Leach and Sherman Continue War of Words; Leach Winning
If you haven't been following Mike Leach's comments about Stephen McGee (which were really more an indictment of the NFL at first, until Mike Sherman and McGee took offense), see here. After Sherman's comments stating that Leach doesn't know what he's talking about and shouldn't be commenting on his (Sherman's) coaching decisions (despite the fact that Leach was criticizing NFL talent evaluators in the first place and not Sherman), Leach went in for the kill:
"I’ve always said that it is truly exciting to play Texas A&M - the quality of coaches they have, the great team and great tradition and, above all, the quality of players they have," Leach continued. "I’ve always known A&M had great players. The fact that they have the luxury to put a third- or fourth-round draft pick on the bench, to me, identifies what a truly great team they are.
"It’s an honor for us at Texas Tech to have the opportunity to play them. There are numerous players on our team that will never get a look or play a down in the NFL, so you can imagine how exciting it is for me and them to go play a team the magnitude of Texas A&M and look over there on the bench and see third- and fourth-round draft picks."
The article continues: "Leach has been a burr under Aggie saddles. His teams have beaten A&M seven times in the last eight years, extending Tech’s recent dominance to 11-3 in the series since 1995."
6 months ago
billyzane
62 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Sherman, please, please respond.
Can’t wait to hear what Leach will say next.
by the1austin on Apr 30, 2009 4:05 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hell, I'll take a stab at it....
First he will type a long-winded diatribe about how A&M is a better program than Tech becauseA&M won a national championship in 1939 and that totally proves that A&M is capable of competing for championships year-in and year-out despite the fact that their only recent stretch of competing for national championships conveniently coincided with rampant cheatingand then he will talk to himself on his blog because no one reads it. And in the end everyone will be stupider for having read what he wrote.And then he will say that the reason Leach is saying these things is because he’s jealous of A&M and the fact that a place like A&M would never hire him even though A&M might actually be able to beat Texas Tech (a program they belive themselves to be superior to) more than once every 8 years if they hired Leach.and then he will ban everyone who dares to disagree with him on his own blog (which is totally ironic because if we had the same banning policy as he does, he would have been gone years ago)Oh, and then he will spout of non-sensical X’s and o’s stuff to prove he knows more about football than you, then he will call you a racist, and he will still never fucking figure out how to use blockquotes but will nevertheless critique your HTML skills because he is fucking smarter than YOU!And then he will root for the Taliban and refuse to capitalize Texas
by billyzane on Apr 30, 2009 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions 21 recs
I don't rec often.
But this I had to rec.
The links made it great, the block quoting made it art.
by the1austin on Apr 30, 2009 5:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am impressed that you care so much about what I write that you keep a record of my comments
I don’t think I can recall a single comment or article by you that I considered memorable enough to link to or quote; maybe that says something about how little I think about you, versus how often you worry about me?
And then he will say that the reason Leach is saying these things is because he’s jealous of A&M and the fact that a place like A&M would never hire him
This is actually fairly close to some remarks I made in response to what Leach said; given when I made my comments and when you posted this, it leads me to believe you already read what I wrote, which would contradict your later statement that
he will talk to himself on his blog because no one reads it
As for
he will spout of non-sensical X’s and o’s stuff to prove he knows more about football than you
if you disagree with anything I have said regarding the Xs and Os of football, please clarify where I am wrong.
by Beergut on Apr 30, 2009 6:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Beergut is like a parody of the prototypical Aggie
But he’s real. You’re too good to be true, BG. By the way, I’m happy you had someone to talk to over on 12th Man today.
by the1austin on Apr 30, 2009 6:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not going to get in a long thing because it was just a joke, but I will respond to your comments this once.
(1) I remember things that you do because (a) I have an excellent memory and a rudimentary knowledge of how to use a search engine, (b) you purposefully draw attention to yourself by stating things for no reason other than to be contrarian, and ( c ) you are an 1 aggie on a blog full of about 1000 longhorns, and I am 1 longhorn of those 1000. And by the way, you rec’d this article of mine, but I guess you forgot. Lucky for you, I remembered; see point (1)(a), supra.
