oldschool2

That's not a new concept.  If we're being honest, who would blame either of them?  Nobody. 
Matter of fact.. it's happened at Hardin before.  

A good guess would be that they missed the playoffs last year.  
05/06  5-4
06/07  4-7
07/08  4-6
08/09  2-6
09/10  3-7
10/11  5-6
11/12  8-2
12/13  3-7
13/14  3-7
14/15  2-8
15/16  4-7
16/17  10-3
17/18  8-3
18/19  7-5
19/20  4-6
20/21  4-5
21/22  4-6
They aren't world beaters to begin with.. seems based on these records dating back to 05 that they're pretty mediocre.  In fact.. of the 4 above average seasons they had in that timeframe, 3 of them were under Taylor.  Coaches are only as good as their players. 

50% wont cut it.  It's state championship or bust.. according to some.  I also hear there's a required timeline. 

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. 

A coach told me one time that he'd rather get fired for cheating than fired for losing. 

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.

Greatest coach to have ever lived.

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 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. 

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.  

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. 

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. 

Greatest coach to have ever lived.