| FTBL Former Bama coach joins Mike Price

[imported_porkchop]

As far as Stallings goes, he was IMHO, a perfect fit for BAMA. Smash-mouth offense and defense. That's what BAMA historically has always been about, and he was succesfull so he never had to really change and adapt. One could point to his coaching in the NFL but again we're getting into an apples and oranges type debate on his coaching abilities because his only head coaching job that I can remember off-hand was with the Cardinals. That franchise is historically one of the worst in NFL history so I can't fault him too much for not getting it done there since no one else has either.

Stallings won ONE championship. He was a far, far distant second to Spurrier during the years 1990-96. (Heck, it took the greatest defense of all time to beat Spurrier's WORST UF team - and by only seven points at that). The ONLY way Stallings unaltered system was going to defeat Spurrier was to magically reproduce the best college defense in roughly 100 years of play. Now, what were the odds of Stallings producing the TWO best defenses of all time? The game was changing, Stallings was not. UA suffered as a result.

He might have been the perfect fit for UA based on your preference of style of play. But a perfect fit for UA would have been one who recognized the changing landscape of the college game (and certainly the SEC) and used all the inherent advantages Alabama had at that time (but has subsequently squandered - in part by Stallings role in the first round of probation and his putting UA a decade behind in trying to recruit offensive talent).

Stallings was also a failure as the head coach at Texas A&M before he became a long-time Cowboy assistant. And yes, there were some real and serious limitations to winning at A&M during the waning days of the Vietnam War using a system and style built on ball control and suffocating defense. But, to use your argument about the truly great coaches being able to adapt to personnel limitations, perhaps he could have modified his system in the 1960's to give himself a better chance to win then and there?

But back to Connelly for a moment. I still cannot blame a subordinate for teaching a fatally flawed system in relation to the overall scheme when the boss does not demand a change. Heck, we can through in Dave Rader here too - as his title of OC was a step up above Connelly and he too either did not see the disconnect or was unable to make Shula see the light either. I agree that both men (or really all three with Rader in the mix now) bear a relative share of the blame. But, Connelly's system HAD worked at a very high level before so he had some prior history in his favor.

But we could apply your reasoning about Stalling's lack of success with the Cardinals to UA's offensive line too. You refuse to blame Stallings for his losing record with the Cardinals because no coach has won anything with that organization before or since his tenure there. Well, UA has had virtually no success with her offensive line since the 1970's - so should not Connelly be given some type of pass since no coach has done anything with our OL in two decades? Like Stallings lack of production is just par for the course, so too was Connelly's production.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because quite frankly I don't share your opinion on much of what you just posted. But it's your opinion and I respect that. Even if it's the wrong one. :wink:

Excuse me for now, I've got to go change the candles on my Bob Connelly shrine.

 

[TerryP]

As far as Stallings goes, he was IMHO, a perfect fit for BAMA. Smash-mouth offense and defense. That's what BAMA historically has always been about, and he was succesfull so he never had to really change and adapt. One could point to his coaching in the NFL but again we're getting into an apples and oranges type debate on his coaching abilities because his only head coaching job that I can remember off-hand was with the Cardinals. That franchise is historically one of the worst in NFL history so I can't fault him too much for not getting it done there since no one else has either.

Stallings won ONE championship. He was a far, far distant second to Spurrier during the years 1990-96. (Heck, it took the greatest defense of all time to beat Spurrier's WORST UF team - and by only seven points at that). The ONLY way Stallings unaltered system was going to defeat Spurrier was to magically reproduce the best college defense in roughly 100 years of play. Now, what were the odds of Stallings producing the TWO best defenses of all time? The game was changing, Stallings was not. UA suffered as a result.

He might have been the perfect fit for UA based on your preference of style of play. But a perfect fit for UA would have been one who recognized the changing landscape of the college game (and certainly the SEC) and used all the inherent advantages Alabama had at that time (but has subsequently squandered - in part by Stallings role in the first round of probation and his putting UA a decade behind in trying to recruit offensive talent).

Stallings was also a failure as the head coach at Texas A&M before he became a long-time Cowboy assistant. And yes, there were some real and serious limitations to winning at A&M during the waning days of the Vietnam War using a system and style built on ball control and suffocating defense. But, to use your argument about the truly great coaches being able to adapt to personnel limitations, perhaps he could have modified his system in the 1960's to give himself a better chance to win then and there?