(2) I will admit that, on occasion and including today, I have gone over to your website to check the comments. I don’t believe I’ve ever read anything you’ve written as a main post because based on your comments here, I do not wish to subject myself to your asinine opinions, poorly written at that. But I will admit that when I’m in need of a laugh, I head over to the comment section because who doesn’t find desolate austerity hilarious? But hey, now that I’ve admitted to having accessed your blog via computer terminal, does that mean I’m now an author on your site? Seems to be your practice over there…
(Nothing against you, miketag. No one has an issue with you because you are not an asshole nor do you troll over here. Thanks for that!)
(3) My point was not that what you are saying about X’s and O’s is wrong. I have no idea if it’s wrong or not. And that’s your whole point in posting all of that stuff—to prove to everyone how much you know about football. It appears to be a big insecurity of yours. Some of us are comfortable admitting how much we know and don’t know about certain things. Not you, though. You assert yourself as an expert on EVERYTHING you talk about.
(4) So what, you address everything but the Taliban statement? We ever going to get an explanation of that? Because I, for one, would LOVE to hear you try to justify that one.
(5) You’re really getting good at those blockquotes, buddy. You’re a model for 80 year-olds everywhere who suck at the internet but eventually learn to click buttons once rather than twice. Congrats on mastering that.
by billyzane on Apr 30, 2009 8:11 PM CDT up reply actions 6 recs
This guy I work with double clicks EVERYTHING. He’s a razorback. I think the fact that he learned to turn a computer on should be labeled a success.
by UT_BKC on Apr 30, 2009 10:46 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
reply
you purposefully draw attention to yourself by stating things for no reason other than to be contrarian
Despite what many on here seem to be convinced of, I don’t troll. Maybe y’all have a different definition of trolling than I do, and perhaps that is the reason for the disconnect here, but a troll is someone who posts something merely to get a response. If I state an opinion, it is b/c I believe what I state. I guess since my opinion is often the opposite of what many on here believe, that constitutes trolling to the majority of people on here, but whatever.
I have no idea if it’s wrong or not. And that’s your whole point in posting all of that stuff—to prove to everyone how much you know about football. It appears to be a big insecurity of yours.
Actually, I have no desire to “prove to everyone how much you know about football”, there are just times I try to educate people on areas they are wrong. Often, it is when someone says I am wrong in an opinion about texas’ offense, i.e. when PB wrote texas was a spread team and I explained why their passing concepts make them a West Coast Offense.
You assert yourself as an expert on EVERYTHING you talk about.
This is such a gross exaggeration, it almost doesn’t merit a response. Please explain to me where I’ve asserted an expertise on EVERYTHING. Hell, show me where I’ve asserted an expertise on anything.
So what, you address everything but the Taliban statement?
I don’t know why you have such a stick up your ass about a comment I made on a Kansas State blog. The very fact that you follow my comments on other blogs makes me think you have a disturbing fixation on me. You might want to examine your behavior in that area.
As for the Taliban comment, it was a bit of hyperbole to get a point across; IIRC, TB thought I was rooting for K-State b/c I was worried about A&M’s seeding in the NCAA Tournament, I was just pointing out that I pretty much always root against texas, as a practice. That’s why it is called a rivalry.
If it will benefit A&M in some way, or I have a personal interest in the game, I will root for texas. as distasteful as it is. I rooted for texas against Tech last season, but of course y’all screwed that one up in memorable fashion.
Re:blockquotes
It would help if the function on here had an endquotes tag. The only reason my replies come out disjointed is b/c I sometimes forget to put endquotes, and neglect to use the preview function.
Again, I don’t know why this is an issue for you. If my replies bother you, you can always make the choice not to read them.
by Beergut on May 1, 2009 2:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
While I admit a bit of sympathy
for the verbal gang-bang you’ve received here (without really asking for it, I might add)…
I propose a moratorium on the “you-remember-what-I’ve-posted-so-you-must-be-an-obsessed-loser” defense, which appears on this site far too often. It amounts to the rough equivalent of a “nani-nani-boo-boo,” playground act of rhetorical juvenility.
