Cobra39 said:

---

You are working on a 6-day anti-Sherman bender. Don't you ever get tired?

Cobra39

---

I don't mean to be, I just think Sumlin isn't getting a fair shake...it was time for him to go but he wasn't as bad as people are making him out to be

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

ebag02 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

ebag02 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

2 of those bowl wins were 100% Johnny. You think Sumlin wins against duke without JFF? Once Sherman's players were gone he was 1-4 and lost to k-state. His last 4 years were a total embarrassment. Sherman's failures were mostly at the beginning of his tenure.

---

Sherman won 0 bowls and his 4 years made aggie football into a joke. Once Fran's players were gone he went 6 - 6 and was canned. One winning season with Fran's players. You think Sherman wins 9 games without Von Miller and Tannehill?

---

Sherman's best year was in 2010, 3 years in. Sumlin's was 2012, year 1 with a team recruited and coached by Sherman, and he never came close again. Sherman's best team was undoubtedly his Abbey 2 years of exciting and coaching. Sumlin's was undoubtedly not after a single off-season.

After year 3 (hell, starting in year 3), Sumlin was a proven 7-5, 6-6 coach, depending on who we drew from the east. Sherman had a 6-6 year 4 that should have been better, but he left a team with incredible potential. Do you think the 2016 or 17 teams could get to 11 wins?

You keep on with those false equivalencies though.

---

Sherman didn't recruit the best players on the 2010 team, Fran did. Sumlin had only winning seasons. Sherman is the guy with all the .500 and below seasons. You keep on with those made up coaching records though.

---

Sherman developed all of those players into the 2010 team. Who did Sumlin develop? He went from 11-2 with a team that Sherman developed and turned it into a mediocre, perennial 7 win team by year 3. Everything from 2014 on was wins over paper tigers and second half of the season collapses. Sumlin turned us into a joke for the last 4 years.

---

Johnny Manziel and Mike Evans played 0 downs for Sherman, yet Sherman gets full credit for them. Johnny is on the record on his podcast saying he hated playing for Sherman. Sumlin never won less than 8 games when he coached a full season, yet you say he is perennial 6 to 7 win coach.

You give credit to Sherman for 2012 because Sumlin didn't recruit Johnny and Mike Evans. I use your logic to give credit to Fran for 2010. If jimbo wins the National championship this year then Sumlin gets credit. I'm just trying to be consistent.

Mike will make just under $1M this year in Canada. It's cold in Canada.
Kevin will be the highest paid CFB coach in 2018 @ $13.5M

Money talks. Debate over. Sumlin by a landslide! (Drops mic ) Next!

ebag02 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

ebag02 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

ebag02 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

2 of those bowl wins were 100% Johnny. You think Sumlin wins against duke without JFF? Once Sherman's players were gone he was 1-4 and lost to k-state. His last 4 years were a total embarrassment. Sherman's failures were mostly at the beginning of his tenure.

---

Sherman won 0 bowls and his 4 years made aggie football into a joke. Once Fran's players were gone he went 6 - 6 and was canned. One winning season with Fran's players. You think Sherman wins 9 games without Von Miller and Tannehill?

---

Sherman's best year was in 2010, 3 years in. Sumlin's was 2012, year 1 with a team recruited and coached by Sherman, and he never came close again. Sherman's best team was undoubtedly his Abbey 2 years of exciting and coaching. Sumlin's was undoubtedly not after a single off-season.

After year 3 (hell, starting in year 3), Sumlin was a proven 7-5, 6-6 coach, depending on who we drew from the east. Sherman had a 6-6 year 4 that should have been better, but he left a team with incredible potential. Do you think the 2016 or 17 teams could get to 11 wins?

You keep on with those false equivalencies though.

---

Sherman didn't recruit the best players on the 2010 team, Fran did. Sumlin had only winning seasons. Sherman is the guy with all the .500 and below seasons. You keep on with those made up coaching records though.

---

Sherman developed all of those players into the 2010 team. Who did Sumlin develop? He went from 11-2 with a team that Sherman developed and turned it into a mediocre, perennial 7 win team by year 3. Everything from 2014 on was wins over paper tigers and second half of the season collapses. Sumlin turned us into a joke for the last 4 years.

---

Johnny Manziel and Mike Evans played 0 downs for Sherman, yet Sherman gets full credit for them. Johnny is on the record on his podcast saying he hated playing for Sherman. Sumlin never won less than 8 games when he coached a full season, yet you say he is perennial 6 to 7 win coach.

