New CB D'Angelo Gunter (BYU Transfer)

[HelenaHandBasket]

True, but remember: Bobby gets three years to get his guys in place and return the program to dominance, just like the guy who coached before him. :?

I laugh every time someone throws this out there. I am not sure how many years he will get, but 3 is what it will most likely take when you want to talk "dominance".

I agree with you, I'm just pointing out the irony of those who were flabbergasted that Stitt couldn't do it in two years, but think Hauck deserves 3 years. If Hauck's so much better than Stitt, he should only need 1 year, right?

It would seem so after reading eGriz.

 

[hilinegrizfan]

True, but remember: Bobby gets three years to get his guys in place and return the program to dominance, just like the guy who coached before him. :?

I laugh every time someone throws this out there. I am not sure how many years he will get, but 3 is what it will most likely take when you want to talk "dominance".

I agree with you, I'm just pointing out the irony of those who were flabbergasted that Stitt couldn't do it in two years, but think Hauck deserves 3 years. If Hauck's so much better than Stitt, he should only need 1 year, right?

the difference is stitt did the best with delaneys guys and then was trending downward from there...

 

[PlayerRep]

True, but remember: Bobby gets three years to get his guys in place and return the program to dominance, just like the guy who coached before him. :?

I laugh every time someone throws this out there. I am not sure how many years he will get, but 3 is what it will most likely take when you want to talk "dominance".

I agree with you, I'm just pointing out the irony of those who were flabbergasted that Stitt couldn't do it in two years, but think Hauck deserves 3 years. If Hauck's so much better than Stitt, he should only need 1 year, right?

Stitt was here for 3 years, not 2. The program went from being nos. 12 and 8 in the national post-season polls, beating the Cats 2 years in a row, and being in the playoffs 2 years in a row-in the 2 years before Stsitt came. The program isn't even ranked in the top 30 anymore. Hauck has a lot more work to get the program up towards the top, than Stitt did.

 

[Ringneck]

True, but remember: Bobby gets three years to get his guys in place and return the program to dominance, just like the guy who coached before him. :?

I laugh every time someone throws this out there. I am not sure how many years he will get, but 3 is what it will most likely take when you want to talk "dominance".

I agree with you, I'm just pointing out the irony of those who were flabbergasted that Stitt couldn't do it in two years, but think Hauck deserves 3 years. If Hauck's so much better than Stitt, he should only need 1 year, right?

the difference is stitt did the best with delaneys guys and then was trending downward from there...

So his upperclassmen were better football players than his underclassmen? You don't say... :roll:

 

[hilinegrizfan]

I laugh every time someone throws this out there. I am not sure how many years he will get, but 3 is what it will most likely take when you want to talk "dominance".

I agree with you, I'm just pointing out the irony of those who were flabbergasted that Stitt couldn't do it in two years, but think Hauck deserves 3 years. If Hauck's so much better than Stitt, he should only need 1 year, right?

the difference is stitt did the best with delaneys guys and then was trending downward from there...

So his upperclassmen were better football players than his underclassmen? You don't say... :roll:

are you saying that talent is determined by what grade you're in?

 

[Ringneck]

I agree with you, I'm just pointing out the irony of those who were flabbergasted that Stitt couldn't do it in two years, but think Hauck deserves 3 years. If Hauck's so much better than Stitt, he should only need 1 year, right?

the difference is stitt did the best with delaneys guys and then was trending downward from there...

So his upperclassmen were better football players than his underclassmen? You don't say... :roll:

are you saying that talent is determined by what grade you're in?

Maybe. Why, what grade are you in?

 

[hilinegrizfan]

the difference is stitt did the best with delaneys guys and then was trending downward from there...

So his upperclassmen were better football players than his underclassmen? You don't say... :roll:

are you saying that talent is determined by what grade you're in?

Maybe. Why, what grade are you in?

so by your logice caleb hill should have started QB all last year because he was a junior and gresch was a freshman. dude you should be the coach you are a genious

 

[Ringneck]

Anyway, I didn't mean to engage in childish banter (but it was kinda fun) and derail the Gunter speculation train.

I just wish Hauck apologists would be consistent in their assessments of Bobby Hauck. Either he's a great coach and leader who can turn this program around quickly, or he's not. Either he can play the hand he was dealt with great skill, or he can walk away from the table lamenting his lack of quality cards. At this point, I will agree that he's not leading championship caliber team, but he didn't inherit bare cupboards either. If he's a great coach, he'll prove it this year.

 

[kemajic]

the difference is stitt did the best with delaneys guys and then was trending downward from there...

So his upperclassmen were better football players than his underclassmen? You don't say... :roll:

are you saying that talent is determined by what grade you're in?

Maybe. Why, what grade are you in?

Careful, you're the one who doesn't even know how many years Stitt was here. His trending down had less to do with talent and more to do with how easy he was to scout by opposing coaches. We beat NDSU when no one had Stitt UM film; by the the end of the year, they bury us. Given a little film, DI coaches have to trouble beating DII coaching.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I agree with you, I'm just pointing out the irony of those who were flabbergasted that Stitt couldn't do it in two years, but think Hauck deserves 3 years. If Hauck's so much better than Stitt, he should only need 1 year, right?

the difference is stitt did the best with delaneys guys and then was trending downward from there...