If you click “post” here, then your opinion goes on public record, and you’ve nobody but yourself to blame if those opinions are used as ammunition against you in future discourse. That particularly desperate and emotional brand of ad hominem attack has never been relevant to any argument in which it has been introduced, and it certainly is not relevant here.
by BrooklynHorn on May 1, 2009 3:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not saying, but I'm just saying...
If I state an opinion, it is b/c I believe what I state.
+
I just hate those fuckers from texas. I’d root for the Taliban against texas.
As for the Taliban comment, it was a bit of hyperbole to get a point across
"From the waist down, Earl Campbell has the biggest legs I have ever seen on a running back." -John Madden
by run Bevo run on May 1, 2009 6:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just 3 things for the record and I'm done.
(1) I was perusing the K-State game thread from a game they played against Texas (as in, my team, which has nothing to do with you), when I came across the Taliban comment. I thought it was funny and oh-so Beerguttural, so I made fun of it. That’s all that happened. Stop flattering yourself.
(2) When you push the big quote button to get a blockquote on here, it automatically puts up a starting tag and an ending tag. Try it, I promise it works. Like magic!
(3) See run Bevo run’s comment above. Either the entire logic you used to justify your “contrarian for the sake of contrarianism” comments is flawed or you really would root for the Taliban. I won’t presume to know which one is true.
Also, sorry for having this happen on a thread you initially had nothing to do with. It was just a joke, and you deserve it in my opinion, but I would have preferred to wait for the next asinine thing you said to make that joke. My apologies.
by billyzane on May 1, 2009 8:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
so
what you’re saying is, you are unable to determine the difference between an opinion and hyperbole?
This conversation has become a waste of time, so I’m done with it.
by Beergut on May 1, 2009 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good. Get lost and stay lost.
I'll never forget ol' what's-his-name.
by Horntod on May 1, 2009 6:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow that was simply beaauuuutiful
COACH BOOM BABY!!
by hookemkp on Apr 30, 2009 6:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of being banned on the 12th man
Who else has been banned? I know I lasted all of 18 comments.
by the1austin on Apr 30, 2009 7:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I last like 3 months.....
He had no reason to ban me either….I didn’t cuss or personally insult anyone….he is a big freaking joke….Billy Zane, you sir made my day.
by GoComets! on May 1, 2009 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Beergut just isn't used to interacting with others...
Have you seen his game posts? One of the greatest things on the net. It’s a living, breathing Aggie joke every time.
by the1austin on May 1, 2009 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well-played
I know NFL GMs and scouts are experts, but so were the people that made the movie, “Pearl Harbor.” Leach’s sarcasm in the wake of the decisions to draft McGee and Bomar; and Josh Freeman in the 1st round are classic.
by Eskimohorn on Apr 30, 2009 4:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh, snap, I just said, “oh, snap” aloud.
by burntorangehorn on Apr 30, 2009 4:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
That is AWESOME!
In fact, it may be the best quote that the college football world has produced in my lifetime.
Mack is a great coach, but he certainly doesn’t produce the memorable soundbites that made someone like DKR so famous. Leach is certainly of a dying breed.
by BrooklynHorn on Apr 30, 2009 4:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Come on, that's not even Leach's best quote about A&M
How soon we forget:
“How come they get to pretend they are soldiers? The thing is, they aren’t actually in the military. I ought to have Mike’s Pirate School. The freshmen, all they get is the bandanna. When you’re a senior, you get the sword and skull and crossbones. For homework, we’ll work pirate maneuvers and stuff like that.”
by Hopkins Horn on Apr 30, 2009 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I prefer this one
The pirate/soldier thing was a stab at playful jest, but when I read this quote, I see Leach’s piercing eyes, as if he’s allowed his dark side to acquire a greater share of his applicable mental faculties. I think his intolerance of status quo is pushing him to a breaking point.
by BrooklynHorn on May 1, 2009 4:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
neither of those...
from the Michael Lewis NYT article way back, in response to hearing the wife of an aTm assistant coach “insulted every female Red Raider in earshot by saying that at least she lived in College Station instead of Lubbock.”:
“First of all, we just beat them, 56-17,” Leach says when told of the incident. “By rights she should now be a Red Raider slave.”
by Pflash on May 1, 2009 8:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very funny, as always
But like has been discussed here before, being good in college doesn’t mean you’ll find success in the NFL, and being successful in the NFL doesn’t mean you were a great college player. Harrell is unquestionably the superior college QB, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he projects better than McGee into the NFL (though it might).