But back to Connelly for a moment. I still cannot blame a subordinate for teaching a fatally flawed system in relation to the overall scheme when the boss does not demand a change. Heck, we can through in Dave Rader here too - as his title of OC was a step up above Connelly and he too either did not see the disconnect or was unable to make Shula see the light either. I agree that both men (or really all three with Rader in the mix now) bear a relative share of the blame. But, Connelly's system HAD worked at a very high level before so he had some prior history in his favor.

But we could apply your reasoning about Stalling's lack of success with the Cardinals to UA's offensive line too. You refuse to blame Stallings for his losing record with the Cardinals because no coach has won anything with that organization before or since his tenure there. Well, UA has had virtually no success with her offensive line since the 1970's - so should not Connelly be given some type of pass since no coach has done anything with our OL in two decades? Like Stallings lack of production is just par for the course, so too was Connelly's production.

I could type and type on this one but I'll leave it at this.

Con...

 

[shipley00]

As far as Stallings goes, he was IMHO, a perfect fit for BAMA. Smash-mouth offense and defense. That's what BAMA historically has always been about, and he was succesfull so he never had to really change and adapt. One could point to his coaching in the NFL but again we're getting into an apples and oranges type debate on his coaching abilities because his only head coaching job that I can remember off-hand was with the Cardinals. That franchise is historically one of the worst in NFL history so I can't fault him too much for not getting it done there since no one else has either.

Stallings won ONE championship. He was a far, far distant second to Spurrier during the years 1990-96. (Heck, it took the greatest defense of all time to beat Spurrier's WORST UF team - and by only seven points at that). The ONLY way Stallings unaltered system was going to defeat Spurrier was to magically reproduce the best college defense in roughly 100 years of play. Now, what were the odds of Stallings producing the TWO best defenses of all time? The game was changing, Stallings was not. UA suffered as a result.

He might have been the perfect fit for UA based on your preference of style of play. But a perfect fit for UA would have been one who recognized the changing landscape of the college game (and certainly the SEC) and used all the inherent advantages Alabama had at that time (but has subsequently squandered - in part by Stallings role in the first round of probation and his putting UA a decade behind in trying to recruit offensive talent).

Stallings was also a failure as the head coach at Texas A&M before he became a long-time Cowboy assistant. And yes, there were some real and serious limitations to winning at A&M during the waning days of the Vietnam War using a system and style built on ball control and suffocating defense. But, to use your argument about the truly great coaches being able to adapt to personnel limitations, perhaps he could have modified his system in the 1960's to give himself a better chance to win then and there?

But back to Connelly for a moment. I still cannot blame a subordinate for teaching a fatally flawed system in relation to the overall scheme when the boss does not demand a change. Heck, we can through in Dave Rader here too - as his title of OC was a step up above Connelly and he too either did not see the disconnect or was unable to make Shula see the light either. I agree that both men (or really all three with Rader in the mix now) bear a relative share of the blame. But, Connelly's system HAD worked at a very high level before so he had some prior history in his favor.

But we could apply your reasoning about Stalling's lack of success with the Cardinals to UA's offensive line too. You refuse to blame Stallings for his losing record with the Cardinals because no coach has won anything with that organization before or since his tenure there. Well, UA has had virtually no success with her offensive line since the 1970's - so should not Connelly be given some type of pass since no coach has done anything with our OL in two decades? Like Stallings lack of production is just par for the course, so too was Connelly's production.

I could type and type on this one but I'll leave it at this.

Con...

Talk about peer pressure. I guess I'll keep my 2 cents to myself.

 

[alagator]

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because quite frankly I don't share your opinion on much of what you just posted. But it's your opinion and I respect that. Even if it's the wrong one. :wink:

Excuse me for now, I've got to go change the candles on my Bob Connelly shrine.

Frankly, such a dismissive response is disrespectful. You are better than such. Had you stopped at the point where you disagree that would have been fine; but to simply dismiss my comments (many of which are FACTUAL and not opinion) out of hand is contemptible.

So, which factual statement made is wrong? Likewise with which opinion?

Was Stallings the success your opined, especially when compared to his conference rival Spurrier? Was Stallings method of shortening the game with his 1960's version of offense capable of containing Spurrier's offense without any defense short of the greatest college defense of all-time? Can you point to any contest between the two that would support your claim?

Did not Stallings experience great difficulty consistently recruiting explosive offensive playmakers with NFL quality skills in his days at UA - a pursuit that become progressively more difficult as the years passed? Did not that problem arise because Stallings refused to adapt his style and system to the changing game - a trait YOU identified as dependent on whether a coach can be considered great or not?

