Baylor let Larry Fedora go. I would take him over Tony Franklin at this point and he could be easily move up to HC.
let’s go get him
let’s go get him
Fedora is available
- Thread starter Sommy
- Start date
Is he retiring or just leaving? Probably had something to do with Ashers departure. Though given how much the game had caught up with Franklin just about anyone would be an upgrade given the predictability of this offense.
When we were on offense, I could not help but think of TF selling his “system”, other coaches buying/reading it & the scene from the Waterboy when Red Beaulieu knew what Coach Klein was calling because he was reading “coaching for dummies” too.
Spill the beans on Franklin, what’s the deal? I feel like the game passed him by about 5 years ago.
Not only that but he's on the sideline. How the hell can you call unique plays and make pre=snap adjustments from the sideline? How can you see how the D is lining up against you? When Stock made TF get up in t booth in 09, we reeled off 7 straight wins. We were a much different team. We would have done much better in 16, 17 and 18 if he were up there. We woul dhve beaten UAB in 18 for the title had he been up there. I was yelling at that game "Can't you see the right side loading up?" I mean anyone could see what their D was doing. The play calls would have been much better based on an arial view.
Nothing like stating opinion as fact.
The top offenses in the country have a mix of sideline vs press box play callers. If what you said was fact & not opinion, then every OC would coach from the box. It’s about preference and feel plus a reliance on the entire offensive staff. Look through TF’s career and some of his most explosive offenses were coached from the sideline. He’s success has more to do with having the right players for his system than where he stands during a game. In your example about seeing the defense loading up, where were the assist coaches in box relaying that to TF? I assume TF can count, so if the D is showing an overload pre-snap so that someone in stands can see it, chances are he should be able to see that from the sideline & change the play. Or where was the audible from the QB to get out of a bad play or the C changing the blocking scheme pre-snap?
C’mon man, there’s a lot to bash our offense for: lacking of talent due to poor recruiting, inconsistent play with poor technique and a failure to put the players we have in the best position for success based on overall scheme. Picking on where the OC stands seems trivial.
Picking on where the OC stands is trivial. Worked on a CFB staff where the offensive minded HC (called plays) and OC / QB coach where both on the sidelines. They went 8-4.
HC went to ACC school after the year and OC was elevated (and now at Big 10 school).
Pretty sure Arthur Smith (Titans) and Eric Belimkny (Chiefs) are sideline guys too. And they coordinate the top offenses in NFL.
There are advantages to sideline.
The biggest issue with MT offense is the OL. It’s been an issue for a few years and it hasn’t been addressed.
HC went to ACC school after the year and OC was elevated (and now at Big 10 school).
Pretty sure Arthur Smith (Titans) and Eric Belimkny (Chiefs) are sideline guys too. And they coordinate the top offenses in NFL.
There are advantages to sideline.
The biggest issue with MT offense is the OL. It’s been an issue for a few years and it hasn’t been addressed.
First of all, this is my opinion and I can have one. You ain't gotta like it but that's what it is.
LOL in 2009, We got waxed by Troy and was 3-3. Stock told TF to go up to the press box. We then win 7 straight and a bowl game. That's fact. Yeah, you can count but you can't see tha gaps from a sideline. You can't see all of the shifts from the sideline. You damn sure can't audilble well from the sidelines. Y'all can argue with me til the cows come home but the dude is predictable and we have gone downhill since he came back here. By the way genius, someone in the stands sits up a hell of a lot higher than he does which is why we can SEE IT. LOL. I swear, Also, they really can't count if you haven't noticed. (UAB 2018, Army 2020)
I'll also say this, he's also the QB coach too right? Again, there needs to be a separation.of church and state. It's obviously not working.
I couldn't give a crap about what other schools or teams are doing. Other schools and teams are managed better with dependable people in the pressbox reaying info more efficiently. We have old retirees that can't count or see the OBVIOUS gaps on the field. So the head dude on O needs to get his a$$ up there and run it. 7 wins in 2 years. We won 7 games in 2006 and didn't have any of the speed we now have or had on this year's team, We don't have a talent problem, we have a coaching problem. If I'm totally wrong, why did Stock make him do it in 09 and not now? Why did it work in 09 with a running QB but not now with a running QB?
Again only my opinion.
