Robert Wilson said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

SicThe12 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BUHSFootballFan said:

---

Looks like Gary went a whopping 7-23 at Oregon State.

2015 2-10
2016 4-8
2017 1-5 fired and told to GTFO

---

If Rhule has that same record in 2019 and is getting housed routinely the way Anderson's team was this year, he'll be feeling the exact same pressure. No one I've seen here has suggested that Rhule be given an infinite leash regardless of results. Some of us are just willing to give a coach with a strong track record more than five games to prove he can replicate his success in a new environment, particularly when said environment is viewed by most outside the Baylor bubble as a cesspool.

---

2 career winning seasons in the G5 is not a strong track record.

---

Temple has been to five bowl games in its history. Rhule had the team bowl eligible in three of his four seasons as head coach there and led them to a pair of 10-win seasons.

You can hold whatever opinion of Rhule you want based on his first five games here. But any coach that wins 10 games at Temple, much less does it twice, has a strong track record.

---

Baylor is not Temple. 0-5.

---

We may one day be squaring off in the AAC. That would be a bit awkward.

---

AAC doesn't need any more Texas teams.

GruntTuff said:

---

Ok MV, you tell all of us, and tell us precisely how you know, exactly how many dollars Art Briles was paid to shut his mouth.

We're waiting.

And, when you finish that task, which will be simple since you seem to know all.....tell us please, please why Baylor paid Art Briles one stinking dollar. Why did Baylor pay him one dollar of Baylor's hard earned money when according to you, it's crystal clear he violated the terms of his contract and Baylor didn't owe him a dime.

---

Hey Grunt,

Glad you made it over here. Been missing your insight. And by the way, my source said the number was $15 million. Who knows?

And how is feral sinner? Did he make the jump?

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BUHSFootballFan said:

---

Looks like Gary went a whopping 7-23 at Oregon State.

2015 2-10
2016 4-8
2017 1-5 fired and told to GTFO

---

If Rhule has that same record in 2019 and is getting housed routinely the way Anderson's team was this year, he'll be feeling the exact same pressure. No one I've seen here has suggested that Rhule be given an infinite leash regardless of results. Some of us are just willing to give a coach with a strong track record more than five games to prove he can replicate his success in a new environment, particularly when said environment is viewed by most outside the Baylor bubble as a cesspool.

---

I don't mind giving the guy time (I think he needs at least two seasons), but to come out and lay the eggs he has laid the first half of the season has me not understanding the hope that you and others seem to have in his turning the program around.

---

Temple fans had the exact same concerns after his first season there. They made exponential improvement after that.

My hope rests in a number of factors. I'll share a few below, but it's largely a waste of time. You and others will suggest I'm an excuse-making Pollyanna, neither one of us will change the other's opinion and the discussion will go nowhere productive. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Rhule will be given a minimum of four years, unless the bottom really falls out. I don't believe that will happen. Many here do. Time will prove who is right.

But as for the reasons I'm hopeful, here are a few.

1. Transition's hard. This is true of all change, but it's especially so when going from intentionally simple schemes to ones that are far more difficult to grasp with players who have been conditioned for years for the former. Art Briles was a brilliant offensive mind, and kudos to him for creating an offensive scheme in which speedy, often one-trick players could excel. But his players have almost always struggled with the transition from Briles ball to the more traditional game everyone else is playing. What we're seeing this year is in many ways analogous to the struggles Briles' best players have experienced when graduating from his program to the NFL. Give these guys another offseason to absorb what Rhule and Co. are trying to do, and I think you'll see significant strides made in all phases.

2. Youth's being served. As of last week, we had 25 freshmen and sophomores on our two deep, and a number of others who are getting time as reserves. Experience matters in college football, and a lot of the mistakes that are costing us games right now are being made by guys who are in unfamiliar or uncomfortable positions. We only graduate a couple of impact seniors this spring. In 2018 and beyond, I expect to see the rest of these guys start making the plays they're not making now and stop making the mistakes they are.

3. Recruiting's going well. Rhule put together a very solid class in a very short period of time last winter, and he's backed that up with an even more talented group this year. We've already got kids from the 2017 class contributing this season, and if he can keep this year's class together, we should be infusing some serious talent into the program.

4. Help is coming. In addition to the freshman we're adding to the program, we've got several transfers waiting in the wings at positions of need. In Hurd, Fruhmorgan and Lockhart, you've got three starting caliber players on the scout team right now. And Beard should provide depth at the very least. Put them on this year's team and we're a lot better. There's no reason they shouldn't help a more veteran group next year. And with a full year to evaluate guys, we should be able to add a JUCO player or two this year as well.

5. I believe in Rhule's plan and vision for the program. Many here mock it, and that's fine. But I believe Rhule knows how to build a program, and he didn't forget how to coach on the flight from Philly to Waco. This season has gotten off to a disastrous start, and I understand the frustration with our record. But I don't think anything we've seen to this point or will see the next seven games is fatal to the program. If we start getting blown out routinely, start to lose key players to other programs and see our recruiting take a nosedive, I'll start to share some of the concerns expressed here. But as long as we play hard, remain competitive and get this class signed, I'm willing to write off 2017 as a one-time mulligan and start grading Rhule's product in Year 2.

6. I don't think Rhule's eggs were ever in the 2017 basket. If you listened closely to what he's said upon being hired, it was pretty clear that, rightly or wrongly, he's always viewed this as a long-term building project. I think Rhule was always more concerned about building the foundation for his program than winning games this season. That doesn't excuse this Liberty or UTSA losses, and whether that's the right path or the wise path can be debated, but everything he has said and done to this stage points to that being his focus. Rhule spent months laying out his vision for the program, and it was always couched in a big-picture view. He's interested in building a program, not a team. And he's going to do that at Baylor the same way he did at Temple -- his way.

Whether he's capable of accomplishing that here remains to be seen. He's certainly off to a poor start. But when you're bringing fundamental changes philosophically, as Rhule is in almost every facet of the program, your choices are to scale back what you're doing and meet the players where they are, which would likely provide better results in the short term, or throw everything at your players and make them meet you. Rhule has clearly chosen option B. Again, the wisdom of this can be debated, but if you accept the premise that he's more concerned about where the program is two and three years from now than where it is currently, there's logic in what he's doing.

I think this staff, as with most football coaches, is stubborn and have more confidence in themselves than perhaps they should. They have a plan and a process that has worked for them in the past and that they believe in. And rather than adapting that plan to their ill-fitting talent for what they perceive to be short-term gains, they'd prefer to get the players they've inherited and recruited playing their brand of football, even if it means breaking some of them like wild horses.

That's either a bold perspective or a foolish one. Time will tell. The one thing Rhule has going for him is a long-term contract, so it really doesn't matter what the fans think of him right now. And if he can do here what he did in Temple, where he broke down the program to build it back up, then all will be forgiven in time. If he can't, it never mattered anyway.

---

Probably the most well-thought out defense of Rhule I have seen on this board. I appreciate you providing your thoughtful perspective. I agree with a lot of what you've written. I thought Rhule was a good hire, though I had hoped for Monty or another Briles clone to keep the nuclear weapon that was the Briles offense in our arsenal. Others have said Briles was the nuclear weapon, and they may be right, but I still think we should have tried. Short of having a Briles protege, I was happy with Rhule. I have followed him closely over the years, and loved his brand of defense at Temple. That is definitely something we could benefit from. Here is where we diverge.

1) I see the inability to adapt to talent on hand as a major flaw. I didn't realize Rhule couldn't do that (or wouldn't) and that is a concern. If it's the latter, I would feel better, even if I think it's not a wise choice.

2) Running 3 schemes on offense was a big mistake, IMO, and I don't think the power I formation he ran at Temple can be successful in the Big 12. Hell, it's not even effective on the national stage. None of the contenders run it. If that is what Rhule wants to do - bring a Penn State like offense to Baylor - I think we are in big trouble, and I simply cannot "trust that process." Do you feel confident that can win the Big 12, much less a Natty?

---

I don't think Rhule wants to run a power-I. I think he wants to be very multiple from a formation standpoint and be able to run the ball effectively out of all sets, much like what you see in the NFL these days. Unfortunately, we don't have the horses up front to run what he and Nixon want to run right now. And while I'd prefer to see them adjust and go all-in on the offense we saw against OU and in the second half against Kansas State, I'm going to withhold judgment on the merits of this scheme until we get to see it the way it was intended to be run. If our offense is still deficient two years from now, once Rhule has been able to recruit the pieces he wants for it, I'll be right there with you, though.

