The people on this board have said things that have all been in articles. This is a PR article. Plain and simple.
Point taken. However, *if* that is actually Diane Chavis (Chief's wife) that made that comment in response to the NOLA article, I have to take it at face value and take her word that this was strictly a contract disagreement and John Chavis' decision was strictly a financial decision.
Btw...if you follow her login link, it goes to the Facebook page of one Diane Crisp Chavis. Of course, that won't stop the midget circus here from continuing to claim that Les Miles and his offense drove Chavis out.
Chavis issue is Alleva and his damn clauses. Took it as lack of respect even though Alleva tried to appease him. Chavis is in the football administration building now cleaning his office out and we let him in.WTF... Beyond Akward is the word coming from radio shows this morning.
My wife helps me come across diplomatically sometimes, too, even despite myself. Mrs. Chavis' comments don't change what frustrations Chief may feel and be sharing. Sure, the main reason he left is likely the contract stuff. I have no problem believing that. But, it is still a bit enlightening that our former DC expresses appreciation for the offense that he is joining, don't cha think?
I don't think it necessarily means anything other than he was complimenting A&M's offense. Perhaps the only thing that he was implying was that he plans on bringing A&M's defense up to the same level that their offense has been. Why does it necessarily mean that he is making a dig at his former team's offense?
Or you could be wrong. Or does arriving at a different conclusion than you automatically make me an idiot?
