Hauck back to Montana?

[kemajic]

Uniformed people think Hauck took over some really talented team. He didn't. Informed people will tell you this.

Jeff Disney at QB.

 

[kemajic]

Hauck's reign was basically like taking over Paris, ya it went through some shit with the wars but it was still Paris. Big, beautiful, city of the world with abundant arts and culture.

Stitt is essentially trying to build a brand new city, starting with the sewers and foundations all over. It has to take time!

This operates on the assumption that coaches improve with experience, and that the UM coach is the only when gaining experience. It also assume he has the talent to begin with at the D1 level; a talent he did not convincingly demonstrate in his 15 years at the D2 level against powerhouses like Chadron State.

Aside from the howling logical fallacy ....

I think most coaches do get better with experience....

Do you think the Montana coaches improved as 2016 progressed? Do you think the final game with MSU was well-coached?

 

[kemajic]

We lost 4 of the last 5 games; the only win being ISU who scored 44 against us in Missoula. So there would need to be a step jump change to go 8-3. What is that step jump change?

What was EWU's step jump change between '15 and '16?

Answer a question with a question.... OK, you answer mine and I will answer yours.

Point being, we have just as much chance of having a "step change" as EWU did between '15 and 1'6. LAST season's results don't mean shit. We all start at 0-0 and it's new players, more seasoned coaches, etc, etc., etc.

Montana's coaches gained seasoning as 2016 progressed. Was the coaching good by the end of the year?

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Hauck's reign was basically like taking over Paris, ya it went through some shit with the wars but it was still Paris. Big, beautiful, city of the world with abundant arts and culture.

Stitt is essentially trying to build a brand new city, starting with the sewers and foundations all over. It has to take time!

This operates on the assumption that coaches improve with experience, and that the UM coach is the only when gaining experience. It also assume he has the talent to begin with at the D1 level; a talent he did not convincingly demonstrate in his 15 years at the D2 level against powerhouses like Chadron State.

Aside from the howling logical fallacy ....

I think most coaches do get better with experience....

Do you think the Montana coaches improved as 2016 progressed? Do you think the final game with MSU was well-coached?

In his defense, he didn't say all. Jeff Fisher is a perfect example of a coach that did not improve with experience...king of mediocrity.

 

[kemajic]

Stitt is 14-10, 0.583; not sure where you got your numbers. Yet to finish a season with less than 5 losses. Read had BSU, Nevada, Idaho and a good ISU program to contend with. Stitt has SacST, UNC, USU and a very poor ISU program to contend with.

That's some serious cherrypicking if I've ever seen it.

By the time Read had gotten Montana where it needed to be, Nevada left the conference. Boise State wasn't as good as you think. They finished in the bottom half of the conference during most of Read's tenure. Same with Idaho State. ISU has always been a bad program. During Read's first two years, Only Nevada was good, and that was just read's first year. The next year, the Big Sky literally had no teams ranked in the Top 25. The Big Sky of the 80s was not better than the Big Sky now in terms of performance.

And with Stitt, you're forgetting that Eastern Washington has been damn near elite and on our schedule every year. We also willingly played the 4-time defending national champion and a Top 15 Portland State on our schedule in 2015.

Stitt's had a just as tough, if not tougher, schedule both years than Don Read's first few years. Stitt also had far greater scholarship restrictions than Read. He's been competing at a disadvantage than the rest of the conference, and still managed to win some big games.

Just a quick edit: the wiki has been updated with current records.

Following the misrepresentation of Stitt's Montana record to better fit your narrative, there is so much BS in this post it is difficult to determine where to start. Some points you miss or choose to ignore:

1. BSU, ISU and MSU won NCs in the 80s.
2. Read's '89 Montana team's Semi loss to GA. So. preceded Nevada's loss to GA So. in the '90 NC. It was Read's first of 5 playoff appearances.
3. Nevada won 4 BSC championships with 7 playoff appearances and the above NC appearance.
4. In addition to the NC, ISU won 3 BSC championships with 2 playoff appearances.
5. Idaho won 9 BSC championships with 11 playoff appearances, including 10 of 11 seasons from '85-'95.
6. BSU. "Bottom half"? In addition to their NC, they lost the '94 NC game to YSU after YSU eliminated the Dave Dickensonless Griz. 6 BSC championships. They were 219-102 overall as BSC members with a 114-61 conference record.

The BSC was at its peak during the Read era. Top to bottom it does not come close today.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

The BSC was at its peak during the Read era. Top to bottom it does not come close today.

I think you can say that about FCS as a whole. So many schools on the top have left and that quality has not been replaced.

 

[kemajic]

The BSC was at its peak during the Read era. Top to bottom it does not come close today.

I think you can say that about FCS as a whole. So many schools on the top have left and that quality has not been replaced.

Bingo!

 

[CFallsGriz]

He knows what is goin on...

I love that he is essentially campaigning for the job.

Exact attitude this programs needs.

So he can leave again when he gets a better offer. Kind of like a woman who takes back a scumbag who cheats on her. Twisted.

Drama much? Yeesh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

Hauck's reign was basically like taking over Paris, ya it went through some shit with the wars but it was still Paris. Big, beautiful, city of the world with abundant arts and culture.