Stranger said:

---

GruntTuff said:

---

Ok MV, you tell all of us, and tell us precisely how you know, exactly how many dollars Art Briles was paid to shut his mouth.

We're waiting.

And, when you finish that task, which will be simple since you seem to know all.....tell us please, please why Baylor paid Art Briles one stinking dollar. Why did Baylor pay him one dollar of Baylor's hard earned money when according to you, it's crystal clear he violated the terms of his contract and Baylor didn't owe him a dime.

---

Hey Grunt,

Glad you made it over here. Been missing your insight. And by the way, my source said the number was $15 million. Who knows?

And how is feral sinner? Did he make the jump?

---

Stranger,

Good to hear from you. You need to head north up I-25 soon. Feral sinner, still sinning, is actually here today, believe it or not. Not sure he made the jump....he, like I, is technologically (and theologically) challenged. I'll tell him hi for you. Ah, those days at 10th & Speight.....though my memory fadeth, I can still remember some amazing nights at that intersection, some involving you. But we won't tell a soul.

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BUHSFootballFan said:

---

Looks like Gary went a whopping 7-23 at Oregon State.

2015 2-10
2016 4-8
2017 1-5 fired and told to GTFO

---

If Rhule has that same record in 2019 and is getting housed routinely the way Anderson's team was this year, he'll be feeling the exact same pressure. No one I've seen here has suggested that Rhule be given an infinite leash regardless of results. Some of us are just willing to give a coach with a strong track record more than five games to prove he can replicate his success in a new environment, particularly when said environment is viewed by most outside the Baylor bubble as a cesspool.

---

I don't mind giving the guy time (I think he needs at least two seasons), but to come out and lay the eggs he has laid the first half of the season has me not understanding the hope that you and others seem to have in his turning the program around.

---

Temple fans had the exact same concerns after his first season there. They made exponential improvement after that.

My hope rests in a number of factors. I'll share a few below, but it's largely a waste of time. You and others will suggest I'm an excuse-making Pollyanna, neither one of us will change the other's opinion and the discussion will go nowhere productive. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Rhule will be given a minimum of four years, unless the bottom really falls out. I don't believe that will happen. Many here do. Time will prove who is right.

But as for the reasons I'm hopeful, here are a few.

1. Transition's hard. This is true of all change, but it's especially so when going from intentionally simple schemes to ones that are far more difficult to grasp with players who have been conditioned for years for the former. Art Briles was a brilliant offensive mind, and kudos to him for creating an offensive scheme in which speedy, often one-trick players could excel. But his players have almost always struggled with the transition from Briles ball to the more traditional game everyone else is playing. What we're seeing this year is in many ways analogous to the struggles Briles' best players have experienced when graduating from his program to the NFL. Give these guys another offseason to absorb what Rhule and Co. are trying to do, and I think you'll see significant strides made in all phases.

2. Youth's being served. As of last week, we had 25 freshmen and sophomores on our two deep, and a number of others who are getting time as reserves. Experience matters in college football, and a lot of the mistakes that are costing us games right now are being made by guys who are in unfamiliar or uncomfortable positions. We only graduate a couple of impact seniors this spring. In 2018 and beyond, I expect to see the rest of these guys start making the plays they're not making now and stop making the mistakes they are.

3. Recruiting's going well. Rhule put together a very solid class in a very short period of time last winter, and he's backed that up with an even more talented group this year. We've already got kids from the 2017 class contributing this season, and if he can keep this year's class together, we should be infusing some serious talent into the program.

4. Help is coming. In addition to the freshman we're adding to the program, we've got several transfers waiting in the wings at positions of need. In Hurd, Fruhmorgan and Lockhart, you've got three starting caliber players on the scout team right now. And Beard should provide depth at the very least. Put them on this year's team and we're a lot better. There's no reason they shouldn't help a more veteran group next year. And with a full year to evaluate guys, we should be able to add a JUCO player or two this year as well.

5. I believe in Rhule's plan and vision for the program. Many here mock it, and that's fine. But I believe Rhule knows how to build a program, and he didn't forget how to coach on the flight from Philly to Waco. This season has gotten off to a disastrous start, and I understand the frustration with our record. But I don't think anything we've seen to this point or will see the next seven games is fatal to the program. If we start getting blown out routinely, start to lose key players to other programs and see our recruiting take a nosedive, I'll start to share some of the concerns expressed here. But as long as we play hard, remain competitive and get this class signed, I'm willing to write off 2017 as a one-time mulligan and start grading Rhule's product in Year 2.

6. I don't think Rhule's eggs were ever in the 2017 basket. If you listened closely to what he's said upon being hired, it was pretty clear that, rightly or wrongly, he's always viewed this as a long-term building project. I think Rhule was always more concerned about building the foundation for his program than winning games this season. That doesn't excuse this Liberty or UTSA losses, and whether that's the right path or the wise path can be debated, but everything he has said and done to this stage points to that being his focus. Rhule spent months laying out his vision for the program, and it was always couched in a big-picture view. He's interested in building a program, not a team. And he's going to do that at Baylor the same way he did at Temple -- his way.

Whether he's capable of accomplishing that here remains to be seen. He's certainly off to a poor start. But when you're bringing fundamental changes philosophically, as Rhule is in almost every facet of the program, your choices are to scale back what you're doing and meet the players where they are, which would likely provide better results in the short term, or throw everything at your players and make them meet you. Rhule has clearly chosen option B. Again, the wisdom of this can be debated, but if you accept the premise that he's more concerned about where the program is two and three years from now than where it is currently, there's logic in what he's doing.

I think this staff, as with most football coaches, is stubborn and have more confidence in themselves than perhaps they should. They have a plan and a process that has worked for them in the past and that they believe in. And rather than adapting that plan to their ill-fitting talent for what they perceive to be short-term gains, they'd prefer to get the players they've inherited and recruited playing their brand of football, even if it means breaking some of them like wild horses.

That's either a bold perspective or a foolish one. Time will tell. The one thing Rhule has going for him is a long-term contract, so it really doesn't matter what the fans think of him right now. And if he can do here what he did in Temple, where he broke down the program to build it back up, then all will be forgiven in time. If he can't, it never mattered anyway.

---

Probably the most well-thought out defense of Rhule I have seen on this board. I appreciate you providing your thoughtful perspective. I agree with a lot of what you've written. I thought Rhule was a good hire, though I had hoped for Monty or another Briles clone to keep the nuclear weapon that was the Briles offense in our arsenal. Others have said Briles was the nuclear weapon, and they may be right, but I still think we should have tried. Short of having a Briles protege, I was happy with Rhule. I have followed him closely over the years, and loved his brand of defense at Temple. That is definitely something we could benefit from. Here is where we diverge.

1) I see the inability to adapt to talent on hand as a major flaw. I didn't realize Rhule couldn't do that (or wouldn't) and that is a concern. If it's the latter, I would feel better, even if I think it's not a wise choice.

2) Running 3 schemes on offense was a big mistake, IMO, and I don't think the power I formation he ran at Temple can be successful in the Big 12. Hell, it's not even effective on the national stage. None of the contenders run it. If that is what Rhule wants to do - bring a Penn State like offense to Baylor - I think we are in big trouble, and I simply cannot "trust that process." Do you feel confident that can win the Big 12, much less a Natty?

---

I don't think Rhule wants to run a power-I. I think he wants to be very multiple from a formation standpoint and be able to run the ball effectively out of all sets, much like what you see in the NFL these days. Unfortunately, we don't have the horses up front to run what he and Nixon want to run right now. And while I'd prefer to see them adjust and go all-in on the offense we saw against OU and in the second half against Kansas State, I'm going to withhold judgment on the merits of this scheme until we get to see it the way it was intended to be run. If our offense is still deficient two years from now, once Rhule has been able to recruit the pieces he wants for it, I'll be right there with you, though.

---

I think therein lies the problem - wanting to use multiple formations and run it effectively out of all sets. As one of the board's resident coaches pointed out, a jack of all trades is a master of none. I'd rather figure out an offensive identity and master it than try to be a jack of all trades, which is what he is doing. I just don't see that being effective.

