Dia del DougO said:

---

Regardless of how Baylor folks individually feel abut Briles, he is likely the one head coach that would have stuck around for another decade or so, and continuing to win. Baylor was a destination type job for him. He wanted to compete in a good league and win. He built it up his way, and would continue as long as he had the resources. IT was working. He had chances to go elsewhere in what most would consider an "upgrade." If it weren't for the big scandal stuff, regardless f how one feels about how that was handled, he would likely still be here, and consistently near the top of the league.

It was unlikely the NFL would come calling due to his style of play.

His run was the closest we ever had to being a perennial contender.

---

I disagree with this completely. I think - without the scandal ever happening - that Briles would have eventually gotten hired by UT or OU. A lot of people here simply don't realize our don't remember how close he was to jumping to UT in 2013.

It's easy to confuse loyalty for a two-way street. Just because many on this board still carry a lot of water for Art doesn't mean that he was going to be a lifer at Baylor.

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Dia del DougO said:

---

Regardless of how Baylor folks individually feel abut Briles, he is likely the one head coach that would have stuck around for another decade or so, and continuing to win. Baylor was a destination type job for him. He wanted to compete in a good league and win. He built it up his way, and would continue as long as he had the resources. IT was working. He had chances to go elsewhere in what most would consider an "upgrade." If it weren't for the big scandal stuff, regardless f how one feels about how that was handled, he would likely still be here, and consistently near the top of the league.

It was unlikely the NFL would come calling due to his style of play.

His run was the closest we ever had to being a perennial contender.

---

I disagree with this completely. I think - without the scandal ever happening - that Briles would have eventually gotten hired by UT or OU. A lot of people here simply don't realize our don't remember how close he was to jumping to UT in 2013.

It's easy to confuse loyalty for a two-way street. Just because many on this board still carry a lot of water for Art doesn't mean that he was going to be a lifer at Baylor.

---

I don't think there was loyalty going in either direction, but circumstances were on our side.

The OU job wasn't ever really up for grabs until 2022. And he and Texas had just had a little tiff with each other, and they'd hired someone else. Tech and A&M were off the boards for different reasons. He was going to be around for a while.

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Dia del DougO said:

---

Regardless of how Baylor folks individually feel abut Briles, he is likely the one head coach that would have stuck around for another decade or so, and continuing to win. Baylor was a destination type job for him. He wanted to compete in a good league and win. He built it up his way, and would continue as long as he had the resources. IT was working. He had chances to go elsewhere in what most would consider an "upgrade." If it weren't for the big scandal stuff, regardless f how one feels about how that was handled, he would likely still be here, and consistently near the top of the league.

It was unlikely the NFL would come calling due to his style of play.

His run was the closest we ever had to being a perennial contender.

---

I disagree with this completely. I think - without the scandal ever happening - that Briles would have eventually gotten hired by UT or OU. A lot of people here simply don't realize our don't remember how close he was to jumping to UT in 2013.

It's easy to confuse loyalty for a two-way street. Just because many on this board still carry a lot of water for Art doesn't mean that he was going to be a lifer at Baylor.

---

Righto. And if it wasn't the Horns, it would've been the Cowboys.

PaperBear89 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Dia del DougO said:

---

Regardless of how Baylor folks individually feel abut Briles, he is likely the one head coach that would have stuck around for another decade or so, and continuing to win. Baylor was a destination type job for him. He wanted to compete in a good league and win. He built it up his way, and would continue as long as he had the resources. IT was working. He had chances to go elsewhere in what most would consider an "upgrade." If it weren't for the big scandal stuff, regardless f how one feels about how that was handled, he would likely still be here, and consistently near the top of the league.

It was unlikely the NFL would come calling due to his style of play.

His run was the closest we ever had to being a perennial contender.

---

I disagree with this completely. I think - without the scandal ever happening - that Briles would have eventually gotten hired by UT or OU. A lot of people here simply don't realize our don't remember how close he was to jumping to UT in 2013.

It's easy to confuse loyalty for a two-way street. Just because many on this board still carry a lot of water for Art doesn't mean that he was going to be a lifer at Baylor.

---

Righto. And if it wasn't the Horns, it would've been the Cowboys.

---

I think he would've eventually taken an NFL OC position. But it would've been a few more years (NFL does not like disruptors, and everyone wants to run the same kind of offense), and we would have had a much better transition than whatever on earth it was that we did.

bear2be2 said:

---

Karab said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

My benchmark for Baylor football isn't 2021. It's 2010-2015.

---

We went 7-6 and 8-5 for two of those seasons.

It wasn't until 2013 that we were clearly an elite program.

---

And even that "elite program" got its ass beat by UCF and couldn't move either line against Michigan State.

Baylor was really good under Briles, but we were closer to 2024 Indiana than we were to winning a national title.

We actively avoided competition in nonconference, played two- or three-game schedules, beat up on dregs and lost the big one virtually every season.

---

bear2be2, thank you thank you thank you. I was a student during the Briles years and loved it, but this is a completely accurate picture and it is revisionist history for anyone thinking we were on the verge of becoming a national title contender or looking like Clemson's run between 2014-2019. It was not going to happen. 2024 Indiana is a great comparison.

People seem to forget that those Briles teams were rarely taken seriously by national media due to non-conference schedul and, as you mention, losing one or two "big ones" every year. The 2021 team was heralded, relatively everywhere, as a legitimately good team that was a couple stops against TCU from making the playoff.

