oldschool2

Hear me out.. the Spread-T. In all seriousness.. I would think that most coaches prefer one thing or another but ultimately coach to what their kids can do best.

Back to La Porte.

I don't know... no state championships as a head coach? Hmm.. They really should've called Art Briles. Now they'll never win it all.

I'm intrigued. Also, I would love to see the practice schedules.

He's taking the this job and the Tarkington job? That's pretty impressive.

Great career. No state titles? Sorry.. he's no elite coach. That's what I'm told anyway.

What he's probably laughing at is the perception that Silsbee fans just seem to think that Silsbee kids are shafted in every single accolade in the history of sport. Always should've had more on this team or more for that team. They can't fill every award with solely Silsbee kids. Calm down.. the kid's a sophomore? He'll have his time. I swear you guys are like the HD fans of individual awards.

Now we're going to discuss the differences between debating and arguing? Unbelievable.. By the way, I can assure you that I'm not taking anything personal. I'm not the one using exclamation points in my posts.. as if your emotion will make your point stronger. It won't. You should be happy.. I've long since become bored with this debate/argument (whatever you wanna call it). You think that a coach is only elite because of championships. I don't. You think an elite coach (according to your definition) can win anywhere and with anyone. I don't. Signing out of this circus.

You're actually proving my point... that because of fluctuating talent in every opponent (even one's own school), due to graduations, injuries, etc. can and will impact the results of a season. How many coaches out there could have had a state championship if not for losing kids for whatever reason and/or reclassification? Or visa versa. Tell the guy I'm arguing with that there are other factors at play.. other than who the coach is.

No.. the debate is whether or not an "elite coach" can make a school like Tarkington (with zero relative success in their past) into an elite program. Then the debate turned into what makes a coach an elite coach. Your opinion, as stated multiple times, is that having won a state title or more makes you an elite coach. It is argued by me.. and everyone else in this thread.. that it takes much more than just being a good coach to win a state title. It is also argued that not Art Briles.. nor Scott Surrat.. nor Buchanan.. nor Tom Westerberg could go to Tarkington and win a state title in the relative future without a substantial influx of above average ability. I'd bet every dollar I have that they couldn't go there at the same time and win it all within 6 years with the kids Tarkington ISD has right now. Will they get tremendously better? No question.. Will they improve? Without a doubt? But I'll bet on Tarkington's football history over those coaches' histories every time. It makes no difference to me what your opinion is regarding that. If a person believes that ANY coach can go to ANY school with ANY level of talent and win a state championship then they're an idiot. If you fall into that category.. it is what it is. Now for the Westerberg comment. He won 3 consecutive state titles with the most prolific high school quarterback that the state of Texas has ever had, along with countless other very highly skilled football players, plus the best overall support staff that money could buy (at the high school level), plus arguably one of the biggest pools of players to choose from in the country, and finally the nicest high school facilities in the state of Texas (at that time). Someone commented above that there were around 50 D1 football players from Allen during his coaching tenure.. Know what? Maybe he should've won a state championship every year that he was there. And the fact that he didn't .. might mean that he's not as good a coach as you're arguing. If it was only about coaching.. then the same exact coach would have the same exact results every year. Every single year.

People believing that a state championship doesn't make you a good coach doesn't require expertise. It requires common sense.

When a head coach goes 8-2 one year.. graduates 80% of the team but retains the exact same coaching staff.. then goes 2-8 the next year, is it the coach's fault? Because that actually happens all the time. If a coach goes 8-2 one year.. the team goes up in classification but retains the same coaching staff and most of the players.. then goes 2-8 the next year, is it the coach's fault? Because that also happens all the time. By the way.. if a coach has a team with limited talent but improves speed, strength, and work ethic of each player.. it still may have not been enough improvement to win more games.

I can't believe that nobody's disgruntled about a Silsbee player that didn't make the list. Never mind... just scrolled up.

I already told you.. it's the lack of faith I have in what Tarkington has had on the field over what Briles would be able to do. I also told you.. Stephenville won AT LEAST 8 games in a season... ten different seasons before Briles took the job. Tarkington has never won more than 7 games in a season. Not even once. It takes an extreme level of ignorance to believe that coaches can just win championships no matter the level of talent they have to work with. You, my guy, are displaying that level of ignorance. I'm also waiting on a response about my question concerning Westerberg. Did he win the state championships because of his ability to coach?.. or because Kyler Murray was taking snaps? Or a combination of the two?.. which is what literally everyone in this conversation thinks except you. My opinion.. Murray had more to do with Westerberg's titles than Westerberg did. But I believe players > coaches.. Countless examples of subpar coaches winning championships with great players but very few (if any) great coaches winning championships with subpar players. I swear.. I'm halfway starting to believe that you believe that Art Briles could win a state championship with a junior high team.