If you are going to run the HUNH, then run the HUNH. Slowing down the HUNH makes it predictable. He needs to get out of the headset and let Nixon be.

bear2be2 said:

---

BUHSFootballFan said:

---

Looks like Gary went a whopping 7-23 at Oregon State.

2015 2-10
2016 4-8
2017 1-5 fired and told to GTFO

---

If Rhule has that same record in 2019 and is getting housed routinely the way Anderson's team was this year, he'll be feeling the exact same pressure. No one I've seen here has suggested that Rhule be given an infinite leash regardless of results. Some of us are just willing to give a coach with a strong track record more than five games to prove he can replicate his success in a new environment, particularly when said environment is viewed by most outside the Baylor bubble as a cesspool.

---

but he won't give away the buyout,,,nor should he.

bear2be2 said:

---

BUHSFootballFan said:

---

Looks like Gary went a whopping 7-23 at Oregon State.

2015 2-10
2016 4-8
2017 1-5 fired and told to GTFO

---

If Rhule has that same record in 2019 and is getting housed routinely the way Anderson's team was this year, he'll be feeling the exact same pressure. No one I've seen here has suggested that Rhule be given an infinite leash regardless of results. Some of us are just willing to give a coach with a strong track record more than five games to prove he can replicate his success in a new environment, particularly when said environment is viewed by most outside the Baylor bubble as a cesspool.

---

I concur.

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BUHSFootballFan said:

---

Looks like Gary went a whopping 7-23 at Oregon State.

2015 2-10
2016 4-8
2017 1-5 fired and told to GTFO

---

If Rhule has that same record in 2019 and is getting housed routinely the way Anderson's team was this year, he'll be feeling the exact same pressure. No one I've seen here has suggested that Rhule be given an infinite leash regardless of results. Some of us are just willing to give a coach with a strong track record more than five games to prove he can replicate his success in a new environment, particularly when said environment is viewed by most outside the Baylor bubble as a cesspool.

---

I don't mind giving the guy time (I think he needs at least two seasons), but to come out and lay the eggs he has laid the first half of the season has me not understanding the hope that you and others seem to have in his turning the program around.

---

Temple fans had the exact same concerns after his first season there. They made exponential improvement after that.

My hope rests in a number of factors. I'll share a few below, but it's largely a waste of time. You and others will suggest I'm an excuse-making Pollyanna, neither one of us will change the other's opinion and the discussion will go nowhere productive. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Rhule will be given a minimum of four years, unless the bottom really falls out. I don't believe that will happen. Many here do. Time will prove who is right.

But as for the reasons I'm hopeful, here are a few.

1. Transition's hard. This is true of all change, but it's especially so when going from intentionally simple schemes to ones that are far more difficult to grasp with players who have been conditioned for years for the former. Art Briles was a brilliant offensive mind, and kudos to him for creating an offensive scheme in which speedy, often one-trick players could excel. But his players have almost always struggled with the transition from Briles ball to the more traditional game everyone else is playing. What we're seeing this year is in many ways analogous to the struggles Briles' best players have experienced when graduating from his program to the NFL. Give these guys another offseason to absorb what Rhule and Co. are trying to do, and I think you'll see significant strides made in all phases.

2. Youth's being served. As of last week, we had 25 freshmen and sophomores on our two deep, and a number of others who are getting time as reserves. Experience matters in college football, and a lot of the mistakes that are costing us games right now are being made by guys who are in unfamiliar or uncomfortable positions. We only graduate a couple of impact seniors this spring. In 2018 and beyond, I expect to see the rest of these guys start making the plays they're not making now and stop making the mistakes they are.

3. Recruiting's going well. Rhule put together a very solid class in a very short period of time last winter, and he's backed that up with an even more talented group this year. We've already got kids from the 2017 class contributing this season, and if he can keep this year's class together, we should be infusing some serious talent into the program.

4. Help is coming. In addition to the freshman we're adding to the program, we've got several transfers waiting in the wings at positions of need. In Hurd, Fruhmorgan and Lockhart, you've got three starting caliber players on the scout team right now. And Beard should provide depth at the very least. Put them on this year's team and we're a lot better. There's no reason they shouldn't help a more veteran group next year. And with a full year to evaluate guys, we should be able to add a JUCO player or two this year as well.

5. I believe in Rhule's plan and vision for the program. Many here mock it, and that's fine. But I believe Rhule knows how to build a program, and he didn't forget how to coach on the flight from Philly to Waco. This season has gotten off to a disastrous start, and I understand the frustration with our record. But I don't think anything we've seen to this point or will see the next seven games is fatal to the program. If we start getting blown out routinely, start to lose key players to other programs and see our recruiting take a nosedive, I'll start to share some of the concerns expressed here. But as long as we play hard, remain competitive and get this class signed, I'm willing to write off 2017 as a one-time mulligan and start grading Rhule's product in Year 2.

6. I don't think Rhule's eggs were ever in the 2017 basket. If you listened closely to what he's said upon being hired, it was pretty clear that, rightly or wrongly, he's always viewed this as a long-term building project. I think Rhule was always more concerned about building the foundation for his program than winning games this season. That doesn't excuse this Liberty or UTSA losses, and whether that's the right path or the wise path can be debated, but everything he has said and done to this stage points to that being his focus. Rhule spent months laying out his vision for the program, and it was always couched in a big-picture view. He's interested in building a program, not a team. And he's going to do that at Baylor the same way he did at Temple -- his way.

Whether he's capable of accomplishing that here remains to be seen. He's certainly off to a poor start. But when you're bringing fundamental changes philosophically, as Rhule is in almost every facet of the program, your choices are to scale back what you're doing and meet the players where they are, which would likely provide better results in the short term, or throw everything at your players and make them meet you. Rhule has clearly chosen option B. Again, the wisdom of this can be debated, but if you accept the premise that he's more concerned about where the program is two and three years from now than where it is currently, there's logic in what he's doing.

I think this staff, as with most football coaches, is stubborn and have more confidence in themselves than perhaps they should. They have a plan and a process that has worked for them in the past and that they believe in. And rather than adapting that plan to their ill-fitting talent for what they perceive to be short-term gains, they'd prefer to get the players they've inherited and recruited playing their brand of football, even if it means breaking some of them like wild horses.

That's either a bold perspective or a foolish one. Time will tell. The one thing Rhule has going for him is a long-term contract, so it really doesn't matter what the fans think of him right now. And if he can do here what he did in Temple, where he broke down the program to build it back up, then all will be forgiven in time. If he can't, it never mattered anyway.

---

Probably the most well-thought out defense of Rhule I have seen on this board. I appreciate you providing your thoughtful perspective. I agree with a lot of what you've written. I thought Rhule was a good hire, though I had hoped for Monty or another Briles clone to keep the nuclear weapon that was the Briles offense in our arsenal. Others have said Briles was the nuclear weapon, and they may be right, but I still think we should have tried. Short of having a Briles protege, I was happy with Rhule. I have followed him closely over the years, and loved his brand of defense at Temple. That is definitely something we could benefit from. Here is where we diverge.

1) I see the inability to adapt to talent on hand as a major flaw. I didn't realize Rhule couldn't do that (or wouldn't) and that is a concern. If it's the latter, I would feel better, even if I think it's not a wise choice.

2) Running 3 schemes on offense was a big mistake, IMO, and I don't think the power I formation he ran at Temple can be successful in the Big 12. Hell, it's not even effective on the national stage. None of the contenders run it. If that is what Rhule wants to do - bring a Penn State like offense to Baylor - I think we are in big trouble, and I simply cannot "trust that process." Do you feel confident that can win the Big 12, much less a Natty?

---

I don't think Rhule wants to run a power-I. I think he wants to be very multiple from a formation standpoint and be able to run the ball effectively out of all sets, much like what you see in the NFL these days. Unfortunately, we don't have the horses up front to run what he and Nixon want to run right now. And while I'd prefer to see them adjust and go all-in on the offense we saw against OU and in the second half against Kansas State, I'm going to withhold judgment on the merits of this scheme until we get to see it the way it was intended to be run. If our offense is still deficient two years from now, once Rhule has been able to recruit the pieces he wants for it, I'll be right there with you, though.

