WindCityHawk wrote:Who could have been hired to make some of you happy? Seriously.

I agree it would have been fun to roll the dice on an up-and-coming position coach, but that's no guarantee of success.

Experienced, winning coaches don't drop from trees and wait around for job offers. And they don't make lateral moves. If you ever thought a HC cadidate like Josh McDaniels, or even DeFilipo, were going to fill this post, you were never going to be happy.

Blitzer88 wrote:Can we go get Todd Haley???

Spin Doctor wrote:

chris98251 wrote:

TwistedHusky wrote:The problem with logic is that we have to use the data.

The data says that Brian isn't that great of a hire.

Apparently his greatest accomplishment is not completely being terrible with supposedly terrible offensive personnel.

But no real successes.


We can extrapolate and make a suggestion that with better personnel he MIGHT be better. But then again, we supposedly have some terrible offensive personnel too.

This is a hire that will likely end up being exactly what it seems.

Generally, with a few fantastic exceptions, people are what their record says they are.

Bevel was exactly the same guy that Minnesota warned us about. Harvin was too. They didn't change because they played for a different team. They brought the same strengths and weaknesses with them.

Lynch was very different. That gamble worked. But it misses a lot more than it hits. And this team LOVES to bring on people that they feel can succeed here but that failed to succeed somewhere else.

The fact the Rams fans are chortling over this supposed pick makes me worried. But maybe this will be the exception that proves the rule? Doubtful but if we are stuck with it then hope is what we got.

I would rather bring in someone rising with potential and the ability to contribute new ideas/tactics than a nobody with a mediocre resume that hasn't really done much anywhere he landed. But we might apparently be stuck with him.

Nothing about this selection screams SuperBowl or even, ready to get past the Wildcard round (assuming we make the playoffs again). More like 'Tread water so people don't stop watching or blow off renewing season tickets'. But the joke is the NFL also stands for Not For Long, so Win Forever wasn't likely to last anyway.

You can use that logic for not bringing in Pete Carroll also, failed in the NFL, went to the College game and had his pick of talent in the Nation and won with it.

Chemistry of a collective group of people many times shines brighter then the one individual, that's what we have to hope happens here going forward.

Old groups message went stale as the promotions happened and things were not quite the same after each one. Pete is hitting the full reset button here I think. Hard to catch lighting in a bottle once, doing it twice at least you know it can be done.

There is a major difference here -- Pete Carroll found success in college, and in the NFL was a well respected DC and DB coach. He had built one of the strongest programs in the nation at the collegiate level, and even brought home a few national championships.

Brian Schottenheimer on the other hand has not shown us even a modicum of success in the NFL, or the collegiate game. He is nothing more than a "yes man" which concerns me greatly, as Pete Carroll is an awful offensive mind. He can identify talent on offense, but his ideas are an old relic from the past. Furthermore, Schottenheimers playbooks are very complex, and often time confuse his players. He also has a tendency to try to attack opponents strengths to "catch them off guard" or use players that are bad at a certain task to do the same thing. We hired an even worse version of Bevell.

chris98251 wrote:

Spin Doctor wrote:

chris98251 wrote:

TwistedHusky wrote:The problem with logic is that we have to use the data.

The data says that Brian isn't that great of a hire.

Apparently his greatest accomplishment is not completely being terrible with supposedly terrible offensive personnel.

But no real successes.


We can extrapolate and make a suggestion that with better personnel he MIGHT be better. But then again, we supposedly have some terrible offensive personnel too.

This is a hire that will likely end up being exactly what it seems.

Generally, with a few fantastic exceptions, people are what their record says they are.

Bevel was exactly the same guy that Minnesota warned us about. Harvin was too. They didn't change because they played for a different team. They brought the same strengths and weaknesses with them.

Lynch was very different. That gamble worked. But it misses a lot more than it hits. And this team LOVES to bring on people that they feel can succeed here but that failed to succeed somewhere else.

The fact the Rams fans are chortling over this supposed pick makes me worried. But maybe this will be the exception that proves the rule? Doubtful but if we are stuck with it then hope is what we got.

I would rather bring in someone rising with potential and the ability to contribute new ideas/tactics than a nobody with a mediocre resume that hasn't really done much anywhere he landed. But we might apparently be stuck with him.