I would hire Briles.. because Briles is still coaching. However, I would in zero way expect for him to win more than one playoff game unless he's bringing kids with him. I most definitely would not expect for him to win a state championship..because I'm not an idiot. And if my job depended on the success of the next football coach at Tarkington, I'd be ready to find a new job after my hire didn't meet whoever's criteria of whatever is deemed as success. Unless they have some realistic goals for a school that has won less than 5 playoff games (TOTAL) in it's history.

Are you going to reply to my earlier comment?.. or just ignore it because it makes you argument dumb? By the way.. nobody is saying that coaching doesn't matter. But even "elite coaches" as you say have to have some talent. They have to have big time talent to win titles (future college athletes) and you're comparing the talent at Tarkington to that of.. let's see.. Aledo, Carthage, Stephenville, Southlake Carrol, Austin Westlake.. um.. are you seriously that clueless? Not a single coach to have ever won a state championship is going to Tarkington High School and winning a state championship in the relative future without some serious transfers.

Aledo previously had some years with the 2nd leading Texas rusher in the history of Texas High School football. Carthage previously went through some years with a kid that went on to start at UT. Are you saying that their coaches weren't more fortunate at Aledo and Carthage than they would've been at Tarkington? Let's throw Westerberg in the conversation. Elite coach?.. or fortunate to have the greatest high school quarterback to ever take a snap. I mean.. he won as many titles at Allen as Briles did at Stephenville. How did he do at Barbers Hill, by the way? I forget.

Stephenville won at least 8 games in a season.. 10 times before Briles got there. Tarkington has won 8 games in a season.. NEVER. Do you know how many 10 win seasons that Stepheville has had since Briles left? A bunch. Including 2 more state titles. They don't have the same level of players. You can be mad about that if you want.. still doesn't change anything.

Boy do I wish that Art Briles would take the Tarkington job... but I know that they don't have enough money in the entire school district to persuade him. Not that it would matter if they did.

Maybe their impressed by the resume. Maybe their impressed by the professionalism in the interview. Maybe it's ignorance. Maybe... who knows. They'll either get someone that impresses with a "new mentality" or hire someone that fits the "level of comfort for our community" situation. Either way.. there's usually never a right answer.

Greatest coach to have ever lived.

I know Coach Mac. Super guy and good coach. Congrats to him. Yes.. his previous job will get a TON of interest. Huffman is a good school and has good facilities.

If my job was to pick the next head coach at Tarkington and my job depended on it... and their criteria was to win a state championship as soon as possible, I'd probably have a realistic discussion with them about where their expectations need to be. Look.. it's obvious that you have some kind of thing for Briles. I agree that he's a great coach.. arguably deserving credit for bringing the spread offense to high school football. I will have to remind you that Hamlin did have some good seasons before he got there and also after he left. Which is how he got the Georgetown job (not a good two year stint). Then the Stephenville job. Stephenville has won two state championships long after he's been gone. Southlake Carrol was winning state championships before Dodge took over.. and Austin Westlake? I notice you didn't mention that he got fired from UNT and then went 8-12 over two seasons at Marble Falls before taking the WL job. That's 5 seasons of ..according to your standards ..pretty bad coaching. Point being.. let's assume that Tarkington even had a prayer of landing an established, big name coach. Which.. they don't. Anyway. Assume they did. What historical success would even make you think that a big name coach would make a difference? Here's some examples of schools that will draw big names due to their history of success and potential for even more: Mart, Canadian, Cameron Yoe, Newton, East Bernard, Celina, Pilot Point, Gilmer, Carthage, West Orange Stark, Stephenville, Aledo, Highland Park, Katy, Southlake Carrol, Lake Travis, Westlake, North Shore, Allen... and others. But Tarkington IS NOT on the list. I'm talking about schools with at least a history of deep runs sometimes.. no matter who the coach is. I know a lot of those schools are recent guests at the state championship game but SEVERAL of them have been there before. How many playoff games has Tarkington won in their history? You think that one coach can go there and win 6 playoff games in a row.. in the same year within a 5 year window? Come on... These coaching names that you're throwing around landed jobs of schools that were at least competitive before going there. Were the coaches good enough to bring it all the way? Possibly the reason. But that's not the case with Tarkington. Not right now and not yet. Probably not ever.

To clarify.. when a coach wins a title one year, but not the next.. it’s because it was against better coaches? I’m really trying to figure out your system of what makes a good coach. It’s difficult. Or.. as with every year.. teams lose seniors. Does that factor? Or is it that they became a worse coach or played better coaches? Or both? By the way.. I never got an answer about Phil Danaher. Elite coach or not?

Turf is also good for weather.. which benefits soccer also. With the amount of rainfall this part of the state gets on a yearly basis, it's sickening the amount of preparation time on the actual playing surface that's lost. Even soccer coaches would probably agree that it's better to practice/play on a turf field than not get to out of fear of tearing up the grass surface after inclement weather.