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Dia del DougO said:

---

Regardless of how Baylor folks individually feel abut Briles, he is likely the one head coach that would have stuck around for another decade or so, and continuing to win. Baylor was a destination type job for him. He wanted to compete in a good league and win. He built it up his way, and would continue as long as he had the resources. IT was working. He had chances to go elsewhere in what most would consider an "upgrade." If it weren't for the big scandal stuff, regardless f how one feels about how that was handled, he would likely still be here, and consistently near the top of the league.

It was unlikely the NFL would come calling due to his style of play.

His run was the closest we ever had to being a perennial contender.

---

I disagree with this completely. I think - without the scandal ever happening - that Briles would have eventually gotten hired by UT or OU. A lot of people here simply don't realize our don't remember how close he was to jumping to UT in 2013.

It's easy to confuse loyalty for a two-way street. Just because many on this board still carry a lot of water for Art doesn't mean that he was going to be a lifer at Baylor.

---

Exactly right.

guadalupeoso said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Karab said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

My benchmark for Baylor football isn't 2021. It's 2010-2015.

---

We went 7-6 and 8-5 for two of those seasons.

It wasn't until 2013 that we were clearly an elite program.

---

And even that "elite program" got its ass beat by UCF and couldn't move either line against Michigan State.

Baylor was really good under Briles, but we were closer to 2024 Indiana than we were to winning a national title.

We actively avoided competition in nonconference, played two- or three-game schedules, beat up on dregs and lost the big one virtually every season.

---

bear2be2, thank you thank you thank you. I was a student during the Briles years and loved it, but this is a completely accurate picture and it is revisionist history for anyone thinking we were on the verge of becoming a national title contender or looking like Clemson's run between 2014-2019. It was not going to happen. 2024 Indiana is a great comparison.

People seem to forget that those Briles teams were rarely taken seriously by national media due to non-conference schedul and, as you mention, losing one or two "big ones" every year. The 2021 team was heralded, relatively everywhere, as a legitimately good team that was a couple stops against TCU from making the playoff.

---

You're on crack.

I don't think that we would've won a national title under Briles, but we would've made playoff runs every single year from 2013 onwards, especially under the new playoff system. I would stand on my head if Dave ever took us to the playoffs. Not happening.

And I wouldn't say definitively that briles would never have left. But he was a Texas guy and didn't seem to have much interest in coaching outside of the state, and he turned down the best coaching gig in the state i.e. UT

I think A&M would eventually have made a run at him, and I think he would've told them no. Sure would've been fun

Youre a clown said:

---

I don't think that we would've won a national title under Briles, but we would've made playoff runs every single year from 2013 onwards, especially under the new playoff system. I would stand on my head if Dave ever took us to the playoffs. Not happening.

And I wouldn't say definitively that briles would never have left. But he was a Texas guy and didn't seem to have much interest in coaching outside of the state, and he turned down the best coaching gig in the state i.e. UT

I think A&M would eventually have made a run at him, and I think he would've told them no. Sure would've been fun

---

We were 2nd team out of a 4 team playoff in '13, 1st team out in '14, and would've made it in '15 but for injuries. And our recruiting was just beginning to take off. We also won a B12 with Texas and OU in it two of those years. There's just no telling what was going to happen, but on the field it was going to be good.

Even with the injuries in '15, we almost beat Texas again when we had to draw up a single wing offense run by a WR on the back of a napkin at halftime because we ran out of quarterbacks. We then ran for over 600 yards without a QB on the roster on a UNC team that had just taken Clemson (lost NC to 'Bama 45-40) to the wire in the ACC championship game. What would Aranda or Rhule do without a quarterback?

Briles had probably insulted the gomers too much to get that offer, but agree that would have been fun.

I think he would have ended up taking some kind of NFL gig, but like I said the NFL would have been slow to offer because they'd all rather go 8-8 running the same offense that everyone else runs.

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Dia del DougO said:

---

Regardless of how Baylor folks individually feel abut Briles, he is likely the one head coach that would have stuck around for another decade or so, and continuing to win. Baylor was a destination type job for him. He wanted to compete in a good league and win. He built it up his way, and would continue as long as he had the resources. IT was working. He had chances to go elsewhere in what most would consider an "upgrade." If it weren't for the big scandal stuff, regardless f how one feels about how that was handled, he would likely still be here, and consistently near the top of the league.

It was unlikely the NFL would come calling due to his style of play.

His run was the closest we ever had to being a perennial contender.

---

I disagree with this completely. I think - without the scandal ever happening - that Briles would have eventually gotten hired by UT or OU. A lot of people here simply don't realize our don't remember how close he was to jumping to UT in 2013.

It's easy to confuse loyalty for a two-way street. Just because many on this board still carry a lot of water for Art doesn't mean that he was going to be a lifer at Baylor.

---

No.

He wanted a crap ton of money for himself and his staff, and he wanted to have full control without even having an interview. Since UT and OU can't handle bending the knee to someone like Briles, it would have never happened.

He could have stayed at Baylor and been in full control with huge paychecks until retirement.

While we're all here arguing over what could have been with Briles, Jackson Arnold just took it for another 10 yards right up the middle.

mtenery14 said:

---

Start writing checks

---

Stopped doing that the day they fired Briles.

Will consider doing that again after they fire Linda, Mack, and Dave.

Realitybites said:

---

mtenery14 said:

---

Start writing checks

---

Stopped doing that the day they fired Briles.

Will consider doing that again after they fire Linda, Mack, and Dave.