Nothing about this selection screams SuperBowl or even, ready to get past the Wildcard round (assuming we make the playoffs again). More like 'Tread water so people don't stop watching or blow off renewing season tickets'. But the joke is the NFL also stands for Not For Long, so Win Forever wasn't likely to last anyway.

You can use that logic for not bringing in Pete Carroll also, failed in the NFL, went to the College game and had his pick of talent in the Nation and won with it.

Chemistry of a collective group of people many times shines brighter then the one individual, that's what we have to hope happens here going forward.

Old groups message went stale as the promotions happened and things were not quite the same after each one. Pete is hitting the full reset button here I think. Hard to catch lighting in a bottle once, doing it twice at least you know it can be done.

There is a major difference here -- Pete Carroll found success in college, and in the NFL was a well respected DC and DB coach. He had built one of the strongest programs in the nation at the collegiate level, and even brought home a few national championships.

Brian Schottenheimer on the other hand has not shown us even a modicum of success in the NFL, or the collegiate game. He is nothing more than a "yes man" which concerns me greatly, as Pete Carroll is an awful offensive mind. He can identify talent on offense, but his ideas are an old relic from the past. Furthermore, Schottenheimers playbooks are very complex, and often time confuse his players. He also has a tendency to try to attack opponents strengths to "catch them off guard" or use players that are bad at a certain task to do the same thing. We hired an even worse version of Bevell.

How many wins as a DC and DB coach did he have in the NFL ? Josh McDaniel's is suppose to be a great offensive talent as OC, how well did his stint in Denver go?

d*ck Jauron was a good DC as well, how well did his stints as HC go, respected but does that translate to Wins?

WmHBonney wrote:

Blitzer88 wrote:Can we go get Todd Haley???

Yet another name that would have been a better choice.

It's just great that we rushed out and grabbed BS before anyone else did. I hear that he was in huge demand.

mistaowen wrote:
I don't even necessarily think there's a big difference between him and Bevell, this comes down to a new OL coach implementing better blocking and having one guy run the show. I like what I've seen from people reviewing the Giants run game under him (pass blocking has been a plus too), teams can't pin their ears back knowing a run is coming. Get some creativity in the run game and suddenly Russell doesn't have 3rd and 10 every single drive. I'd say this is the most talented roster BS has inherited, so I am hopeful.

TwistedHusky wrote:Maybe.

But this looks more like Pete trying to force an outdated offensive philosophy on a team that does not have the personnel to execute it.

TwistedHusky wrote:Maybe.

But this looks more like Pete trying to force an outdated offensive philosophy on a team that does not have the personnel to execute it.

Sgt. Largent wrote:

TwistedHusky wrote:Maybe.

But this looks more like Pete trying to force an outdated offensive philosophy on a team that does not have the personnel to execute it.

You're right, it all matters...........coaching, scheme and personnel.

From what we've seen with the coaching turnover, I think we're also going to see the biggest turnover of the roster since year #1.

As far as "outdated philosophy?" This is football, nasty defense and running the ball successfully will ALWAYS work. EVERY team in the top 10 of rushing this year were playoff teams.

Pounding the rock has always worked, and will always work. THAT'S what Pete is trying to fix.

Sgt. Largent wrote:

TwistedHusky wrote:Maybe.

But this looks more like Pete trying to force an outdated offensive philosophy on a team that does not have the personnel to execute it.

You're right, it all matters...........coaching, scheme and personnel.

From what we've seen with the coaching turnover, I think we're also going to see the biggest turnover of the roster since year #1.

As far as "outdated philosophy?" This is football, nasty defense and running the ball successfully will ALWAYS work. EVERY team in the top 10 of rushing this year were playoff teams.

Pounding the rock has always worked, and will always work. THAT'S what Pete is trying to fix.

Spin Doctor wrote:

hawknation2018 wrote:

Spin Doctor wrote:There is a major difference here -- Pete Carroll found success in college, and in the NFL was a well respected DC and DB coach. He had built one of the strongest programs in the nation at the collegiate level, and even brought home a few national championships.

Brian Schottenheimer on the other hand has not shown us even a modicum of success in the NFL, or the collegiate game. He is nothing more than a "yes man" which concerns me greatly, as Pete Carroll is an awful offensive mind. He can identify talent on offense, but his ideas are an old relic from the past. Furthermore, Schottenheimers playbooks are very complex, and often time confuse his players. He also has a tendency to try to attack opponents strengths to "catch them off guard" or use players that are bad at a certain task to do the same thing. We hired an even worse version of Bevell.

