| FTBL Former Bama coach joins Mike Price

billfish said:
shipley00 said:
http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_8251408

"Bob Connelly is the best offensive line coach in college football," UTEP coach Mike Price said.

:shock: :shock: :shock:

After that quote, I, for one, am saddened to see Coach Mike Price is apparently back on the sauce.

Folks......this is why you don't do crack. :shock:

or Destiny, for that matter...
 
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.
 
Price is the one who brought Connely to Alabama to begin with. I believe he came with Price from WSU, but I know that Price is the one who originally hired him at UA. Shula elected to keep him when he got the job.

As gator said, Connely's scheme can be effective in the correct offensive system, and Shula's offensive system was not the correct system for Connely's style.
 
shipley00 said:
http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_8251408

"Bob Connelly is the best offensive line coach in college football," UTEP coach Mike Price said.

triumph.jpg

FOR ME TO POOP ON!!!!!

C'mon, somebody had to do it........
 
alagator said:
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
porkchop said:
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?
 
It Takes Eleven said:
billfish said:
shipley00 said:
http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_8251408

"Bob Connelly is the best offensive line coach in college football," UTEP coach Mike Price said.

:shock: :shock: :shock:

After that quote, I, for one, am saddened to see Coach Mike Price is apparently back on the sauce.

Folks......this is why you don't do crack. :shock:

or Destiny, for that matter...

I think that's what he said. :shock: :lol:
 
alagator said:
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.


To me there are two main things for a position coach to do. 1. Teach the scheme/system. 2. Teach fundamentals.

Regardless of the scheme, our fundamentals got progressively worse as his tenure went on. The last season, we had OL players staring down Defenders and triple teaming guys leaving other defenders completely free to rush the QB or stuff the run. I don't care what scheme it is, double or triple teaming one defender and leaving a more emminate threat unchecked is due to poor coaching, especially after 4 years. The press release listed all these players he sent to the NFL. I'm sorry, but the ones from Alabama went to the pro's inspite of their coach. Otherwise, how on earth was our OL's so consistantly poor?
 
alagator said:
porkchop said:
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?

Dang, all these quotes I'm gonna lose track of this.

Did Shula ask him to change or not? Don't know. Was Shula clueless? That's pretty obvious. At some point though whether it be Shula or Connelly, one of them would have to think, "hey maybe we should try another system since this one obviously doesn't work". If Connelly knows more than that zone blocking system then he should have pushed to have it implimented. Maybe the fault lies at the feet of both coaches. Shula was the HC so ultimately it falls on him, but Connelly has to bear some of the blame too. What was he doing? Sitting there year after year knowing that he couldn't make his system work, but collecting a paycheck and being the best offensive line coach in the country anyway? Reveling in his greatness and telling people how lucky they are to have him? I've never seen anything to evidence Connelly had any more of a clue than Shula did.

Secondly, (and I should have stated this first) I didn't mean to imply that you thought he was a great line coach, so I apologize if you thought I was putting words in your mouth. I was referring more to the statement that was out there by Price, as well as to the fact that Connelly has made that statement regarding his abilities in the past as well. That is ludicrous IMHO. But no, I didn't mean to imply that you thought that.

As far as Stallings goes, you lost me there. Stallings was a great college coach. His record and results while at UA speaks for itself. While he initially started off poorly that was not so much due to his abilities as it was due to injuries and a coaching/philophy change. From that point on he was a gangbuster at BAMA. Did he have a prolific offense? No. Did he adjust his coaching style? No. He never had to. He was successful with his system. However, that is where the differences between Stallings, Connelly and Borges come in, IMO. Stallings wasn't being shown the door due to his performance going south yearly. Borges's offenses regressed (maybe not always in the stat columns) seemingly every year. Connelly's offensive line at BAMA was never better than horrific. So was a change in style or philosophy needed? I would think so. Were these guys unable to change and adapt? I don't see evidence that they were able or willing to, though in Connelly's case it's fair to point out what you said. Was he given the oportunity to might be the real question.

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.
 
Its all a matter of opinion, so here is mine...

Connelly's offense scheme worked with Mike Price at WSU, but it hasn't worked any place else. Alagator, I am pretty sure you know more about the x's and o's than myself, but IMHO our Offensive Line got worse, talent wise and coached wise. The swinging gate line that was taught by Connelly proved to be ineffective and to top it off it looked like he couldn't reach his players enough to get them to do their job. He obviously couldn't read talent, nor figure out that some of them couldn't play RT. You would like to think either Shula or Connelly had some common sense, but I never saw it. 11 to 12 sacks in one game from your biggest Rival proved it for me. Surely we had somebody that could of played RT, even with the depth issues.

Bob Connelly Sucks! JMHO
 
porkchop said:
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom