Cajuns Raging

[Turbine]

At this level effort should not even be a question,

"No question"

[Just1More]

I guess this is a "new coach" thread... so I'll add my 2 cents. First, quit quibbling over things that a little terminology change would rectify. No, a "new" coach won't do jack squat. A "better" coach... for the times we are in... would be expected to both increase fan and area football spectator interest and attendance... AND elevate the probability of winning more matchups... for many reasons.

Bustle has done us a good job. He managed to erase the Baldwin years and that was no simple task. But, we are stuck in a rut. We are in midseason and I am also quite sure we all still hold out hope that we will win the SBC championship and/or make it to a bowl. However, considering the situation at UL... new RCAF... some new facilities existing or in the works... new president... soon to be new AD... we also need an upgrade at the football helm... the bus driver for all other sports... and the best or worst marketing component of a southern public university.

I am not like others that actually think Bustle isn't a solid head coach. I think he is. His greatest drawback is not knowing when he is outmatched. We are going to be outmatched 60% of our games. You do not keep going back to the well with a smaller bucket and expect to out haul a guy with a larger bucket. Bustle's only coaching failure in my mind is not realizing he isn't holding an equivalent or bigger bucket against the balance of opponents. There are ways to mitigate a talent mismatch. He still doesn't believe he has one.

Even bigger than that... Bustle is no longer fresh and he is tagged with a 6 win peak performance capability at UL. THAT alone is going to require we dismiss him. I would rather we stop all of the other attacks... be thankful for what he's done... and focus on what will truly be an improvement (not just a "change").

Now, if Bustle eclipses 6 wins this year... he is no longer stale and has achieved a new peak. If not... he has to go. Let's simply leave it at that. To me, it isn't debatable. He came here with big boy coaching pants on and he will leave with big boy coaching pants. Please don't get caught up in the emotion of competition and requirement of winners and losers.

[ManAboutTown]

I guess this is a "new coach" thread... so I'll add my 2 cents. First, quit quibbling over things that a little terminology change would rectify. No, a "new" coach won't do jack squat. A "better" coach... for the times we are in... would be expected to both increase fan and area football spectator interest and attendance... AND elevate the probability of winning more matchups... for many reasons.

Bustle has done us a good job. He managed to erase the Baldwin years and that was no simple task. But, we are stuck in a rut. We are in midseason and I am also quite sure we all still hold out hope that we will win the SBC championship and/or make it to a bowl. However, considering the situation at UL... new RCAF... some new facilities existing or in the works... new president... soon to be new AD... we also need an upgrade at the football helm... the bus driver for all other sports... and the best or worst marketing component of a southern public university.

I am not like others that actually think Bustle isn't a solid head coach. I think he is. His greatest drawback is not knowing when he is outmatched. We are going to be outmatched 60% of our games. You do not keep going back to the well with a smaller bucket and expect to out haul a guy with a larger bucket. Bustle's only coaching failure in my mind is not realizing he isn't holding an equivalent or bigger bucket against the balance of opponents. There are ways to mitigate a talent mismatch. He still doesn't believe he has one.

Even bigger than that... Bustle is no longer fresh and he is tagged with a 6 win peak performance capability at UL. THAT alone is going to require we dismiss him. I would rather we stop all of the other attacks... be thankful for what he's done... and focus on what will truly be an improvement (not just a "change").

Now, if Bustle eclipses 6 wins this year... he is no longer stale and has achieved a new peak. If not... he has to go. Let's simply leave it at that. To me, it isn't debatable. He came here with big boy coaching pants on and he will leave with big boy coaching pants. Please don't get caught up in the emotion of competition and requirement of winners and losers.

