 years, and without any major roster overhauls led the team to 13, 11, and 12 wins in the regular season, making 3 straight NFC championship games and winning one of them. Then he went 8-8 in year 3, which (while mediocre) is as good as the 49ers have done without him since 2002. His playoff record is 5-3, with the 3 losses by a combined 12 points. I'd love to see someone with a better 4 year start to their NFL career when not taking over a team in the midst of a dynasty period.

Because he is a prick, it limited his longevity. My guess is he will get another shot if he wants it (and I think he will). If he learned from his mistakes, he could be extremely successful; Bellichick is a prick, too, who failed in Cleveland over a 5 year stint. He figured it out, and the rest is history.

Time will tell....

azcat49 wrote:Pretty simple, Harbaugh is a great football coach who will succeed wherever he is at to the highest level. He turned Michigan around this year and they will be formidable in the years to come as he gets his style of players in.

He understands this is a business and you get paid well. Win and you stay, lose and underperform and your seat gets hot. I know Michigan fans are very happy to have him and are looking forward to the future.

As for us, get 8 wins 3 OOC and at least 5 in conference. Beat ASSU more then you lose and fix that damn defense. With that you have met the minimum expectations RR. It's just business. Still can't believe we may waste 6M on mediocrity. Hoping our results improve to merit top 4 in conference pay

MrMeow wrote:

Harvey Specter wrote:3 good seasons in 4 years is how you would classify it?

He went to a franchise that had not had a winning record in 9 years, and without any major roster overhauls led the team to 13, 11, and 12 wins in the regular season, making 3 straight NFC championship games and winning one of them. Then he went 8-8 in year 3, which (while mediocre) is as good as the 49ers have done without him since 2002. His playoff record is 5-3, with the 3 losses by a combined 12 points. I'd love to see someone with a better 4 year start to their NFL career when not taking over a team in the midst of a dynasty period.

Because he is a prick, it limited his longevity. My guess is he will get another shot if he wants it (and I think he will). If he learned from his mistakes, he could be extremely successful; Bellichick is a prick, too, who failed in Cleveland over a 5 year stint. He figured it out, and the rest is history.

Time will tell....

Sorry, Harv, but you do just fine putting words in your own mouth. No assistance required from me

Chicat wrote:

Harvey Specter wrote:

MrMeow wrote:

Harvey Specter wrote:3 good seasons in 4 years is how you would classify it?

He went to a franchise that had not had a winning record in 9 years, and without any major roster overhauls led the team to 13, 11, and 12 wins in the regular season, making 3 straight NFC championship games and winning one of them. Then he went 8-8 in year 3, which (while mediocre) is as good as the 49ers have done without him since 2002. His playoff record is 5-3, with the 3 losses by a combined 12 points. I'd love to see someone with a better 4 year start to their NFL career when not taking over a team in the midst of a dynasty period.

Because he is a prick, it limited his longevity. My guess is he will get another shot if he wants it (and I think he will). If he learned from his mistakes, he could be extremely successful; Bellichick is a prick, too, who failed in Cleveland over a 5 year stint. He figured it out, and the rest is history.

Time will tell....

Sorry, Harv, but you do just fine putting words in your own mouth. No assistance required from me

MrMeow wrote:

Harvey Specter wrote:

MrMeow wrote:

Harvey Specter wrote:3 good seasons in 4 years is how you would classify it?

He went to a franchise that had not had a winning record in 9 years, and without any major roster overhauls led the team to 13, 11, and 12 wins in the regular season, making 3 straight NFC championship games and winning one of them. Then he went 8-8 in year 3, which (while mediocre) is as good as the 49ers have done without him since 2002. His playoff record is 5-3, with the 3 losses by a combined 12 points. I'd love to see someone with a better 4 year start to their NFL career when not taking over a team in the midst of a dynasty period.

Because he is a prick, it limited his longevity. My guess is he will get another shot if he wants it (and I think he will). If he learned from his mistakes, he could be extremely successful; Bellichick is a prick, too, who failed in Cleveland over a 5 year stint. He figured it out, and the rest is history.

Time will tell....

Sorry, Harv, but you do just fine putting words in your own mouth. No assistance required from me

I absolutely believe he will get another shot coaching in the NFL. In fact I bet he'd have one right now if he wanted to.

Will he succeed (that was the topic being debated with the latest exchange)? My comment on that issue is also included in the excerpt above.... I think he MIGHT. My 9-year old understood.

Are you sure. You did not go to ASU?[/quote]

Are you in a race to the bottom with ASUHATER?

ASUHATER! wrote:

MrMeow wrote:

Harvey Specter wrote:

MrMeow wrote:

Harvey Specter wrote:3 good seasons in 4 years is how you would classify it?