---

Yeah, there's a lot that's wrong with this idea of "don't complain if you don't give your money" type thinking.

It's just a cheap way to try to shut down the discussion, for one.

People that make that statement never post their own receipts, for two.

Three, passing the offering plate amongst the one percent of our fan base that would give money to buy football players still won't offset the fact that actual billionaires like the dude at Texas Tech are willing to throw down millions to get basically the same players that we are going after.

Four, the talent on our team is not bad. It is good enough to win at least seven games minimum in the modern watered down big 12

The fallacy with this thinking for me is this idea that Dave is actually a really good coach, but he just needs better talent. A successful coach at Baylor has to be a force multiplier - it has always been that way. You have to have somebody that punches above their weight class. I'm sure Dave could win if we could bring in guys like Jalen Pitre and Derek Stingley Jr in the transfer portal, but that's not happening. Like we've talked about in other threads, I would never expect a modern Baylor coach to take us to the playoffs every year or even compete for a conference championship every year, but I do expect them to not lose by last second Hail Marys about once per season, not lose to teams like Air Force and Texas State, not start seasons 1-4, not have effort or "buying in"
Issues four years into his 10 year like what we saw in 2023, etc. Basically, people don't want to give their money to somebody who is going to squander it.

Simply amazing. The gnashing of teeth continues unabated. Coming up on 10 years and the grind continues. You guys have got to be down to little nubbins!

Yes. Art's teams were largely great.

Yes. Art never gave his defenses the attention they needed.

Yes. That Aggie DC we had cost us a number of games.

Yes. I particularly blew chow over the UCF and Michigan St bowl games.

Absolutely I want TCU to win the Big 12 if Baylor can't. I've always supported Private Schools over State Schools. TCU's turnaround is arguably more impressive than what Baylor did.

Yes. It is still way too early to give up on the Bears just like it is too early to crown TCU champions.

No matter how hard you pencil whip the history books, Baylor is a .500 program. Aranda is right on the .500 mark and only 14 former coaches are in front of him including Chuck Reedy, Art has 4 former Baylor coaches ahead of his .637 mark he shares with George Sauer. RH Hamilton rules the roost!

We are right at 57-57 since Art left us. It's Baylor Football!

Reality bites. Hard.

^^ textual proof that sunshine pumpers tend to be the biggest pessimists of all time to the extent that you question their fandom. Little old Baylor just doesn't deserve to be good, so how dare you expect better than a 6-6 record every year

Thee University said:

---

No matter how hard you pencil whip the history books, Baylor is a .500 program. Aranda is right on the .500 mark and only 14 former coaches are in front of him including Chuck Reedy, Art has 4 former Baylor coaches ahead of his .637 mark he shares with George Sauer. RH Hamilton rules the roost!

We are right at 57-57 since Art left us. It's Baylor Football!

Reality bites. Hard.

---

To make your point even stronger, the guys who won at a higher % than Art were all pre-integration and mostly pre-face mask. RH Hamilton coached 7 games in 1899-1900.

This is all why Aranda is a great fit at Baylor if he can consistently win 5-8 games, much less throw the occasional better season.

It's also why firing Art in a panic was such bad leadership, but I digress.

It is way too early to give upon Baylor this year. We could win 9 or 10 games. But we could also win 4. Likely somewhere between 5 and 8. : )

Thee University said:

---

Simply amazing. The gnashing of teeth continues unabated. Coming up on 10 years and the grind continues. You guys have got to be down to little nubbins!

Yes. Art's teams were largely great.

Yes. Art never gave his defenses the attention they needed.

Yes. That Aggie DC we had cost us a number of games.

Yes. I particularly blew chow over the UCF and Michigan St bowl games.

Absolutely I want TCU to win the Big 12 if Baylor can't. I've always supported Private Schools over State Schools. TCU's turnaround is arguably more impressive than what Baylor did.

Yes. It is still way too early to give up on the Bears just like it is too early to crown TCU champions.

No matter how hard you pencil whip the history books, Baylor is a .500 program. Aranda is right on the .500 mark and only 14 former coaches are in front of him including Chuck Reedy, Art has 4 former Baylor coaches ahead of his .637 mark he shares with George Sauer. RH Hamilton rules the roost!

We are right at 57-57 since Art left us. It's Baylor Football!

Reality bites. Hard.

---

Your comments on the D against Auburn? We're all ears.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Thee University said:

---

No matter how hard you pencil whip the history books, Baylor is a .500 program. Aranda is right on the .500 mark and only 14 former coaches are in front of him including Chuck Reedy, Art has 4 former Baylor coaches ahead of his .637 mark he shares with George Sauer. RH Hamilton rules the roost!

We are right at 57-57 since Art left us. It's Baylor Football!

Reality bites. Hard.

---

To make your point even stronger, the guys who won at a higher % than Art were all pre-integration and mostly pre-face mask. RH Hamilton coached 7 games in 1899-1900.

This is all why Aranda is a great fit at Baylor if he can consistently win 5-8 games, much less throw the occasional better season.

It's also why firing Art in a panic was such bad leadership, but I digress.

It is way too early to give upon Baylor this year. We could win 9 or 10 games. But we could also win 4. Likely somewhere between 5 and 8. : )

---

For now I'm standing by my pre-season predictions -- 9-3 with Auburn loss and 2 in big 12. Big 12 championship win. Sawyer to New York. etc.

