Jump to content

Mack Brown Tarheel Football: The Orange Slice Boogaloo


Recommended Posts

Posted
12 hours ago, Tex Pete said:

Mack is super nice in person. And it’s 100% fake. 

He is a petty, petty man. With gynecomastia. 

Sark gets mad when you touch his tits.

IMG_0766.webp.588f24e6abff1dc544b6e34fb00ea6ab.webp

  • Haha 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  • 1 month later...
Posted

He's complicated. In some ways he was the savior of the program, and then he lived long enough to become the villain. 

He should have stepped down after 2009. The only problem with that is we might have hired him back like North Carolina did. At least we got as clean a break from him as is possible under the circumstances. I know he's vulturing around now, but he's not the head coach. That would have been an even bigger disaster than 2010-13. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
8 minutes ago, bluto said:

Not me, he’s a bitch. 

He also is won national championship at Texas and had nine consecutive ten win seasons and won eleven bowl games in sixteen years so you can kindly fuck off.

Posted
17 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

He also is won national championship at Texas and had nine consecutive ten win seasons and won eleven bowl games in sixteen years so you can kindly fuck off.

He's also the reason we went through a decade of shit we did

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

In some ways he was the savior of the program, and then he lived long enough to become the villain. 

That's a good description of his tenure.

The flaws were there and known when he started. Then, he brought Dick Tomey into the fold in 2004, who changed many of the ways Mack did things as a head coach. Those ways lasted a couple of years, long enough to win a title, and then Mack went back to his old ways. 

We also had just so much talent in 2005, it was enough talent to overcome nearly any coaching weakness.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

He's also the reason we went through a decade of shit we did

Not really. He had no say in the hiring of Charlie Strong or Tom Herman. Those guys were going to fail regardless. That's not on Mack Brown. 

Unless you're saying he's the reason Saban wasn't able to take the job. Because while he wasn't the only reason, he was the biggest. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

That's a good description of his tenure.

The flaws were there and known when he started. Then, he brought Dick Tomey into the fold in 2004, who changed many of the ways Mack did things as a head coach. Those ways lasted a couple of years, long enough to win a title, and then Mack went back to his old ways. 

We also had just so much talent in 2005, it was enough talent to overcome nearly any coaching weakness.

Well, any coaching weakness other than having Vince Young take a direct snap under center and try to alter his throwing motion. That was a pretty big coaching weakness. He might have won the national championship in 2004 if not for that. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
41 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Not really. He had no say in the hiring of Charlie Strong or Tom Herman. Those guys were going to fail regardless. That's not on Mack Brown. 

Unless you're saying he's the reason Saban wasn't able to take the job. Because while he wasn't the only reason, he was the biggest.

 

He's not saying Mack hired strong or Herman. He's saying Mack is the reason that what remained when he left was worse than a steaming upper decker. Mack fucked this program hard his last years, and we paid for it by wandering for the next decade trying to get shit fixed.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:

 

He's not saying Mack hired strong or Herman. He's saying Mack is the reason that what remained when he left was worse than a steaming upper decker. Mack fucked this program hard his last years, and we paid for it by wandering for the next decade trying to get shit fixed.

That's not what sets a program up for failure for a decade.

Charlie Strong was handed a Cadillac from head coach Willie Taggart at USF and went 10-2 in his first year. Then he went 7-6 and 4-8 and was fired. Someone convince me Charlie Strong would have had different results if he'd been handed a more talented team at Texas. Go ahead.

The problem wasn't Mack Brown. The problem was Charlie Strong. He was a bad hire. So was Tom Herman. Unless Mack Brown had some input into those hires, he's not responsible for their failures. It doesn't matter the talent on the team. A coach who is a poor fit is going to have poor results regardless of any other factor. A great coach who is a great fit is going to get great results regardless of the handicaps. You have to hire the right coach. That's the most important thing. The second most important thing is being able to keep him once you find him. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

That's not what sets a program up for failure for a decade.

Charlie Strong was handed a Cadillac from head coach Willie Taggart at USF and went 10-2 in his first year. Then he went 7-6 and 4-8 and was fired. Someone convince me Charlie Strong would have had different results if he'd been handed a more talented team at Texas. Go ahead.

The problem wasn't Mack Brown. The problem was Charlie Strong. He was a bad hire. So was Tom Herman. Unless Mack Brown had some input into those hires, he's not responsible for their failures. It doesn't matter the talent on the team. A coach who is a poor fit is going to have poor results regardless of any other factor. A great coach who is a great fit is going to get great results regardless of the handicaps. You have to hire the right coach. That's the most important thing. The second most important thing is being able to keep him once you find him. 

Respectfully disagree here.  We've seen many, many instances of very talented teams winning in spite of shitty coaching.

Posted
1 minute ago, PW119 said:

Respectfully disagree here.  We've seen many, many instances of very talented teams winning in spite of shitty coaching.

Name some… but the ones where a shitty coach takes over after a really good coach (like Switzer and the Cowboys) don’t count

Posted
5 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Name some… but the ones where a shitty coach takes over after a really good coach (like Switzer and the Cowboys) don’t count

Coker's Miami

Jimbo's FSU

Miles' LSU

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, PW119 said:

Respectfully disagree here.  We've seen many, many instances of very talented teams winning in spite of shitty coaching.

I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about. Sure, very talented teams win in spite of shitty coaching.

But programs don't succeed year after year unless the coach has something going for him. Larry Coker won a national championship with one of the best college football teams of all time. He finished in the top 5 his first 3 years as a coach. Does that make him a great coach?

