Slicer97 said:

---

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.

---

Lol

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

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

---

Totally, Sumlin was a better recruiter ranking wise, but I think Sherman may have been better from a team-building perspective.

Champ Bailey said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

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

---

Totally, Sumlin was a better recruiter ranking wise, but I think Sherman may have been better from a team-building perspective.

---

Probably, but it's not like the cupboard is bare for Jimbo or something

Y'all are just trying to piss me off now, ain't you?

Slicer97 said:

---

Y'all are just trying to piss me off now, ain't you?

---

It's a habit

Just think: if we would have had Lambo kicking in 2012, we are west division champs and play Georgia in the conf championship.

Those missed kicks against Florida and LSU

And we would all think Sumlin is great

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

Champ Bailey said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

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

---

Totally, Sumlin was a better recruiter ranking wise, but I think Sherman may have been better from a team-building perspective.

---

Probably, but it's not like the cupboard is bare for Jimbo or something

---

Sumlin didn't have to rebuild an imagine problem post Fran, withour any resources. Sumlin walked into the perfect situation for him. Sherman had a better eye for talent and development, he might not have been the best salesman but he wasn't bending over backwards making promises he couldn't either at the expense of the program and running players out of town (more so than just Kyler and Kyle).

I'll say this, Sumlin is very good at not rocking the boat, all he had to do here was paint a logo on the sail and christen the boat. When it became evident that JFF had more to do with his success than his "offensive genius mind" he was rebranded into whatever style of coach fit the mold. Truth is he's nothing but a poster boy, which is fine, if that's what you look for.

At the end of the day I'm happy with where we ended up, even if I disagreed on the path. But there are very few who could have created the talent pool of 2012 from the situation we were in 2007 post Fran near the heights of the Big12.

Slicer97 said:

---

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.

---

Serious question.....How do you reply to somebody without including their post in your post?

Cobra39

You press the arrow icon instead of the quotation icon.

You can also quote their post and then delete all but the specific part of their quote that's pertinent to your reply. Kind of a pain if you're on a phone though.

Easier to just use the arrow.

Cobra39 said:

---

Serious question.....How do you reply to somebody without including their post in your post?

Cobra39

---

Like this...

Well...I don't learn something every day, but I did learn something today.

Thanks guys.

(did it work?)

Cobra39

FishingAggie said:

---

ebag02 said:

---

Sherman 25 - 25 in the little 12, 1 winning season
Sumlin 51 - 26 in the SEC

Anyone who says Sherman is a moron.

---

Sherman recruited ALL the players that got Sumlin his wins. Take out the wins from jff years. The o line. Jff lol.

Now look at Sumlin's ' record...

What would Sherman have done the next year with those guys?

I'll moronically say Sherman was better.

---

That would mean Sherman could recruit talent better, but Sumlin coached them... Sherman was fired because we had stalled out and werent improving in the W/L column and he lost to freaking Case McCoy.

I would also add there is a reason why Sumlin is still at a D1 school and why Sherman i coaching the worst team in the CFL currently.

Is it because that D1 school is a basketball school that would be thrilled with merely going to a bowl game most years?

Sherman could not recruit but was good at developing talent for the NFL; he rarely capitalized on it in the college game. Johnny NEVER would've been JFF under Mike Sherman...NO WAY!! Had we stayed in the Big 12 Sumlin's 2012-13 team would have gone undefeated, as evidenced by that drubbing of Oklahoma in the Cotton Bowl. There's a good chance that we would have been national champions without that Florida and LSU loss. That was the year that Alabama rolled Notre Dame in the championship game.

I honestly don't understand the vitriol towards a coach with a winning record, multiple bowl wins, probably the most 1st round picks we've ever had and our 2nd heisman. I doubt his haters are going to give him credit if Jimbo wins with his players?

I like Sherman and would have supported him if they decided to keep him but he was fired for a reason. Sumlin wasn't a great coach, he was a good coach with some great moments but he was better than Sherman. Sherman couldn't recruit or win in the Big 12, he would have been slayed in the SEC.

But it really doesn't matter because Jimbo is better than both of them!! GIG EM!!

Sherman, since it was asked.

Sherman by a wide margin. Sumlin MAYBE was a better gameday coach, MAYBE, and for sure is a better college oriented coach, though you wouldn't know if from the last 4 years.

It was obvious in mid-2015 and only became more obvious. The further we got away from Sherman evaluated, recruited and developed players the worse the team got.

Sumlin's recruiting was actually never that great. Sure, Kirk and Garrett were day 1 NFL ready guys, but RB recruiting was almost a total failure, LB not much better.