He went to a franchise that had not had a winning record in 9 years, and without any major roster overhauls led the team to 13, 11, and 12 wins in the regular season, making 3 straight NFC championship games and winning one of them. Then he went 8-8 in year 3, which (while mediocre) is as good as the 49ers have done without him since 2002. His playoff record is 5-3, with the 3 losses by a combined 12 points. I'd love to see someone with a better 4 year start to their NFL career when not taking over a team in the midst of a dynasty period.

Because he is a prick, it limited his longevity. My guess is he will get another shot if he wants it (and I think he will). If he learned from his mistakes, he could be extremely successful; Bellichick is a prick, too, who failed in Cleveland over a 5 year stint. He figured it out, and the rest is history.

Time will tell....

Sorry, Harv, but you do just fine putting words in your own mouth. No assistance required from me

I absolutely believe he will get another shot coaching in the NFL. In fact I bet he'd have one right now if he wanted to.

Will he succeed (that was the topic being debated with the latest exchange)? My comment on that issue is also included in the excerpt above.... I think he MIGHT. My 9-year old understood.

Are you sure. You did not go to ASU?[/quote]

Are you in a race to the bottom with ASUHATER?

Says the guy already at rock bottom. Your petulant whining really is pathetic.

Harvey Specter wrote:i am sold. You have me convinced that a guy who went to 3 straight conference championship games (immediately after taking over a franchise without a winning record in nearly a decade) cannot coach and is a flash in the pan.

Now I'd rather listen to you tell stories about what a beloved figure Lombardi was, and how he'd be famously popular and successful with today's modern athlete, Papi.

Gladiator Cat wrote:

Harvey Specter wrote:i am sold. You have me convinced that a guy who went to 3 straight conference championship games (immediately after taking over a franchise without a winning record in nearly a decade) cannot coach and is a flash in the pan.

Now I'd rather listen to you tell stories about what a beloved figure Lombardi was, and how he'd be famously popular and successful with today's modern athlete, Papi.

Harvey, your reply was meant for who?

Harvey Specter wrote:i am sold. You have me convinced that a guy who went to 3 straight conference championship games (immediately after taking over a franchise without a winning record in nearly a decade) cannot coach and is a flash in the pan.

Now I'd rather listen to you tell stories about what a beloved figure Lombardi was, and how he'd be famously popular and successful with today's modern athlete, Papi.

Newportcat wrote:From Greg Hansen today

From what I have been able to gather, Rich Rodriguez’s pursuit of the South Carolina football coaching job was bungled by Gamecocks athletic director Ray Tanner. After South Carolina initiated contact with RichRod’s agent, Tanner made several missteps. He left RichRod stranded at a South Carolina airport for more than an hour, left Arizona’s coach unattended in his hotel for several hours, and, worse, apparently offered RichRod less, about $3.1 million per year, than what he was making at UA. Tanner was a career baseball coach at South Carolina until he became the school’s AD in 2012. It showed. His manner in a coaching search left a lot to be desired. The irony is that UA AD Greg Byrne excels at the important detail work of a coaching search; he impressed RichRod in 2011 the way Tanner surely made a bad impression on RichRod.

I still can not see Rich Rod turning down a good (not great) but good SEC job however looks like their AD really screwed things up which isn't shocking when he came out and said they never offered Rich Rod which is a crock of sh@t. Curious to see if anyone heard anything different from what Hansen reported

Newportcat wrote:I give a big thumps up to Rich Rod for firing and re-doing his defensive staff. To me shows a commitment to turning Arizona football into a consistent winner

azcat49 wrote:No but maybe Tanner wanted Muschamp all along but some influential boosters wanted him to reach out to RR and Tanner deliberately sabotaged the interview?

scumdevils86 wrote:Also mostly tells me Byrne told him it was do or die at this point and if he didn't revamp the D his job would be on the line in 11 months.

Gladiator Cat wrote:
Bring in a stud and respected DC and let him run his perfected and established scheme and let the chips fall where they may.

Gladiator Cat wrote:In my heart of hearts I don't think Rich Rod made this move on his own.
Lockwood yes, but Casteel no.

I think in some form or fashion that he was coaxed or convinced he needed to make the defensive changes. They were needed and I'm glad it happened but I bet it wasn't a smooth and fully mutual transition.

Now on the other-hand if RR is going to be stubborn and bring in someone who is not suited for the 3-3-5 and make them coach that scheme, then nothing will have changed.

Bring in a stud and respected DC and let him run his perfected and established scheme and let the chips fall where they may.