Ewalker80 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Thee University said:

---

No matter how hard you pencil whip the history books, Baylor is a .500 program. Aranda is right on the .500 mark and only 14 former coaches are in front of him including Chuck Reedy, Art has 4 former Baylor coaches ahead of his .637 mark he shares with George Sauer. RH Hamilton rules the roost!

We are right at 57-57 since Art left us. It's Baylor Football!

Reality bites. Hard.

---

To make your point even stronger, the guys who won at a higher % than Art were all pre-integration and mostly pre-face mask. RH Hamilton coached 7 games in 1899-1900.

This is all why Aranda is a great fit at Baylor if he can consistently win 5-8 games, much less throw the occasional better season.

It's also why firing Art in a panic was such bad leadership, but I digress.

It is way too early to give upon Baylor this year. We could win 9 or 10 games. But we could also win 4. Likely somewhere between 5 and 8. : )

---

For now I'm standing by my pre-season predictions -- 9-3 with Auburn loss and 2 in big 12. Big 12 championship win. Sawyer to New York. etc.

---

I can see that happening if the D improves a lot quickly.

This… we have a good amount of posters who like to crap on the defense under Briles. Those same posters are awfully quiet when discussing the crap defense our very own "guru" fields on a weekly basis

I always thought the defense was serviceable once we got Bennett. The reality is that we just could never recruit at a high level on defense for whatever reasons. Bennett did as well as he reasonably could with what he had and at very least his philosophy complimented the overall team strategy. Bennett's pedigree is strong and he had respectable defenses everywhere he went.

Regarding Dave, yes, I continue to believe the coach that was once the highest paid coordinator in the country and coached Baylor's best defense in decades can put together a good defense with adequate talent and time (the talent excuse is gone after the $$ investment in off-season). Mack holds the same view or Dave wouldn't be here, and his opinion actually matters. If Mack is wrong it should be clear by the end of this year if not sooner.

I think Bennett got too little credit because people don't tend to weight it for how many times his defense had to take the field in a game. Lots of DCs wouldn't take that gig at all because of what it would do to their stats. At some point, I think he said 'let's just try and break serve more often than the other guys,' which meant we'd give up more yards and probably points but get enough turnovers or big plays leading to a stop, confident our O would keep scoring.

IowaBear said:

---

This… we have a good amount of posters who like to crap on the defense under Briles. Those same posters are awfully quiet when discussing the crap defense our very own "guru" fields on a weekly basis

---

Who here is happy with our current defense? We've been talking since 2022 about how bad our defense is. And the last two years, in particular, the overarching narrative has been how that unit is holding us back.

There is no double standard. Bad defense is bad defense. And ours must improve significantly for us to take the next step as a program.

Ewalker80 said:

---

I always thought the defense was serviceable once we got Bennett. The reality is that we just could never recruit at a high level on defense for whatever reasons. Bennett did as well as he reasonably could with what he had and at very least his philosophy complimented the overall team strategy. Bennett's pedigree is strong and he had respectable defenses everywhere he went.

Regarding Dave, yes, I continue to believe the coach that was once the highest paid coordinator in the country and coached Baylor's best defense in decades can put together a good defense with adequate talent and time (the talent excuse is gone after the $$ investment in off-season). Mack holds the same view or Dave wouldn't be here, and his opinion actually matters. If Mack is wrong it should be clear by the end of this year if not sooner.

---

Our defenses under Bennett were designed to be hyper-aggressive and force turnovers. They weren't necessarily good (I'd argue it's impossible to field a good defense running that offense the way the did back then), but they made plays. And with the offense we had at the time, that was usually enough.

The problem with the current defense is that it's a bend-and-break defense. If you're going to be bad, at least be aggressive and force turnovers.

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

I always thought the defense was serviceable once we got Bennett. The reality is that we just could never recruit at a high level on defense for whatever reasons. Bennett did as well as he reasonably could with what he had and at very least his philosophy complimented the overall team strategy. Bennett's pedigree is strong and he had respectable defenses everywhere he went.

Regarding Dave, yes, I continue to believe the coach that was once the highest paid coordinator in the country and coached Baylor's best defense in decades can put together a good defense with adequate talent and time (the talent excuse is gone after the $$ investment in off-season). Mack holds the same view or Dave wouldn't be here, and his opinion actually matters. If Mack is wrong it should be clear by the end of this year if not sooner.

---

Our defenses under Bennett were designed to be hyper-aggressive and force turnovers. They weren't necessarily good (I'd argue it's impossible to field a good defense running that offense the way the did back then), but they made plays. And with the offense we had at the time, that was usually enough.

The problem with the current defense is that it's a bend-and-break defense. If you're going to be bad, at least be aggressive and force turnovers.

---

Ya I think that's exactly why Bennett's defense never bothered me even though not highly ranked. If it got scored on it typically was quick, so you didn't have to sit around for half the game as a team methodically marched down the field converting third downs and your offense gets cold.

I think Dave developed a successful bend don't break defenses at schools like Wisconsin where he had top of nation ranked defenses, and it's hard to break away from what got you to where you are.

When Dave re-jigged the defense over the off-season I'm sure he thought in detail about how it would compliment the offensive scheme.

the reality is that as bad as we all felt about the defensive performance against Auburn, he was one made tackle and one bad holding call away from doing enough to potentially win because of our offense. Missed tackles will get you a loss in any scheme, even with the catastrophic loss of Jackie, so I think it's hard to conclude his scheme was definitely unsound. If you make that first third down tackle against Jackson maybe the next time he feels like he better throw it. Once a QB feels like you can't tackle him he feels invincible and is just never going to throw it unless he has to or it's wide open. We basically turned him into Vince Young in the national title game.