I have to strongly disagree with this. Brian is a GREAT QB Coach. Look what he did with Drew Brees and Andrew Luck.

As an OC, he hasn't had a fair opportunity due to the bad programs & QBs he was coaching for. His play calling in 2009/10 was excellent, despite having Sanchez at QB.

These "unfair" opportunities seem to follow the man around. Is it the places themselves, or Schottenheimers failure as a coach? There is a bad trend that is going on 10 years now. He has been a coach with the Jets, Rams, and the Georgia Bull Dogs, and in each of these instances his offense has woefully underachieved. Also, your version of what happened in 09/10 was much different than Jets fans:

http://forums.theganggreen.com/threads/ ... mer.89799/

Maybe he keeps taking these opportunities because that is all he can get. He is not a good OC, and quite frankly I think he is a downgrade from Bevell.

TwistedHusky wrote:Maybe.

But this looks more like Pete trying to force an outdated offensive philosophy on a team that does not have the personnel to execute it.

HawkFan72 wrote:
The fact that they had to mention how great his Dad was is just a sign that they were scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and find nice things to say.

Seriously, can anyone say anything positive about Brian Schottenheimer as an OC other than the fact that his Jets teams finished in the Top 3 in rushing 3 times or that he coached Drew Brees 12 years ago?

I don't think there is a single thing anyone can say positive about his work other than that. I have been actively looking. It's depressing.

Seymour wrote:
Doesn't mean it can't work. It just means we are heading down that same road, in a newer model of the same car.

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Seymour wrote:
Doesn't mean it can't work. It just means we are heading down that same road, in a newer model of the same car.

How is a totally difference coordinator who ran a totally different scheme with totally different coaches AND doesn't have to co-coordinate with Cable the same car?

I'm not exactly doing cartwheels over Schottenheimer either, but you guys are REALLY negative over something we haven't even seen yet.

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Seymour wrote:
Doesn't mean it can't work. It just means we are heading down that same road, in a newer model of the same car.

How is a totally difference coordinator who ran a totally different scheme with totally different coaches AND doesn't have to co-coordinate with Cable the same car?

I'm not exactly doing cartwheels over Schottenheimer either, but you guys are REALLY negative over something we haven't even seen yet.

HawkFan72 wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Seymour wrote:
Doesn't mean it can't work. It just means we are heading down that same road, in a newer model of the same car.

How is a totally difference coordinator who ran a totally different scheme with totally different coaches AND doesn't have to co-coordinate with Cable the same car?

I'm not exactly doing cartwheels over Schottenheimer either, but you guys are REALLY negative over something we haven't even seen yet.

We've seen him as an O-Coordinator for 9 years, and he wasn't Top 10 in any of them. Top 20 twice. And that's not even taking into account his terrible year in College at Georgia which was another failure. That's why we can be negative over it. Other than Brees saying he liked him as a QB coach 12 years ago, and Rex Ryan saying he's "loyal", it is really difficult to find anything else positive about him as a Coordinator and a developer of talent. You can choose to be optimistic, but if you are looking at the numbers and the history, it is very difficult. He was brought in to run the ball, but that's it. His passing games have been a failure every year at every stop. Criticized for being uncreative and over complicated throughout his career. And our Offense will be learning all new terminology.

If this guy's dad wasn't Marty Schottenheimer, I find it hard to believe he still gets an NFL Coordinator's job based on his track record. There, I said it.

If I have to eat crow, I'll eat crow. But we'll be crying for Bevell to come back by the end of next year. And I wanted Bevell gone.

HawkFan72 wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Seymour wrote:
Doesn't mean it can't work. It just means we are heading down that same road, in a newer model of the same car.

How is a totally difference coordinator who ran a totally different scheme with totally different coaches AND doesn't have to co-coordinate with Cable the same car?

I'm not exactly doing cartwheels over Schottenheimer either, but you guys are REALLY negative over something we haven't even seen yet.

