WindyCityHawkI
Well-Known Member
Honest question. I wonder if the ultra ultra conservative approach would blow a game, always playing not to lose instead of keeping the pedal down like bama does.
Honest question. I wonder if the ultra ultra conservative approach would blow a game, always playing not to lose instead of keeping the pedal down like bama does.
In all honesty, no he would not. He would have lost at LSU besides the A&M game. Hell he could lose to Vanderbilt, they are not exactly chopped liver.
A lot of SEC schools have oodles of talent, only Bama has Saban.
You are right to an extent. Where were the National Championships while he was at Michigan State? You still have to have the talent and the SEC big dogs certainly do.
I think Ferentz would have a better chance of winning a national championship at Alabama than Saban would at Iowa.
You are right to an extent. Where were the National Championships while he was at Michigan State? You still have to have the talent and the SEC big dogs certainly do.
I think Ferentz would have a better chance of winning a national championship at Alabama than Saban would at Iowa.
I think we are arguing the same side of the coin here. I mistook your original post to mean that Saban was the reason regardless of all the talent.A lot of SEC schools have oodles of talent, only Bama has Saban.
Where were the oodles of talent at Michigan State? That's my point, you have to have talent, but when all equal, the coach puts the team over the top.
hell f'in noHonest question. I wonder if the ultra ultra conservative approach would blow a game, always playing not to lose instead of keeping the pedal down like bama does.
Without question.
In 2010, we saw what ferentz did with the best talent Iowa had in thirty years. Just a Indiana pass drop from going 6-6.
FreedComanche