Perfectly said. My thoughts exactly. Calling the guy an idiot, or suggesting that he's incompetent is idiotic on itself. He did a tremendous job getting us to where we are, and we should all recognize that. Having said that, in order to take the next step, we have to move on from Bustle. It's the simple nature of progression. We were not appealing to a coach worth the money we'll pay the next guy after Jerry Baldwin. Now we are, thanks to Bustle and the admin's somewhat commitment to football the last few years. I recognize what the guy has done, I'm appreciative, but inorder to CONTINUE progressing, the next step must and I'm confident will be taken.

igeaux.mobi

[ULGrad@HOU]

_ I guess this is a "new coach" thread... so I'll add my 2 cents. First, quit quibbling over things that a little terminology change would rectify. No, a "new" coach won't do jack squat. A "better" coach... for the times we are in... would be expected to both increase fan and area football spectator interest and attendance... AND elevate the probability of winning more matchups... for many reasons.

Bustle has done us a good job. He managed to erase the Baldwin years and that was no simple task. But, we are stuck in a rut. We are in midseason and I am also quite sure we all still hold out hope that we will win the SBC championship and/or make it to a bowl. However, considering the situation at UL... new RCAF... some new facilities existing or in the works... new president... soon to be new AD... we also need an upgrade at the football helm... the bus driver for all other sports... and the best or worst marketing component of a southern public university.

I am not like others that actually think Bustle isn't a solid head coach. I think he is. His greatest drawback is not knowing when he is outmatched. We are going to be outmatched 60% of our games. You do not keep going back to the well with a smaller bucket and expect to out haul a guy with a larger bucket. Bustle's only coaching failure in my mind is not realizing he isn't holding an equivalent or bigger bucket against the balance of opponents. There are ways to mitigate a talent mismatch. He still doesn't believe he has one.

Even bigger than that... Bustle is no longer fresh and he is tagged with a 6 win peak performance capability at UL. THAT alone is going to require we dismiss him. I would rather we stop all of the other attacks... be thankful for what he's done... and focus on what will truly be an improvement (not just a "change").

Now, if Bustle eclipses 6 wins this year... he is no longer stale and has achieved a new peak. If not... he has to go. Let's simply leave it at that. To me, it isn't debatable. He came here with big boy coaching pants on and he will leave with big boy coaching pants. Please don't get caught up in the emotion of competition and requirement of winners and losers. _

J1M, I agree with much of what you have stated my friend as I usually do. The only part I respectfully disagree with is "his greatest drawback being his ability to recognize we are outmatched". I think he knows, He just has limited ways of dealing with it.

I too think he has raised the bar, from laying on the ground to about shin level, and I thank him for being a solid, ethical coach for our program. This year, is looking a whole lot like the others. Inconsistent. We are sliding towards the end of the Bustle Book at UL. He is writing his last chapter. I'm confident that he and the team won't give up, they have shown in all his years to be fighters. We just have such a tough time matching up with just about anybody, and we shouldn't at this stage of the Bustle era. It would be great surprise, but beating Troy would sure be nice.

[IHateLaState]

_
I'm confident that he and the team won't give up, they have shown in all his years to be fighters. We just have such a tough time matching up with just about anybody, and we shouldn't at this stage of the Bustle era. It would be great surprise, but beating Troy would sure be nice. _

As a consistent proponent of a change, I would agree with this. I believe that RB gets his team to keep fighting but we should not be looking for "moral" victories against ANY SBC team at this stage. I think he has brought us as far as he can and my constant drum beat for change is not meant to diminish what he has done. I just think it is time for this program to step up and become a force in the SBC on a consistent basis. A force means winning consistently and being champions of the Conference on a routine basis

[HOUCajun]

What if he goes 7-5 this year?

As a consistent proponent of a change, I would agree with this. I believe that RB gets his team to keep fighting but we should not be looking for "moral" victories against ANY SBC team at this stage. I think he has brought us as far as he can and my constant drum beat for change is not meant to diminish what he has done. I just think it is time for this program to step up and become a force in the SBC on a consistent basis. A force means winning consistently and being champions of the Conference on a routine basis

igeaux.mobi

[Just1More]

_ J1M, I agree with much of what you have stated my friend as I usually do. The only part I respectfully disagree with is "his greatest drawback being his ability to recognize we are outmatched". I think he knows, He just has limited ways of dealing with it.