We've seen him as an O-Coordinator for 9 years, and he wasn't Top 10 in any of them. Top 20 twice. And that's not even taking into account his terrible year in College at Georgia which was another failure. That's why we can be negative over it. Other than Brees saying he liked him as a QB coach 12 years ago, and Rex Ryan saying he's "loyal", it is really difficult to find anything else positive about him as a Coordinator and a developer of talent. You can choose to be optimistic, but if you are looking at the numbers and the history, it is very difficult. He was brought in to run the ball, but that's it. His passing games have been a failure every year at every stop. Criticized for being uncreative and over complicated throughout his career. And our Offense will be learning all new terminology.

If this guy's dad wasn't Marty Schottenheimer, I find it hard to believe he still gets an NFL Coordinator's job based on his track record. There, I said it.

If I have to eat crow, I'll eat crow. But we'll be crying for Bevell to come back by the end of next year. And I wanted Bevell gone.

Trrrroy wrote:

HawkFan72 wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Seymour wrote:
Doesn't mean it can't work. It just means we are heading down that same road, in a newer model of the same car.

How is a totally difference coordinator who ran a totally different scheme with totally different coaches AND doesn't have to co-coordinate with Cable the same car?

I'm not exactly doing cartwheels over Schottenheimer either, but you guys are REALLY negative over something we haven't even seen yet.

We've seen him as an O-Coordinator for 9 years, and he wasn't Top 10 in any of them. Top 20 twice. And that's not even taking into account his terrible year in College at Georgia which was another failure. That's why we can be negative over it. Other than Brees saying he liked him as a QB coach 12 years ago, and Rex Ryan saying he's "loyal", it is really difficult to find anything else positive about him as a Coordinator and a developer of talent. You can choose to be optimistic, but if you are looking at the numbers and the history, it is very difficult. He was brought in to run the ball, but that's it. His passing games have been a failure every year at every stop. Criticized for being uncreative and over complicated throughout his career. And our Offense will be learning all new terminology.

If this guy's dad wasn't Marty Schottenheimer, I find it hard to believe he still gets an NFL Coordinator's job based on his track record. There, I said it.

If I have to eat crow, I'll eat crow. But we'll be crying for Bevell to come back by the end of next year. And I wanted Bevell gone.

Context matters though. You can't judge Schottenheimer without also noting that the best QB he's worked with was Sam Bradford, whom was hurt for most of Schottenheimer's time with him. After that it was Mark Sanchez. I guess you could include an ancient and wildly inconsistent Farve here, too. Talent matters.

Bruce Arians is known to be a good offensive coordinator. His offenses failed without Palmer. Mike McCarthy's offenses failed without Rodgers. Shannahan's offense looked awful without Ryan. I can go on and on. Offensive coordinators look as good as their starting quarterbacks, of which Shottenheimer has had amazingly bad luck.

Now you can say the reason his quarterbacks failed was due to his failings as a coordinator but that is a chicken and the egg argument, and we've seen enough of Bradford, Sanchez, and the plethora of other career backups that he's worked with to know that it wasn't just Shottenheimer.

Trrrroy wrote:Alex smith was good before Reid, look at his Harbaugh years. Garcia was a pro bowl QB before and after Reid. Bortles is essentially Sanchez, who also made the AFC championship game riding an elite defense and running game under Shottenheimer. I'll give you Case Keenum under Pat Shurmer, but that's the exception to the rule. But you can't give Shurmer that without also noting how utterly mediocre his offenses looked with the eagles and browns. As for Foles, we'll see. It's been three games.

Scorpion05 wrote:

Trrrroy wrote:Alex smith was good before Reid, look at his Harbaugh years. Garcia was a pro bowl QB before and after Reid. Bortles is essentially Sanchez, who also made the AFC championship game riding an elite defense and running game under Shottenheimer. I'll give you Case Keenum under Pat Shurmer, but that's the exception to the rule. But you can't give Shurmer that without also noting how utterly mediocre his offenses looked with the eagles and browns. As for Foles, we'll see. It's been three games.