Stitt is essentially trying to build a brand new city, starting with the sewers and foundations all over. It has to take time!

This operates on the assumption that coaches improve with experience, and that the UM coach is the only when gaining experience. It also assume he has the talent to begin with at the D1 level; a talent he did not convincingly demonstrate in his 15 years at the D2 level against powerhouses like Chadron State.

Aside from the howling logical fallacy ....

I think most coaches do get better with experience....

Do you think the Montana coaches improved as 2016 progressed? Do you think the final game with MSU was well-coached?

No to both...I also think some things happened that most coaches cant control...I think certain players from the old regime quit on the new coaches. That type of cancer is tough to stop at any level of ball.

To me the big improvements come during the off-season where hopefully all our coaches involved learned from the season and improved.

 

[UMGriz75]

Montana's coaches gained seasoning as 2016 progressed. Was the coaching good by the end of the year?

That was the problem. Season One was like watching a drunken roller coaster. After the first game everything seemed random. Actually, there was a pattern, and it was not a good one. Brady Gustafson had a great first game; then the wheels came off. After his injury, Chad Chalick had consistent, if not stellar, performances. After his injury, Makena had a record-breaking first game against North Dakota -- six touchdown throws -- had an awful second game in the pouring rain against PSU, and was having a great running game against Idaho State until Coach Stitt decided to change strategies, because you "can't just run the ball all the time," and, but for an extraordinary fluke, nearly lost the game for us. http://missoulian.com/news/local/isu-botches-game-winning-kick-griz-steal-win-in-overtime/article_d932b87f-2088-5ef2-b6d6-4330e798089d.html

Recall, Montana's playoff chances had been assessed as "slim" until that surprise win -- in a game that the Griz had dominated handily in the first half until Coach Stitt decided to change strategies to give the Bengals the chance to catch up and go ahead.

The 2015 year was inexplicable. I've never seen a team start out good and then fall apart the way the Griz now do under Coach Stitt. It's simply bizarre. Three quarters of the way through the first season, I pointed out on these pages "with each new quarterback, we start out great, and then go downhill." It held true for the fourth quarterback rotation of that season, when Griz lost to the same team they had beat just a few months before. Did I say "lost?" How about "destroyed?"

It is a truism in sports that well-coached teams get better with practice and experience. The Giz get worse. The 2016 season is the biggest collapse into the mud I've ever seen on a Griz team. Stitt's small -- and rapidly diminishing -- group of blind acolytes have nothing to say. But, they keep trying to say it.

 

[kemajic]

It is a truism in sports that well-coached teams get better with practice and experience. The Giz get worse. The 2016 season is the biggest collapse into the mud I've ever seen on a Griz team. Stitt's small -- and rapidly diminishing -- group of blind acolytes have nothing to say. But, they keep trying to say it.

This is an element that any real fan without denial cannot overlook. As scouting accumulates, Stitt's offense can be taken advantage of by D1 defenses. And the rube defensive coaching - playing man in the MSU game against a QB who was not a threat to pass while he ran by DBs with their backs to him - all day. A HC refusing to replace a hopelessly failing QB, not prioritizing STs - just examples. Lessons learned? We'll see.

 

[Stop_HammerTime69]

Following the misrepresentation of Stitt's Montana record to better fit your narrative, there is so much BS in this post it is difficult to determine where to start. Some points you miss or choose to ignore:

1. BSU, ISU and MSU won NCs in the 80s.
2. Read's '89 Montana team's Semi loss to GA. So. preceded Nevada's loss to GA So. in the '90 NC. It was Read's first of 5 playoff appearances.
3. Nevada won 4 BSC championships with 7 playoff appearances and the above NC appearance.
4. In addition to the NC, ISU won 3 BSC championships with 2 playoff appearances.
5. Idaho won 9 BSC championships with 11 playoff appearances, including 10 of 11 seasons from '85-'95.
6. BSU. "Bottom half"? In addition to their NC, they lost the '94 NC game to YSU after YSU eliminated the Dave Dickensonless Griz. 6 BSC championships. They were 219-102 overall as BSC members with a 114-61 conference record.

The BSC was at its peak during the Read era. Top to bottom it does not come close today.

So, it sounds like you're talking about the overall programs, not what Read had to deal with when he was starting (i.e., his first few years), from '86-'89. I thought I had been pretty clear about what time frame I was talking about, but all right. It only makes sense to compare Read's first 4 years to Stitt's 2 years. These were the factors Read dealt with before Montana was an elite contender every year.

1. Boise State won in 1980, Idaho State won in 81. MSU won in 84. All of which were before Read, and long enough for them to be mediocre when he got there.
2. I'm a little confused as to how this relates.
3. From '86-'89, Nevada won the conference one time, '86, when they also one the natty. However they did not make the playoffs or finish ranked again until 1990.
4. ISU was good before Read got there. From '86-'89, Idaho State finished last, 6th, last and 8th, compiling a whopping 8-34 record. Oh yeah. They were so good.
5. I'll give you Idaho. They were pretty good. Still doesn't quite explain how NO Big Sky team finished ranked in 1987 though.
6. Boise State didn't have the run you think they were having when Read started in Missoula. They finished 5th, 4th, 3rd, and 4th again from '86-'89. They made the playoffs once and only finished ranked once (same year, '88). I'll admit I'm wrong on the "bottom half" argument there, but they werent that good.