So his upperclassmen were better football players than his underclassmen? You don't say... :roll:

are you saying that talent is determined by what grade you're in?

If that also correlates to whom did the recruiting....then maybe yes.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Anyway, I didn't mean to engage in childish banter (but it was kinda fun) and derail the Gunter speculation train.

I just wish Hauck apologists would be consistent in their assessments of Bobby Hauck. Either he's a great coach and leader who can turn this program around quickly, or he's not. Either he can play the hand he was dealt with great skill, or he can walk away from the table lamenting his lack of quality cards. At this point, I will agree that he's not leading championship caliber team, but he didn't inherit bare cupboards either. If he's a great coach, he'll prove it this year.

Yeah, but proving it might mean 7 wins.

 

[hilinegrizfan]

Anyway, I didn't mean to engage in childish banter (but it was kinda fun) and derail the Gunter speculation train.

I just wish Hauck apologists would be consistent in their assessments of Bobby Hauck. Either he's a great coach and leader who can turn this program around quickly, or he's not. Either he can play the hand he was dealt with great skill, or he can walk away from the table lamenting his lack of quality cards. At this point, I will agree that he's not leading championship caliber team, but he didn't inherit bare cupboards either. If he's a great coach, he'll prove it this year.

thats fine to say but please stop relating everything to stitt or complaining that he didn't get a fair shake.
he gone! move on!

 

[Ringneck]

So his upperclassmen were better football players than his underclassmen? You don't say... :roll:

are you saying that talent is determined by what grade you're in?

Maybe. Why, what grade are you in?

so by your logice caleb hill should have started QB all last year because he was a junior and gresch was a freshman. dude you should be the coach you are a genious

No, by my logic it's unfair to criticize Stitt for winning with "Delaney's guys" for a couple of years because, transfers notwithstanding, all of "Stitt's guys" his first two years coaching were underclassmen. And no, age (or "grade" as you put it) obviously doesn't automatically determine talent level, but even casual fans know that most college football starters are upperclassmen, for obvious reasons. And if we started a lot of freshmen the last couple of years that is either an indication that "Delaney's guys," who were by that time upperclassmen, were not very talented or that "Stitt's guys" were a helluva lot more talented than people give him or them credit for.

So by your standards, if Bobby is successful this year, it doesn't really count for him because he's got "Stitt's guys," right?

 

[hilinegrizfan]

are you saying that talent is determined by what grade you're in?

Maybe. Why, what grade are you in?

so by your logice caleb hill should have started QB all last year because he was a junior and gresch was a freshman. dude you should be the coach you are a genious

No, by my logic it's unfair to criticize Stitt for winning with "Delaney's guys" for a couple of years because, transfers notwithstanding, all of "Stitt's guys" his first two years coaching were underclassmen. And no, age (or "grade" as you put it) obviously doesn't automatically determine talent level, but even casual fans know that most college football starters are upperclassmen, for obvious reasons. And if we started a lot of freshmen the last couple of years that is either an indication that "Delaney's guys," who were by that time upperclassmen, were not very talented or that "Stitt's guys" were a helluva lot more talented than people give him or them credit for.

So by your standards, if Bobby is successful this year, it doesn't really count for him because he's got "Stitt's guys," right?

i never said it didn't count for stitt. just said he did his best with delaney's guys. but you seem to be in love with him, or some kind of odd infatuation. let it go man, hes gone.

 

[Ringneck]

Anyway, I didn't mean to engage in childish banter (but it was kinda fun) and derail the Gunter speculation train.

I just wish Hauck apologists would be consistent in their assessments of Bobby Hauck. Either he's a great coach and leader who can turn this program around quickly, or he's not. Either he can play the hand he was dealt with great skill, or he can walk away from the table lamenting his lack of quality cards. At this point, I will agree that he's not leading championship caliber team, but he didn't inherit bare cupboards either. If he's a great coach, he'll prove it this year.

Yeah, but proving it might mean 7 wins.

Which isn't good enough. Why set the bar so low?

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Anyway, I didn't mean to engage in childish banter (but it was kinda fun) and derail the Gunter speculation train.

I just wish Hauck apologists would be consistent in their assessments of Bobby Hauck. Either he's a great coach and leader who can turn this program around quickly, or he's not. Either he can play the hand he was dealt with great skill, or he can walk away from the table lamenting his lack of quality cards. At this point, I will agree that he's not leading championship caliber team, but he didn't inherit bare cupboards either. If he's a great coach, he'll prove it this year.

Yeah, but proving it might mean 7 wins.

Which isn't good enough. Why set the bar so low?

I just think the Griz are not a top tier team in terms of overall talent. I don't care how great a person thinks Hauck is, I just see limitations on what can be accomplished with this roster. To have any chance to make the playoffs, they have to win at least 2 games on the road and I am just not thinking this roster is capable.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

are you saying that talent is determined by what grade you're in?