What I'm saying is that Charlie Strong and Tom Herman wouldn't have ultimately succeeded at Texas regardless of the talent level they inherited. They were bad coaching hires. If anything, I'm grateful both of their tenures were as short as they were. The last thing I'd wish for us as a fan base is to put up with more years with either Charlie Strong or Tom Herman because they inherited more talent. From that perspective Mack Brown did us a favor. 

Blaming Mack Brown for what transpired after him is missing the mark, IMO. 

Other than cock blocking us from hiring Saban. That I absolutely blame him for. Him and Joe Jamail and Deloss Dodds, among others. So that counts, if we want to go that route. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, PW119 said:

Coker's Miami

Jimbo's FSU

Miles' LSU

I'm unconvinced Jimbo Fisher or Les Miles are bad coaches. I don't think either of them are "great" coaches. But you can't seriously put them in the same category as Charlie Strong and Tom Herman. I would put Lloyd Carr and Phil Fulmer in that category as well, since we seem to be limiting it to national championship winning coaches.

Then there's Gene Chizik with the Cam Newton effect. 

Larry Coker I agree with. 

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about. Sure, very talented teams win in spite of shitty coaching.

But programs don't succeed year after year unless the coach has something going for him. Larry Coker won a national championship with one of the best college football teams of all time. He finished in the top 5 his first 3 years as a coach. Does that make him a great coach?

What I'm saying is that Charlie Strong and Tom Herman wouldn't have ultimately succeeded at Texas regardless of the talent level they inherited. They were bad coaching hires. If anything, I'm grateful both of their tenures were as short as they were. The last thing I'd wish for us as a fan base is to put up with more years with either Charlie Strong or Tom Herman because they inherited more talent. From that perspective Mack Brown did us a favor. 

Blaming Mack Brown for what transpired after him is missing the mark, IMO. 

Other than cock blocking us from hiring Saban. That I absolutely blame him for. Him and Joe Jamail and Deloss Dodds, among others. So that counts, if we want to go that route. 

Mack was a shitty recruiter immediately after he won the national title, hge became lazier and lazier with it. The program was quality talent and was razor thin by the time he left. In the non portal era that left the program in a complete shit hole for the next coach, no matter who it was. 2010-2013 Mack wasn't successful by any stretch of your imagination. Mack also made the dumbest fucking coaching change in the history of the sport going from a spread offense that literally got him to 2 national championship games to a dumbass pro style just because of 1 game. 

Jimbo
Coach O
Chizik
Coker
Miles
Switzer with Cowboys

All won titles because talent over coaching.

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Posted
2 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Mack was a shitty recruiter immediately after he won the national title, hge became lazier and lazier with it. The program was quality talent and was razor thin by the time he left. In the non portal era that left the program in a complete shit hole for the next coach, no matter who it was.

Jimbo
Coach O
Chizik
Coker
Miles
Switzer with Cowboys

All won titles because talent over coaching.

So what? Orgeron, Chizik, and Coker were all bad head coaching hires. Yes, they won national championships, but that doesn't make them a good hire. Charlie Strong and Tom Herman were bad coaching hires, but they didn't win national championships. 

Miami has never had any sustained success after Coker's first 3 seasons. Mentioning Orgeron and Miles in the same sentence is laughable. I'm not a huge Les Miles fan, but the guy could coach circles around Orgeron in terms of how to run a program. He's a bit of a clown, but neither he nor Fisher are in the same class as the others you mentioned.

Switzer was a great college head football coach. I mean, Satan is a great head of the land of eternal damnation, so I'm not exactly trying to stick up for the guy. But putting him in this category is completely ignoring how well he ran the OU program, even if he is a lying, cheating, amoral son of a bitch. 

And the problem with the Dallas Cowboys isn't their head coach anyway. No one is going to be able to succeed there under the current ownership. IMO including Switzer is a complete non sequitur if we're going to discuss Mack Brown's impact on Texas football for the decade after he left. 

I find blaming Mack Brown for how bare he left the cupboard as the source of UT's ills following his departure as silly. As Sarkisian has said plenty of times, when he came to Texas the problem wasn't the talent. It was the culture. Not that the talent couldn't be upgraded, and he has, but the culture was terrible. Neither Charlie Strong nor Tom Herman knew how to build a program for sustained success. Neither do Orgeron, Chizik, or Coker, even though those 3 won national championships. Fisher and Miles aren't necessarily wizards at it, but they at least showed some sustained success with their own players over a long enough period of time I don't like including them in this list. 

At this point I'm convinced Sarkisian does. And he's been given the tools to succeed. I don't know if Sarkisian would have been this successful if the current version of Sarkisian could have been hired instead of Charlie Strong. This version wasn't available then anyway. He still had more fuck ups to go through. But I think he would have been. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Steamboat1874 said:

If the internet existed in the mid seventies most of you would also crucify Coach Royal.

Did Royal try to burn the program down and shit talk the program to anyone and everyone who would listen when he retired?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Did Royal try to burn the program down and shit talk the program to anyone and everyone who would listen when he retired?

Please provide examples of Mack Brown doing this since that is what you seem to imply.

Posted
8 hours ago, Steamboat1874 said:

He also is won national championship at Texas and had nine consecutive ten win seasons and won eleven bowl games in sixteen years so you can kindly fuck off.

Would have had another Natty if he went with Applewhite over Simms.

Posted

The Steamboat guy is the most thoughtless of all of the pumpers. I got old enough at some point to just realize that non-critical dumbfucks like that weren’t worth the bullets, put him on ignore, and forgot about him until seeing you idiots quoting him here. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...