You give credit to Sherman for 2012 because Sumlin didn't recruit Johnny and Mike Evans. I use your logic to give credit to Fran for 2010. If jimbo wins the National championship this year then Sumlin gets credit. I'm just trying to be consistent.

---

No. You're reading what you want to read and putting words in my mouth. I give credit to Sherman for 2010 because he developed that team for two years. Recruiting has very little to do with it outside of Sherman recruiting for 2 years. I don't give Sumlin much credit for 2012 for the same reason. That team was built and developed mostly by Sherman, and after two years Sumlin was walking through one debacle of a season after another. He's a 6-7 win coach in the regular season. I'm not cobbling bowl wins and losses. You think he'd have won more than 6 games this year if we let him finish out?

Sherman's teams showed improvement the longer he was here. Sumlin's showed regression the longer he was here. Not that hard to understand.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

ebag02 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

ebag02 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

ebag02 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

2 of those bowl wins were 100% Johnny. You think Sumlin wins against duke without JFF? Once Sherman's players were gone he was 1-4 and lost to k-state. His last 4 years were a total embarrassment. Sherman's failures were mostly at the beginning of his tenure.

---

Sherman won 0 bowls and his 4 years made aggie football into a joke. Once Fran's players were gone he went 6 - 6 and was canned. One winning season with Fran's players. You think Sherman wins 9 games without Von Miller and Tannehill?

---

Sherman's best year was in 2010, 3 years in. Sumlin's was 2012, year 1 with a team recruited and coached by Sherman, and he never came close again. Sherman's best team was undoubtedly his Abbey 2 years of exciting and coaching. Sumlin's was undoubtedly not after a single off-season.

After year 3 (hell, starting in year 3), Sumlin was a proven 7-5, 6-6 coach, depending on who we drew from the east. Sherman had a 6-6 year 4 that should have been better, but he left a team with incredible potential. Do you think the 2016 or 17 teams could get to 11 wins?

You keep on with those false equivalencies though.

---

Sherman didn't recruit the best players on the 2010 team, Fran did. Sumlin had only winning seasons. Sherman is the guy with all the .500 and below seasons. You keep on with those made up coaching records though.

---

Sherman developed all of those players into the 2010 team. Who did Sumlin develop? He went from 11-2 with a team that Sherman developed and turned it into a mediocre, perennial 7 win team by year 3. Everything from 2014 on was wins over paper tigers and second half of the season collapses. Sumlin turned us into a joke for the last 4 years.

---

Johnny Manziel and Mike Evans played 0 downs for Sherman, yet Sherman gets full credit for them. Johnny is on the record on his podcast saying he hated playing for Sherman. Sumlin never won less than 8 games when he coached a full season, yet you say he is perennial 6 to 7 win coach.

You give credit to Sherman for 2012 because Sumlin didn't recruit Johnny and Mike Evans. I use your logic to give credit to Fran for 2010. If jimbo wins the National championship this year then Sumlin gets credit. I'm just trying to be consistent.

---

No. You're reading what you want to read and putting words in my mouth. I give credit to Sherman for 2010 because he developed that team for two years. Recruiting has very little to do with it outside of Sherman recruiting for 2 years. I don't give Sumlin much credit for 2012 for the same reason. That team was built and developed mostly by Sherman, and after two years Sumlin was walking through one debacle of a season after another. He's a 6-7 win coach in the regular season. I'm not cobbling bowl wins and losses. You think he'd have won more than 6 games this year if we let him finish out?

Sherman's teams showed improvement the longer he was here. Sumlin's showed regression the longer he was here. Not that hard to understand.

---

Any improvement Sherman's teams showed was due to how he completely failed his first 2 seasons. Aggie football was in a bad place and Sherman said to Fran hold my beer. His final team went 6-6 and that is worse than Fran's last team. That's not improvement. Sherman had one outlier in 2010 with Fran's players.

Why don't you include bowl games in your analysis? Could it be because When Sherman actually made a bowl game he got embarrassed? Sumlin never won less than 7 games in the regular season so how can he be a perennial 6 win coach?

6 wins is less than 9 wins, that's not improvement. Not that hard to understand.

Here's another fun fact. Sherman faced current SEC members 7 times while at A&M and went 0-7. Truly a legend and would have been better in the SEC.

