calguru;842609018 said:
So you are basing your positive opinion on a comparison to historically terrible stats he earned? Improvement from horrific to terrible is not a reason to defend someone if they're the ones who lowered the bar. (And if you're into stats as the be-all-end-all, check the stats vs conference teams)
"....terrible stats he earned"? I'm not exactly sure what that means, but a new coach and a new system arrived in 2013, inheriting players and a toxic situation left by Tedford, and the team was predictably awful. Should that team have won more games? Maybe. But 1 or 2 more, not 6 or 7.
Two seasons later, virtually all statistical measures have improved -- including stats and record in conference games, although I'm pretty sure that non-conference games count, too -- and the team has 7 wins and a bowl. It is not unreasonable to expect 8 or 9 wins next year, a better conference record, and a better bowl, despite losing Goff (if that comes to pass) and departing WRs. Regardless of who the QB is, the OL will be better, the running game will be better, and the young group of WRs will be deeper, if not quite as experienced or talented, as the departing bunch. And the defense will improve.
Nobody said stats are a "be-all-end-all", but there is a clear correlation between stats I listed and wins. If those stats continue to trend positively, there will be more wins, don't you think?
If we're stagnating at 6 or 7 wins a year for 3 or 4 years after this one, then it's time to re-evaluate. But until then, Sonny should be recognized and rewarded for significantly improving a bad situation (football, character, and academics) that he inherited from Tedford. Every time you make a change, you (sometimes needlessly) run the risk of moving the program backwards, and all of the evidence available at this point suggests progress, so why make a move now?