Alex Smith was average with Harbaugh, and even worse before Harbaugh. A complete bust

Garcia was always an average QB. He did however have Terrell Owens and Andy Reid's scheme..I guess

Case Keenum, well that speaks for itself

The Eagles were 2nd in total offense and number 1 in rushing in 2013, with Pat Shurmer as the Offensive coordinator. With Mark Sanchez and Nick Foles leading the way. In 2014 the Eagles were # 5 in total offense. 2015 was Shurmer's worse year, and even that was better than Schotty's best years

So saying the Eagles offense was "utterly mediocre" is not even remotely accurate, or factual. There is at minimum, a glimmer of success that far exceeds Schotty. Again, I will support him, but I am going on blind faith

Trrrroy wrote:

Scorpion05 wrote:

Trrrroy wrote:Alex smith was good before Reid, look at his Harbaugh years. Garcia was a pro bowl QB before and after Reid. Bortles is essentially Sanchez, who also made the AFC championship game riding an elite defense and running game under Shottenheimer. I'll give you Case Keenum under Pat Shurmer, but that's the exception to the rule. But you can't give Shurmer that without also noting how utterly mediocre his offenses looked with the eagles and browns. As for Foles, we'll see. It's been three games.

Alex Smith was average with Harbaugh, and even worse before Harbaugh. A complete bust

Garcia was always an average QB. He did however have Terrell Owens and Andy Reid's scheme..I guess

Case Keenum, well that speaks for itself

The Eagles were 2nd in total offense and number 1 in rushing in 2013, with Pat Shurmer as the Offensive coordinator. With Mark Sanchez and Nick Foles leading the way. In 2014 the Eagles were # 5 in total offense. 2015 was Shurmer's worse year, and even that was better than Schotty's best years

So saying the Eagles offense was "utterly mediocre" is not even remotely accurate, or factual. There is at minimum, a glimmer of success that far exceeds Schotty. Again, I will support him, but I am going on blind faith

Alex Smith was better than average with Harbaugh. Look at his stats. He had a QB rating of 104 before he was traded. I agree that he's been better in KC, but that's not really my point. Garcia was an above average QB no matter what way you slice it. He's a 4x pro bowler. And like I said, He had his Pro Bowl years before and after Reid.

I stand corrected on Shurmer's Eagles offenses. I remember his 2013 year being very good, but for some reason thought that offense dropped off in 2014. It's a moot point anyways. That was not Shurmer's offense, it was Chip Kelly's and though that scheme masked QB flaws it proved to be unsustainable.

Anyways, this is getting off topic. My point is very rarely do you get top 15 offenses without at least an average qb. Shottenheimer has had the priveledge of working with an average QB once, maybe twice in his career as an OC.

Ad Hawk wrote:

TwistedHusky wrote:Maybe.

But this looks more like Pete trying to force an outdated offensive philosophy on a team that does not have the personnel to execute it.

Outdated? That's ignorant of the facts of how teams win. Strong defense, Running game, and controlling the clock are essential to winning long-term, through all seasons/weather, and in the playoffs.

Second, we may have the personnel, you just haven't seen them trained correctly or put in a scheme where they can actually be successful.

Third, it doesn't "look" this way at all; you only perceive it that way based on flawed assumptions.

Change the assumptions, and you can enjoy the game much more. Why would you actually want to continue being pessimistic?

scutterhawk wrote:

Ad Hawk wrote:

TwistedHusky wrote:Maybe.

But this looks more like Pete trying to force an outdated offensive philosophy on a team that does not have the personnel to execute it.

Outdated? That's ignorant of the facts of how teams win. Strong defense, Running game, and controlling the clock are essential to winning long-term, through all seasons/weather, and in the playoffs.

Second, we may have the personnel, you just haven't seen them trained correctly or put in a scheme where they can actually be successful.

Third, it doesn't "look" this way at all; you only perceive it that way based on flawed assumptions.

Change the assumptions, and you can enjoy the game much more. Why would you actually want to continue being pessimistic?

This is an absolutely perfect response ^
Some people WANT to assume the worst; And because Pete didn't hire some sexy name that's been floating around here on the NET for a Week or so, they've fallen into despair, and you're sure as hell ain't going to talk them out of feeling cruddy about the unknown.
I'm feeling optimistic about the big changes, going to take the wait and see if the chemistry comes together.

chris98251 wrote:Prior to Petes run here you could say the same about him and his antiquated ideals of offense and Simple defense. Yet he made it work, Belichek failed in Cleveland so must be a retread also, most coaches fail before they succeed, many times it's the staff around them that help make them successful and not completely the Coach. Mora was pretty damn good in Atlanta for a while yet we seen what happened in Seattle, although he had a corrupt dealer at the table that set him up for failure before he got a chance really.

