Is this common knowledge?

Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:

---

He was gun shy after ****ing up the Allen/Murray situation.

---

A Head coach who isn't confident in his decision making always ends bad.

jrico2727 said:

---

I still have never understood how Baylor could have Stidham on the roster and Mond committed, but it was inconceivable that the could both come to A&M.

---

That was the heavy spin from all the "in" people. Now were they just spinning to protect Summy? Who knows.

Either way, glad Sumlin didn't reach out because Stidham would have screwed around and won 8 games + a 9th at the bowl game.

wheelz said:

---

If he pulls the trigger on Stidham we probably still have Sumlin coaching. Is that what you would have wanted?

---

No possible way. For one, there were much deeper issues than QB play. But point number two, he had Allen and failed. He had Kyler Murray and failed. Maybe the third time would have been the charm, but he has given no evidence that he can win with a talented QB. Hell, even Johnny's second season, which was statistically better for him, was an absolute dud.

Just talked to a buddy of mine in the media that's out there and he was watching the presser and said Stidham said (paraphrasing) he recruited himself more to the school than the school did to him and that he was hitting up Sumlin but didn't get much of a response.

I'm also glad we got Jimbo but after seeing what Mond has to offer it still seems crazy not to barely return the guy's calls.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

glad Sumlin gambled on 3 recruits and potentially losing them vs. recruiting Stidham.

Because if he would have been smart and gone after Stidham, he'd still be here and we wouldn't have Jimbo.

---

this x 100

regardless of whether he was right or not, i thought sumlin deserves some credit for making what seemed like a better long-term move despite being on the hot seat at the time

/Let it go. Let it go.gif

Stidham was eligible to go pro after just one year, and he felt like Stidham was leaning that way. So Sumlin decided to put his stock in young guys that would be around for multiple years. That's why he didn't pursue Stidham. I think Sumlin felt like he learned a lesson with only having Trevor for one year. It's great if you're setup for a one year push (think baseball free-agent), but if you're not there, it's better to plan for the future. In the end, I don't think it mattered who we had a QB, we were still going to fail last year. We'd have won the UCLA game with Stidham, but that's it.

I think it'll end up being a good decision in the long run to take Mond over Stidham. If Stidham has a good to great season this year, he's gone to the pros in all likelihood and could go in the first round in the NFL draft based on teams needing QBs.

We have barely seen Mond scratch the surface of what he's capable of, he's more of a dual-threat than Stidham, and only a sophomore, so has 3 years of eligibility left as opposed to 2 like Stidham.

Stidham had a successful year with Auburn this past season because they had a very good running game. That makes it much easier on any QB. We'll see how he does with both starting RBs and half the OL gone this year.

Didn't Sumlin try to recruit him out of high school and lost to Tech and then Baylor? Surely he isn't implying that he was never recruited? I can understand having reasons to not recruit him as a transfer, but that is different than not recruiting him either time. Assuming he was recruited out of high school, the dude had his chance to be an Aggie and chose Baylor over Tech, as I recall. His fault.

Balrog said:

---

Stidham was eligible to go pro after just one year, and he felt like Stidham was leaning that way. So Sumlin decided to put his stock in young guys that would be around for multiple years. That's why he didn't pursue Stidham. I think Sumlin felt like he learned a lesson with only having Trevor for one year. It's great if you're setup for a one year push (think baseball free-agent), but if you're not there, it's better to plan for the future. In the end, I don't think it mattered who we had a QB, we were still going to fail last year. We'd have won the UCLA game with Stidham, but that's it.

---

We probably would have beat Auburn too and possibly Miss. St....bowl outcome would have been different too. Could have been 10-2 or 9-3 tbh

Thanks, Obama Sumlin.

Saint Pablo said:

---

Balrog said:

---

Stidham was eligible to go pro after just one year, and he felt like Stidham was leaning that way. So Sumlin decided to put his stock in young guys that would be around for multiple years. That's why he didn't pursue Stidham. I think Sumlin felt like he learned a lesson with only having Trevor for one year. It's great if you're setup for a one year push (think baseball free-agent), but if you're not there, it's better to plan for the future. In the end, I don't think it mattered who we had a QB, we were still going to fail last year. We'd have won the UCLA game with Stidham, but that's it.

---

We probably would have beat Auburn too and possibly Miss. St....bowl outcome would have been different too. Could have been 10-2 or 9-3 tbh

---

I don't think so. Ags got rolled in those games. It wouldn't have mattered who was under center. We had no answer on defense.

The year 2053.

That is my prediction on when the whiny battered Aggies will stop bashing Sumlin and trying to blame him for every imaginary problem they can come up with...

Saint Pablo said:

---

Balrog said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Balrog said:

---

Stidham was eligible to go pro after just one year, and he felt like Stidham was leaning that way. So Sumlin decided to put his stock in young guys that would be around for multiple years. That's why he didn't pursue Stidham. I think Sumlin felt like he learned a lesson with only having Trevor for one year. It's great if you're setup for a one year push (think baseball free-agent), but if you're not there, it's better to plan for the future. In the end, I don't think it mattered who we had a QB, we were still going to fail last year. We'd have won the UCLA game with Stidham, but that's it.

---

We probably would have beat Auburn too and possibly Miss. St....bowl outcome would have been different too. Could have been 10-2 or 9-3 tbh

---

I don't think so. Ags got rolled in those games. It wouldn't have mattered who was under center. We had no answer on defense.