It will be interesting to see how the overall philosophy changes as the season unfolds.

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

I always thought the defense was serviceable once we got Bennett. The reality is that we just could never recruit at a high level on defense for whatever reasons. Bennett did as well as he reasonably could with what he had and at very least his philosophy complimented the overall team strategy. Bennett's pedigree is strong and he had respectable defenses everywhere he went.

Regarding Dave, yes, I continue to believe the coach that was once the highest paid coordinator in the country and coached Baylor's best defense in decades can put together a good defense with adequate talent and time (the talent excuse is gone after the $$ investment in off-season). Mack holds the same view or Dave wouldn't be here, and his opinion actually matters. If Mack is wrong it should be clear by the end of this year if not sooner.

---

Our defenses under Bennett were designed to be hyper-aggressive and force turnovers. They weren't necessarily good (I'd argue it's impossible to field a good defense running that offense the way the did back then), but they made plays. And with the offense we had at the time, that was usually enough.

The problem with the current defense is that it's a bend-and-break defense. If you're going to be bad, at least be aggressive and force turnovers.

---

Ya I think that's exactly why Bennett's defense never bothered me even though not highly ranked. If it got scored on it typically was quick, so you didn't have to sit around for half the game as a team methodically marched down the field converting third downs and your offense gets cold.

I think Dave developed a successful bend don't break defenses at schools like Wisconsin where he had top of nation ranked defenses, and it's hard to break away from what got you to where you are.

When Dave re-jigged the defense over the off-season I'm sure he thought in detail about how it would compliment the offensive scheme.

the reality is that as bad as we all felt about the defensive performance against Auburn, he was one made tackle and one bad holding call away from doing enough to potentially win because of our offense. Missed tackles will get you a loss in any scheme, even with the catastrophic loss of Jackie, so I think it's hard to conclude his scheme was definitely unsound. If you make that first third down tackle against Jackson maybe the next time he feels like he better throw it. Once a QB feels like you can't tackle him he feels invincible and is just never going to throw it unless he has to or it's wide open. We basically turned him into Vince Young in the national title game.

It will be interesting to see how the overall philosophy changes as the season unfolds.

---

It's still very early, obviously, and we only have a one-game sample to go on. But I want to see significant improvement on the defensive side this season.

And if we don't, I want to see an established defensive coordinator brought in next season and given full control to do for our defense what Spavital has done for our offense.

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

I always thought the defense was serviceable once we got Bennett. The reality is that we just could never recruit at a high level on defense for whatever reasons. Bennett did as well as he reasonably could with what he had and at very least his philosophy complimented the overall team strategy. Bennett's pedigree is strong and he had respectable defenses everywhere he went.

Regarding Dave, yes, I continue to believe the coach that was once the highest paid coordinator in the country and coached Baylor's best defense in decades can put together a good defense with adequate talent and time (the talent excuse is gone after the $$ investment in off-season). Mack holds the same view or Dave wouldn't be here, and his opinion actually matters. If Mack is wrong it should be clear by the end of this year if not sooner.

---

Our defenses under Bennett were designed to be hyper-aggressive and force turnovers. They weren't necessarily good (I'd argue it's impossible to field a good defense running that offense the way the did back then), but they made plays. And with the offense we had at the time, that was usually enough.

The problem with the current defense is that it's a bend-and-break defense. If you're going to be bad, at least be aggressive and force turnovers.

---

Ya I think that's exactly why Bennett's defense never bothered me even though not highly ranked. If it got scored on it typically was quick, so you didn't have to sit around for half the game as a team methodically marched down the field converting third downs and your offense gets cold.

I think Dave developed a successful bend don't break defenses at schools like Wisconsin where he had top of nation ranked defenses, and it's hard to break away from what got you to where you are.

When Dave re-jigged the defense over the off-season I'm sure he thought in detail about how it would compliment the offensive scheme.

the reality is that as bad as we all felt about the defensive performance against Auburn, he was one made tackle and one bad holding call away from doing enough to potentially win because of our offense. Missed tackles will get you a loss in any scheme, even with the catastrophic loss of Jackie, so I think it's hard to conclude his scheme was definitely unsound. If you make that first third down tackle against Jackson maybe the next time he feels like he better throw it. Once a QB feels like you can't tackle him he feels invincible and is just never going to throw it unless he has to or it's wide open. We basically turned him into Vince Young in the national title game.

It will be interesting to see how the overall philosophy changes as the season unfolds.

---

It's still very early, obviously, and we only have a one-game sample to go on. But I want to see significant improvement on the defensive side this season.

And if we don't, I want to see an established defensive coordinator brought in next season and given full control to do for our defense what Spavital has done for our offense.

---

In my view the defense will approve or Dave is gone. If you aren't paying him for good defense his entire value proposition makes no sense. And I'm optimistic he will get there but I think that was basically the deal when Mack kept him around. I paid you to at least have a good defense and you're going to coach it yourself now so at least we should have that. It's gotta work or that whole decision makes no sense.

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

I always thought the defense was serviceable once we got Bennett. The reality is that we just could never recruit at a high level on defense for whatever reasons. Bennett did as well as he reasonably could with what he had and at very least his philosophy complimented the overall team strategy. Bennett's pedigree is strong and he had respectable defenses everywhere he went.