Spin Doctor wrote:

chris98251 wrote:Prior to Petes run here you could say the same about him and his antiquated ideals of offense and Simple defense. Yet he made it work, Belichek failed in Cleveland so must be a retread also, most coaches fail before they succeed, many times it's the staff around them that help make them successful and not completely the Coach. Mora was pretty damn good in Atlanta for a while yet we seen what happened in Seattle, although he had a corrupt dealer at the table that set him up for failure before he got a chance really.

You keep making this comment, but I'm not seeing it. First of all, Mora only had one season in the NFL above .500. Each year he progressively got worse. Carroll had a record of success everywhere he went as defensive coordinator in the NFL, nobody ever called his defense "antiquated". Carroll was also regarded as one of the best secondary coaches/mentors. He had also built one of the most successful college programs. Carroll, as head coach had a record above .500 in the NFL as well. You keep making this comparison, it holds ZERO ground.

Lets compare Schottenheimers decade long cycle of failures. His most recent being the offensive coordinator of the Bulldogs, which was arguably his biggest failure -- especially when you consider how much the team dipped in offensive production while he was coordinator, and how it jumped back up after he was fired. Carroll, and yes even Belichick had some success in the NFL, Schottenheimer has had none. You're not giving any solid evidence that supports the guys, and that is because there is none. You're just holding out hope that he will magically "get it".

Unfortunately, we heard the warnings about Bevell, and we heard the warnings about Cable from Viking, and Raider fans. Now we are hearing the same kind of rumblings from other fans about Schotenheimer. What makes you think his tenure will be any different? Our head coach has already demonstrated that he has a streaky track record of hiring offensive coaches. You can be hopelessly optimistic, but I predict that you will be one of those screaming loudest of Schottenheimer's head come regular season.

Scorpion05 wrote:Look, I don't think there's a fan in here that cares more about being proven right (About Schotty sucking)..than they care about us winning

But, can we at least all come to an agreement that it's really hard to be optimistic about Schotty? Like yea, we hope he does great. We hope he has a career year as a coordinator. We hope Russell throws for 40+ TDs. But if past success is a predictor of future success, can we at least admit there's not much to be optimistic about? That we're all just...Hoping?

Spin Doctor wrote:

chris98251 wrote:Prior to Petes run here you could say the same about him and his antiquated ideals of offense and Simple defense. Yet he made it work, Belichek failed in Cleveland so must be a retread also, most coaches fail before they succeed, many times it's the staff around them that help make them successful and not completely the Coach. Mora was pretty damn good in Atlanta for a while yet we seen what happened in Seattle, although he had a corrupt dealer at the table that set him up for failure before he got a chance really.

You keep making this comment, but I'm not seeing it. First of all, Mora only had one season in the NFL above .500. Each year he progressively got worse. Carroll had a record of success everywhere he went as defensive coordinator in the NFL, nobody ever called his defense "antiquated". Carroll was also regarded as one of the best secondary coaches/mentors. He had also built one of the most successful college programs. Carroll, as head coach had a record above .500 in the NFL as well. You keep making this comparison, it holds ZERO ground.

Lets compare Schottenheimers decade long cycle of failures. His most recent being the offensive coordinator of the Bulldogs, which was arguably his biggest failure -- especially when you consider how much the team dipped in offensive production while he was coordinator, and how it jumped back up after he was fired. Carroll, and yes even Belichick had some success in the NFL, Schottenheimer has had none. You're not giving any solid evidence that supports the guys, and that is because there is none. You're just holding out hope that he will magically "get it".

Unfortunately, we heard the warnings about Bevell, and we heard the warnings about Cable from Viking, and Raider fans. Now we are hearing the same kind of rumblings from other fans about Schotenheimer. What makes you think his tenure will be any different? Our head coach has already demonstrated that he has a streaky track record of hiring offensive coaches. You can be hopelessly optimistic, but I predict that you will be one of those screaming loudest of Schottenheimer's head come regular season.

NFSeahawks628 wrote:Why is there 10 pages on this topic. Give the guy a chance you nutsos.

SoulfishHawk wrote:Hasn't coached a down here and he already sucks. Aaaah, gotta' love the positivity on dot net