Missouri 0-2
Arkansas 0-3
LSU 0-1
Georgia 0-1

ebag02 said:

---

Here's another fun fact. Sherman faced current SEC members 7 times while at A&M and went 0-7. Truly a legend and would have been better in the SEC.

Missouri 0-2
Arkansas 0-3
LSU 0-1
Georgia 0-1

---

It's amazing that Sumlin is ahead of Sherman by every quantifiable metric yet people still have the audacity to think he was the better coach.

ebag02 said:

---

Here's another fun fact. Sherman faced current SEC members 7 times while at A&M and went 0-7. Truly a legend and would have been better in the SEC.

Missouri 0-2
Arkansas 0-3
LSU 0-1
Georgia 0-1

---

You'll never convince him or the other Sherman honks on here. I don't remember anyone shedding a tear for him 6 years ago when he got fired, maybe in time people won't judge Sumlin so harshly either...I guess it's too fresh still.

I think a lot of dislike for Sumlin is due to his contract extension (not that he was to blame for it; hell, who wouldn't take that deal?) and the fact that had it not been for those ridiculous terms, he'd have been sent packing a year earlier.

Sherman didn't cost nearly as much and got fired when he should've gotten fired.

ebag02 said:

---

Here's another fun fact. Sherman faced current SEC members 7 times while at A&M and went 0-7. Truly a legend and would have been better in the SEC.

Missouri 0-2
Arkansas 0-3
LSU 0-1
Georgia 0-1

---

If you think Sumlin would've beat Bobby P at Arkansas... lol. He barely beat them under Beliema.

Mizzou? 1-1 for Sumlin, we kicked their ass when they 5-7 and 2-6 in the SEC in 2012.

They were constant 8+ win teams prior, and won the east in 2013 when we lost to them again.

The 2010 LSU has been far better than any of the LSU teams Sumlin faced... and we've been crushed by them since joining the SEC. (not to mention wasn't 2010 when we had to reconvert Tanny back to QB after being our most productive WR)

UGA doubt Sumlin would've beat them as well...

Again Sumlin was the right guy for the job, much to my dismay as I never wanted him, in 2012. But to say he's a better coach is a stretch.

His coaching staff was deplorable outside of Price (really one of the few guys he hired that's been truly solid, and a reason why he was retained by Jimbo..) the rest were all Sherman's guys or new hires.

Scouting/talent evaluation, staff evaluations, rebuilding a damaged imagine under Fran was an extremely difficult thing to do. It's easy to recruit when you're hot commodity, it's muh harder when you're program known for screwing players over (Fran, injury scandal, locker room issues, there's a reason why certain players hate A&M from that era). Sherman was the right for the job and rebuilding, he just couldn't get it done in games, but was looking long term not a win now mentality. (He also thought he had another year after 2011 - and how we fired him was really ****ty, but realistically it was the right move at the time).

Lastly Sumlin greatly benefited from JFF in 2012, along with very limited injuries in the defensive side of the ball. The dude has been awful at staff evaluations, talent scouting and development, and is a horrible x and o's guy. He wants to be the face of the program and that's about it.

Bayside Tiger Ag said:

---

ebag02 said:

---

Here's another fun fact. Sherman faced current SEC members 7 times while at A&M and went 0-7. Truly a legend and would have been better in the SEC.

Missouri 0-2
Arkansas 0-3
LSU 0-1
Georgia 0-1

---

It's amazing that Sumlin is ahead of Sherman by every quantifiable metric yet people still have the audacity to think he was the better coach.

---

Really? Sherman's positive win delta over time is much better than summon's negative one... It's almost like Sumlin inherited a solid team and ran it into the ground and Sherman didn't.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Bayside Tiger Ag said:

---

ebag02 said:

---

Here's another fun fact. Sherman faced current SEC members 7 times while at A&M and went 0-7. Truly a legend and would have been better in the SEC.

Missouri 0-2
Arkansas 0-3
LSU 0-1
Georgia 0-1

---

It's amazing that Sumlin is ahead of Sherman by every quantifiable metric yet people still have the audacity to think he was the better coach.

---

Really? Sherman's positive win delta over time is much better than summon's negative one... It's almost like Sumlin inherited a solid team and ran it into the ground and Sherman didn't.

