arrow-circle arrow-long-stroke arrow-stroke arrow-thick arrow-thin arrow-triangle icon 2 baseballCreated with Sketch. basketball calendar category check-circle check-square check comment facebook-circle facebook-icon facebook-rounded facebook-square facebook-stroke football instagram-circle instagram-icon instagram-square long-arrow-right rss-circle rss-rounded rss-square rss-stroke rss twitter-circle twitter-icon twitter-rounded twitter-square twitter-stroke user-group user

Auburn’s Collapse

By on December 16th, 2012 in Member Post 5 Comments »

How in the name of “logic’ did Chizik think that changing both his offensive and defensive coordinators and schemes would result in anything but disaster. Having spent over 40 years in the business world, you hire skills that are in line with your strategy.  This is basic organizational planning, it amazes me that a headcoach and AD could not understand that their strategy was doomed from the beginning. You had both sides of the ball with skilled players that were recruited for a differnt scheme.

5 Comments

  1. MyAuburn myauburn says:

    As a business person myself I say hear, hear. You hire and recruit to your plan and strengths and don’t change from your plan. If your personell does not fit your scheme, either in business or football, you will not win at either.
    Recruit them, train them, pump them up, and direct them. That works!! Chizik failed at all of them.

  2. Col.Angus Col.Angus says:

    That sounds good, but how do you ever change to meet the times if you are always fixated on following one strategy?
    I think last year was a great time to make a change, the team was still very young and not entrenched in the Malzahn system. Loefflers system seemed tailor made for the talent we had, a slow but accurate throwing Mosely, a playmaking TE, a WR that found ways to get open, a bulldozing FB and small by extremely elusive tailbacks to run behind the FB and a group of highly recruied Linemen. The problem was that the entire staff was not changed to accomodate the new philosophy. If the idea or strategy is new you must have total commitment to it or you will have rebellion against it from within that will spread like cancer. This is what doomed the Tony Franklin experiment and it doomed Loeffler. This staff did not or could not coach Loeffler system, dissention set in, players lost confidence and then will. This team had a chance to be better than average from what I saw against Clemson. They made the mistakes that a young team with a new, inexperienced QB will make, but they had a chance in that game. That team bore absolutely NO resemblence to the mannequins in navy and orange that got humiliated against UGA and Bama.
    What doomed Chizik was not this “Change” it was his lack of leadership. He did not inspire these young men. He did not demand discipline and toughness. 18 to 23 year old young men, now more than ever, are EXTREMELY immature and need a firm hand to guide them, to ride them, to FORCE them to apply themselves. Unfortunately I think Chizik treated them to much like adults, letting them make their own decisions. Some kids can handle that responsibility, most can’t and it was clear that the coaches differed with their support of that philosophy. Coaches like BVG, just said “Screw it” and gave up. He obviously didn’t agree with the course of the program but did absolutely nothing to change it.
    It was not the change in strategy that doomed this team it was the failure to totally clean house and get everybody on board with the change.

  3. KungFuPanda9 KungFuPanda9 says:

    Yeah, I have to say the change in “system” is taking a lot of undeserved blame for what should rightly be placed on “lack of fundamentals.”

    During the Iron Bowl, Frazier came in at the end of the game. The play was a simple bubble to the left side. All he had to do was turn to the left and throw the football 12 yards. Kids all across America make that pass in their backyards everyday. But the ball sailed high and away. No system deserves the blame for that. But coaching should.

    It is a crime that Lemonier should not be able to get off blocks, EVER, and instead get pushed to the outside on every play the second half of the season. I get that his compadre was hurt, but getting off blocks for a guy with his skill level is how he earns his living. The odds are that he should get SOME breaks because he wasn’t double-teamed every play.

  4. wde1988 wde1988 says:

    I think the COL gives some sound logic here… but from my perspective Chizik did what he did because of who he worked for in the past. Look no farther than Tommy Tuberville. It worked for him… well, I should say it worked mostly for him… Same thing for Mack Brown.

    Only Chizik didn’t have the management or communication skills that Tubby or Mack had…

    Chizik did a lot of things like them. No way to get around that… he just couldn’t provide the smoke and mirrors to give himself the protection necessary to survive the criticism.

    WDE

  5. Jimbo67 says:

    I am ready to endorse Gus and hope for the best. I remember a statement from years ago that applies to last year, “Sometimes the fish stinks at the head”…