However, Leach is right that NFL scouts often look at measureables way too much rather than how the guys play. In the end, it’s a guessing game, with teams trying to take in factors like college success, measureables, personality, age, etc. to predict how players will come into their own system and perform. Some guess better than others and also develop their players so that they fulfill their own “guesses” (like the Patriots), while some suck at both (Lions).
I think Leach is more upset because he doesn’t want to have this reputation, as he still has, of getting QB’s to throw for a bazillion yards in college but not be the type to transition well to the NFL. That might very well hurt recruiting.
by TheElusiveShadow on Apr 30, 2009 5:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
btw
I’m referring to Leach’s comment, which is not quoted above, that his defensive end should be considered a great NFL QB prospect because he’s tall, weighs 240, and can throw the ball far.
by TheElusiveShadow on Apr 30, 2009 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think it will hurt his recruiting too much. As long as he’s there, kids who can’t quite make the UTs, USCs, ect will want to go to a TTech where they can break records and convince someone to take a $300k (or more) chance on them in the draft/FA.
by UT_BKC on Apr 30, 2009 10:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Darcel McBath
By the way, who is this guy and how did he go in the 2nd round? When I think TTech, I don’t think amazing CBs (or even Ds).
by UT_BKC on Apr 30, 2009 10:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
McBath had the 3 INT game against Kansas last season
OTT, I am at a loss as to why he was taken so early.
by Beergut on May 1, 2009 3:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
harrell did have his chances to impress the scouts
But his workouts and the Senior Bowl were an unmitigated disaster. Not a defense of the decision to take McGee, obviously, but Harrell certainly didn’t help unstick the “system QB” label at all.
Cheers to Leach, though, for year-round entertainment value.
by Emmett Fitzhume on Apr 30, 2009 11:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
If Harrell cant get drafted
Why would anyone with NFL aspirations go to QB at Tech? I mean the kid was a state record holder in high school, and had probably the best season anyone will, or maybe could have at Texas Tech, and still goes undrafted?
The other best ever was Kliff Kingsbury if I’m not mistaken, and he went in the 6th round.
This is an honest question here, and not meant as a dig at Tech or Leach, but if Harrell goes to Ball State, or Fresno State instead of Tech, does he get drafted? Its not like this was a QB heavy draft…
by BoddickerIsClutch on May 1, 2009 8:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is an honest question here, and not meant as a dig at Tech or Leach, but if Harrell goes to Ball State, or Fresno State instead of Tech, does he get drafted? Its not like this was a QB heavy draft…
I’d suspect the answer is probably not. The theory here is that the “system” label is just so strong at Tech that a person can’t come here and be drafted. That’s demonstrably false, but anyways, Harrell’s draft stock surely benefitted more from his time at Tech than was negatively impacted by the system label. The reality is that Harrell didn’t help himself after the CFB season was over, and the NFL’s hyper-obsession with measurables — which is what Leach finds so deplorable — meant that a guy who was simply a great CFB QB but didn’t have good measurables wasn’t likely to get drafted no matter where he played.
In any event, QBs with NFL aspirations are 4 deep on the Texas Tech roster. We’ve got the best stable of QBs of the Leach era.
In any event round 2, if walk-on Cumbie can become the (then) 6th most productive single season passer in NCAA history, is anyone really sure we need NFL talent to win?
by Skin Patrol on May 1, 2009 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
agree that it doesn't have anything to do with where he went to school
he simply didn’t have the measurables
I don’t agree it is a system issue, b/c QBs from spread offenses have been drafted and played in the NFL before, see Ty Detmer, Tim Couch, et al.
In any event round 2, if walk-on Cumbie can become the (then) 6th most productive single season passer in NCAA history, is anyone really sure we need NFL talent to win?