Did not Stallings produce a career losing record in his lone other college head coaching tenure (at Texas A&M)? Are you aware of where he tried to adapt his style or system to meet the circumstances where he did not have the exact talent to match his system - a point of contention YOU introduced in criticism of Connelly?

Is there some flaw in my comparison to the lack of success by the Cardinals' organization and UA lack of success with the OL? Is there some flaw in comparing your excusing Stallings lack of success with the Cardinals since they have been an underperforming organization with perhaps Connelly being given the same pass because our OL has also historically underperformed (under many coaches)? Or I am wrong because you would argue that our OL HAS been successful?

 

[imported_porkchop]

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because quite frankly I don't share your opinion on much of what you just posted. But it's your opinion and I respect that. Even if it's the wrong one. :wink:

Excuse me for now, I've got to go change the candles on my Bob Connelly shrine.

Frankly, such a dismissive response is disrespectful. You are better than such. Had you stopped at the point where you disagree that would have been fine; but to simply dismiss my comments (many of which are FACTUAL and not opinion) out of hand is contemptible.

So, which factual statement made is wrong? Likewise with which opinion?

Was Stallings the success your opined, especially when compared to his conference rival Spurrier? Was Stallings method of shortening the game with his 1960's version of offense capable of containing Spurrier's offense without any defense short of the greatest college defense of all-time? Can you point to any contest between the two that would support your claim?

Did not Stallings experience great difficulty consistently recruiting explosive offensive playmakers with NFL quality skills in his days at UA - a pursuit that become progressively more difficult as the years passed? Did not that problem arise because Stallings refused to adapt his style and system to the changing game - a trait YOU identified as dependent on whether a coach can be considered great or not?

Did not Stallings produce a career losing record in his lone other college head coaching tenure (at Texas A&M)? Are you aware of where he tried to adapt his style or system to meet the circumstances where he did not have the exact talent to match his system - a point of contention YOU introduced in criticism of Connelly?

Is there some flaw in my comparison to the lack of success by the Cardinals' organization and UA lack of success with the OL? Is there some flaw in comparing your excusing Stallings lack of success with the Cardinals since they have been an underperforming organization with perhaps Connelly being given the same pass because our OL has also historically underperformed (under many coaches)? Or I am wrong because you would argue that our OL HAS been successful?

Disrespectful? ;sus Contemptible? ;sus Dude, I am stopping at the point where I disagree. So I'm not sure what you want from me. There are a lot of things that you posted that I personally don't ascribe to, but that neither here nor there. That's your opinion and I don't have a problem with it. But at the same time, I've said what I wanted to say about Connelly and now we're getting into opinion over Gene Stallings and the Arizona Cardinals of all things, and I'm not sure how we got that point. :lol: I thought the thread was a good one with a lot of good exchange, but I've said my opinion, so I don't know what you else you want from me. I mean, we could go around and around for days on this and never come to any conclusion other than neither of us are going to change the other's mind on any of it.

EDIT::

Sorry, I had to step out for a minute, but I'll just add this.

Regarding the opinions and such is like when you takl about Stallings at BAMA and how you (it seems anyway) think that he didn't do a good job here and was a distant second to Spurrier in the SEC. That's fine if that's what you think but personally I'm content and even proud of what the man accomplished here during his time. Winning a national championship and more than 70+ games in 7 years is fine with me. I guess I can live with being a distant second to Spurrier, but that's just me.

Regarding his time at TAM, I completely agree with you that he didn't do a good job there. I don't have a different take on that.

As far as the statement that we've had no success on our offensive line since the 70's that's your opinion. yeah, I agree that there is merit to it, but still...how do you quantify something like that and call it factual? Number of draft picks? Number of players playing in the NFL? BAMA season stats? Championship? I mean, how is that quantified factually? yeah, Personally I think BAMA's talent level in that area has been up and down through the years as talent has been up and down at many schools. I wouldn't call us unsuccessful in that area as a whole, but I wouldn't call us OLine U either.

But anyway, that's all I was getting at. We have a difference in opinion, which is fine. You hold a different opinion of Bob Connelly and Gene Stallings that I do.

 

[Tideboy]

I'm late to the party here, but I find it interesting that UCLA found out about Connelly after just one year (granted there was a HC change).

I think if Connelley is to flourish at all, it will be with Mike Price. No where else. The BC experienet at bama was abysmal. I met him twice whicle checking my son into him at Alabama Football camps. Fortunately he didn't try to teach my young Center a "catch and hinge" technique.