---

I think therein lies the problem - wanting to use multiple formations and run it effectively out of all sets. As one of the board's resident coaches pointed out, a jack of all trades is a master of none. I'd rather figure out an offensive identity and master it than try to be a jack of all trades, which is what he is doing. I just don't see that being effective.

If you are going to run the HUNH, then run the HUNH. Slowing down the HUNH makes it predictable. He needs to get out of the headset and let Nixon be.

---

I don't share your concerns there. There are many teams on the West Coast and elsewhere running exactly the type of offense I'm referring to with success. Multiple formations doesn't mean multiple philosophies.

And we're not going to be a HUNH team under Rhule. He's said many times he's not going to do that at the expense of his defense. Tempo is going to be a tool. It's not going to be a guiding tenant of our offensive scheme.

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BUHSFootballFan said:

---

Looks like Gary went a whopping 7-23 at Oregon State.

2015 2-10
2016 4-8
2017 1-5 fired and told to GTFO

---

If Rhule has that same record in 2019 and is getting housed routinely the way Anderson's team was this year, he'll be feeling the exact same pressure. No one I've seen here has suggested that Rhule be given an infinite leash regardless of results. Some of us are just willing to give a coach with a strong track record more than five games to prove he can replicate his success in a new environment, particularly when said environment is viewed by most outside the Baylor bubble as a cesspool.

---

I don't mind giving the guy time (I think he needs at least two seasons), but to come out and lay the eggs he has laid the first half of the season has me not understanding the hope that you and others seem to have in his turning the program around.

---

Temple fans had the exact same concerns after his first season there. They made exponential improvement after that.

My hope rests in a number of factors. I'll share a few below, but it's largely a waste of time. You and others will suggest I'm an excuse-making Pollyanna, neither one of us will change the other's opinion and the discussion will go nowhere productive. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Rhule will be given a minimum of four years, unless the bottom really falls out. I don't believe that will happen. Many here do. Time will prove who is right.

But as for the reasons I'm hopeful, here are a few.

1. Transition's hard. This is true of all change, but it's especially so when going from intentionally simple schemes to ones that are far more difficult to grasp with players who have been conditioned for years for the former. Art Briles was a brilliant offensive mind, and kudos to him for creating an offensive scheme in which speedy, often one-trick players could excel. But his players have almost always struggled with the transition from Briles ball to the more traditional game everyone else is playing. What we're seeing this year is in many ways analogous to the struggles Briles' best players have experienced when graduating from his program to the NFL. Give these guys another offseason to absorb what Rhule and Co. are trying to do, and I think you'll see significant strides made in all phases.

2. Youth's being served. As of last week, we had 25 freshmen and sophomores on our two deep, and a number of others who are getting time as reserves. Experience matters in college football, and a lot of the mistakes that are costing us games right now are being made by guys who are in unfamiliar or uncomfortable positions. We only graduate a couple of impact seniors this spring. In 2018 and beyond, I expect to see the rest of these guys start making the plays they're not making now and stop making the mistakes they are.

3. Recruiting's going well. Rhule put together a very solid class in a very short period of time last winter, and he's backed that up with an even more talented group this year. We've already got kids from the 2017 class contributing this season, and if he can keep this year's class together, we should be infusing some serious talent into the program.

4. Help is coming. In addition to the freshman we're adding to the program, we've got several transfers waiting in the wings at positions of need. In Hurd, Fruhmorgan and Lockhart, you've got three starting caliber players on the scout team right now. And Beard should provide depth at the very least. Put them on this year's team and we're a lot better. There's no reason they shouldn't help a more veteran group next year. And with a full year to evaluate guys, we should be able to add a JUCO player or two this year as well.

5. I believe in Rhule's plan and vision for the program. Many here mock it, and that's fine. But I believe Rhule knows how to build a program, and he didn't forget how to coach on the flight from Philly to Waco. This season has gotten off to a disastrous start, and I understand the frustration with our record. But I don't think anything we've seen to this point or will see the next seven games is fatal to the program. If we start getting blown out routinely, start to lose key players to other programs and see our recruiting take a nosedive, I'll start to share some of the concerns expressed here. But as long as we play hard, remain competitive and get this class signed, I'm willing to write off 2017 as a one-time mulligan and start grading Rhule's product in Year 2.

6. I don't think Rhule's eggs were ever in the 2017 basket. If you listened closely to what he's said upon being hired, it was pretty clear that, rightly or wrongly, he's always viewed this as a long-term building project. I think Rhule was always more concerned about building the foundation for his program than winning games this season. That doesn't excuse this Liberty or UTSA losses, and whether that's the right path or the wise path can be debated, but everything he has said and done to this stage points to that being his focus. Rhule spent months laying out his vision for the program, and it was always couched in a big-picture view. He's interested in building a program, not a team. And he's going to do that at Baylor the same way he did at Temple -- his way.

Whether he's capable of accomplishing that here remains to be seen. He's certainly off to a poor start. But when you're bringing fundamental changes philosophically, as Rhule is in almost every facet of the program, your choices are to scale back what you're doing and meet the players where they are, which would likely provide better results in the short term, or throw everything at your players and make them meet you. Rhule has clearly chosen option B. Again, the wisdom of this can be debated, but if you accept the premise that he's more concerned about where the program is two and three years from now than where it is currently, there's logic in what he's doing.

I think this staff, as with most football coaches, is stubborn and have more confidence in themselves than perhaps they should. They have a plan and a process that has worked for them in the past and that they believe in. And rather than adapting that plan to their ill-fitting talent for what they perceive to be short-term gains, they'd prefer to get the players they've inherited and recruited playing their brand of football, even if it means breaking some of them like wild horses.

That's either a bold perspective or a foolish one. Time will tell. The one thing Rhule has going for him is a long-term contract, so it really doesn't matter what the fans think of him right now. And if he can do here what he did in Temple, where he broke down the program to build it back up, then all will be forgiven in time. If he can't, it never mattered anyway.

---

Probably the most well-thought out defense of Rhule I have seen on this board. I appreciate you providing your thoughtful perspective. I agree with a lot of what you've written. I thought Rhule was a good hire, though I had hoped for Monty or another Briles clone to keep the nuclear weapon that was the Briles offense in our arsenal. Others have said Briles was the nuclear weapon, and they may be right, but I still think we should have tried. Short of having a Briles protege, I was happy with Rhule. I have followed him closely over the years, and loved his brand of defense at Temple. That is definitely something we could benefit from. Here is where we diverge.

1) I see the inability to adapt to talent on hand as a major flaw. I didn't realize Rhule couldn't do that (or wouldn't) and that is a concern. If it's the latter, I would feel better, even if I think it's not a wise choice.

2) Running 3 schemes on offense was a big mistake, IMO, and I don't think the power I formation he ran at Temple can be successful in the Big 12. Hell, it's not even effective on the national stage. None of the contenders run it. If that is what Rhule wants to do - bring a Penn State like offense to Baylor - I think we are in big trouble, and I simply cannot "trust that process." Do you feel confident that can win the Big 12, much less a Natty?

---

I don't think Rhule wants to run a power-I. I think he wants to be very multiple from a formation standpoint and be able to run the ball effectively out of all sets, much like what you see in the NFL these days. Unfortunately, we don't have the horses up front to run what he and Nixon want to run right now. And while I'd prefer to see them adjust and go all-in on the offense we saw against OU and in the second half against Kansas State, I'm going to withhold judgment on the merits of this scheme until we get to see it the way it was intended to be run. If our offense is still deficient two years from now, once Rhule has been able to recruit the pieces he wants for it, I'll be right there with you, though.

---

I think therein lies the problem - wanting to use multiple formations and run it effectively out of all sets. As one of the board's resident coaches pointed out, a jack of all trades is a master of none. I'd rather figure out an offensive identity and master it than try to be a jack of all trades, which is what he is doing. I just don't see that being effective.

If you are going to run the HUNH, then run the HUNH. Slowing down the HUNH makes it predictable. He needs to get out of the headset and let Nixon be.

---

It could be Rhule is in the headset of Nixon and Thomas, or it could be the players are still learning. It's probably a bit of both. I too don't think he is trying to just play Power I all the time. It does look like he might be installing a type of multiple style kind of offense. FSU used it to win the NC in 2013. It comes from the pro-style type of offense but borrows from others. It does require big and experienced linemen and a good QB to make it work.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_offense

Here is another interesting article about who and how man recruits are needed to run the different defense and offensive schemes in College:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/college-football/2014/2/14/5354962/college-football-offenses-defenses-recruiting-players

Bear8084 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BUHSFootballFan said:

---

Looks like Gary went a whopping 7-23 at Oregon State.