Do you need NFL talent to run the Air Raid? No. Whether your ability to recruit top QB prospects is hurt by the fact that Harrell wasn’t drafted remains to be seen.
Potts appears to have all the measurables NFL scouts look for, so I think he is Tech’s best chance for a test case. Given that the last QB who had the measurables running an Air Raid system was drafted (Couch), I think the prospects are good.
I really don’t see why Leach would rip NFL scouts in the year when he had more players drafted than any other. So, the scouts for every position but QB are smart?
by Beergut on May 2, 2009 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In any event round 2, if walk-on Cumbie can become the (then) 6th most productive single season passer in NCAA history, is anyone really sure we need NFL talent to win?
I dont think you do, as proven by every QB that has been under Leach having near record setting seasons.
What puts you over the edge into contention for the conference title, or at least did this year, was probably the best QB you have had in Harrell and probably the best WR you have had in Crabtree.
The question is more about recruiting and its impact. I’m sure Harrell after setting 5 state records in high school thought he would be NFL bound after college. If he knew he would have the success he had at Tech, and not get drafted, would he have chosen to go somewhere else?
I know there’s no way to know that ahead of time, but it could affect future recruits, and while Leach’s air raid is probably good enough to win 7-9 games a year despite the personnel, to get to those 10-11 win seasons having some extra talent helps.
by BoddickerIsClutch on May 4, 2009 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
wrong question boddicker
It’s not that playing in Leach’s system hurt his chances. It’s that he doesn’t have the same natural arm strength as Freeman and McGee. So if a kid with all those measurables that scouts drool over goes to Tech, he’ll probably have a chance at playing in the pros. Harrell just didn’t have them – but I wouldn’t be surprised if he still makes a roster and plays a bit on Sundays.
by Blitzburgh on May 2, 2009 1:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
of course that was a dig on McGee and not NFL scouts
If McGee was going to take that as a dig on the scouts and not him, it would be McGee saying, “ha, my A&M coaches who benched* me are smart and those NFL scouts that think I’m draft worthy are idiots.” McGee and Sherman had to take it is a dig on them or otherwise they’d be admitting that McGee sucked.
by OJsApprentice on Apr 30, 2009 11:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
That's faulty logic.
You’re talking about two different things. (1) Whom Leach criticized, and (2) How the Aggies took the comments. Those two things have nothing to do with each other.
Leach meant his original comments as a swipe at the NFL scouts for relying too much on “potential” and “measurables” and not enough on how players actually perform in games. This meaning is in line with all of Leach’s other comments. The Aggies could have said, “Look, college football and the NFL are different games that value different things. If Tech wants to get NFL-type talent to Lubbock, maybe they shouldn’t run a system that doesn’t translate as all to the NFL game.” That would have been a reasonable response. Instead, they got really offended, showed no sense of humor whatsoever, and said, in effect, “You don’t know me!!! You don’t know what I’m about!!! McGee was great all along!”
The point is, the manner in which the Aggies responded to the comments has nothing to do with how they were intended. And either way the Aggies responded, it wasn’t good. Either they admit he sucks and the NFL is wrong, or they claim he’s great and that they wasted his talent at A&M. They tried the whole “he was great but he was injured” splitting of the difference (which doesn’t entirely work because he was pretty mediocre as an option QB his first 3 years). But in no way does that indicate that “of course that was a dig on McGee and not NFL scouts” as you say. That just doesn’t make any logical sense.
by billyzane on Apr 30, 2009 11:57 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Agreed
Fake outrage has become our national pastime
by BrooklynHorn on May 1, 2009 4:07 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
How dare you say that?
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
by Caradoc on May 1, 2009 8:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I never
BrooklynnHorn, you’ve gone too far. Good day, sir. I said GOOD DAY!
by Eskimohorn on May 1, 2009 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not convinced
I hear what you are saying, but Leach’s comments translate to: "Heh, NFL scouts, he isn’t exactly a fourth round talent, as evidenced by the fact that the people that know his skills the best — his coaches — stopped playing him " in my mind. McGee can’t not take that as an insult, and Sherman is in the position of needing to validate the skills of a player he benched.