BTW, anyone ever been to El Paso? I drove thru there once about 10 years ago. It would need a promotion to be considered a sh*thole.

 

[ghice]

I'm late to the party here, but I find it interesting that UCLA found out about Connelly after just one year (granted there was a HC change).

I think if Connelley is to flourish at all, it will be with Mike Price. No where else. The BC experienet at bama was abysmal. I met him twice whicle checking my son into him at Alabama Football camps. Fortunately he didn't try to teach my young Center a "catch and hinge" technique.

BTW, anyone ever been to El Paso? I drove thru there once about 10 years ago. It would need a promotion to be considered a sh*thole.

I had a friend that went their via Marines, and he said the only thing there was a Military Base, and good Mexican food.

 

[imported_porkchop]

I'm late to the party here, but I find it interesting that UCLA found out about Connelly after just one year (granted there was a HC change).

I think if Connelley is to flourish at all, it will be with Mike Price. No where else. The BC experienet at bama was abysmal. I met him twice whicle checking my son into him at Alabama Football camps. Fortunately he didn't try to teach my young Center a "catch and hinge" technique.

BTW, anyone ever been to El Paso? I drove thru there once about 10 years ago. It would need a promotion to be considered a sh*thole.

I had a friend that went their via Marines, and he said the only thing there was a Military Base, and good Mexican food.

Well, there is more there than a military fort and Mexican food, but not a whole lot. For a town that size (and it's a good-sized city) there just isn't anything there. A lot of the problem IMHO is that El Paso is on the border with, and connected with, Jaurez, Mexico. Jaurez is nothing but a huge slum. With Jaurez and all of its problems being in such close proximity it tends to transfer into El Paso. Make no mistake either, Jaurez is a cut-throat, slum where drug cartels run rampant throughout the city. I know that when I was stationed at Holloman AFB (just north of El Paso) things got so bad with cartel murders that we were forbidden to go down there. It got so bad at one point we'd watch the news and see Mexican authorities uncovering mass graves.

Before that, when we could go, it was nothing to see one of your buddies jumped by roving street gangs or get hauled into the paddy-wagon for no reason whatsoever. The first time me and my buddies ever went down there we had to bribe the Mexican cops to let our guy out of the wagon. They asked for $10 and we had $12 between us. And that's a true story! If I'm lyin I'm dyin!

Yeah, El Paso pretty much sucks but if you're ever there make sure you get some Mexican food because the really good, hole in the wall places are off the hook. It's top notch stuff that you would never see in Alabama. You might also find this hard to believe, but the area has some pretty good German food too. Fort Bliss (in El Paso) along with Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico (where I was) has a HUGGEEEEE German community due to us training their pilots. Find the German resteraunts and markets because it's incredible cuisine. And though I've been gone for a few years I understand that you can still get some very good German food there in town these days.

Aside from that, the only other thing that El Paso has to offer that I know of is history. If you enjoy history and are in to the whole Mexican/American War, Pancho Villa, Billy the Kid, Ole West, thing you'll enjoy it. There are places to see but overall El Paso isn't exactly a must-see tourist destination.

For God's sakes it's in West Texas and there is NOTHING in West Texas other than dirt. It's a waisteland.

 

[Guest]

Well, to be a contrarian here, Connelly's approach can be effective if it is in synergy with the total offensive system.

In Price's style of offense, Connelly can (and even HAS) produced effective, if not good even, offensive lines. But his approach was a horrible, horrible match to the type offense Shula desired to run.

Now, the TOTAL blame for the mismatch lies with Shula and not Connelly. The latter taught only that which the former approved or allowed - or the latter allowed his assistants to dictate what would be taught and run. Either way, the buck stopped at the top.

I would not be surprised to see UTEP have pretty good production from their OL this year.

Yes, Connelly's approach can be quite effective with the right offense and against the right defense. Preferably a defense that doesn't use defensive linemen or rush the passer like, say, flag football or 7-man football. Connelly's schemes are also very effective when the rusher is required to count to 10 before rushing and almost always successful when the rusher is designated and forced to count to 15 before rushing.

If I understand correctly, it is all Shula's fault that Connelly didn't understand the difference in Price's offense and Shula's? Didn't his OL getting their @sses handed to them time and time again give him a clue? How about the QB's suffering brain damage? Should that have raised a flag with Connelly? You think Shula sat in film meeting after film meeting and just said, "Bob, that Ole' Blocking scheme is looking goooood! Your boys have quite a future as bull fighters in Mexico if they don't get drafted. Let's slide some backside help over there for Chris Capps and have 2 players wave at the Defensive End as he runs by, OK?"