2015 2-10
2016 4-8
2017 1-5 fired and told to GTFO

---

If Rhule has that same record in 2019 and is getting housed routinely the way Anderson's team was this year, he'll be feeling the exact same pressure. No one I've seen here has suggested that Rhule be given an infinite leash regardless of results. Some of us are just willing to give a coach with a strong track record more than five games to prove he can replicate his success in a new environment, particularly when said environment is viewed by most outside the Baylor bubble as a cesspool.

---

I don't mind giving the guy time (I think he needs at least two seasons), but to come out and lay the eggs he has laid the first half of the season has me not understanding the hope that you and others seem to have in his turning the program around.

---

Temple fans had the exact same concerns after his first season there. They made exponential improvement after that.

My hope rests in a number of factors. I'll share a few below, but it's largely a waste of time. You and others will suggest I'm an excuse-making Pollyanna, neither one of us will change the other's opinion and the discussion will go nowhere productive. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Rhule will be given a minimum of four years, unless the bottom really falls out. I don't believe that will happen. Many here do. Time will prove who is right.

But as for the reasons I'm hopeful, here are a few.

1. Transition's hard. This is true of all change, but it's especially so when going from intentionally simple schemes to ones that are far more difficult to grasp with players who have been conditioned for years for the former. Art Briles was a brilliant offensive mind, and kudos to him for creating an offensive scheme in which speedy, often one-trick players could excel. But his players have almost always struggled with the transition from Briles ball to the more traditional game everyone else is playing. What we're seeing this year is in many ways analogous to the struggles Briles' best players have experienced when graduating from his program to the NFL. Give these guys another offseason to absorb what Rhule and Co. are trying to do, and I think you'll see significant strides made in all phases.

2. Youth's being served. As of last week, we had 25 freshmen and sophomores on our two deep, and a number of others who are getting time as reserves. Experience matters in college football, and a lot of the mistakes that are costing us games right now are being made by guys who are in unfamiliar or uncomfortable positions. We only graduate a couple of impact seniors this spring. In 2018 and beyond, I expect to see the rest of these guys start making the plays they're not making now and stop making the mistakes they are.

3. Recruiting's going well. Rhule put together a very solid class in a very short period of time last winter, and he's backed that up with an even more talented group this year. We've already got kids from the 2017 class contributing this season, and if he can keep this year's class together, we should be infusing some serious talent into the program.

4. Help is coming. In addition to the freshman we're adding to the program, we've got several transfers waiting in the wings at positions of need. In Hurd, Fruhmorgan and Lockhart, you've got three starting caliber players on the scout team right now. And Beard should provide depth at the very least. Put them on this year's team and we're a lot better. There's no reason they shouldn't help a more veteran group next year. And with a full year to evaluate guys, we should be able to add a JUCO player or two this year as well.

5. I believe in Rhule's plan and vision for the program. Many here mock it, and that's fine. But I believe Rhule knows how to build a program, and he didn't forget how to coach on the flight from Philly to Waco. This season has gotten off to a disastrous start, and I understand the frustration with our record. But I don't think anything we've seen to this point or will see the next seven games is fatal to the program. If we start getting blown out routinely, start to lose key players to other programs and see our recruiting take a nosedive, I'll start to share some of the concerns expressed here. But as long as we play hard, remain competitive and get this class signed, I'm willing to write off 2017 as a one-time mulligan and start grading Rhule's product in Year 2.

6. I don't think Rhule's eggs were ever in the 2017 basket. If you listened closely to what he's said upon being hired, it was pretty clear that, rightly or wrongly, he's always viewed this as a long-term building project. I think Rhule was always more concerned about building the foundation for his program than winning games this season. That doesn't excuse this Liberty or UTSA losses, and whether that's the right path or the wise path can be debated, but everything he has said and done to this stage points to that being his focus. Rhule spent months laying out his vision for the program, and it was always couched in a big-picture view. He's interested in building a program, not a team. And he's going to do that at Baylor the same way he did at Temple -- his way.

Whether he's capable of accomplishing that here remains to be seen. He's certainly off to a poor start. But when you're bringing fundamental changes philosophically, as Rhule is in almost every facet of the program, your choices are to scale back what you're doing and meet the players where they are, which would likely provide better results in the short term, or throw everything at your players and make them meet you. Rhule has clearly chosen option B. Again, the wisdom of this can be debated, but if you accept the premise that he's more concerned about where the program is two and three years from now than where it is currently, there's logic in what he's doing.

I think this staff, as with most football coaches, is stubborn and have more confidence in themselves than perhaps they should. They have a plan and a process that has worked for them in the past and that they believe in. And rather than adapting that plan to their ill-fitting talent for what they perceive to be short-term gains, they'd prefer to get the players they've inherited and recruited playing their brand of football, even if it means breaking some of them like wild horses.

That's either a bold perspective or a foolish one. Time will tell. The one thing Rhule has going for him is a long-term contract, so it really doesn't matter what the fans think of him right now. And if he can do here what he did in Temple, where he broke down the program to build it back up, then all will be forgiven in time. If he can't, it never mattered anyway.

---

Probably the most well-thought out defense of Rhule I have seen on this board. I appreciate you providing your thoughtful perspective. I agree with a lot of what you've written. I thought Rhule was a good hire, though I had hoped for Monty or another Briles clone to keep the nuclear weapon that was the Briles offense in our arsenal. Others have said Briles was the nuclear weapon, and they may be right, but I still think we should have tried. Short of having a Briles protege, I was happy with Rhule. I have followed him closely over the years, and loved his brand of defense at Temple. That is definitely something we could benefit from. Here is where we diverge.

1) I see the inability to adapt to talent on hand as a major flaw. I didn't realize Rhule couldn't do that (or wouldn't) and that is a concern. If it's the latter, I would feel better, even if I think it's not a wise choice.

2) Running 3 schemes on offense was a big mistake, IMO, and I don't think the power I formation he ran at Temple can be successful in the Big 12. Hell, it's not even effective on the national stage. None of the contenders run it. If that is what Rhule wants to do - bring a Penn State like offense to Baylor - I think we are in big trouble, and I simply cannot "trust that process." Do you feel confident that can win the Big 12, much less a Natty?

---

I don't think Rhule wants to run a power-I. I think he wants to be very multiple from a formation standpoint and be able to run the ball effectively out of all sets, much like what you see in the NFL these days. Unfortunately, we don't have the horses up front to run what he and Nixon want to run right now. And while I'd prefer to see them adjust and go all-in on the offense we saw against OU and in the second half against Kansas State, I'm going to withhold judgment on the merits of this scheme until we get to see it the way it was intended to be run. If our offense is still deficient two years from now, once Rhule has been able to recruit the pieces he wants for it, I'll be right there with you, though.

---

I think therein lies the problem - wanting to use multiple formations and run it effectively out of all sets. As one of the board's resident coaches pointed out, a jack of all trades is a master of none. I'd rather figure out an offensive identity and master it than try to be a jack of all trades, which is what he is doing. I just don't see that being effective.

If you are going to run the HUNH, then run the HUNH. Slowing down the HUNH makes it predictable. He needs to get out of the headset and let Nixon be.

---

It could be Rhule is in the headset of Nixon and Thomas, or it could be the players are still learning. It's probably a bit of both. I too don't think he is trying to just play Power I all the time. It does look like he might be installing a type of multiple style kind of offense. FSU used it to win the NC in 2013. It comes from the pro-style type of offense but borrows from others. It does require big and experienced linemen and a good QB to make it work.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_offense

Here is another interesting article about who and how man recruits are needed to run the different defense and offensive schemes in College:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/college-football/2014/2/14/5354962/college-football-offenses-defenses-recruiting-players

---

Florida State under Fisher is a good example. I'd point to what Washington and Colorado are doing as solid examples as well.

BU84BEAR said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BUHSFootballFan said:

---

Looks like Gary went a whopping 7-23 at Oregon State.