Regarding Dave, yes, I continue to believe the coach that was once the highest paid coordinator in the country and coached Baylor's best defense in decades can put together a good defense with adequate talent and time (the talent excuse is gone after the $$ investment in off-season). Mack holds the same view or Dave wouldn't be here, and his opinion actually matters. If Mack is wrong it should be clear by the end of this year if not sooner.

---

Our defenses under Bennett were designed to be hyper-aggressive and force turnovers. They weren't necessarily good (I'd argue it's impossible to field a good defense running that offense the way the did back then), but they made plays. And with the offense we had at the time, that was usually enough.

The problem with the current defense is that it's a bend-and-break defense. If you're going to be bad, at least be aggressive and force turnovers.

---

Ya I think that's exactly why Bennett's defense never bothered me even though not highly ranked. If it got scored on it typically was quick, so you didn't have to sit around for half the game as a team methodically marched down the field converting third downs and your offense gets cold.

I think Dave developed a successful bend don't break defenses at schools like Wisconsin where he had top of nation ranked defenses, and it's hard to break away from what got you to where you are.

When Dave re-jigged the defense over the off-season I'm sure he thought in detail about how it would compliment the offensive scheme.

the reality is that as bad as we all felt about the defensive performance against Auburn, he was one made tackle and one bad holding call away from doing enough to potentially win because of our offense. Missed tackles will get you a loss in any scheme, even with the catastrophic loss of Jackie, so I think it's hard to conclude his scheme was definitely unsound. If you make that first third down tackle against Jackson maybe the next time he feels like he better throw it. Once a QB feels like you can't tackle him he feels invincible and is just never going to throw it unless he has to or it's wide open. We basically turned him into Vince Young in the national title game.

It will be interesting to see how the overall philosophy changes as the season unfolds.

---

It's still very early, obviously, and we only have a one-game sample to go on. But I want to see significant improvement on the defensive side this season.

And if we don't, I want to see an established defensive coordinator brought in next season and given full control to do for our defense what Spavital has done for our offense.

---

In my view the defense will approve or Dave is gone. If you aren't paying him for good defense his entire value proposition makes no sense. And I'm optimistic he will get there but I think that was basically the deal when Mack kept him around. I paid you to at least have a good defense and you're going to coach it yourself now so at least we should have that. It's gotta work or that whole decision makes no sense.

---

I don't agree with this. It's not Dave's overarching job to coordinate the defense. It's his job to oversee a winning program. If he can do the latter with someone else in that DC role, as he did in 2021, good for him.

We hired him to be the head coach. If he ends up being more successful as a CEO type, it doesn't really matter what we perceived his skill set and strengths to be when we hired him.

boognish_bear said:

---

I still think we can have a good season and I have optimism for this team...but there's a decent chance we are gonna start 0-2.

That wouldn't mean the sky is falling losing to 2 good teams (assuming they both turn out to be "good")...but it would be a downer start for a team I have high hopes of having an 8+ win season.

---

There's a very good chance we could be 1-3

Thee University said:

---

No matter how hard you pencil whip the history books, Baylor is a .500 program. Aranda is right on the .500 mark and only 14 former coaches are in front of him including Chuck Reedy, Art has 4 former Baylor coaches ahead of his .637 mark he shares with George Sauer. RH Hamilton rules the roost!

We are right at 57-57 since Art left us. It's Baylor Football!

Reality bites. Hard.

---

And you are content with a .500 program?

TOBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I still think we can have a good season and I have optimism for this team...but there's a decent chance we are gonna start 0-2.

That wouldn't mean the sky is falling losing to 2 good teams (assuming they both turn out to be "good")...but it would be a downer start for a team I have high hopes of having an 8+ win season.

---

There's a very good chance we could be 1-3

---

It all hinges on what your definition of 'good' is. As you can see in this thread, a lot of people think good for little old Baylor is six wins and an invitation to the Cracker Barrel bowl in Pecos, Texas or something

TOBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I still think we can have a good season and I have optimism for this team...but there's a decent chance we are gonna start 0-2.

That wouldn't mean the sky is falling losing to 2 good teams (assuming they both turn out to be "good")...but it would be a downer start for a team I have high hopes of having an 8+ win season.

---

There's a very good chance we could be 1-3

---

Why don't we let it play out? We've played one game so far against a team on the plus side of the blue chip ratio. Auburn may or may not be good, but they have more raw talent (especially on the lines) than any other team we'll face this season.

Saturday will give us a much better idea of what kind of team we have and what we can reasonably expect going forward.

I expect us to score on every team we play this year. If we can make a few stops, we'll have a chance to win a lot of games.

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

I always thought the defense was serviceable once we got Bennett. The reality is that we just could never recruit at a high level on defense for whatever reasons. Bennett did as well as he reasonably could with what he had and at very least his philosophy complimented the overall team strategy. Bennett's pedigree is strong and he had respectable defenses everywhere he went.

Regarding Dave, yes, I continue to believe the coach that was once the highest paid coordinator in the country and coached Baylor's best defense in decades can put together a good defense with adequate talent and time (the talent excuse is gone after the $$ investment in off-season). Mack holds the same view or Dave wouldn't be here, and his opinion actually matters. If Mack is wrong it should be clear by the end of this year if not sooner.

---

Our defenses under Bennett were designed to be hyper-aggressive and force turnovers. They weren't necessarily good (I'd argue it's impossible to field a good defense running that offense the way the did back then), but they made plays. And with the offense we had at the time, that was usually enough.

