Yep, last time I checked the AD hires the coaches and the players have NO input in that process. But I also do think that the players left for many different reasons, and not only because they couldn't hack being coached by the new staff.
So that’s my point. Recruiting is a sales job. A coach sells himself, his plans and his program. That’s what the recruit signs up for — this coach with this philosophy. I’m sure every kid who left got at least some mail from ULL during their recruitment process, and chose UF. So then to criticize kids for not being all-in on a coach, program and philosophy they did not choose seems rather unfair to me. If you get a new boss at your job and you don’t like them for whatever reason, it doesn’t make you soft to then leave. I don’t know why everyone — especially OP — is so quick to insult them for doing a very simple, basic thing.
Thanks for the most entertaining article I've read on this site (insider or free) in a long while. Seriously, good job power.
Unreal work there! You are a cross between Ernest Hemingway, Mel, Kiper, and Zig Ziegler. Holy heck what are the incredible piece of work. Seriously, do you have any books out?
Two different coaching staffs , same players. What is the common denominator here ? You know the answer. Blaming this culture of losing on BN is ridiculous. Very narrow minded post here . Accountability is the issue here. And you have severely overrated the roster that BN inherited
The players have managed to put themselves in a position where they call the shots and the coaches, administrators and fans are at the mercy! I’m starting to get back in to the NFL ! Go Jags
I wish I could because that would be the logical response, but I have almost zero interest in pro sports. Which is why I'm less than enthused about the manner in which NIL has been implemented. I would think about taking up golf as a hobby, but I really, really suck at that to the point it has just become an excuse to go drink beer with friends for 4 hours. I'm open to suggestions on a new hobby for future Saturdays.
You know, there is no less impressive argument than whataboutism. I criticize your post for directly calling players soft, squishy and doughy, and instead of backing up your argument, you point your finger at and say “what about you” as though my statement that McClellan’s words might be disingenuous were close to the same thing in tone or content. If you’ve got a counterpoint, make it. Oh, and for the record, extrapolate means to take a small sample and use it to project a larger outcome or circumstance. Like, for example, taking one player’s sentiments and suggesting those complaints are indicative of the reason every player who left the program left the program.
The part that would make me take pause was that McClellan admitted that his take was hearsay. He wasn't even on the team when Mullen was here to be able to make an actual personal judgement. I think any good reporter worth their salt (Good reporter being strictly a theoretical concept! ) would have reached out to a second party or two that had been on both Mullen's and Napier's roster and asked their opinion. But of course that might interfere with the clickbait story that they put out.
These players had two 10-win seasons out of the previous three. I think the more obvious reasons for their failings this year wasn’t the talent BN inherited, but what he and his staff did with it. They might not have had the talent he wanted, but this team wasn’t full of untalented athletes. Napier and his staff just couldn’t find ways to make these players more successful. Hopefully he’ll recruit and land players who are more to his liking.
He inherited a 6-7 team and produced a 6-7 team. No improvements were made nor did the team do worse unless you start digging into defensive statistics or the fact that we beat no rivals in 2022.
I'm not arguing. Thats what I said you did. You took a quote and extrapolated into a projection that met your view of the overall circumstances. Because the quote is subjective and improvable, your conclusions are also subjective and unprovable. Garbage in, garbage out. McClellan said he heard that some players responded badly to Napier's management techniques, that even though he wasn't here, he heard Mullen's practices were easier. You took that statement and said that was the problem, that the people who left couldn't take the toughness Napier apparently demands. And then called them various insulting adjectives to make your point. But McClellan's thesis might be wrong. And if the original data is wrong, then the conclusions made from it are wrong as well. Or, if the original data is open to interpretation, then the results would be the same. Unless you're suggesting that McClellan's statement is both undeniably factual. But what's funny about that is that McClellan himself doesn't know. He didn't practice under Mullen. So he's just making statements out of heresay and ignorance.