Leach can act like he was talking to the scouts, but the intended message fell heaviest on McGee: “He’s not that good.”
I’m totally in agreement that they reacted over-the-top and got all butt-hurt. They were left with the option to (1) let it go, because everyone knows Leach is a loon (2) try something super nuanced a la your comment of “Look, college football and the NFL…” or (3) tell Leach he’s an ass. They just did the third.
by OJsApprentice on May 1, 2009 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
why do you think McGee was a mediocre option QB?
what makes a good (not great, just good) option QB in your eyes?
by Beergut on May 2, 2009 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who roots for the Taliban..
except for the Taliban?!
billyzane vs beergut >> leach vs. sherman
by nyclonghorngal on May 1, 2009 11:40 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, they did shut down the opium trade...
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
by Caradoc on May 1, 2009 6:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
honestly in this situation Mike Leach is just being a dumbass, he talks alot of shit, and even though he beat us last year, he did not deserve that huge raise. What I dont get is when coaches get a huge raise after one successful year? Im sure graham harrel and michael crabtree had nothing to do with the 11-2 season by Tech last year.
Also I read somewhere that these comments Leach is making is hurting his players after their collegiate seasons. Something about a team not wanting to draft a raider because of Mike Leach encouraging a bad attitude to his players or something, anyone care to link?
by MJY6087 on May 1, 2009 8:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
lol, one good year huh?
They’ve averaged about 9 wins a year since he’s been there. Why is Mack Brown one of the highest paid coaches in the game with only one conference championship then?
by Blitzburgh on May 2, 2009 1:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
8.44 to be exact. Depends on what your definition of good year is….hes only had one 10+ win season i believe. Still very overrated in my opinion
by MJY6087 on May 2, 2009 1:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right, it does depend on your definition of good year.
If your definition of good year is that you win 8.43 games, he’s had good years, and if your definition of a good year is winning 8.45 games, he hasn’t.
It sounds like your definition of good years are those that you win 10+ games. If that is your definition, Mike Leach is not a good coach.
Right?
by Skin Patrol on May 2, 2009 3:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess 'overrated' depends on where you rate them to begin with...
you are aware he’s doing this in Lubbock, right? With Texas Tech? Not The University of Texas, not the University of Oklahoma, heck, not even Fightin’ Farmer U.
Before you decide that the quality of a coaching performance is based completely on number of wins, you might start with what tools are in place. Averaging over 8 wins a season, with the talent available to TT, in arguably the toughest division in football… I’d call that a pretty good job myself.
I don’t care who you put there as coach, they’re going to have a rough time recruiting anywhere close to the same level of talent as OU and UT. And if you go back to the beginning of Leach’s tenure in Lubbock, you could definitely say the same thing about aTm, if you recall where they were at that time. Certainly the aggies have had waaaaaaay more resources available to them.
And have performed at nowhere close to the same level. That’s kind of unfair in a sense, since the aggies have undeniably regressed from their free-wheeling, Fedex envelope-stuffing heyday, but at the end of the day, I think it’s only fair when judging Leach to compare him not to OU/Stoops/Big Red Auto and UT/Mack/Austin, but to aTm, OSU, and Baylor and their counterparts in the North.
On that basis, I don’t see how you can fairly call Leach ‘overrated’, and certainly not ‘very overrated’…
by Pflash on May 2, 2009 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uh...
Im sure graham harrel and michael crabtree had nothing to do with the 11-2 season by Tech last year.
I’m too lazy to look up the exact statistics, but I’ll wager that every qb Leach has ever coached has been at or near the top of the conference. It seems more likely to me that Harrel benefited more from Mike Leach than the other way around.
by BrooklynHorn on May 2, 2009 2:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also I read somewhere that these comments Leach is making is hurting his players after their collegiate seasons. Something about a team not wanting to draft a raider because of Mike Leach encouraging a bad attitude to his players or something, anyone care to link?
We just had the best drafted Tech class in, perhaps, Texas Tech history. Four players drafted in the first four rounds. Outside of USC, there aren’t a lot of schools in the country that can claim that.
by Skin Patrol on May 2, 2009 3:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