2015 2-10
2016 4-8
2017 1-5 fired and told to GTFO

---

If Rhule has that same record in 2019 and is getting housed routinely the way Anderson's team was this year, he'll be feeling the exact same pressure. No one I've seen here has suggested that Rhule be given an infinite leash regardless of results. Some of us are just willing to give a coach with a strong track record more than five games to prove he can replicate his success in a new environment, particularly when said environment is viewed by most outside the Baylor bubble as a cesspool.

---

I concur.

---

SicThe12 said:

---

GruntTuff said:

---

Ok MV, you tell all of us, and tell us precisely how you know, exactly how many dollars Art Briles was paid to shut his mouth.

We're waiting.

And, when you finish that task, which will be simple since you seem to know all.....tell us please, please why Baylor paid Art Briles one stinking dollar. Why did Baylor pay him one dollar of Baylor's hard earned money when according to you, it's crystal clear he violated the terms of his contract and Baylor didn't owe him a dime.

---

Anyone who thinks Brilies didn't sign a HEFTY NDA is a ****ing moron and beyond help.

---

Of course he signed an NDA....that's not my issue. Mine is WHY did he sign one? Had he not been paid a dime, there would have been no NDA to sign. My question is, and was, why did Baylor offer him a dime?

And oh, mods, why is this guy allowed to use the word he used shortly after "is a"?

GruntTuff said:

---

SicThe12 said:

---

GruntTuff said:

---

Ok MV, you tell all of us, and tell us precisely how you know, exactly how many dollars Art Briles was paid to shut his mouth.

We're waiting.

And, when you finish that task, which will be simple since you seem to know all.....tell us please, please why Baylor paid Art Briles one stinking dollar. Why did Baylor pay him one dollar of Baylor's hard earned money when according to you, it's crystal clear he violated the terms of his contract and Baylor didn't owe him a dime.

---

Anyone who thinks Brilies didn't sign a HEFTY NDA is a ****ing moron and beyond help.

---

Of course he signed an NDA....that's not my issue. Mine is WHY did he sign one? Had he not been paid a dime, there would have been no NDA to sign. My question is, and was, why did Baylor offer him a dime?

And oh, mods, why is this guy allowed to use the word he used shortly after "is a"?

---

Why did he sign one? Because Baylor decided that he had information that if he shared, would damage the school beyond what has already happened. The supposed "lack of institutional control" didn't stop at the HC or the AD. That's why they offered him a NDA. Also look at you, a grown man, being a tattle tale. Disgusting.

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BUHSFootballFan said:

---

Looks like Gary went a whopping 7-23 at Oregon State.

2015 2-10
2016 4-8
2017 1-5 fired and told to GTFO

---

If Rhule has that same record in 2019 and is getting housed routinely the way Anderson's team was this year, he'll be feeling the exact same pressure. No one I've seen here has suggested that Rhule be given an infinite leash regardless of results. Some of us are just willing to give a coach with a strong track record more than five games to prove he can replicate his success in a new environment, particularly when said environment is viewed by most outside the Baylor bubble as a cesspool.

---

I don't mind giving the guy time (I think he needs at least two seasons), but to come out and lay the eggs he has laid the first half of the season has me not understanding the hope that you and others seem to have in his turning the program around.

---

Temple fans had the exact same concerns after his first season there. They made exponential improvement after that.

My hope rests in a number of factors. I'll share a few below, but it's largely a waste of time. You and others will suggest I'm an excuse-making Pollyanna, neither one of us will change the other's opinion and the discussion will go nowhere productive. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Rhule will be given a minimum of four years, unless the bottom really falls out. I don't believe that will happen. Many here do. Time will prove who is right.

But as for the reasons I'm hopeful, here are a few.

1. Transition's hard. This is true of all change, but it's especially so when going from intentionally simple schemes to ones that are far more difficult to grasp with players who have been conditioned for years for the former. Art Briles was a brilliant offensive mind, and kudos to him for creating an offensive scheme in which speedy, often one-trick players could excel. But his players have almost always struggled with the transition from Briles ball to the more traditional game everyone else is playing. What we're seeing this year is in many ways analogous to the struggles Briles' best players have experienced when graduating from his program to the NFL. Give these guys another offseason to absorb what Rhule and Co. are trying to do, and I think you'll see significant strides made in all phases.

2. Youth's being served. As of last week, we had 25 freshmen and sophomores on our two deep, and a number of others who are getting time as reserves. Experience matters in college football, and a lot of the mistakes that are costing us games right now are being made by guys who are in unfamiliar or uncomfortable positions. We only graduate a couple of impact seniors this spring. In 2018 and beyond, I expect to see the rest of these guys start making the plays they're not making now and stop making the mistakes they are.

3. Recruiting's going well. Rhule put together a very solid class in a very short period of time last winter, and he's backed that up with an even more talented group this year. We've already got kids from the 2017 class contributing this season, and if he can keep this year's class together, we should be infusing some serious talent into the program.

4. Help is coming. In addition to the freshman we're adding to the program, we've got several transfers waiting in the wings at positions of need. In Hurd, Fruhmorgan and Lockhart, you've got three starting caliber players on the scout team right now. And Beard should provide depth at the very least. Put them on this year's team and we're a lot better. There's no reason they shouldn't help a more veteran group next year. And with a full year to evaluate guys, we should be able to add a JUCO player or two this year as well.

5. I believe in Rhule's plan and vision for the program. Many here mock it, and that's fine. But I believe Rhule knows how to build a program, and he didn't forget how to coach on the flight from Philly to Waco. This season has gotten off to a disastrous start, and I understand the frustration with our record. But I don't think anything we've seen to this point or will see the next seven games is fatal to the program. If we start getting blown out routinely, start to lose key players to other programs and see our recruiting take a nosedive, I'll start to share some of the concerns expressed here. But as long as we play hard, remain competitive and get this class signed, I'm willing to write off 2017 as a one-time mulligan and start grading Rhule's product in Year 2.

6. I don't think Rhule's eggs were ever in the 2017 basket. If you listened closely to what he's said upon being hired, it was pretty clear that, rightly or wrongly, he's always viewed this as a long-term building project. I think Rhule was always more concerned about building the foundation for his program than winning games this season. That doesn't excuse this Liberty or UTSA losses, and whether that's the right path or the wise path can be debated, but everything he has said and done to this stage points to that being his focus. Rhule spent months laying out his vision for the program, and it was always couched in a big-picture view. He's interested in building a program, not a team. And he's going to do that at Baylor the same way he did at Temple -- his way.

Whether he's capable of accomplishing that here remains to be seen. He's certainly off to a poor start. But when you're bringing fundamental changes philosophically, as Rhule is in almost every facet of the program, your choices are to scale back what you're doing and meet the players where they are, which would likely provide better results in the short term, or throw everything at your players and make them meet you. Rhule has clearly chosen option B. Again, the wisdom of this can be debated, but if you accept the premise that he's more concerned about where the program is two and three years from now than where it is currently, there's logic in what he's doing.

I think this staff, as with most football coaches, is stubborn and have more confidence in themselves than perhaps they should. They have a plan and a process that has worked for them in the past and that they believe in. And rather than adapting that plan to their ill-fitting talent for what they perceive to be short-term gains, they'd prefer to get the players they've inherited and recruited playing their brand of football, even if it means breaking some of them like wild horses.

That's either a bold perspective or a foolish one. Time will tell. The one thing Rhule has going for him is a long-term contract, so it really doesn't matter what the fans think of him right now. And if he can do here what he did in Temple, where he broke down the program to build it back up, then all will be forgiven in time. If he can't, it never mattered anyway.

---

Too long.. will wait for Cliff Notes.

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

The Baylor Board of Regents offered Patty Crawford $1.5 million for an NDA. She had worked closely with this man:

---

With that creepy pic, she prolly deserved $4MM.

SicThe12 said:

---

GruntTuff said:

---

SicThe12 said:

---

GruntTuff said:

---

Ok MV, you tell all of us, and tell us precisely how you know, exactly how many dollars Art Briles was paid to shut his mouth.

We're waiting.

And, when you finish that task, which will be simple since you seem to know all.....tell us please, please why Baylor paid Art Briles one stinking dollar. Why did Baylor pay him one dollar of Baylor's hard earned money when according to you, it's crystal clear he violated the terms of his contract and Baylor didn't owe him a dime.

---

Anyone who thinks Brilies didn't sign a HEFTY NDA is a ****ing moron and beyond help.