 

[Guest]

Well, to be a contrarian here, Connelly's approach can be effective if it is in synergy with the total offensive system.

In Price's style of offense, Connelly can (and even HAS) produced effective, if not good even, offensive lines. But his approach was a horrible, horrible match to the type offense Shula desired to run.

Now, the TOTAL blame for the mismatch lies with Shula and not Connelly. The latter taught only that which the former approved or allowed - or the latter allowed his assistants to dictate what would be taught and run. Either way, the buck stopped at the top.

I would not be surprised to see UTEP have pretty good production from their OL this year.

Yes, Connelly's approach can be quite effective with the right offense and against the right defense. Preferably a defense that doesn't use defensive linemen or rush the passer like, say, flag football or 7-man football. Connelly's schemes are also very effective when the rusher is required to count to 10 before rushing and almost always successful when the rusher is designated and forced to count to 15 before rushing.

If I understand correctly, it is all Shula's fault that Connelly didn't understand the difference in Price's offense and Shula's? Didn't his OL getting their @sses handed to them time and time again give him a clue? How about the QB's suffering brain damage? Should that have raised a flag with Connelly? You think Shula sat in film meeting after film meeting and just said, "Bob, that Ole' Blocking scheme is looking goooood! Your boys have quite a future as bull fighters in Mexico if they don't get drafted. Let's slide some backside help over there for Chris Capps and have 2 players wave at the Defensive End as he runs by, OK?"

If Shula did have a clue that it wasn't working, he made no attempt at correcting it. He didn't make Connelly change his schemes, nor did he try to replace connelly with anyone else. That tells me Shula approved of what Connelly was doing, so it was as much Shula's fault as it was Connelly's.

 

[Guest]

Well, to be a contrarian here, Connelly's approach can be effective if it is in synergy with the total offensive system.

In Price's style of offense, Connelly can (and even HAS) produced effective, if not good even, offensive lines. But his approach was a horrible, horrible match to the type offense Shula desired to run.

Now, the TOTAL blame for the mismatch lies with Shula and not Connelly. The latter taught only that which the former approved or allowed - or the latter allowed his assistants to dictate what would be taught and run. Either way, the buck stopped at the top.

I would not be surprised to see UTEP have pretty good production from their OL this year.

Yes, Connelly's approach can be quite effective with the right offense and against the right defense. Preferably a defense that doesn't use defensive linemen or rush the passer like, say, flag football or 7-man football. Connelly's schemes are also very effective when the rusher is required to count to 10 before rushing and almost always successful when the rusher is designated and forced to count to 15 before rushing.

If I understand correctly, it is all Shula's fault that Connelly didn't understand the difference in Price's offense and Shula's? Didn't his OL getting their @sses handed to them time and time again give him a clue? How about the QB's suffering brain damage? Should that have raised a flag with Connelly? You think Shula sat in film meeting after film meeting and just said, "Bob, that Ole' Blocking scheme is looking goooood! Your boys have quite a future as bull fighters in Mexico if they don't get drafted. Let's slide some backside help over there for Chris Capps and have 2 players wave at the Defensive End as he runs by, OK?"

If Shula did have a clue that it wasn't working, he made no attempt at correcting it. He didn't make Connelly change his schemes, nor did he try to replace connelly with anyone else. That tells me Shula approved of what Connelly was doing, so it was as much Shula's fault as it was Connelly's.

I don't know how many coach's meeting you sat in on, but I'm guessing it's gonna be somewhere around zero. Am I close? Huh? Huh?

 

[TerryP]

Well, to be a contrarian here, Connelly's approach can be effective if it is in synergy with the total offensive system.

In Price's style of offense, Connelly can (and even HAS) produced effective, if not good even, offensive lines. But his approach was a horrible, horrible match to the type offense Shula desired to run.

Now, the TOTAL blame for the mismatch lies with Shula and not Connelly. The latter taught only that which the former approved or allowed - or the latter allowed his assistants to dictate what would be taught and run. Either way, the buck stopped at the top.

I would not be surprised to see UTEP have pretty good production from their OL this year.

Yes, Connelly's approach can be quite effective with the right offense and against the right defense. Preferably a defense that doesn't use defensive linemen or rush the passer like, say, flag football or 7-man football. Connelly's schemes are also very effective when the rusher is required to count to 10 before rushing and almost always successful when the rusher is designated and forced to count to 15 before rushing.

