Injury updates and a cringeworthy Art Briles reference

[MarkJacob]

@Slehcoog

John. You’re question needs to be clear and concise. That question went wayyyyy too long.

“Coach- you’ve had OLine issues for 4 years where your predecessors have been successful in developing their players to perform above average. What can you do better?”

“Coach. Do you think you’re coaching at a championship level, and if not, what do you need to change to do so?”

“Coach- Do you think you’ve built a championship culture and what responsibility do you have in instilling that in this program?”

Then come on down to the radio show and ask your concise questions. Or text them. Just a thought.
#GoCoogs!

[NTXCoog]

@uhlaw97

NO comparison. CDH has the edge in that regard, and should not have to look up to Briles in any way as an example to follow.

Conference championships?

[coogman91]

@Coogjazz

This crew could argue about how to wrap Christmas presents, then threaten to burn down each other’s homes over the answers.

While it can be entertaining, it’s usually tiresome and stupid. Like now.

[NTXCoog]

@uhlaw97

never beat a SEC team in a bowl game

An SEC team with a winning record vs a team with a losing record?

[Hill]

Great response from Dana.

[uhlaw97 (Ryon Adams)]

Briles may have a conference title to his credit, but it was in the lesser CUSA.

CDH can boast of many other successes which Briles DID NOT achieve, nor equal, which means that Briles has to be regarded as comparatively inferior in terms of success here.

Unless you can show me a win against a ranked team (you can’t), a win against a P5 school in a bowl game (you can’t), a final appearance in the Top 20 (you can’t), a 12 win season (you can’t), or a better regular season conference record than CDH’s last year in a conference more highly regarded than CUSA (again, you can’t) under Briles, don’t try to pretend that Briles’ success was greater here (it obviously wasn’t, given all that), or that Briles is a model that CDH should follow.

Obviously Briles is NOT a model to follow. The question to CDH made that implication, which was indeed cringeworthy. It’s wholly understandable, given that, that CDH responded the way that he did.

Not sure why anyone can’t understand that. It’s pretty straightforward.

[3rdWardCoog]

Personally, I don’t have any issue with CDH’s response. Anyone who even remotely defends Art is a coward.

[uhlaw97 (Ryon Adams)]

A win against a P5 team in a bowl game by CDH versus none for Briles. Advantage CDH.

NEXT!!!

[qwanseeker]

I read the entire article. Nothing wrong with that. Dana is still a douche.

[NOCoog85]

OK, there seem to be two CDH camps:

1. Ones that will pick apart EVERYTHING he says, and
2. Those that appreciate passion and directness without “coach speak”.

[Cougardue]

Takes one to know one.

[qwanseeker]

I’m rubber, you are glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

[uhlaw97 (Ryon Adams)]

I’m not sure I’m either one.

I can simply understand CDH’s response in THIS case.

[Hill]

How Art left UH and what he did on the way out told me everything about his character. Scumbag.

[MarkJacob]

Just to clarify a bit, John was simply asking about recruiting OL and what a previous coach (Briles) looked for in recruits. What physical attributes do you look for in OL recruits coach (meaning Coach Holgorsen)?
John used Briles because he recalled Briles saying he looked for small ankles and good technique over bigger heavier recruits.
Coach Holgorsen cut him off and asked the question be about what he has done, not other coaches. John basically completed the question which Coach Holgorsen was enthusiastic to answer.
#GoCoogs!

[uhlaw97 (Ryon Adams)]

First of all, why would what Briles looked for in O-line recruits matter?

Was Briles more successful here? Hint: No. Did Briles have better olinemen? He had a few good ones, but they didn’t necessarily produce better results on the field or better teams. Not sure why Briles should be considered a model to follow.

Second, why was his question almost 100% about Briles, as if that’s a model that CDH should follow (UGH!!! NO!!!), and not really about CDH’s oline recruiting prior to CDH cutting him off?

I can fully understand CDH cutting him off.

[uhlaw97 (Ryon Adams)]

Here’s another thing.

I did a google search, and couldn’t find where Briles ever said the “small ankles” bit.

Can anyone here provide a link?

[uhlaw97 (Ryon Adams)]

I can tell you this much.

At no other position is weight gaining potential, muscle building potential, and driving leg power at more of a premium than at the oline position.

If I were looking at a prospect for all three, the LAST thing I’d be looking for is a guy with a small frame (ankles), or small legs.

Can’t imagine that Briles really looked for that.

Did his best olinemen like SirVincent and Vollmer fit that mold?

[92010Coogs (What's another word for Thesaurus?)]

With all due respect to the caller I would have asked the question this way:
CDH it is fair to say that you have had multiple recruiting classes. However our OL is not near to your and our expectation. What is your plan for our OL to progress and play to your expectations?

[uhlaw97 (Ryon Adams)]

That would have been better.

This guy said nothing close.

He was simply holding Briles (ugh!!!) out as presumably a better model to follow.

TERRIBLE.