Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Burt Macklin said:

I never said 0 and you provided 1 guy in Searels who had a solid reputation that got here during Mack’s dysfunction and couldn’t fix it. 

Mattox was considered an up and comer, idk why you are discrediting that...

Posted
Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

Mattox was considered an up and comer, idk why you are discrediting that...

That’s a load of bullshit. He was just Gilbert’s buddy. He wasn’t even a good OL coach, he just benefitted from the Briles system that made it easy to run the ball. He didn’t know the first thing about teaching pass pro. 
 

And again, the list was good OL coaches who turned bad at Texas. Mattox did fine at Texas. He wasn’t any worse here than he’s been at Tulsa or UTSA. 

Posted
Just now, Burt Macklin said:

That’s a load of bullshit. He was just Gilbert’s buddy. He wasn’t even a good OL coach, he just benefitted from the Briles system that made it easy to run the ball. He didn’t know the first thing about teaching pass pro. 
 

And again, the list was good OL coaches who turned bad at Texas. Mattox did fine at Texas. He wasn’t any worse here than he’s been at Tulsa or UTSA. 

“Wasn’t even a good OL coach, yet still better than just about anyone in the last 10 years and absolutely doing a great job at UTSA. But you’re right he wasn’t even a good offensive line coach. How dare I question the all knowing Burt Macklin with legitimate answers that counter his initial dumbass point. 

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

“Wasn’t even a good OL coach, yet still better than just about anyone in the last 10 years and absolutely doing a great job at UTSA. But you’re right he wasn’t even a good offensive line coach. How dare I question the all knowing Burt Macklin with legitimate answers that counter his initial dumbass point. 


You really can’t comprehend that doing bad at Texas was part of the criteria, can you? You just said yourself he did well here. 
 

The whole point is we’ve by and large hired shitty OL coaches the last ten years. That’s why our OLs have sucked. 

Edited by Burt Macklin
Posted

We're talking about an OL that consisted of Vahe, Nicholson, Shackleford and others I'd love to forget about. And they still were serviceable enough to get Foreman a Doak Walker award...

Mattox wasn't the second coming by any means but he certainly did ok during his tenure here. No clue what he's done since, though...

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, BigHorn'13 said:

We're talking about an OL that consisted of Vahe, Nicholson, Shackleford and others I'd love to forget about. And they still were serviceable enough to get Foreman a Doak Walker award...

Mattox wasn't the second coming by any means but he certainly did ok during his tenure here. No clue what he's done since, though...

Shit I'd kill for Vahe on this team. 

Posted
1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

Is that good?

No - a lot of receivers can achieve those stats in one game (or even a half of a game). Therefore if there are something like 24-25 games in two seasons, it’s really not that productive. 
 

Now, there may be underlying reasons for the lack of performance. But, I don’t know him or the factors behind it to be more definitive. 
 

Hope this helps with your question. All the best and have a good weekend ahead. 

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

6 catches for 58 yards in 2 seasons at Miami.

4 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Is that good?

Great...if you are Demond Demas in Jimbo's offense.

Edited by Bamboozled73
  • Haha 2

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...