What part of the words "Point Out" do you fail to understand. When you point something out as being wrong, you're supposed to follow it up as to why it's wrong. Can you do that? So, I'll ask the question again, so that you can understand it. Which part of my post, that you called Horseshit, was wrong and why? I'll understand if you don't want to respond to the question, because it'd make you look dumber than you already are.
Really lame reply, Pee Wee Herman. I clearly pointed out A.L.L --- I am pointing to A.L.L of it. Please tell me you understand the word "all", Prowler. It means the entirety, the complete thing. Each and every part.
But since you (obviously) are having trouble comprehending, let's take your original and break it down:
Here's your original with the proper horseshit annotations:
Hey greaseybammer, are ya gonna answer my question? What are you going to do if Coach Chizik doesn't fail at Auburn? Are you going to still come here with a new line, borrowed from your mouth breathing brethren..."wait 'til next year".
Horseshit. Your question doesn't bear answering. GW has already said what he thinks about the situation and how he will respond but you don't listen.
Here's something that you (greaseybammer), Kaos & a few others have apparently failed to realize is that Auburn has more money to hire better coaches than what he had at ISU, Auburn has better facilities to attract better players than what he had at ISU, Auburn has better players on roster than what he had at ISU & Auburn has some Top Shelf coaches right now at Auburn.
Horseshit because it's irrelevant. At ISU Chizik should have been competitive against teams with equal or lesser talent. He was not. So what difference will "better" anything make using that standard? All the teams he will now be competing against have better players, facilities and coaches than the teams that routinely whipped his narrow ass at ISU. UNLV or Tennessee? Kent State or Kentucky?
Top Shelf? Horseshit on that too. While the potential is there, Captain Capitalization, you really don't know what shelf these guys are on. Tulsa, Oklahoma State and Iowa State are not really considered the pinnacles of coaching. It's not like any of these guys comes with a championship pedigree.
Does that mean that Coach Chizik will be successful at Auburn, nope. What it means is that he has a better chance of being successful here than he'd have at a lot of other place, especially ISU.
Horseshit on the basis of relativity. If you give me a better toolkit it doesn't mean I'm going to become a master carpenter if I can't even use a hammer.
So, before you automatically write him off, I'd suggest you sit down, shut up, and just see if he can do what he was hired to do and that's bring Auburn back to where it once was, not too long ago.
Horseshit. Take your own advice and grab a great big cup of shut the fuck up about how great Chizik is. He hasn't done a damn thing but make noise to this point. Talk is cheap, Prowler. He talked his ass off at ISU. Always with the blueprint, always with the cliches. So far? That's all we've got, too.
Because greaseybammer, when you come on here and do your best to try and blast everything that Coach Chizik has done, so far at Auburn, it just makes you look retarded, especially when you base everything off of what you and your bammer buddies think, instead of the facts.
Horseshit. He's basing his opinion on Chizik (whether he's a bammer or not) on cold hard facts as he sees them. He's listed those facts. You're the one spinning castles in the sky with fanciful imaginary ropes of gold. You're the one palpitating over "recruits looking our way" and fawning over every cliche Chizik spews. You're the one with the most ignorant avatar in the history of avatardom.
And to point something out to you greaseybammer, Texas' defense stats did drop off after Coach Chizik and this was with TWO coaches coaching the Defense. Also after CGC's first year at ISU, Texas tried to hire him back as the DC/Assistant HC. And, I'm pretty sure Auburn's defensive stats dropped off too from the '04 defense to the '05.
Horseshit. Horseshit, horseshit, horseshit.
You're taking "message board rumors" and assuming them as fact. When Chizik was there, nimwit, there were "TWO coaches coaching the defense." He wasn't even the sole DC (another reason Auburn gave him the finger when he left and should have remembered his traitorous bullshit before hiring him).
No, Texas did NOT try to hire him back, I don't care what some "respected message board poster" with "inside information" tries to tell you.
The ONLY thing you got right in this entire diatribe was that Texas had slightly better defensive numbers when Chizik was sharing the DC role with Akers or whoever. But that wasn't due to knowledge on your part, it was just guessing so you still get horseshit.
Texas defensive stats
2003: 327 yards and 21 ppg
2004: 317 yards and 16.2 ppg
2005: 280 yards and 14.6 ppg
2006: 292 yards and 17.8 ppg
2007: 374 yards and 24.6 ppg
2008: 339 yards and 18.6 ppg
Auburn's defensive stats
2003: 283 yards and 16.5 ppg
2004: 269 yards and 11.2 ppg
2005: 294 yards and 14.7 ppg
2006: 297 yards and 13.9 ppg
2007: 298 yards and 16.7 ppg
2008: 317 yards and 18.0 ppg
Chizik or whoever, Auburn's numbers were fairly consistent across the board.
108 Replies
20016 Views