---

Of course he signed an NDA....that's not my issue. Mine is WHY did he sign one? Had he not been paid a dime, there would have been no NDA to sign. My question is, and was, why did Baylor offer him a dime?

And oh, mods, why is this guy allowed to use the word he used shortly after "is a"?

---

Why did he sign one? Because Baylor decided that he had information that if he shared, would damage the school beyond what has already happened. The supposed "lack of institutional control" didn't stop at the HC or the AD. That's why they offered him a NDA. Also look at you, a grown man, being a tattle tale. Disgusting.

---

Why did he sign one? Because the men with access to millions of dollars given to Baylor by others intending for those funds to be used to enhance Baylor decided to throw money at Briles to buy his silence....to cover the mistakes they had made. They didn't think he had earned those funds....they were desperately afraid their malfeasance would come out, so they bought his silence. Disgusting.

And, if you don't want to be called out for using prohibited words on this forum, then don't use them. I notice you edited your post to remove the words. Why? Are you embarrassed for what you said? Why delete them?

Are you mad because he signed it? Or because it was offered to him?

And I edited my post simply because I didn't want the mods to do it for me. You should be the one embarssed running to Mommy to tell on the bad man with a foul mouth.

SicThe12 said:

---

Are you mad because he signed it? Or because it was offered to him?

And I edited my post simply because I didn't want the mods to do it for me. You should be the one embarssed running to Mommy to tell on the bad man with a foul mouth.

---

Because it was offered to him, of course. The people with check writing authority, writing checks on accounts funded by other people, wrote a large check to preserve their back sides. They didn't want the truth about their shortcomings to surface, so they picked a convenient target and paid him for his silence. Cowardly behavior.

I suppose we can dispense with the back and forth about "the bad man with the foul mouth". It's easy to say things on an internet posting board that you'd never say in person. Maybe you were afraid you'd lose your posting rights. If so, then stick to the rules and don't protest when you get caught.

A Big 10 guy? He was born in Salt Lake City, played in Idaho, coached 24 years at schools in Utah, Idaho and Arizona, was DC of Utah's team that finished #2 and beat Bama in the Sugar Bowl......is a Big 10 guy because he coached 2 years there and got homesick and left for the coast? Too funny.

Although, admittedly, not as funny as reference in one of the posts to a "shoe in."

( there are no shoes involved; it's a shoo in)

GruntTuff said:

---

SicThe12 said:

---

Are you mad because he signed it? Or because it was offered to him?

And I edited my post simply because I didn't want the mods to do it for me. You should be the one embarssed running to Mommy to tell on the bad man with a foul mouth.

---

Because it was offered to him, of course. The people with check writing authority, writing checks on accounts funded by other people, wrote a large check to preserve their back sides. They didn't want the truth about their shortcomings to surface, so they picked a convenient target and paid him for his silence. Cowardly behavior.

I suppose we can dispense with the back and forth about "the bad man with the foul mouth". It's easy to say things on an internet posting board that you'd never say in person. Maybe you were afraid you'd lose your posting rights. If so, then stick to the rules and don't protest when you get caught.

---

So we're on the same side here, I don't know what this back and forth was for then.

GruntTuff said:

---

SicThe12 said:

---

Are you mad because he signed it? Or because it was offered to him?

And I edited my post simply because I didn't want the mods to do it for me. You should be the one embarssed running to Mommy to tell on the bad man with a foul mouth.

---

Because it was offered to him, of course. The people with check writing authority, writing checks on accounts funded by other people, wrote a large check to preserve their back sides. They didn't want the truth about their shortcomings to surface, so they picked a convenient target and paid him for his silence. Cowardly behavior.

I suppose we can dispense with the back and forth about "the bad man with the foul mouth". It's easy to say things on an internet posting board that you'd never say in person. Maybe you were afraid you'd lose your posting rights. If so, then stick to the rules and don't protest when you get caught.

---

I see where it was snowing in Angel Fire. Has it reached you guys yet?

It was 65 degrees a few minutes ago but we're supposed to hit 27 tonight.

bear2be2 said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BUHSFootballFan said:

---

Looks like Gary went a whopping 7-23 at Oregon State.

2015 2-10
2016 4-8
2017 1-5 fired and told to GTFO

---

If Rhule has that same record in 2019 and is getting housed routinely the way Anderson's team was this year, he'll be feeling the exact same pressure. No one I've seen here has suggested that Rhule be given an infinite leash regardless of results. Some of us are just willing to give a coach with a strong track record more than five games to prove he can replicate his success in a new environment, particularly when said environment is viewed by most outside the Baylor bubble as a cesspool.

---

I don't mind giving the guy time (I think he needs at least two seasons), but to come out and lay the eggs he has laid the first half of the season has me not understanding the hope that you and others seem to have in his turning the program around.

---

Temple fans had the exact same concerns after his first season there. They made exponential improvement after that.

My hope rests in a number of factors. I'll share a few below, but it's largely a waste of time. You and others will suggest I'm an excuse-making Pollyanna, neither one of us will change the other's opinion and the discussion will go nowhere productive. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Rhule will be given a minimum of four years, unless the bottom really falls out. I don't believe that will happen. Many here do. Time will prove who is right.

But as for the reasons I'm hopeful, here are a few.

1. Transition's hard. This is true of all change, but it's especially so when going from intentionally simple schemes to ones that are far more difficult to grasp with players who have been conditioned for years for the former. Art Briles was a brilliant offensive mind, and kudos to him for creating an offensive scheme in which speedy, often one-trick players could excel. But his players have almost always struggled with the transition from Briles ball to the more traditional game everyone else is playing. What we're seeing this year is in many ways analogous to the struggles Briles' best players have experienced when graduating from his program to the NFL. Give these guys another offseason to absorb what Rhule and Co. are trying to do, and I think you'll see significant strides made in all phases.

2. Youth's being served. As of last week, we had 25 freshmen and sophomores on our two deep, and a number of others who are getting time as reserves. Experience matters in college football, and a lot of the mistakes that are costing us games right now are being made by guys who are in unfamiliar or uncomfortable positions. We only graduate a couple of impact seniors this spring. In 2018 and beyond, I expect to see the rest of these guys start making the plays they're not making now and stop making the mistakes they are.

3. Recruiting's going well. Rhule put together a very solid class in a very short period of time last winter, and he's backed that up with an even more talented group this year. We've already got kids from the 2017 class contributing this season, and if he can keep this year's class together, we should be infusing some serious talent into the program.

4. Help is coming. In addition to the freshman we're adding to the program, we've got several transfers waiting in the wings at positions of need. In Hurd, Fruhmorgan and Lockhart, you've got three starting caliber players on the scout team right now. And Beard should provide depth at the very least. Put them on this year's team and we're a lot better. There's no reason they shouldn't help a more veteran group next year. And with a full year to evaluate guys, we should be able to add a JUCO player or two this year as well.

5. I believe in Rhule's plan and vision for the program. Many here mock it, and that's fine. But I believe Rhule knows how to build a program, and he didn't forget how to coach on the flight from Philly to Waco. This season has gotten off to a disastrous start, and I understand the frustration with our record. But I don't think anything we've seen to this point or will see the next seven games is fatal to the program. If we start getting blown out routinely, start to lose key players to other programs and see our recruiting take a nosedive, I'll start to share some of the concerns expressed here. But as long as we play hard, remain competitive and get this class signed, I'm willing to write off 2017 as a one-time mulligan and start grading Rhule's product in Year 2.

6. I don't think Rhule's eggs were ever in the 2017 basket. If you listened closely to what he's said upon being hired, it was pretty clear that, rightly or wrongly, he's always viewed this as a long-term building project. I think Rhule was always more concerned about building the foundation for his program than winning games this season. That doesn't excuse this Liberty or UTSA losses, and whether that's the right path or the wise path can be debated, but everything he has said and done to this stage points to that being his focus. Rhule spent months laying out his vision for the program, and it was always couched in a big-picture view. He's interested in building a program, not a team. And he's going to do that at Baylor the same way he did at Temple -- his way.

Whether he's capable of accomplishing that here remains to be seen. He's certainly off to a poor start. But when you're bringing fundamental changes philosophically, as Rhule is in almost every facet of the program, your choices are to scale back what you're doing and meet the players where they are, which would likely provide better results in the short term, or throw everything at your players and make them meet you. Rhule has clearly chosen option B. Again, the wisdom of this can be debated, but if you accept the premise that he's more concerned about where the program is two and three years from now than where it is currently, there's logic in what he's doing.