---

So because Sherman tanked year 1 and won less games than his predecessor he should get some kind of credit for winning 6 games in his final season? I guess Sumlin should have just tanked year 1 and lost every game like he was expected to so his delta would look better.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Bayside Tiger Ag said:

---

ebag02 said:

---

Here's another fun fact. Sherman faced current SEC members 7 times while at A&M and went 0-7. Truly a legend and would have been better in the SEC.

Missouri 0-2
Arkansas 0-3
LSU 0-1
Georgia 0-1

---

It's amazing that Sumlin is ahead of Sherman by every quantifiable metric yet people still have the audacity to think he was the better coach.

---

Really? Sherman's positive win delta over time is much better than summon's negative one... It's almost like Sumlin inherited a solid team and ran it into the ground and Sherman didn't.

---

What are you talking about? 3 of Sherman's 4 years were worse than every year Sumlin coached at A&M...I think slicer97 nailed it, people are mad at Sumlin because we couldn't fire him when we wanted to (after year 4 in 2015 it was starting to seem obvious that he wasn't the guy) because of his contract extension. Sherman was easy to fired after year 4 so he didn't hang around and wear out his welcome.

I'm glad that Sumlin hung around as long as he did though because I don't think we would have Jimbo otherwise...we would probably have Tom Herman

Let's get a couple of things straight:

1. Sherman deserved to be fired (albeit in a more appropriate manner). I am not saying Sherman was great. He was a good builder but not a big-game coach. He got exposed by coaches who handled pressure better. He is not a champion-level P5 HC.

2. Of course JFF liked playing for Sumlin- Sumlin let him do whatever he wanted:

-Get into a fistfight on Northgate b/c his buddy used a racial slur...no problem!
-Dress up like Scooby Doo, party all night, miss team meetings...no problem!
-Do all kinds of drugs, roll with a posse of hanger-on losers like Uncle Nate...no problem!

3. Yes, I despise Sumlin on the same level as Fran. I stop there b/c the ban hits hard.

I want to see Sumlin fail horribly at UA for 2 reasons:
(1) Grudge;
(2) It would mean that the SEC and A&M brands were more responsible for Sumlin's success, and would be a very good indication for us going forward.

Edit: Removed a redundancy

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Bayside Tiger Ag said:

---

ebag02 said:

---

Here's another fun fact. Sherman faced current SEC members 7 times while at A&M and went 0-7. Truly a legend and would have been better in the SEC.

Missouri 0-2
Arkansas 0-3
LSU 0-1
Georgia 0-1

---

It's amazing that Sumlin is ahead of Sherman by every quantifiable metric yet people still have the audacity to think he was the better coach.

---

Really? Sherman's positive win delta over time is much better than summon's negative one... It's almost like Sumlin inherited a solid team and ran it into the ground and Sherman didn't.

---

What are you talking about? 3 of Sherman's 4 years were worse than every year Sumlin coached at A&M...I think slicer97 nailed it, people are mad at Sumlin because we couldn't fire him when we wanted to (after year 4 in 2015 it was starting to seem obvious that he wasn't the guy) because of his contract extension. Sherman was easy to fired after year 4 so he didn't hang around and wear out his welcome.

I'm glad that Sumlin hung around as long as he did though because I don't think we would have Jimbo otherwise...we would probably have Tom Herman

---

Sumlin also walked into a much better situation than Sherman in many ways. Fran's recruiting classes were good on paper, but he wasn't much of a coach or developer. We had some good athletes, but not a good team. Sherman was also recruiting against Mack Brown and Bob Stoops while still in the bdf. Sumlin got to recruit against chollie and big game Bob while touting the SEC.

Sure, Sherman's first two years were bad. He walked into a crappy program and worked to turn it around. 2010 was that turnaround. 2011 saw a talent dropoff and was a disappointment, but I don't think it's indicative of the direction or state of the program. I think Sherman would have easily done as well as Sumlin in 2012. You can disagree because we all thought the SEC was going to kill us and 2012 was a surprise at the time, but in hindsight the West was way down (see auburn and arkie's records) and Missouri had a terrible year with injuries. We had a very, very easy schedule besides Florida, LSU, and Bama, and we went 1-2 against them. You might throw 8-4 msu in there, but the only teams they beat with winning records were Jackson State and Middle Tennessee. We thought we were walking into a meat grinder and it turned out to be a bouncy house. Again, you can choose to disagree, but 2012's schedule was easy.

