Hey y'all. Posted a couple of thoughts from games I've been to recently but wanted to expand on thoughts floating around my head.

I worked as an Athletic Trainer for a bit, and landed at a FCS school, James Madison University, in 2004. I had the football team and track team in the spring. The football team had not a winning record in 20+ years. Lots of 6-6 or losing years. The head coach was a west Texas asshole and had been there for at least 5+ years before my first, and only, year. Team was all his recruits, system and everything. The seniors were a lauded class, but each year up to this one, multiple expected contributors got hurt. Torn ACLs, broken legs, etc etc. But their senior year, the whole class was healthy. Probably 13-14 starters were seniors, 6-7 were juniors and a couple of sophomores. Some freshmen played for depth, but that's about it. The coach was getting some serious heat from the AD to keep his job, and he even confided to my boss that he probably would get fired if they didn't have a winning record.

We won the FCS National Championship that year y'all.

Did we change offenses? Change coordinators? Nope. I joked about it with lots of those seniors, but I didn't keep them all healthy. The offensive line had 3 seniors (LT, LG, C). We ran that damn ball. Seniors on the DL, LB, DB, WR, and RB. Was a tough ass team lead by "old dudes" that weren't rattled. Couple of guys from that team played in the NFL.

After reading Godfrey's article about Orgeron, and how he grew as a coach, and RobA's analysis, the my perceptions of Charlie Strong's future just get murkier. It doesn't make for good copy to be gray, but to be black or white.

Pete Carroll bombed at New England and grew into the sideline strutter. Orgeron is the drive thru king for his kids and they love him. RobA's analysis, and BitterWhiteGuy had a great reply in the post, show just how difficult it is to accurately judge coaches. Now I got a D+ in Statistics in college, maaaaaaaaaaybe influenced by the fact that it was a morning class my freshman fall, but I'm pretty confident that statistical profiles under 100 will not be very accurate. So it will take Charlie at least 3 more seasons before we get anything statistically reliable on him. Much less Herman or Harsin.

Will Charlie continue to evolve? He has already shown the propensity for making decisions (our current offense) that reflect a larger acceptance of what needs to be done to survive. That = evolution y'all. You know who hasn't? Muschamp. Big dumb football Muschamp. You know who has? Gary Patterson. Bob Stoops. These are coaches who evolve. Do they have limits? Yes, of course they do. So do you. God help us if we find the person without a ceiling above their head (Belichek, Saban), and when we do we will finally be at peace within our own restless lives. Ya, probably not.

Is Charlie stubborn? Yes. Look at his past hiring decisions based on loyalty. By the way, of all the attributes to disparage, loyalty is pretty low on that pole. But let's hope the stubbornness and evolution can work together. But I bet it can. I've been told that to be an adult, more than having a mortgage and crap, is to be able to hold two incongruent ideas/ideologies/thoughts in one hand and understand them both.

Could Charlie be our coach now and for a long time? Yes. I'm, kind of, patiently waiting for seniors that are right now sophomores. Evolution and such.

Could Charlie be JAG? Yes. Stubbornness, fan base and billionaires that are rife with Violet Beauregardes Veruca Salts.

I believe people can change. But there needs to be an a pressing reason to do so. And even then, many won't change. That is also a crucial part of the evolutionary equation. Not all can evolve.

If our Horns get 8 wins this year, they will get 10 next year. And Charlie will probably be here. Bet they will get to 12 when they have 10+ more senior starters tho. Just my experience...