Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Adv8RU12 wrote:
Yes, but would you agree that with Dave at the helm it probably would have been much worse?
He would have found more QBs, RBs, and WRs....but would have continued the same gig....bowl game when he's lucky, 3-9 the other three times he doesn't in that four years.
To be fair to Dave.....he only finished 3-9 once.......2 bowls in 5 years. And I like to think we were unlucky with Dave more often than we were lucky.
JimmyDimes wrote:
To be fair to Dave.....he only finished 3-9 once.......2 bowls in 5 years. And I like to think we were unlucky with Dave more often than we were lucky.
Peace,
Fair enough....either way, the only consistent with Dave is that he would have been inconsistent.
JimmyDimes wrote:
To be fair to Dave.....he only finished 3-9 once.......2 bowls in 5 years. And I like to think we were unlucky with Dave more often than we were lucky.
Peace,
Fair enough....either way, the only consistent with Dave is that he would have been inconsistent.
Make that 2. He never made any adjustments, at all.
McPeachy wrote:
... we may not see positive results in the W/L column for 3 or so years.
Yes, but would you agree that with Dave at the helm it probably would have been much worse?
Dave lost the team last year, so yes, it could be much worse. Dave de-motivated (sweet word I know) an entire group of young men...even an NFL caliber QB, WR, and CB. You have to be one giant asshole in order for that to happen.