Sumlin had a very favorable SEC schedule, drawing Vandy a couple of times and getting permanently paired with USCe. Arkie lost Petrino and got Smith and Bulimia as replacements. Maybe Sherman would have done better playing Kansas twice a year. Even our vaunted OOC schedule turned out to be full of busts. ASU and UCLA were highly touted when we played them, but as their seasons progressed it became obvious that we'd beaten very average or bad teams. Looking at how the teams we beat actually finished, Sumlin chowed down on cupcakes for almost 7 years. There's really only 2-3 standout wins in there, and Johnny is mostly responsible for those. In complete hindsight, outside of 2012, we've been average at best.

Look I know we aren't going to agree no matter what we say...

But we had the 3rd hardest schedule in the country in 2012 so stop making things up please


https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other?date=2013-01-08


And Sherman had a drop off in talent in 2011 and then Sumlin inherits a loaded team magically in 2012?

And 24-12 in the SEC outside of Bama and LSU over 6 years is not "average at best"
Would it have been nice for him to win a few more against Bama and LSU? Absolutely, but if he did then we wouldn't have Jimbo so I'm happy with how it all turned out

I wish we would have hired Sherman after this year just so we could fire him again.

2011 was an abomination of coaching.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Bayside Tiger Ag said:

---

ebag02 said:

---

Here's another fun fact. Sherman faced current SEC members 7 times while at A&M and went 0-7. Truly a legend and would have been better in the SEC.

Missouri 0-2
Arkansas 0-3
LSU 0-1
Georgia 0-1

---

It's amazing that Sumlin is ahead of Sherman by every quantifiable metric yet people still have the audacity to think he was the better coach.

---

Really? Sherman's positive win delta over time is much better than summon's negative one... It's almost like Sumlin inherited a solid team and ran it into the ground and Sherman didn't.

---

What are you talking about? 3 of Sherman's 4 years were worse than every year Sumlin coached at A&M...I think slicer97 nailed it, people are mad at Sumlin because we couldn't fire him when we wanted to (after year 4 in 2015 it was starting to seem obvious that he wasn't the guy) because of his contract extension. Sherman was easy to fired after year 4 so he didn't hang around and wear out his welcome.

I'm glad that Sumlin hung around as long as he did though because I don't think we would have Jimbo otherwise...we would probably have Tom Herman

---

Sumlin also walked into a much better situation than Sherman in many ways. Fran's recruiting classes were good on paper, but he wasn't much of a coach or developer. We had some good athletes, but not a good team. Sherman was also recruiting against Mack Brown and Bob Stoops while still in the bdf. Sumlin got to recruit against chollie and big game Bob while touting the SEC.

Sure, Sherman's first two years were bad. He walked into a crappy program and worked to turn it around. 2010 was that turnaround. 2011 saw a talent dropoff and was a disappointment, but I don't think it's indicative of the direction or state of the program. I think Sherman would have easily done as well as Sumlin in 2012. You can disagree because we all thought the SEC was going to kill us and 2012 was a surprise at the time, but in hindsight the West was way down (see auburn and arkie's records) and Missouri had a terrible year with injuries. We had a very, very easy schedule besides Florida, LSU, and Bama, and we went 1-2 against them. You might throw 8-4 msu in there, but the only teams they beat with winning records were Jackson State and Middle Tennessee. We thought we were walking into a meat grinder and it turned out to be a bouncy house. Again, you can choose to disagree, but 2012's schedule was easy.

Sumlin had a very favorable SEC schedule, drawing Vandy a couple of times and getting permanently paired with USCe. Arkie lost Petrino and got Smith and Bulimia as replacements. Maybe Sherman would have done better playing Kansas twice a year. Even our vaunted OOC schedule turned out to be full of busts. ASU and UCLA were highly touted when we played them, but as their seasons progressed it became obvious that we'd beaten very average or bad teams. Looking at how the teams we beat actually finished, Sumlin chowed down on cupcakes for almost 7 years. There's really only 2-3 standout wins in there, and Johnny is mostly responsible for those. In complete hindsight, outside of 2012, we've been average at best.

---

Sherman choked on cupcakes for 4 years and got beat by good teams. Sherman lost 62 - 14 to a 6-6 K state team. He also lost 65 - 10 to an unranked OU team. I could go on and on if you keep posting.

I know Fran left him with no talent. He left him scrubs like Von Miller, Stephen McGee, Jerrod Johnson, Mike Goodson, Ryan Tannehill, Michael Bennett, Jorvorskie Lane, Mike Goodson, Danny Gorrer.