Last edited:
Your opinion is one reason some OCs work from the booth, but even if the OC is in the booth, they still have to communicate the checks to the sideline so they can signal in the checks (it’s why so many folks laugh at the no-huddle teams for looking like a bunch of gophers popping their heads up for the check). FWIW, you ca audible quite well
Since TF is QB, it can be good for him to be on the field where he can talk face to face with QB.
The TF system is remarkably simple and relies on “constraints” to attack defenses keying on tendencies. That said, ANY offense is going to have issues when your OL is as bad as MT. MT couldn’t run a pro-style offense or a wishbone offense with this OL.
You hit on why Tony probably needed to be in the booth. Guys like Spurrier and Riley call plays on the feel of the game. There aren’t a lot of pre-snap audibles and even those are usually called by the QB on what they see directly in front of them. The TF relies on changing the play a vast majority of time after lining up to see how the defense lines up. The whole premise of the gopher checks is supposed to be to create mismatches and numbers advantages. You can’t see that stuff as easily from the sideline.
There is reason to agree with both perspectives. Some play callers are better on the sideline. Some are better in the box. TF would be better in the box because we change the play so often based on defensive alignment and that’s easier to see upstairs.
we need a change so I hope you are right, but I haven’t seen any news on this. Franklin‘s offense and style remind me of the early 2000’s when those offenses were new and dominant, but he hasn’t seemed to reinvent himself since then. Think Hal Mumme, who Franklin is connected with, he’s basically done nothing since his kentucky days and he’s had plenty of chances. You have to evolve and it’s apparent to me Franklin has not.
I won’t disagree that working from the booth may help the “gopher checks” but the offensive struggles aren’t due to TF working from field. It’s OL. Plus, you can communicate looks pretty quickly for “gopher checks”
Coach in Booth : “Tony, they are showing cover 3 zone.”
Franklin (because of film study) knows the teams likes to run fire zone blitzes in this down and distance checks to quick game or screen to attack blitz.
OL can’t block for more than 1.5 seconds
J.T. is definitely entitled to his opinion & honestly I tend to agree, I prefer both coordinators be in the both. His post was stated as fact that TF would be better in the booth. I think our offense would have struggled if TF was in the box or on the sidelines because we lacked the OL to make TF’s system work.
Some people blasted “bad playcalling“ this year. If you can’t block, it doesn’t matter what call TF makes. Look back at film and watch how several “bad calls” were really an Olineman missing an assignment. The play was there if the line could hold, but they did not. We need a change in staff that improves OL recruiting/coaching or we need an offensive system that maximizes what abilities we do have better than the TF system. Unless something changes on the OL recruiting/coaching front, it won’t matter where TF or our next OC is during a game.
Some people blasted “bad playcalling“ this year. If you can’t block, it doesn’t matter what call TF makes. Look back at film and watch how several “bad calls” were really an Olineman missing an assignment. The play was there if the line could hold, but they did not. We need a change in staff that improves OL recruiting/coaching or we need an offensive system that maximizes what abilities we do have better than the TF system. Unless something changes on the OL recruiting/coaching front, it won’t matter where TF or our next OC is during a game.
The problem is there isn’t anyone on the staff competent enough to be in the box and relay that info.
If you look at 2015 and then what’s happened since, we would have been better off had Buster stayed.
There, I said it.
This go round with Tony has been an absolute waste.
He had two of the best five players we’ve had in the I-A era (Brent and Richie) and never won more than 8 and only won one bowl game, a game that quite frankly ASU handed to us.
The whole damn program is a dumpster fire. But Stock and his buddies are getting paid. Ditto for Massaro and McPhee.
We need to go FCS, back to the OVC where we will still be average, still not win championships, but this chicken $h!t will at least be less noticeable.
The experiment is over and we failed in spectacular fashion. The quicker we just accept it, the quicker we can move on with our lives.
The problem is that the wrong people are making decisions. They need to be fired.
You will soon get that wish with the Knight Report stating the break away for football. If that happens, there will be rules put in place to force about 60 schools down into FCS or whatever they decide to call it.
I agree with what you guys are saying too. It's really a mess and I wholeheartedly agree about the OL. Those dudes should have been canned 2 seasons ago.
I read this article about the Auburn search & 2 things stood out:
AU has influential boosters can get a coach fired by going to the Board.