I agree with you on the team not giving up. That is one of Bustle's strengths over the years. He keeps his teams united, regardless.

On the disagreement with me... when you say "I think he knows... he just has limited ways of dealing with it". I can't tell what a man thinks... I go strictly by what I observe him do. You may be right that "he knows" he's limited and what those limits are... but he has not resolved exceeding those limits in 9 years. If I believed that a UL football coach absolutely cannot break our prescribed limits, I would not follow UL football.

Personally, when you are up against a tough situation, recruiting-wise... no solo conference championships and no bowls is a "tough situation"... you have to stop going the route of everyone else. You have to pick your poison and take the risks of having done so.

My preference for UL would have been a systematic move toward a gunslinger passing attack... kind of like Mike Leach did to bring Texas Tech into the winning circle against greater systems. However, with the offense we chose... zone-read option... I would not have had a problem if Bustle stuck to strictly recruiting super athletic running QBs (first and highest regarded skill asset) and worked them into being decent short to medium range passers. Our best Bustle year IMO, talentwise, was MD/Fenroy/Chery's senior year. Having Mike get hobbled and not have a Mike look-a-like athletically to step in... was our downfall.

Every guy in the 1, 2, 3 depth chart should practically look like a clone of one another. I see us picking up the best possible recruits... with assorted skills... and then having to tailor our offense toward strengths and away from weaknesses.

UL is in a situation that we have to upset programs on our schedule, including in our conference, in order to succeed. When you have an upset moniker on your letterhead... that says to the head coach... "you must do things differently... take more risks". That is not what I have seen a lot of in the Bustle years. I think we recruit and play "like everyone else"... and if we do... we will never get over the hump and be a special program.

I think Stokely was a special coach. Despite having been with Clemson in their national championship and having played QB at LSU, and his personal demons, he managed to see what it would take to reach beyond our limits. He recruited some serious talent and knew how to use them. We may have only upset A&M, but we had upset games down to the wire all of those years. That is what has to happen and more at UL. That is the mission of the UL head football coach. If we were dangerous to top 25 teams... like Troy is... we would win our conference and have bowl stories to talk about. UL has to be dangerous. The next coach... whoever he may be... has to have the title "Coach Dangerous"... or I don't want him.

[CajunRebel]

I'm sorry but stokley's teams really weren't any better than Bustle's. Stokley usually played 2-3 1-AA schools every year. Bustle usually plays 2-3 BCS schools every year. Those three games were the difference between stokley's winning records and bustle's losing records.


igeaux.mobi

[Just1More]

_ I'm sorry but stokley's teams really weren't any better than Bustle's. Stokley usually played 2-3 1-AA schools every year. Bustle usually plays 2-3 BCS schools every year. Those three games were the difference between stokley's winning records and bustle's losing records.


igeaux.mobi _

You are flat out wrong. You not only need to go back and look at the schedules, you need to know a little bit about the games we played. We regularly beat WAC and CUSA teams that we'd find near impossible to defeat today. And we took OSU (against Barry Sanders and Thurman Thomas), Arkansas, Auburn and Alabama down for down in great games. We played just as many "BCS programs". Bustle's 6 win seasons are with an FCS win. He has also had the luxury of 12 game seasons to help get to 50%.

And... half the "1AA schools" we played in the Stokley years comprise the SBC now. I'm not down on Bustle... except for under-estimating what UL has to do to win and being too conservative. But, I am not backing down from what I personally saw Coach Stokely do. We had a few bad years, but that guy was always preparing his teams to kill a giant. We reached into being a top 40 team with votes in the top 25 back then. That has not happened under Bustle.