The Big Sky was fantastic once Read made Montana good and before Idaho left, which was the early 90s. But the late 80s were rough for the majority of the conference.

 

[Allezchat]

No way this goes 20 pages......

 

[signedbewildered]

No way this goes 20 pages......

One more post by 75 and it's there.

 

[rocklobster]

No way this goes 20 pages......

One more post by 75 and it's there.

'75 will say: "This ship has sailed! You're all living a pipe dream, if you think Stitt will get us back to championship form! It's obvious that the offense will not work in the Big Sky! Bobby will bring us back to the promised land! Anything short of that will be mediocrity, and disappointment will come to all of you who aren't realistic about the sport, or have never played the game!"

I'm pretty sure that's word for word.

 

[EverettGriz]

No way this goes 20 pages......

One "more" "post" by 75 and it's "there".

FIFY, bewildered.

 

[mcg]

The thing I keep coming back to is that the Griz that finished 2016 wasn't nearly as good as the Griz that started 2015. There doesn't seem to be any 'get a little better every day'. I have no idea as to what's wrong, but something is.

For the record, I'd say I'm a Stitt supporter, I cheered his hire and wish him nothing but success. But it's put up or shut up time. That's the nature of the beast.

 

[ordigger]

The BSC was at its peak during the Read era. Top to bottom it does not come close today.

I think you can say that about FCS as a whole. So many schools on the top have left and that quality has not been replaced.

I disagree, the overall talent at the FCS level has actually improved vs 20 years ago IMO.

 

[jodcon]

No way this goes 20 pages......

One more post by 75 and it's there.

'75 will say: "This ship has sailed! You're all living a pipe dream, if you think Stitt will get us back to championship form! It's obvious that the offense will not work in the Big Sky! Bobby will bring us back to the promised land! Anything short of that will be mediocrity, and disappointment will come to all of you who aren't realistic about the sport, or have never played the game!"

I'm pretty sure that's word for word.

You're 8000 words light.

 

[kemajic]

Following the misrepresentation of Stitt's Montana record to better fit your narrative, there is so much BS in this post it is difficult to determine where to start. Some points you miss or choose to ignore:

1. BSU, ISU and MSU won NCs in the 80s.
2. Read's '89 Montana team's Semi loss to GA. So. preceded Nevada's loss to GA So. in the '90 NC. It was Read's first of 5 playoff appearances.
3. Nevada won 4 BSC championships with 7 playoff appearances and the above NC appearance.
4. In addition to the NC, ISU won 3 BSC championships with 2 playoff appearances.
5. Idaho won 9 BSC championships with 11 playoff appearances, including 10 of 11 seasons from '85-'95.
6. BSU. "Bottom half"? In addition to their NC, they lost the '94 NC game to YSU after YSU eliminated the Dave Dickensonless Griz. 6 BSC championships. They were 219-102 overall as BSC members with a 114-61 conference record.

The BSC was at its peak during the Read era. Top to bottom it does not come close today.

So, it sounds like you're talking about the overall programs, not what Read had to deal with when he was starting (i.e., his first few years), from '86-'89. I thought I had been pretty clear about what time frame I was talking about, but all right. It only makes sense to compare Read's first 4 years to Stitt's 2 years. These were the factors Read dealt with before Montana was an elite contender every year.

1. Boise State won in 1980, Idaho State won in 81. MSU won in 84. All of which were before Read, and long enough for them to be mediocre when he got there.
2. I'm a little confused as to how this relates.
3. From '86-'89, Nevada won the conference one time, '86, when they also one the natty. However they did not make the playoffs or finish ranked again until 1990.
4. ISU was good before Read got there. From '86-'89, Idaho State finished last, 6th, last and 8th, compiling a whopping 8-34 record. Oh yeah. They were so good.
5. I'll give you Idaho. They were pretty good. Still doesn't quite explain how NO Big Sky team finished ranked in 1987 though.
6. Boise State didn't have the run you think they were having when Read started in Missoula. They finished 5th, 4th, 3rd, and 4th again from '86-'89. They made the playoffs once and only finished ranked once (same year, '88). I'll admit I'm wrong on the "bottom half" argument there, but they werent that good.

The Big Sky was fantastic once Read made Montana good and before Idaho left, which was the early 90s. But the late 80s were rough for the majority of the conference.

Read had Montana good by '89; made it to the semis stopped only by GSU. Nevada played for the NC in '90 and BSU in '94, both during the Read era. Montana, BSU, Idaho and Nevada were so competitive, they kept beating each other up, sometimes in the playoffs. These four teams topped the BSC three years in a row ('88-'90). Nevada was 15-1 in the BSC in '90 and '91 (25-3 overall with a #1 ranking). EWU was not the pushover you suggest; they were good '91-'93, tying for the conf. in '92. There is nothing like that consistent competition in today's watered-down BSC.