I complain about John Brady and his coaching. You don't see me all over this forum complaining about things - only this. However, when anyone "bitches", you're all over them. Because you must stick up for LSU no matter what which makes you blind to the truth sometimes. LSU is the greatest - no arguement from me there brother.
I am looking this from the perspective of someone who has not been able to go to any games in person while Brady has been HC. I can only listen to, and read accounts of the game, over the net. Bottom line is something is missing, and has been for years judging only by stats. This isn't a "we are having an off year" argument. Year W L Pct. W L Pct. 1997-98 9 18 .333 2 14 .125 1998-99 12 15 .444 4 12 .250 1999-00 28 6 .823 12 4 .750 2000-01 13 16 .448 2 14 .125 2001-02 19 15 .559 6 10 .375 2002-03 21 11 .656 8 8 .500 2003-04 18 11 .621 8 8 .500 LSU 120 92 .566 42 70 .375 IMHO, one year of being above .500 in conference play, two at .500 and four below is rather embarrassing, If Brady's run started off in the cellar and improved bit by bit each year that would be different. This doesn't look to me like the record of someone who is building a program. And I am not talking about over-all record, I am looking primarily at this on a year by year basis. When I look at it that way, I see "problem=coach"
what recent lsu teams have you been following with "all of this talent"? --the current team has two (neither are guards) but they are very young and we'll see --last year was great til lloreda left, but certainly not great talent (again no guards) --the years before that no great talent (dupree was not a great talent) unless you go back to swift. the team did well for one great player. ps---dont bring up minor and koundja either
well, you know the standard answer to this is the scholarship limitations. the 2000 season was a fluke because of swift. take out that year and there is a trend in the right direction. last year was a bit of a fluke too with lloreda's injury/wigging out. i dont think poor coaching is a problem--getting/keeping players is more of the problem. teams that have done better than brady's in the sec have had more talent and/or experience than brady's. bottom line---can't really think of an exception
to an extent, i agree. but generally recruiting is not what is meant by "poor coaching" that i was responding to.
I am talking about the coaching staff and how they do their jobs overall. (Not just x's and o's.) So we weren't exactly commenting on the same thing.