AU’s search committee went away from Kevin Steele based on public outcry.
Do we have any “cigar boys” with influence over our board? It does not seem like we do.
Massaro would never acknowledge or care what the public thinks about a hire.
AU has influential boosters can get a coach fired by going to the Board.
AU’s search committee went away from Kevin Steele based on public outcry.
Do we have any “cigar boys” with influence over our board? It does not seem like we do.
Massaro would never acknowledge or care what the public thinks about a hire.
You’re missing the point. They don’t care. If the plummeting attendance, season ticket holders, donations, and overall interest in our programs has failed to influence them then nothing else we do is going to matter.
All I can say is I love my cigars and I’m actually enjoying directing more of my dispensable income to my cigar collection than to MT. I get more of a reward in that investment. And I’m literally burning that away.
All I can say is I love my cigars and I’m actually enjoying directing more of my dispensable income to my cigar collection than to MT. I get more of a reward in that investment. And I’m literally burning that away.
Thanks for another sarcastic response that doesn’t answer the question.
Does MT have a booster that can influence our board’s decisions? The question was not how someone would influence decisions. Most schools have at least one powerful booster, but I have never heard a name mentioned like that at MT. We might not have one or maybe they like things how they are. Do we have a MT version of a Bobby Lowder, Paul Bryant Jr, John Bond, Archie Manning, etc. These powerful boosters are often referred to as cigar boys on other message boards.
WTH are you taking about?
I asked do we have a booster with influence. I have never heard of any at MT like other schools.That’s a yes or no question. The existence or non-existence of a booster with influence and how they use their influence/ lack of accountability are 2 different questions.
I have no clue what you are saying by “the fact you think this isn’t serious is telling. WTH does that have do with a question about does MT have powerful boosters?
You said my response was sarcastic. It wasn’t.
The point was it doesn’t matter if we have boosters or not because no one is going to listen. They don’t care. They’ve run off all the fan base. And nothing changes. So it doesn’t matter if we have big boosters or not except for the fact that if we did they too left long ago. I tried to make that point by saying look at all the plummeting metrics. I thought it was pretty straightforward.
The point was it doesn’t matter if we have boosters or not because no one is going to listen. They don’t care. They’ve run off all the fan base. And nothing changes. So it doesn’t matter if we have big boosters or not except for the fact that if we did they too left long ago. I tried to make that point by saying look at all the plummeting metrics. I thought it was pretty straightforward.
If not sarcasm, then a bit of jackassery again with the cigar comments.
Obviously if we had influential boosters, they don’t care. The existence of influential boosters and their lack of caring about the status of our athletic program would not be mutually exclusive. We might have influential boosters & they do not care. Or perhaps they don’t exist at MT.
My question is do we have people who could influence the board if they wanted. Not if they care.
And you didn’t address “the fact you think this isn’t serious is telling”.
This whole thread makes me feel like I’m talking to someone who hit the holiday spirits early or a UT/Vandy grad.
Damn bro. Didn’t know I had to spell everything out. The fact that you thought I was just being a smart ass was showing an inability to take what I was saying as serious. And now I’m a jackass. Ok. Got my man. Whatever you say but I was serious about my cigars too. I’ve bought a lot more after saving the thousands of dollars I used to spend to travel to MT for games. Padrons and Oliva Serie V are go to’s. Good stuff.
And I did also answer the question. We damn sure don’t have many. But the few we had are checked out.
Regardless my original point still matters most. Whether we have big boosters or not it doesn’t matter. Our incompetent leadership is too blind to see what’s being lost. We could have Bill Gates and they wouldn’t care less or be influenced. And that is the most important point. Not whether they exist but whether there is anyone with influence. And the answer is no because if these “leaders” can’t be influenced because of their own incompetence then it’s a moot question.
And I did also answer the question. We damn sure don’t have many. But the few we had are checked out.
Regardless my original point still matters most. Whether we have big boosters or not it doesn’t matter. Our incompetent leadership is too blind to see what’s being lost. We could have Bill Gates and they wouldn’t care less or be influenced. And that is the most important point. Not whether they exist but whether there is anyone with influence. And the answer is no because if these “leaders” can’t be influenced because of their own incompetence then it’s a moot question.
