Quote:
Originally Posted by GmanTN Remove the Mannings because that has more to do with genetics then coaching. Who else did Cut put in the NFL that was a starter?
Erik Ainge - not a starter
Tee Martin - not a starter
Heath Shuler - could never solidify starter job and got hurt
I will say that Cut was decent but I would not ordain him as a guru at the position. |
but he still got all those players to the NFL and drafted. when you're ordaining a coach for his success at a player position that's what you're looking at. Doesn't matter how they do afterwards, because most times that's the players doing on his own - and if you're talking ones who come in pro ready, there are dozens who are mediocre in college yet grasp the pro system quickly, so this discussion can have multiple layers/directions
But as far as where you went, you can't just remove a person's two top successes and then judge them. Along those lines are the same as let's say get rid of carson palmer and matt leinart: USC has just produced 3 meh quarterbacks then; or saying take away his 2 national championships and pete carroll's hasnt won any or that fulmer didnt win a national championship if you take away his one and thus neither deserve to be treated as such...
Went on a rant there, though point being you can't take away a person's successes and then judge them on what's left because you're intentionally altering and skewing the data towards an opinion by avoiding facts when you do such.
Point being, the mannings do count very much on cutcliffe's resume. And honestly, when you're considering whether a college coach is with quarterbacks, it's based on how their qbs perform in college and that they get drafted into the NFL. The Mannings certainly did both well. Heath Shuler came 2nd in heisman voting and was a first round pick. Ainge performed well and both he and tee martin actually got drafted. Cut's got a pretty good record. But really since he did teach and mentor them both, the mannnings do count