I think this staff, as with most football coaches, is stubborn and have more confidence in themselves than perhaps they should. They have a plan and a process that has worked for them in the past and that they believe in. And rather than adapting that plan to their ill-fitting talent for what they perceive to be short-term gains, they'd prefer to get the players they've inherited and recruited playing their brand of football, even if it means breaking some of them like wild horses.

That's either a bold perspective or a foolish one. Time will tell. The one thing Rhule has going for him is a long-term contract, so it really doesn't matter what the fans think of him right now. And if he can do here what he did in Temple, where he broke down the program to build it back up, then all will be forgiven in time. If he can't, it never mattered anyway.

---

Probably the most well-thought out defense of Rhule I have seen on this board. I appreciate you providing your thoughtful perspective. I agree with a lot of what you've written. I thought Rhule was a good hire, though I had hoped for Monty or another Briles clone to keep the nuclear weapon that was the Briles offense in our arsenal. Others have said Briles was the nuclear weapon, and they may be right, but I still think we should have tried. Short of having a Briles protege, I was happy with Rhule. I have followed him closely over the years, and loved his brand of defense at Temple. That is definitely something we could benefit from. Here is where we diverge.

1) I see the inability to adapt to talent on hand as a major flaw. I didn't realize Rhule couldn't do that (or wouldn't) and that is a concern. If it's the latter, I would feel better, even if I think it's not a wise choice.

2) Running 3 schemes on offense was a big mistake, IMO, and I don't think the power I formation he ran at Temple can be successful in the Big 12. Hell, it's not even effective on the national stage. None of the contenders run it. If that is what Rhule wants to do - bring a Penn State like offense to Baylor - I think we are in big trouble, and I simply cannot "trust that process." Do you feel confident that can win the Big 12, much less a Natty?

---

I don't think Rhule wants to run a power-I. I think he wants to be very multiple from a formation standpoint and be able to run the ball effectively out of all sets, much like what you see in the NFL these days. Unfortunately, we don't have the horses up front to run what he and Nixon want to run right now. And while I'd prefer to see them adjust and go all-in on the offense we saw against OU and in the second half against Kansas State, I'm going to withhold judgment on the merits of this scheme until we get to see it the way it was intended to be run. If our offense is still deficient two years from now, once Rhule has been able to recruit the pieces he wants for it, I'll be right there with you, though.

---

I think therein lies the problem - wanting to use multiple formations and run it effectively out of all sets. As one of the board's resident coaches pointed out, a jack of all trades is a master of none. I'd rather figure out an offensive identity and master it than try to be a jack of all trades, which is what he is doing. I just don't see that being effective.

If you are going to run the HUNH, then run the HUNH. Slowing down the HUNH makes it predictable. He needs to get out of the headset and let Nixon be.

---

It could be Rhule is in the headset of Nixon and Thomas, or it could be the players are still learning. It's probably a bit of both. I too don't think he is trying to just play Power I all the time. It does look like he might be installing a type of multiple style kind of offense. FSU used it to win the NC in 2013. It comes from the pro-style type of offense but borrows from others. It does require big and experienced linemen and a good QB to make it work.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_offense

Here is another interesting article about who and how man recruits are needed to run the different defense and offensive schemes in College:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/college-football/2014/2/14/5354962/college-football-offenses-defenses-recruiting-players

---

Florida State under Fisher is a good example. I'd point to what Washington and Colorado are doing as solid examples as well.

---

Colorado? Really? Have u seen them? I'd use them as an example not to try that. And FSU? Yep, recruit against those programs all day.

GruntTuff said:

---

SicThe12 said:

---

Are you mad because he signed it? Or because it was offered to him?

And I edited my post simply because I didn't want the mods to do it for me. You should be the one embarssed running to Mommy to tell on the bad man with a foul mouth.

---

Because it was offered to him, of course. The people with check writing authority, writing checks on accounts funded by other people, wrote a large check to preserve their back sides. They didn't want the truth about their shortcomings to surface, so they picked a convenient target and paid him for his silence. Cowardly behavior.

I suppose we can dispense with the back and forth about "the bad man with the foul mouth". It's easy to say things on an internet posting board that you'd never say in person. Maybe you were afraid you'd lose your posting rights. If so, then stick to the rules and don't protest when you get caught.

---

Again, there goes that pesky code of conduct vs. P5 football.

GruntTuff said:

---

Ok MV, you tell all of us, and tell us precisely how you know, exactly how many dollars Art Briles was paid to shut his mouth.

We're waiting.

And, when you finish that task, which will be simple since you seem to know all.....tell us please, please why Baylor paid Art Briles one stinking dollar. Why did Baylor pay him one dollar of Baylor's hard earned money when according to you, it's crystal clear he violated the terms of his contract and Baylor didn't owe him a dime.

---

Um, you're the ones pulling 25 million out of your butts, a payoff that would be unprecedented for any coach terminated with cause, so please put up or shut up and quit deflecting.

The burden of proof for a claim is on the one's making it, and what a burden it is for you indeed.

Your own conspiracy claims it's but a bribe to purchase his silence, so what is this maligned man of integrity being paid to keep quiet in your conspiratorial little worlds?

MilliVanilli said:

---

GruntTuff said:

---

Ok MV, you tell all of us, and tell us precisely how you know, exactly how many dollars Art Briles was paid to shut his mouth.

We're waiting.

And, when you finish that task, which will be simple since you seem to know all.....tell us please, please why Baylor paid Art Briles one stinking dollar. Why did Baylor pay him one dollar of Baylor's hard earned money when according to you, it's crystal clear he violated the terms of his contract and Baylor didn't owe him a dime.

---

Um, you're the ones pulling 25 million out of your butts, a payoff that would be unprecedented for any coach terminated with cause, so please put up or shut up and quit deflecting.

The burden of proof for a claim is on the one's making it, and what a burden it is for you indeed.

Your own conspiracy claims it's but a bribe to purchase his silence, so what is this maligned man of integrity being paid to keep quiet in your conspiratorial little worlds?

---

$15 million, not $25 million

Or about what it will take to buy out Rhule

Stranger said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

GruntTuff said:

---

Ok MV, you tell all of us, and tell us precisely how you know, exactly how many dollars Art Briles was paid to shut his mouth.

We're waiting.

And, when you finish that task, which will be simple since you seem to know all.....tell us please, please why Baylor paid Art Briles one stinking dollar. Why did Baylor pay him one dollar of Baylor's hard earned money when according to you, it's crystal clear he violated the terms of his contract and Baylor didn't owe him a dime.

---

Um, you're the ones pulling 25 million out of your butts, a payoff that would be unprecedented for any coach terminated with cause, so please put up or shut up and quit deflecting.

The burden of proof for a claim is on the one's making it, and what a burden it is for you indeed.

Your own conspiracy claims it's but a bribe to purchase his silence, so what is this maligned man of integrity being paid to keep quiet in your conspiratorial little worlds?

---

$15 million, not $25 million

---

Stranger is DaMan! He says $15 million. I say $25 million. Either figure is an outrageous figure for our "Crying out to God" Board of Regents to pay the son of Satan (according to them). Just my opinion.

Robert Wilson said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

SicThe12 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BUHSFootballFan said:

---

Looks like Gary went a whopping 7-23 at Oregon State.

2015 2-10
2016 4-8
2017 1-5 fired and told to GTFO

---

If Rhule has that same record in 2019 and is getting housed routinely the way Anderson's team was this year, he'll be feeling the exact same pressure. No one I've seen here has suggested that Rhule be given an infinite leash regardless of results. Some of us are just willing to give a coach with a strong track record more than five games to prove he can replicate his success in a new environment, particularly when said environment is viewed by most outside the Baylor bubble as a cesspool.

---

2 career winning seasons in the G5 is not a strong track record.

---

Temple has been to five bowl games in its history. Rhule had the team bowl eligible in three of his four seasons as head coach there and led them to a pair of 10-win seasons.

You can hold whatever opinion of Rhule you want based on his first five games here. But any coach that wins 10 games at Temple, much less does it twice, has a strong track record.

---

Baylor is not Temple. 0-5.

---

We may one day be squaring off in the AAC. That would be a bit awkward.

---

That's about Jersey's speed