We really don’t have many, but I know there are a couple. I think one of the guys name is Steve Smith. I heard he was a big basketball backer. I do feel like there is a decently sized group of people that have significant enough money to really help our sports. I was one for a few years, but I will not give personally or will never brand my company in the stadium until major changes are made
Thank you Subkyle for answering the question.
I figured some that could really help the program like yourself were withholding support now. I was just curious if we had someone with the clout & influence to push programmatic decisions if they so desired. A few comments in the article I linked mentioned that 2 boosters agreed to pay Gus’s 21 million buyout. While it’s obvious something like that isn’t happening at MT, I wondered if we had people capable of that type of move if the so choose. You hear names of people at SEC schools that will or could use that influence, I just never heard a name associated with MT.
I kinda got sucked down a tangent rabbit hole after asking to start with, but thanks for a name.
I figured some that could really help the program like yourself were withholding support now. I was just curious if we had someone with the clout & influence to push programmatic decisions if they so desired. A few comments in the article I linked mentioned that 2 boosters agreed to pay Gus’s 21 million buyout. While it’s obvious something like that isn’t happening at MT, I wondered if we had people capable of that type of move if the so choose. You hear names of people at SEC schools that will or could use that influence, I just never heard a name associated with MT.
I kinda got sucked down a tangent rabbit hole after asking to start with, but thanks for a name.
Once again, WTH does accountability have to do with the existence of a booster with enough money to drive programmatic decisions if they so choose?
It’s like your trying to make a point no one is arguing with you about when someone asks a question that has nothing to do with accountability.
Merry Christmas
My apologies I’m not able to get this through. See I believe It has everything to do with accountability
Because it doesn’t matter if we had a thousand of those boosters. The leadership doesn’t care. There is no accountability to require change. The change you are suggesting by some magical booster isn’t happening because of a lack of boosters. It’s not happening because no one is held accountable for piss poor results. And this is the part that is so different here than virtually anywhere else in the country. And this is the part I don’t understand. Anywhere else the loss of revenue being generated from declining ticket sales, donations, etc. would be enough to force change. But not here. Not a little middle. The culture of mediocrity that permeates this place is appalling to me.
Merry Christmas to you too. Hope I made sense this time.
Because it doesn’t matter if we had a thousand of those boosters. The leadership doesn’t care. There is no accountability to require change. The change you are suggesting by some magical booster isn’t happening because of a lack of boosters. It’s not happening because no one is held accountable for piss poor results. And this is the part that is so different here than virtually anywhere else in the country. And this is the part I don’t understand. Anywhere else the loss of revenue being generated from declining ticket sales, donations, etc. would be enough to force change. But not here. Not a little middle. The culture of mediocrity that permeates this place is appalling to me.
Merry Christmas to you too. Hope I made sense this time.
Last edited:
Your point has been made repeatedly and no one disagrees with you. That’s the dumb part of this thread. No kidding there is no accountability and there is no booster going to offer to buy out McPhee, Massaro or Stockstill. No one is expecting that or thinks that could happen. All of that has nothing to do with my question. I am not suggesting a change by booster. Your talking about the program’s lack of accountability and all I was asking is does MT have an influential booster.
This is literally one of the dumber exchanges I have ever had on a message board. A rough summary:
RD: Does MT have a booster that can influence change if they wanted to?
MT01: It’s about accountability!
RD: I’m not talking about the program, I am asking if we have a big time donor like other schools have that can drive changes as they want to.
MT01: It’s accountability. If those people exist, there gone now (so you’re saying we some with influence who don’t use it). Our admin’s wouldn’t listen to Bill Gates (so you’re saying we don’t have one with that influence).
RD: I’m just asking if we have a big time booster that could cause change.
Subkyle: Gives a name
MT01: He rubberstamps, no accountability!
RD: I was just asking if someone has clout to influence, not that they use it. From Sub’s comments we may have some that just don’t use it.
MT01: The change your asking for won’t happen due to lack of accountability even if we had thousands of those boosters.
RD: I am literally not asking about changing our program, I am if MT has an influential booster that could affect change at MT if they wanted to (not that they want to or are expected to).
It’s one of the dumber exchanges because you keep asking a question that has been repeatedly answered. The answer is no. There is no one that has influence regardless of how much money they have. Influence can’t be had if no one is held to some sort of standard. Without that all the boosters in the world are meaningless.