Under the proposed amendment, Rodriguez will be entitled to cash
payments equal to a percentage of the value of the Longevity Fund in the
amounts and on the dates set forth below, if he is employed by the UA as
of those dates:
 March 15, 2016 – 43,750 units (25%)
 March 15, 2018 – 43,750 units (25%)
 March 15, 2020 – 87,500 units (50%)

o Under the proposed amendment, Rodriguez will be entitled to a cash
payment equal to the full value of the fund if he is terminated without
cause or is terminated with cause as a result a of physical or mental
disability at any time after March 15, 2018

azcat49 wrote:Well I am glad for our 6M we are/he is fixing the defense and maybe RR is putting down roots.

I will say, at least for me, his move to change defensive coaches has renewed my confidence in RR at this point

Arizona Wildcats coach Rich Rodriguez said his team will participate in “the most unconventional spring practice in college football this year” – and not just because the UA’s spring practice starts in winter.

The fact that spring ball begins Feb. 5 is unusual in and of itself, and we’ll circle back to the pros and cons of that in a bit. What Rodriguez was referring to was the type of work he plans to get done.

In short: The Wildcats will spend most of their time doing individual drills – fundamentals and techniques, blocking and tackling. They will spend just a fraction of their time doing “team” drills – i.e., running plays.

“I might not even have a spring game,” Rodriguez said, although an open-to-the-public scrimmage is scheduled for Friday, March 4.

He described team drills as “the most overrated part of spring football” and individual work as “critical.”

“I haven’t finished all the spring schedules yet, but we’ll have a practice where we do no team periods at all,” Rodriguez said. “It’ll be all fundamental work for two hours.”

The impetus for this philosophical shift? In part, it’s what Rodriguez believes in.

“Half the scrimmages you have, or the spring game, you either don’t play your top guys or you cross your fingers that nobody gets hurt,” Rodriguez said. “It’s good to look at schemes, but what are you trying to win? Beat your own team? It’s not nearly as important as teaching them how to play.”

The shift is also a product of this past season’s unusual schedule.

As you might have heard, Arizona did not have a midseason bye. That’s usually when coaches can spend more time with younger players whose in-season duties typically are limited to the scout team.

Arizona also played an early bowl game (Dec. 19), limiting the number of pre-bowl practices. That’s also a time when young players can get additional individual attention.

As far as starting spring practice earlier, Rodriguez believes it sets up better for the months that follow. The coaches get extra time to prep for the spring recruiting cycle. The players, meanwhile, can get into a consistent weightlifting routine. They’re also free and clear to concentrate on academics during final exams.

The other benefit of starting earlier is that if anyone gets hurt during spring drills, they have about an extra month to heal before training camp.

Of course, players who have been hurt have less time to recover before spring practice starts. As noted Wednesday, middle linebackers Cody Ippolito (knee) and Jake Matthews (foot) are among those who aren't expected to be available. (The same goes for another linebacker, Derrick Turituri, who missed the final nine games of the season because of a hip injury.)

The other potential downside of starting Feb. 5 is that it really condenses the schedule this month. That wouldn’t be such a big deal if Rodriguez weren’t in the process of hiring two defensive coaches and possibly changing the scheme on that side of the ball. Then again, if schemes are being de-emphasized in spring as much as Rodriguez says, maybe that won’t matter very much.

DaddyO'Cat wrote:LMK if cutting and pasting and article was ok or whatever rules there may be. That was from Tucson.com by Michael Lev

wyo-cat wrote:

DaddyO'Cat wrote:LMK if cutting and pasting and article was ok or whatever rules there may be. That was from Tucson.com by Michael Lev

I think it's OK, you included a link so we could dig deeper if we wanted to.

Anyhoo- nice find, and I think it addresses a lot of the fundamental issues that we saw last season.

DaddyO'Cat wrote:

wyo-cat wrote:

DaddyO'Cat wrote:LMK if cutting and pasting and article was ok or whatever rules there may be. That was from Tucson.com by Michael Lev

I think it's OK, you included a link so we could dig deeper if we wanted to.

Anyhoo- nice find, and I think it addresses a lot of the fundamental issues that we saw last season.

Funny thing is I didn't, the link must have automatically included itself which is nice I guess. I like his thought process with the individual attention to fundamentals and tackling etc. They looked bad out there every year. D coaches were not good. Anyway signing off and will check in later, peace out.

Merkin wrote:

Merkin wrote:

Salty wrote:

Merkin wrote:

There's a difference between "every once in a while" and every single offseason...

azgreg wrote:

Salty wrote:

Merkin wrote:

There's a difference between "every once in a while" and every single offseason...

What other seasons did he interview for another job?