DC_Rams wrote:TP, calm down brother. We are all entitled to our viewpoints, even if they contradict yours my man. I simply see it different than you.
Everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint. I guess I just don't understand the basis for your viewpoint (not to single you out, there are other people here saying similar things, Rhody72 among them). Maybe you can help me understand by clarifying where you stand on a couple different components of expectations for next year:
1. I think theblueram made the point - what would your expectations be if Hurley was the coach next year? A .500 record?
2. Assuming you think this team wouldn't be a .500 team under Hurley, if the difference between what you would've expected from Dan and what you expect from Cox is significant, how can you support giving the job to Cox?
3. If you say you would have expected a .500 record even if Hurley was the coach, can you identify the A-10 teams that you think would have a better starting five than Dowtin, Russell, Thompson, Harris and Langevine? Should be at least 8 or 9 of them if your expectations are correct.
Last point: typically new coaches get a little while to prove themselves, mostly because the roster building can be a challenge especially when they are taking on a situation in which the last coach was fired because the team was bad. But in a case where the team is not bad and the roster coming back is young but very talented and not without important experience, that same courtesy doesn't make any sense. It seems particularly strange to me that you, as maybe the person most fully endorsing Cox for the job, would take the position that they might be bad for a couple of years when that seems to undercut the best argument in favor of Cox getting the job. Personally, I want Cox to get it because I want to keep building and not start over from scratch. If we are going to start over, then I might be less enthusiastic about Cox.