Page 1 of 2
Larry Coker = a good hire

Posted:
Sun Nov 26, 2006 12:19 am
by ponyfan84
Before you all call me dumb/crazy, think about it...
By accepting the job here, assuming we have the money to hire him, SMU makes NATIONAL HEADLINES. Good press right there....then with the hire, more sports writers track our team to see his progress....more press.
Hes not a bad coach, but hes not a bad recruiter either. He knows how to play. Yea he may have messed up @ the U this year, but C-USA and the ACC are two different levels of competition. Here, the pressure is just to win ball games, not a national title every year. Thats easier for a guy in his shoes, and no power house is going to take him anymore. Plus, when kids see hes coaching here, it will sway them towards our side. With the right coordinators, he can be a major factor to finally turning this program around. And unlike PB, he plays to win and knows how to win, not blow leads. I am sure he can lure away a few big time recruits from Florida too. Just my thoughts. Call me crazy/dumb/smart, whatever you want, but this program is all downhill with our tougher schedule and loss of key players on an already mediocre D for next year.

Posted:
Sun Nov 26, 2006 12:21 am
by smupony94
Ok I will call you crazy
Re: Larry Coker = a good hire

Posted:
Sun Nov 26, 2006 12:27 am
by perunapower
ponyfan84 wrote:Before you all call me dumb/crazy, think about it...
By accepting the job here, assuming we have the money to hire him, SMU makes NATIONAL HEADLINES. Good press right there....then with the hire, more sports writers track our team to see his progress....more press.
Hes not a bad coach, but hes not a bad recruiter either. He knows how to play. Yea he may have messed up @ the U this year, but C-USA and the ACC are two different levels of competition. Here, the pressure is just to win ball games, not a national title every year. Thats easier for a guy in his shoes, and no power house is going to take him anymore. Plus, when kids see hes coaching here, it will sway them towards our side. With the right coordinators, he can be a major factor to finally turning this program around. And unlike PB, he plays to win and knows how to win, not blow leads. I am sure he can lure away a few big time recruits from Florida too. Just my thoughts. Call me crazy/dumb/smart, whatever you want, but this program is all downhill with our tougher schedule and loss of key players on an already mediocre D for next year.
You're an idiot. He could not control his team. They shot other people, they got shot by other people, and brawled like thugs against FIU. I refuse for that idiot to become coach here. SMU will not become the next Thug U. There are coaches out there who are competent and classy. Coker is not one of them.

Posted:
Sun Nov 26, 2006 12:33 am
by jkflamebo
u just dethroned the idiot

Posted:
Sun Nov 26, 2006 12:48 am
by dandyfan
now that's pretty funny stuff.
J-Will

Posted:
Sun Nov 26, 2006 12:55 am
by bigdaddy08091
All of you, go to bed please. This is [deleted] stupid. Coker would not come to SMU if you offered him the President job. Where do you people live so I can call the folks in Roswell, NM. You must be from another planet.

Posted:
Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:02 am
by craigjames4ever
There are only 75 other programs Coker would go to before SMU. Insanity reigns supreme with some people.
Re: Larry Coker = a good hire

Posted:
Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:59 am
by MustangLaxer
perunapower wrote:ponyfan84 wrote:Before you all call me dumb/crazy, think about it...
By accepting the job here, assuming we have the money to hire him, SMU makes NATIONAL HEADLINES. Good press right there....then with the hire, more sports writers track our team to see his progress....more press.
Hes not a bad coach, but hes not a bad recruiter either. He knows how to play. Yea he may have messed up @ the U this year, but C-USA and the ACC are two different levels of competition. Here, the pressure is just to win ball games, not a national title every year. Thats easier for a guy in his shoes, and no power house is going to take him anymore. Plus, when kids see hes coaching here, it will sway them towards our side. With the right coordinators, he can be a major factor to finally turning this program around. And unlike PB, he plays to win and knows how to win, not blow leads. I am sure he can lure away a few big time recruits from Florida too. Just my thoughts. Call me crazy/dumb/smart, whatever you want, but this program is all downhill with our tougher schedule and loss of key players on an already mediocre D for next year.
You're an idiot. He could not control his team. They shot other people, they got shot by other people, and brawled like thugs against FIU. I refuse for that idiot to become coach here. SMU will not become the next Thug U. There are coaches out there who are competent and classy. Coker is not one of them.
I dont think any coach could of control the players at the U...that isn't the problem. Coker could take this job, but I wouldn't see it as something he would do for more than 3-4 years if that. Tough to recruit when he wouldn't be solidly on board. Move on...
Re: J-Will

Posted:
Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:26 am
by Col. Nathan R. Jessep
bigdaddy08091 wrote:...
Where do you people live so I can call the folks in Roswell, NM. You must be from another planet...
--- BigMomma, you've been ranting & raving all nite, but that was funny.
Now, put down the Bourbon, step away from the Bourbon...

Posted:
Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:44 am
by J.T.supporta
Coker would be a great hire but he said he pasted up on better jobs just to stay at the U. Coker will most likely coach at NCST next year and take ALL is frustration out on the U any time those two teams clash.
Watch him go to NCST just because of that reason.
I'd rather hire Chuck Amato since it islikely that NCST will cut him by the end of the year. probably this coming week.
Re: Larry Coker = a good hire

Posted:
Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:44 am
by PK
MustangLaxer wrote:I dont think any coach could of control the players at the U...that isn't the problem. Coker could take this job, but I wouldn't see it as something he would do for more than 3-4 years if that. Tough to recruit when he wouldn't be solidly on board. Move on...
Just who in the hell do you think recruited those players at the U...and then couldn't control them? Not to worry, those types of players would never make it into SMU to begin with...and before you say that is why we don't win...it seems those thugs didn't do too well this year either.


Posted:
Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:31 am
by CalallenStang
1) He cannot control his team
2) He could not sustain Miami's status as a national title contender (after winning one his first year after taking over for Butch Davis)
3) We don't know if he's a good recruiter, considering his classes at Miami were skewed by the fact that it's Miami.
Three strikes...Speculation out!

Posted:
Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:49 am
by SCHOOPS
We can't afford him. He was making 2 million a year at Miami.
Re: Larry Coker = a good hire

Posted:
Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:02 pm
by MustangLaxer
PK wrote:MustangLaxer wrote:I dont think any coach could of control the players at the U...that isn't the problem. Coker could take this job, but I wouldn't see it as something he would do for more than 3-4 years if that. Tough to recruit when he wouldn't be solidly on board. Move on...
Just who in the hell do you think recruited those players at the U...and then couldn't control them? Not to worry, those types of players would never make it into SMU to begin with...and before you say that is why we don't win...it seems those thugs didn't do too well this year either.

Thats what I'm saying...Coker wouldn't have those issues here. Since when has anyone from SMU tried to act like a thug...halloween maybe...get real, the dude can coach and everyone learns from their mistakes. You cannot compare Miami players to SMU players. No matter the coach SMU players will be smarter and more successful whihle the U will produce guys with police records or NFL contracts

Posted:
Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:30 pm
by MrMustang1965
smupony94 wrote:Ok I will call you crazy
...and I'll call you dumb (84, not 94).