How are you quantifying this mystical development? I would think wins would be the result, but they didn't come until Sherman was fired. Logic says Sherman's coaching was holding the team back.

ebag02 said:

---

I know Fran left him with no talent. He left him scrubs like Von Miller, Stephen McGee, Jerrod Johnson, Mike Goodson, Ryan Tannehill, Michael Bennett, Jorvorskie Lane, Mike Goodson, Danny Gorrer.

How are you quantifying this mystical development? I would think wins would be the result, but they didn't come until Sherman was fired. Logic says Sherman's coaching was holding the team back.

---

While that is certainly true to some extent, I don't see a single offensive lineman among those names you listed. Doesn't much matter how good your skill players are if they don't get sufficient blocking. Fran left some talent behind, but he also left quite a few holes.

It's never a good sign when QB2 and QB3 are lined up at wide receiver during the first game.

That's reasonable and I agree with you. I think you will also agree that there was still enough talent to beat Arkansas State or stay within 45 points of a 6-6 K State team in year 2.

Quote:

---

But we had the 3rd hardest schedule in the country in 2012 so stop making things up please

---

I have been posting about 2012 for years, but here we go again:

In 2012, our lack of defensive depth never got exposed because of the way things fell. That was the break. We never faced consecutive fierce hitting contests. Arkie and Bama both had terrible years and those games were over quickly. MSU was decent, but played terribly and that game was over at halftime. We had to deal with attrition once, and we almost lost to La Tech because of it. Thankfully JFF had his best game of the season.

FLORIDA
-smu
-sc state
-arkie (was terrible that year, game over by halftime)
OM
-la tech (almost lost b/c defense was dinged up)
LSU
-auburn (also horrible and over at halftime)
-msu (had a decent team, but played a bad game, over at halftime)
BAMA
-sam
-mizzou

Every other year, the lack of depth got exposed.

Agsuffering@bulaw said:

---

Quote:

---

But we had the 3rd hardest schedule in the country in 2012 so stop making things up please

---

I have been posting about 2012 for years, but here we go again:

In 2012, our lack of defensive depth never got exposed because of the way things fell. That was the break. We never faced consecutive fierce hitting contests. Arkie and Bama both had terrible years and those games were over quickly. MSU was decent, but played terribly and that game was over at halftime. We had to deal with attrition once, and we almost lost to La Tech because of it. Thankfully JFF had his best game of the season.

FLORIDA
-smu
-sc state
-arkie (was terrible that year, game over by halftime)
OM
-la tech (almost lost b/c defense was dinged up)
LSU
-auburn (also horrible and over at halftime)
-msu (had a decent team, but played a bad game, over at halftime)
BAMA
-sam
-mizzou

Every other year, the lack of depth got exposed.

---

Bama didn't have a terrible year, they won the national championship. We weren't dinged up against La Tech, we had some guys suspended though.

That was the best Texas A&M team I have ever seen. That team beats anyone at the end of the year and I'm not sure why you are acting like they were lucky. I guess they were lucky to not get inured and a had a few close games, but you can say that about any good team. We beat Alabama on the road and hammered OU in the Cotton Bowl.

SoS based on total wins and losses is an incomplete picture when we lost to 2/3 of the top teams we played. We beat 3 FBS teams that finished the regular season with winning records, and one of those was an overrated MSU who didn't beat a single one. Another was Louisiana tech. Overall, we played a high number of bad teams and a few really good ones.

Using your metric, you could have a difficult SoS playing 4 undefeated teams with no wins over winning teams and 8 other winless ones. Not all wins are created equal.

Quote:

---

I know Fran left him with no talent. He left him scrubs like Von Miller, Stephen McGee, Jerrod Johnson, Mike Goodson, Ryan Tannehill, Michael Bennett, Jorvorskie Lane, Mike Goodson, Danny Gorrer.

---

Most of those guys were gone after 2008.

Von- Fran was misusing, Sherman used him as a flex and the rest is history

McGee- was hurt

JJ- no argument there

RT- yes, but he would not have been nearly as good without Sherman

Bennett- did not have a single sack in 2008, he is a headcase who peaked under Fran

JTrain- unwilling to block, let his weight get out of control, could have been somebody, not Sherm's fault

Goodson- suffered from a bad attitude and bad OL, Cyrus ended up taking half his carries

Gorrer- yes, he was good for a year


Notice that only 1 of those players was a DL and none were OL or LBs?