---

A big part of the reason we got rolled by Auburn was Stidham...if Auburn does not have him and we do, things are way different IMO

---

This. Lol. People don't see it.

We take stidham ...auburn has no one at qb. Zilch

It was a win/win. We get a qb and weaken a rival.

Sumlin ended his career over stidham and the Kyle/kyler debacle.

You guys should go back to the archives. These exact same threads are posted in 2017.

Even looch had a post saying we weren't interested.

Just more confirmation to what we all knew: Sumlin is dumb as dirt. JFF made his career, he should have topped out as a position coach, maybe.

Good lord, turn down a proven qb with all the measurables, Sumlin is an idiot, good riddance.

Sumlin has lost control of QB's he recruited AND even the ones he didn't... AMF

FishingAggie said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Balrog said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Balrog said:

---

Stidham was eligible to go pro after just one year, and he felt like Stidham was leaning that way. So Sumlin decided to put his stock in young guys that would be around for multiple years. That's why he didn't pursue Stidham. I think Sumlin felt like he learned a lesson with only having Trevor for one year. It's great if you're setup for a one year push (think baseball free-agent), but if you're not there, it's better to plan for the future. In the end, I don't think it mattered who we had a QB, we were still going to fail last year. We'd have won the UCLA game with Stidham, but that's it.

---

We probably would have beat Auburn too and possibly Miss. St....bowl outcome would have been different too. Could have been 10-2 or 9-3 tbh

---

I don't think so. Ags got rolled in those games. It wouldn't have mattered who was under center. We had no answer on defense.

---

A big part of the reason we got rolled by Auburn was Stidham...if Auburn does not have him and we do, things are way different IMO

---

This. Lol. People don't see it.

We take stidham ...auburn has no one at qb. Zilch

It was a win/win. We get a qb and weaken a rival.

Sumlin ended his career over stidham and the Kyle/kyler debacle.

You guys should go back to the archives. These exact same threads are posted in 2017.

Even looch had a post saying we weren't interested.

---

Precisely!

yell_on_6th st said:

---

Just more confirmation to what we all knew: Sumlin is dumb as dirt. JFF made his career, he should have topped out as a position coach, maybe.

Good lord, turn down a proven qb with all the measurables, Sumlin is an idiot, good riddance.

---

Proven? Dude had 3 career starts at Baylor. Doesn't sound "proven" to me.

FishingAggie said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Balrog said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Balrog said:

---

Stidham was eligible to go pro after just one year, and he felt like Stidham was leaning that way. So Sumlin decided to put his stock in young guys that would be around for multiple years. That's why he didn't pursue Stidham. I think Sumlin felt like he learned a lesson with only having Trevor for one year. It's great if you're setup for a one year push (think baseball free-agent), but if you're not there, it's better to plan for the future. In the end, I don't think it mattered who we had a QB, we were still going to fail last year. We'd have won the UCLA game with Stidham, but that's it.

---

We probably would have beat Auburn too and possibly Miss. St....bowl outcome would have been different too. Could have been 10-2 or 9-3 tbh

---

I don't think so. Ags got rolled in those games. It wouldn't have mattered who was under center. We had no answer on defense.

---

A big part of the reason we got rolled by Auburn was Stidham...if Auburn does not have him and we do, things are way different IMO

---

This. Lol. People don't see it.

We take stidham ...auburn has no one at qb. Zilch

It was a win/win. We get a qb and weaken a rival.

Sumlin ended his career over stidham and the Kyle/kyler debacle.

You guys should go back to the archives. These exact same threads are posted in 2017.

Even looch had a post saying we weren't interested.

---

We gave up 500 yards on defense to Auburn. Over 250 of them rushing yards. Unless Stidham also played linebacker for A&M, we were screwed no matter who played QB for Auburn.

Balrog said:

---

FishingAggie said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Balrog said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Balrog said:

---

Stidham was eligible to go pro after just one year, and he felt like Stidham was leaning that way. So Sumlin decided to put his stock in young guys that would be around for multiple years. That's why he didn't pursue Stidham. I think Sumlin felt like he learned a lesson with only having Trevor for one year. It's great if you're setup for a one year push (think baseball free-agent), but if you're not there, it's better to plan for the future. In the end, I don't think it mattered who we had a QB, we were still going to fail last year. We'd have won the UCLA game with Stidham, but that's it.

---

We probably would have beat Auburn too and possibly Miss. St....bowl outcome would have been different too. Could have been 10-2 or 9-3 tbh

---

I don't think so. Ags got rolled in those games. It wouldn't have mattered who was under center. We had no answer on defense.

---

A big part of the reason we got rolled by Auburn was Stidham...if Auburn does not have him and we do, things are way different IMO

---

This. Lol. People don't see it.

We take stidham ...auburn has no one at qb. Zilch

It was a win/win. We get a qb and weaken a rival.

Sumlin ended his career over stidham and the Kyle/kyler debacle.

You guys should go back to the archives. These exact same threads are posted in 2017.

Even looch had a post saying we weren't interested.

---

We gave up 500 yards on defense to Auburn. Over 250 of them rushing yards. Unless Stidham also played linebacker for A&M, we were screwed no matter who played QB for Auburn.

---

The passing game helps to open up the ground game...if they had some no name at quarterback who did not throw for 250 and rush for 30 like Stidham, the rushing stats likely would have looked much different IMO.

Dude half of 500 is 250. That's a good day rushing and passing

And the first time we passed on Stidham it was for Kyler Murray. Glad it all worked out for everyone involved (not counting Texas A&M).