Maybe. Why, what grade are you in?

so by your logice caleb hill should have started QB all last year because he was a junior and gresch was a freshman. dude you should be the coach you are a genious

No, by my logic it's unfair to criticize Stitt for winning with "Delaney's guys" for a couple of years because, transfers notwithstanding, all of "Stitt's guys" his first two years coaching were underclassmen. And no, age (or "grade" as you put it) obviously doesn't automatically determine talent level, but even casual fans know that most college football starters are upperclassmen, for obvious reasons. And if we started a lot of freshmen the last couple of years that is either an indication that "Delaney's guys," who were by that time upperclassmen, were not very talented or that "Stitt's guys" were a helluva lot more talented than people give him or them credit for.

So by your standards, if Bobby is successful this year, it doesn't really count for him because he's got "Stitt's guys," right?

Bobby wasn't forced to keep the candidate he beat out for the job on as his DC. He won't have a coordinator competing for player loyalty. He's sent those players who couldn't buy in packing before fall camp. His offense and defense will be simpler so less player mistakes. He will accomplish better clock control which will keep players fresher. He knows how and when to fire up his team, and will have them believing they can win every game. He has a respectable if not better than average o-line. He has coaches who can figure out the other teams' schemes and adjust. He has HIS QB to start the season. We will have dominant special teams this year. In short, he has Stitt buried in just about every tangible and intangible category so I have much higher expectations for this team's success this year than most on here. I see the Griz beating MSU by 20 or more to not just get into the playoffs but secure a bye first round. If you don't see how SDSU's success the last few years is in a large part due to Bobby coming of age at that level, then you never played the game. Every year lately the BSC has a surprise team rise to the top and this year that is the Griz.

 

[hilinegrizfan]

Maybe. Why, what grade are you in?

so by your logice caleb hill should have started QB all last year because he was a junior and gresch was a freshman. dude you should be the coach you are a genious

No, by my logic it's unfair to criticize Stitt for winning with "Delaney's guys" for a couple of years because, transfers notwithstanding, all of "Stitt's guys" his first two years coaching were underclassmen. And no, age (or "grade" as you put it) obviously doesn't automatically determine talent level, but even casual fans know that most college football starters are upperclassmen, for obvious reasons. And if we started a lot of freshmen the last couple of years that is either an indication that "Delaney's guys," who were by that time upperclassmen, were not very talented or that "Stitt's guys" were a helluva lot more talented than people give him or them credit for.

So by your standards, if Bobby is successful this year, it doesn't really count for him because he's got "Stitt's guys," right?

Bobby wasn't forced to keep the candidate he beat out for the job on as his DC. He won't have a coordinator competing for player loyalty. He's sent those players who couldn't buy in packing before fall camp. His offense and defense will be simpler so less player mistakes. He will accomplish better clock control which will keep players fresher. He knows how and when to fire up his team, and will have them believing they can win every game. He has a respectable if not better than average o-line. He has coaches who can figure out the other teams' schemes and adjust. He has HIS QB to start the season. We will have dominant special teams this year. In short, he has Stitt buried in just about every tangible and intangible category so I have much higher expectations for this team's success this year than most on here. I see the Griz beating MSU by 20 or more to not just get into the playoffs but secure a bye first round. If you don't see how SDSU's success the last few years is in a large part due to Bobby coming of age at that level, then you never played the game. Every year lately the BSC has a surprise team rise to the top and this year that is the Griz.

I LOVE THE POSITIVE ATTITUDE! hell ya brother :thumb:

 

[Ringneck]

Maybe. Why, what grade are you in?

so by your logice caleb hill should have started QB all last year because he was a junior and gresch was a freshman. dude you should be the coach you are a genious

No, by my logic it's unfair to criticize Stitt for winning with "Delaney's guys" for a couple of years because, transfers notwithstanding, all of "Stitt's guys" his first two years coaching were underclassmen. And no, age (or "grade" as you put it) obviously doesn't automatically determine talent level, but even casual fans know that most college football starters are upperclassmen, for obvious reasons. And if we started a lot of freshmen the last couple of years that is either an indication that "Delaney's guys," who were by that time upperclassmen, were not very talented or that "Stitt's guys" were a helluva lot more talented than people give him or them credit for.

So by your standards, if Bobby is successful this year, it doesn't really count for him because he's got "Stitt's guys," right?

i never said it didn't count for stitt. just said he did his best with delaney's guys. but you seem to be in love with him, or some kind of odd infatuation. let it go man, hes gone.

I liked Bob and would've liked to see him given another year to try to right the ship, but I understand why he was sent packing. I'm over that, and I hope Hauck can get us back on top. But what I'm tired of seeing is how the Hauck-or-bust crowd seems to be continually redefining the measure of "success" to provide some sort of bubble-wrap for Bobby in case he turns out not to be the savior after all. It's like they're saying, "We know Bobby will return us to dominance, but if he doesn't here's all the reasons why he couldn't: ___________." As I said above, he's either a great coach or he's not. And if he is, he'll prove it this year.

 

[mcg]

Why wasn't Mr. Gunter offered a scholarship? I wonder if that was the basis for his U-turn.