The problem with the current defense is that it's a bend-and-break defense. If you're going to be bad, at least be aggressive and force turnovers.

---

Ya I think that's exactly why Bennett's defense never bothered me even though not highly ranked. If it got scored on it typically was quick, so you didn't have to sit around for half the game as a team methodically marched down the field converting third downs and your offense gets cold.

I think Dave developed a successful bend don't break defenses at schools like Wisconsin where he had top of nation ranked defenses, and it's hard to break away from what got you to where you are.

When Dave re-jigged the defense over the off-season I'm sure he thought in detail about how it would compliment the offensive scheme.

the reality is that as bad as we all felt about the defensive performance against Auburn, he was one made tackle and one bad holding call away from doing enough to potentially win because of our offense. Missed tackles will get you a loss in any scheme, even with the catastrophic loss of Jackie, so I think it's hard to conclude his scheme was definitely unsound. If you make that first third down tackle against Jackson maybe the next time he feels like he better throw it. Once a QB feels like you can't tackle him he feels invincible and is just never going to throw it unless he has to or it's wide open. We basically turned him into Vince Young in the national title game.

It will be interesting to see how the overall philosophy changes as the season unfolds.

---

It's still very early, obviously, and we only have a one-game sample to go on. But I want to see significant improvement on the defensive side this season.

And if we don't, I want to see an established defensive coordinator brought in next season and given full control to do for our defense what Spavital has done for our offense.

---

In my view the defense will approve or Dave is gone. If you aren't paying him for good defense his entire value proposition makes no sense. And I'm optimistic he will get there but I think that was basically the deal when Mack kept him around. I paid you to at least have a good defense and you're going to coach it yourself now so at least we should have that. It's gotta work or that whole decision makes no sense.

---

I don't agree with this. It's not Dave's overarching job to coordinate the defense. It's his job to oversee a winning program. If he can do the latter with someone else in that DC role, as he did in 2021, good for him.

We hired him to be the head coach. If he ends up being more successful as a CEO type, it doesn't really matter what we perceived his skill set and strengths to be when we hired him.

---

You might disagree with this approach, but from hearing Mack talk about it through the years (and particularly in the aftermath of deciding to keep him after 2023), this is my best read on Mack's thinking. If the "Dave as defensive coordinator" strategy doesn't pay off now that we are paying as much as most of our big 12 competitors for players (and Mack believes it was really a fair test of the theory, as in not an unusual run of injuries), I think Mack will likely conclude that this was a failed experiment and move on. Again, I'm optimistic that won't happen but that's just my read on Mack's mindset having listened to what he's said publicly about the whole affair.

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

I always thought the defense was serviceable once we got Bennett. The reality is that we just could never recruit at a high level on defense for whatever reasons. Bennett did as well as he reasonably could with what he had and at very least his philosophy complimented the overall team strategy. Bennett's pedigree is strong and he had respectable defenses everywhere he went.

Regarding Dave, yes, I continue to believe the coach that was once the highest paid coordinator in the country and coached Baylor's best defense in decades can put together a good defense with adequate talent and time (the talent excuse is gone after the $$ investment in off-season). Mack holds the same view or Dave wouldn't be here, and his opinion actually matters. If Mack is wrong it should be clear by the end of this year if not sooner.

---

Our defenses under Bennett were designed to be hyper-aggressive and force turnovers. They weren't necessarily good (I'd argue it's impossible to field a good defense running that offense the way the did back then), but they made plays. And with the offense we had at the time, that was usually enough.

The problem with the current defense is that it's a bend-and-break defense. If you're going to be bad, at least be aggressive and force turnovers.

---

Ya I think that's exactly why Bennett's defense never bothered me even though not highly ranked. If it got scored on it typically was quick, so you didn't have to sit around for half the game as a team methodically marched down the field converting third downs and your offense gets cold.

I think Dave developed a successful bend don't break defenses at schools like Wisconsin where he had top of nation ranked defenses, and it's hard to break away from what got you to where you are.

When Dave re-jigged the defense over the off-season I'm sure he thought in detail about how it would compliment the offensive scheme.

the reality is that as bad as we all felt about the defensive performance against Auburn, he was one made tackle and one bad holding call away from doing enough to potentially win because of our offense. Missed tackles will get you a loss in any scheme, even with the catastrophic loss of Jackie, so I think it's hard to conclude his scheme was definitely unsound. If you make that first third down tackle against Jackson maybe the next time he feels like he better throw it. Once a QB feels like you can't tackle him he feels invincible and is just never going to throw it unless he has to or it's wide open. We basically turned him into Vince Young in the national title game.

It will be interesting to see how the overall philosophy changes as the season unfolds.

---

It's still very early, obviously, and we only have a one-game sample to go on. But I want to see significant improvement on the defensive side this season.

And if we don't, I want to see an established defensive coordinator brought in next season and given full control to do for our defense what Spavital has done for our offense.

---

In my view the defense will approve or Dave is gone. If you aren't paying him for good defense his entire value proposition makes no sense. And I'm optimistic he will get there but I think that was basically the deal when Mack kept him around. I paid you to at least have a good defense and you're going to coach it yourself now so at least we should have that. It's gotta work or that whole decision makes no sense.

---

I don't agree with this. It's not Dave's overarching job to coordinate the defense. It's his job to oversee a winning program. If he can do the latter with someone else in that DC role, as he did in 2021, good for him.

