That's true that his approach has worked for Price in the past and that depending on the offense it can be very effective, but if he was that good an OLine coach I would have to think that he'd have been able to adapt or re-tool his system at BAMA based on the offensive aproach Shula wanted.
Perhaps Shula did not want him to change. Based on the fact Connelly did not change, either Shula was clueless about what was needed, paid no attention to what was being taught by his assistant, or was dictate TO by his staff. Why blame Connelly for someone else's mistake or shortcoming?
Connelly had to believe his style of teaching and techniques were productive and successful. And given that his offensive line had just enjoyed two very successful seasons (per the linked article WSU had only allowed something like 51 sacks in over 800 passing attempts in his two seasons as OL Coach - better than anything WE have done in the last two decades) - one which included WASHINGTON STATE winning the Pac 10 and playing in the Rose Bowl, I could agree with such a belief.
For anyone to call Connelly such a great offensive line coach based on his ability to run one system with a certain philosophy and set of players recruited specifically for that system/philosophy is ludicrous. Anyone can be succesful under those conditions. A great coach adapts when he has to.
Do we have any real proof that he cannot teach a different system? I am not saying he CAN, but the evidence is inconclusive. No head coach has ever forced him to teach another style. We do not know that he would have been so ineffective at UA if Shula had told him to instill techniques more synergistic with a pro-style power running game.
Also, I have not personally called him a great OL coach, if you are attributing that characterization to me. But I do not agree that he is the slug that many seem to think.
It's like calling Al Borges a great offensive mind. Yeah he looks good when he's inhereted an offense full of All-Americans but we all saw the aftermath of that. The guy seemingly couldn't adapt.
So Stallings really is not that good a Head Coach because he could never adapt his coaching style and his refusal to adapt to the more modern style of football that involves a greater emphasis on offensive production?