(12-13-2015 03:16 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 03:09 PM)pirates4lyfe Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 03:05 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 03:02 PM)pirates4lyfe Wrote:  Trolls gonna troll. He'd have found different criticisms if we hired Chizik, Hoke, or Withers.

Yep. That is a sh!tty pool of candidates. No live wires in that bunch. It was an awful search.

Hoke also interviewed at Tulane... So there is that. Nobody else had any other looks. Too many retreads.

So we'd have been better off hiring Kendall Briles and his all of 1 year of playcalling (and it's very reasonable to question what he really was bringing to that offense)? Briles doesn't know our area, is even more inexperienced, and aside from a last name brings no more cache or certainty.

Briles would do as well as Lincoln Riley did at ECU. He's probably a better team builder than Riley will be. From watching his Dad at Stephenville, to Houston, to Baylor, he has a lot more experience than Montgomery.

I would definitely say Briles football IQ dwarfs Montgomery. Art raised him to be fluent in football.

Pure guesses and conjecture. If we'd have hired Shane Beamer you wouldn't have lauded all those attributes about him. Briles accomplishments as a coach are wearing a flat billed hat and taking over a well oiled machine on offense and not running it in the ditch. I'd have taken Riley in a heartbeat over him, but obviously we nuked that bridge.

(12-13-2015 03:21 PM)pirates4lyfe Wrote:  Pure guesses and conjecture. If we'd have hired Shane Beamer you wouldn't have lauded all those attributes about him. Briles accomplishments as a coach are wearing a flat billed hat and taking over a well oiled machine on offense and not running it in the ditch. I'd have taken Riley in a heartbeat over him, but obviously we nuked that bridge.

Let me just say that there is a reason why Texas went ALL IN on the Tulsa OC.

Believe me, they would have much preferred Kendal Briles if that was possible.

You have to be able to see where the trends in cfb are going. Beamer to Briles is a bad comparison. Montgomery wouldn't have gotten a sniff at the Texas OC job (and it wouldn't have been a lateral move from Duke OC).

Not 1 sniff. (for a reason) Briles > Montgomery

Just your opinion and nothing else. Trolls gonna troll.

Its an X's and O's thing. The only Montgomery that Texas would have considered would have been Phillip. Briles could have gotten it though. The kids want to play in those offenses. If you don't think Briles could recruit anywhere in the country than you really aren't paying attention. You can talk about his hat but that's actually a plus where it counts. He can relate. He would have sold more tickets in DF than the stiff that was hired.

(12-13-2015 03:50 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  Its an X's and O's thing. The only Montgomery that Texas would have considered would have been Phillip. Briles could have gotten it though. The kids want to play in those offenses. If you don't think Briles could recruit anywhere in the country than you really aren't paying attention. You can talk about his hat but that's actually a plus where it counts. He can relate. He would have sold more tickets in DF than the stiff that was hired.

You are just talking ****.

(12-13-2015 03:50 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  Its an X's and O's thing. The only Montgomery that Texas would have considered would have been Phillip. Briles could have gotten it though. The kids want to play in those offenses. If you don't think Briles could recruit anywhere in the country than you really aren't paying attention. You can talk about his hat but that's actually a plus where it counts. He can relate. He would have sold more tickets in DF than the stiff that was hired.

Feel free to look at this guys resume, listen to him speak, and then tell me why he's a "stiff." Otherwise keep trolling.