We hired him to be the head coach. If he ends up being more successful as a CEO type, it doesn't really matter what we perceived his skill set and strengths to be when we hired him.

---

You might disagree with this approach, but from hearing Mack talk about it through the years (and particularly in the aftermath of deciding to keep him after 2023), this is my best read on Mack's thinking. If the "Dave as defensive coordinator" strategy doesn't pay off now that we are paying as much as most of our big 12 competitors for players (and Mack believes it was really a fair test of the theory, as in not an unusual run of injuries), I think Mack will likely conclude that this was a failed experiment and move on. Again, I'm optimistic that won't happen but that's just my read on Mack's mindset having listened to what he's said publicly about the whole affair.

---

If we win seven-plus games by outscoring opponents this year (and I think we will), Dave Aranda's not going anywhere. I would hazard to guess that he's not getting fired regardless of what happens this season, barring a complete bottom out to three wins, which I don't think is even a possibility with our schedule.

I think Mack is all in on Dave Aranda at this point. We're going to do anything we can to make this work. And if that means continuing to shore up the house crack by crack, that's what we'll do. The next -- and maybe last -- crack is the defense. If everything else in the program is going well, Aranda will be given the chance to address that unit the same way he did the offense -- by going out and getting a proven coordinator to "fix" that side of the ball.

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

I always thought the defense was serviceable once we got Bennett. The reality is that we just could never recruit at a high level on defense for whatever reasons. Bennett did as well as he reasonably could with what he had and at very least his philosophy complimented the overall team strategy. Bennett's pedigree is strong and he had respectable defenses everywhere he went.

Regarding Dave, yes, I continue to believe the coach that was once the highest paid coordinator in the country and coached Baylor's best defense in decades can put together a good defense with adequate talent and time (the talent excuse is gone after the $$ investment in off-season). Mack holds the same view or Dave wouldn't be here, and his opinion actually matters. If Mack is wrong it should be clear by the end of this year if not sooner.

---

Our defenses under Bennett were designed to be hyper-aggressive and force turnovers. They weren't necessarily good (I'd argue it's impossible to field a good defense running that offense the way the did back then), but they made plays. And with the offense we had at the time, that was usually enough.

The problem with the current defense is that it's a bend-and-break defense. If you're going to be bad, at least be aggressive and force turnovers.

---

Ya I think that's exactly why Bennett's defense never bothered me even though not highly ranked. If it got scored on it typically was quick, so you didn't have to sit around for half the game as a team methodically marched down the field converting third downs and your offense gets cold.

I think Dave developed a successful bend don't break defenses at schools like Wisconsin where he had top of nation ranked defenses, and it's hard to break away from what got you to where you are.

When Dave re-jigged the defense over the off-season I'm sure he thought in detail about how it would compliment the offensive scheme.

the reality is that as bad as we all felt about the defensive performance against Auburn, he was one made tackle and one bad holding call away from doing enough to potentially win because of our offense. Missed tackles will get you a loss in any scheme, even with the catastrophic loss of Jackie, so I think it's hard to conclude his scheme was definitely unsound. If you make that first third down tackle against Jackson maybe the next time he feels like he better throw it. Once a QB feels like you can't tackle him he feels invincible and is just never going to throw it unless he has to or it's wide open. We basically turned him into Vince Young in the national title game.

It will be interesting to see how the overall philosophy changes as the season unfolds.

---

It's still very early, obviously, and we only have a one-game sample to go on. But I want to see significant improvement on the defensive side this season.

And if we don't, I want to see an established defensive coordinator brought in next season and given full control to do for our defense what Spavital has done for our offense.

---

In my view the defense will approve or Dave is gone. If you aren't paying him for good defense his entire value proposition makes no sense. And I'm optimistic he will get there but I think that was basically the deal when Mack kept him around. I paid you to at least have a good defense and you're going to coach it yourself now so at least we should have that. It's gotta work or that whole decision makes no sense.

---

I don't agree with this. It's not Dave's overarching job to coordinate the defense. It's his job to oversee a winning program. If he can do the latter with someone else in that DC role, as he did in 2021, good for him.

We hired him to be the head coach. If he ends up being more successful as a CEO type, it doesn't really matter what we perceived his skill set and strengths to be when we hired him.

---

You might disagree with this approach, but from hearing Mack talk about it through the years (and particularly in the aftermath of deciding to keep him after 2023), this is my best read on Mack's thinking. If the "Dave as defensive coordinator" strategy doesn't pay off now that we are paying as much as most of our big 12 competitors for players (and Mack believes it was really a fair test of the theory, as in not an unusual run of injuries), I think Mack will likely conclude that this was a failed experiment and move on. Again, I'm optimistic that won't happen but that's just my read on Mack's mindset having listened to what he's said publicly about the whole affair.

---

If we win seven-plus games by outscoring opponents this year (and I think we will), Dave Aranda's not going anywhere. I would hazard to guess that he's not getting fired regardless of what happens this season, barring a complete bottom out to three wins, which I don't think is even a possibility with our schedule.

I think Mack is all in on Dave Aranda at this point. We're going to do anything we can to make this work. And if that means continuing to shore up the house crack by crack, that's what we'll do. The next -- and maybe last -- crack is the defense. If everything else in the program is going well, Aranda will be given the chance to address that unit the same way he did the offense -- by going out and getting a proven coordinator to "fix" that side of the ball.

---

well, maybe you're right in that scenario. hopefully we have both an improved defense and >7 wins and never have to test your theory.