Development? Sherman evaluated, recruited, and developed Sean Porter, Jonathan Steward, Ryan Swope, Nemo Hicks, Mike Evans. Mike Evans was in Sumlin's back yard at Cougar High and he didn't recruit him, Sherman did and knew he could be an NFL WR.

Sumlin recruited guys that dominated a HS game, then they came to A&M and never got better. RSJ was no better when he left than the day he showed up.

Sherman took over a disaster of a roster, and left a team with top 10 talent on offense 2-deep and good starting defense, but he never did get enough of depth on D though that was building.

Under Sumlin, after everything he inherited and took over both on the field and the facilities provided, in Year 6 we were tied 14-14 with a IAA FCS school in 4Q. That is just abysmal. Yeah I know Sherman lost to Arkansas State in Year 1 and Sumlin didn't lose to the FCS team Jax State, but Sherman inherited a poor roster.... Saban lost to ULM (or ULL) his first season in Tuscaloosa.

The biggest failing of Sherman was he was too much of an NFL guy and called the game as an NFL game. In the NFL if you have 14 point lead and the ball but there is 4 minutes left, that game is in doubt, you have to close it out. Even the inept Browns can get a stop or turnover on any play and score quickly. In college, if you have a 10 point lead with 5 minutes left and you have the ball, it is very difficult to lose that game if you run the ball a few times and get just 1 first down. But Sherman would operate the O like it was the NFL and that is what led to several of the 2nd half blown leads and losses in 2011 primarily due to ill timed Tannehill interceptions. Conditioning was fine in 2011, as evidenced that we were such a strong 2nd half team in 2010.

Sumlin will always be the coach of record for 2012, but the last 3-4 years is the real Kevin Sumlin Aggie football. He never could have built and developed a team like 2012.

I for one do think Johnny would have been the QB in 2012 under Sherman, he was just so dominant on the practice field and made so many dynamic plays. But even if he wasn't.... granted no Heisman and likely loss to Bama, but we would have beaten FL and maybe LSU and all those other games would have been the same result. We killed State, Auburn, Mizzou as our OL was dominant and D was solid, and we wouldn't have had SIX turnovers vs. Ole Miss.

Sherman every day of the week and 10x on Sundays. Sherman won NFL division titles, he built the A&M program Sumlin developed, Sherman had a tough team. Sumlin only TALKED about being tough and has never won anything.

We have a REAL football coach now, who is laying down excellent recruiting of real football players who can play, compete, and win in the SEC, and he is focused on being tougher and winning at the LOS. Sumlin could have been here another 10 years and would have gone 0-20 vs. Bama and LSU as his vision of college football does not win big games against tough teams, and quite simply Sumlin could not evaluate and develop talent very well.

Sleepy Sherman was such a great coach. It is amazing that we were able to keep him for so long without Bama or USC hiring him away from us.

The problem with your analysis is that you will have to apply that same dynamic to Jimbo's success for the next 4 years. That's not a handicap that is fair to any coach. People are trying to discount Sumlin's success but not applying that same standard to Sherman. How good would Sherman have been in the NFL without Brett Favre? You also subordinate a winning record in a tougher league to Sherman's ability to evaluate talent. Sherman rarely got any blue chippers and he had to be talked into taking Johnny as a quarterback because he wasn't the prototype and didn't fit his style of play. Even the choice to play Tannehill was done out of necessity because of an injury. All of that talent evaluation didn't translate into bowl wins or winning records in the big 12! And for what it's worth, Johnny has not fared well without Sumlin so it's disingenuous not to give him any credit for capitalizing on Johnny's freestyle of play. Most coaches would've tried to change Johnny and that's why he continues to struggle.

Sumlins problem came down to how he mismanaged the Kyler Murray situation. His scheme does not work without great quarterback play and that debacle poisoned the well of his success. Great running backs aren't likely going to sign up to run in spread offenses but you can't say that Trey Williams, Keith Ford, Brandon Williams and Trayveon Williams weren't talented? And we haven't had consistently great linebackers since Slocum left. But I think Dodson, Alaka and Hines are going to change that trend.

So Sherman was better at spotting NFL talent perhaps but none of that matters if he doesn't win with that talent. Based purely on the normalized metrics of what defines a successful coach, Sumlin is a better coach than Sherman in every area except talent evaluation. And even that is debatable because Sumlin recruited more blue chip talent. There's a bit of revisionist history with Sherman but when Sumlin has success at Arizona then people will have to change their tune. It didn't work out at A&M in the long run but that doesn't make him a bad coach, just wasn't the right fit.

Sherman was better, no question about it..