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

SoS based on total wins and losses is an incomplete picture when we lost to 2/3 of the top teams we played. We beat 3 FBS teams that finished the regular season with winning records, and one of those was an overrated MSU who didn't beat a single one. Another was Louisiana tech. Overall, we played a high number of bad teams and a few really good ones.

Using your metric, you could have a difficult SoS playing 4 undefeated teams with no wins over winning teams and 8 other winless ones. Not all wins are created equal.

---

Fair enough, the 2012 team wasn't good. I guess that's on Sherman.

2012 was a great team. Being at the CB and watching JFF run around the okies was one of my best experiences.

But, the defensive depth was non-existent. Most years, they lose another game due to attrition caused by the SEC schedule.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

SoS based on total wins and losses is an incomplete picture when we lost to 2/3 of the top teams we played. We beat 3 FBS teams that finished the regular season with winning records, and one of those was an overrated MSU who didn't beat a single one. Another was Louisiana tech. Overall, we played a high number of bad teams and a few really good ones.

Using your metric, you could have a difficult SoS playing 4 undefeated teams with no wins over winning teams and 8 other winless ones. Not all wins are created equal.

---

2/4 we beat a very good Oklahoma team, also Ole Miss finished with a winning record...and you don't get to decide for yourself if a schedule is worthy or not when there is already an accepted method of measuring a teams SOS for all teams

And yes you get credit for beating teams you are supposed to beat (like Sumlin did by going 50-15 against all teams not named LSU and Bama) which is something Sherman struggled to do (23-19 against teams not named texas and ou).

How can you look at those numbers and think that Sherman would have similarly gone 50-15 or better against those same teams?

Answer: Because you and others have a personal grudge with Sumlin because he hung around longer than he probably should have

Agsuffering@bulaw said:

---

Quote:

---

I know Fran left him with no talent. He left him scrubs like Von Miller, Stephen McGee, Jerrod Johnson, Mike Goodson, Ryan Tannehill, Michael Bennett, Jorvorskie Lane, Mike Goodson, Danny Gorrer.

---

Most of those guys were gone after 2008.

Von- Fran was misusing, Sherman used him as a flex and the rest is history

McGee- was hurt

JJ- no argument there

RT- yes, but he would not have been nearly as good without Sherman

Bennett- did not have a single sack in 2008, he is a headcase who peaked under Fran

JTrain- unwilling to block, let his weight get out of control, could have been somebody, not Sherm's fault

Goodson- suffered from a bad attitude and bad OL, Cyrus ended up taking half his carries

Gorrer- yes, he was good for a year


Notice that only 1 of those players was a DL and none were OL or LBs?

---

Probably worth Mentioning that Von decided to quit and only returned after Sherman talked to him

This isn't a personal grudge, as I was never a fan as I never saw him as a good coach from the start. If we were going to hire the best coach in the AAC af the time why would it be the guy that who lost in he championship game? That was my red flag on Sumlin

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

SoS based on total wins and losses is an incomplete picture when we lost to 2/3 of the top teams we played. We beat 3 FBS teams that finished the regular season with winning records, and one of those was an overrated MSU who didn't beat a single one. Another was Louisiana tech. Overall, we played a high number of bad teams and a few really good ones.

Using your metric, you could have a difficult SoS playing 4 undefeated teams with no wins over winning teams and 8 other winless ones. Not all wins are created equal.

---

2/4 we beat a very good Oklahoma team, also Ole Miss finished with a winning record...and you don't get to decide for yourself if a schedule is worthy or not when there is already an accepted method of measuring a teams SOS for all teams

And yes you get credit for beating teams you are supposed to beat (like Sumlin did by going 50-15 against all teams not named LSU and Bama) which is something Sherman struggled to do (23-19 against teams not named texas and ou).

How can you look at those numbers and think that Sherman would have similarly gone 50-15 or better against those same teams?

Answer: Because you and others have a personal grudge with Sumlin because he hung around longer than he probably should have

---

Regular season. Remember, I don't count bowls. They're not all created equal. Losing a playoff bowl shouldn't be counted less than winning a toilet bowl in your overall record dinky because one is a loss and another is a win. They're also subjectively set up based on ratings and revenues, not conference or parity. A team could easily have an extra game where they punch above or below their weight because someone decided the matchup would draw viewers. As I see it, the best way to look at a schedule is how you do in your conference and against who you choose to schedule. Bowls are nothing but exhibition.