If I understand correctly, it is all Shula's fault that Connelly didn't understand the difference in Price's offense and Shula's? Didn't his OL getting their @sses handed to them time and time again give him a clue? How about the QB's suffering brain damage? Should that have raised a flag with Connelly? You think Shula sat in film meeting after film meeting and just said, "Bob, that Ole' Blocking scheme is looking goooood! Your boys have quite a future as bull fighters in Mexico if they don't get drafted. Let's slide some backside help over there for Chris Capps and have 2 players wave at the Defensive End as he runs by, OK?"

If Shula did have a clue that it wasn't working, he made no attempt at correcting it. He didn't make Connelly change his schemes, nor did he try to replace connelly with anyone else. That tells me Shula approved of what Connelly was doing, so it was as much Shula's fault as it was Connelly's.

The zone blocking scheme we saw the last season of Con wasn't in place in his first few years. That was the matador blocking scheme.

One thing that needs to be pointed out about whether it would work with Price or not is when WSU (with Price and Con) faced a decent defensive line they were run over as evidenced by the way OU ran over them in the Rose Bowl game right before Price came to Bama. (Bo7 bought Price one of the t-shirts that read "Tuscaloosa, a drinking town with a football problem." Price took it seriously...just ask the co-eds or the fence he ran over)

 

[Guest]

I don't know how many coach's meeting you sat in on, but I'm guessing it's gonna be somewhere around zero. Am I close? Huh? Huh?

Close, I'm pretty sure I was at everyone you were.

Do you have any evidence what so ever that Shula wanted Connelly to change anything? Let's see, I'm the boss, I want my employee to change the way he is doing something, and he doesn't change. What do I do? I replace him with someone who will do it the way I want it done, other wise, I must be satisfied with the way the current guy is doing it.

Don't get me wrong, I think Connelly sucked as a OL coach, but the OL problems were as much Shula's fault as it was his.

 

[Guest]

I don't know how many coach's meeting you sat in on, but I'm guessing it's gonna be somewhere around zero. Am I close? Huh? Huh?

Close, I'm pretty sure I was at everyone you were.

Do you have any evidence what so ever that Shula wanted Connelly to change anything? Let's see, I'm the boss, I want my employee to change the way he is doing something, and he doesn't change. What do I do? I replace him with someone who will do it the way I want it done, other wise, I must be satisfied with the way the current guy is doing it.

Don't get me wrong, I think Connelly sucked as a OL coach, but the OL problems were as much Shula's fault as it was his.

I know that Shula was prepared to replace Connelly when he was fired. That is if you consider Connelly's wife to be a pretty good source.

 

[Guest]

I don't know how many coach's meeting you sat in on, but I'm guessing it's gonna be somewhere around zero. Am I close? Huh? Huh?

Close, I'm pretty sure I was at everyone you were.

Do you have any evidence what so ever that Shula wanted Connelly to change anything? Let's see, I'm the boss, I want my employee to change the way he is doing something, and he doesn't change. What do I do? I replace him with someone who will do it the way I want it done, other wise, I must be satisfied with the way the current guy is doing it.

Don't get me wrong, I think Connelly sucked as a OL coach, but the OL problems were as much Shula's fault as it was his.

I know that Shula was prepared to replace Connelly when he was fired. That is if you consider Connelly's wife to be a pretty good source.

Yep, he was gonna replace him with Ungerer, and Conelly was moving to TE's.

 

[Guest]

I don't know how many coach's meeting you sat in on, but I'm guessing it's gonna be somewhere around zero. Am I close? Huh? Huh?

Close, I'm pretty sure I was at everyone you were.

Do you have any evidence what so ever that Shula wanted Connelly to change anything? Let's see, I'm the boss, I want my employee to change the way he is doing something, and he doesn't change. What do I do? I replace him with someone who will do it the way I want it done, other wise, I must be satisfied with the way the current guy is doing it.

Don't get me wrong, I think Connelly sucked as a OL coach, but the OL problems were as much Shula's fault as it was his.

I know that Shula was prepared to replace Connelly when he was fired. That is if you consider Connelly's wife to be a pretty good source.

Yep, he was gonna replace him with Ungerer, and Conelly was moving to TE's.

Actually, he was going to replace him with a former Univ of Miami assistant.

 

[Guest]

Actually, he was going to replace him with a former Univ of Miami assistant.

If you say so. Regardless, he was about 3 years to late trying to do anything about it.