There are many ways to determine SoS. Total win/loss is just the quickest and easiest, though probably the least accurate. A much more accurate metric would be to weight wins and losses of opponents need on your opponents' opponents. Lots of people say teams like Boise State have no business in the playoffs because of who they play, but if they go undefeated or 1 loss they're inflating SoS. Either all games are created equal and tabs with the best record deserve the first shot, or they're not and SoS based on Win/Loss alone isn't a good metric. It can't be both.

Sumlin does get credit for beating the teams he should have, but that's all he ever did once JFF left. He was nothing more than a flash in the pan who rode the coattails of a once in a generation QB. For all of his failings, at least Sherman can say he built a successful season on his own, and I think he'd have had more than 1 given another year. People like you hold a grudge against Sherman for getting your hopes up on 2011 and letting you down.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

SoS based on total wins and losses is an incomplete picture when we lost to 2/3 of the top teams we played. We beat 3 FBS teams that finished the regular season with winning records, and one of those was an overrated MSU who didn't beat a single one. Another was Louisiana tech. Overall, we played a high number of bad teams and a few really good ones.

Using your metric, you could have a difficult SoS playing 4 undefeated teams with no wins over winning teams and 8 other winless ones. Not all wins are created equal.

---

2/4 we beat a very good Oklahoma team, also Ole Miss finished with a winning record...and you don't get to decide for yourself if a schedule is worthy or not when there is already an accepted method of measuring a teams SOS for all teams

And yes you get credit for beating teams you are supposed to beat (like Sumlin did by going 50-15 against all teams not named LSU and Bama) which is something Sherman struggled to do (23-19 against teams not named texas and ou).

How can you look at those numbers and think that Sherman would have similarly gone 50-15 or better against those same teams?

Answer: Because you and others have a personal grudge with Sumlin because he hung around longer than he probably should have

---

Regular season. Remember, I don't count bowls. They're not all created equal. Losing a playoff bowl shouldn't be counted less than winning a toilet bowl in your overall record dinky because one is a loss and another is a win. They're also subjectively set up based on ratings and revenues, not conference or parity. A team could easily have an extra game where they punch above or below their weight because someone decided the matchup would draw viewers. As I see it, the best way to look at a schedule is how you do in your conference and against who you choose to schedule. Bowls are nothing but exhibition.

There are many ways to determine SoS. Total win/loss is just the quickest and easiest, though probably the least accurate. A much more accurate metric would be to weight wins and losses of opponents need on your opponents' opponents. Lots of people say teams like Boise State have no business in the playoffs because of who they play, but if they go undefeated or 1 loss they're inflating SoS. Either all games are created equal and tabs with the best record deserve the first shot, or they're not and SoS based on Win/Loss alone isn't a good metric. It can't be both.

Sumlin does get credit for beating the teams he should have, but that's all he ever did once JFF left. He was nothing more than a flash in the pan who rode the coattails of a once in a generation QB. For all of his failings, at least Sherman can say he built a successful season on his own, and I think he'd have had more than 1 given another year. People like you hold a grudge against Sherman for getting your hopes up on 2011 and letting you down.

---

First of all Boise never has a strong SOS even when they go 11-1

Secondly I have nothing against Sherman and still believe he did a lot for A&M during his time here. I just think Sumlin is a better college football coach than him regardless of how you want to make up your own rules like SOS, recruiting rankings, and bowl games don't count. Sumlin won more regular season, conference, and bowl games as well was a better recruiter

Sherman could recruit and develop better. But he couldn't win. Sumlin could as long as he had other people's players.

Sumlin is a better head coacch.

Champ Bailey said:

---

Sherman could recruit and develop better. But he couldn't win. Sumlin could as long as he had other people's players.

Sumlin is a better head coacch.

---

I agree Sherman developed players better, but Sherman's best recruiting classes were number 17 and 25 and the other two were outside the top 25

ApachePilot said:

---

I recall Missouri at Kyle in 2010, 3rd quarter and empty. Jerrod had a bad shoulder all season. Missouri kills us.

---

Don't remind me of this game ever again. The absolute worst of my freshmen year.

Would y'all please stop quoting entire arguments worth of quotes? I don't wanna have to scroll through a bunch of crap I've already read that was wrong and dumb before I can read your crap and tell you why you're wrong and dumb. Thanks.