Louisville

[Cro-Magnon App]

The average fan, even the above average fan, has little clue how to coach or run a football team. That's why they are called "arm chair coaches." And to be fair, no football coach could run your job as well as you do, whether it be computer science, farming, flying a plane, fixing an engine, etc.. These analysts are often times so off base it's laughable. I'd like to see them coach a team. Corso did and he was terrible. I sometimes question what goes on out there but not being in the program, I try not to criticize too much. It's a tough job.

[appstatealum]

I’m not sure we would have beaten UNC or USC if Satt had been here still

Why...this is the team HE built.
I could have done what Drink did.

Yeah but Satt was not as strong of an in game coach. Everyone fantasizes the past, and people are bitter about Drink. But Drink was better than Satt.

I kind of agree with you. Satt and Drink were similar in the way they would get a little intimidated or nervous and go super conservative. The difference was Drink was better at clock management and it proved to work out for him. Many times this year, Drink doubted his game plan and went into a shell. We saw Satt do that in big games, primarily the P5s with Lamb under center. As much as we want to prop Lamb up, and he earned it for G5 level, Satt knew Lambs limitations when we played P5s and if his initial game plan wasn't working, he went into a shell too. Satt believed in our team, but only to a degree. That's why he left and thought we had reached our potential. He feels like he is on more of an even level now with P5 talent, and his style should lead to some successful seasons with Louisville. I'd be shocked if he made a playoff, but I could see him being ranked decently.

[citroknight]

I’m not sure we would have beaten UNC or USC if Satt had been here still

Why...this is the team HE built.
I could have done what Drink did.

Yeah but Satt was not as strong of an in game coach. Everyone fantasizes the past, and people are bitter about Drink. But Drink was better than Satt.

I think once a coach or player ends his time with a team and passes into the team's lore, they can do no wrong. Especially if they ended their run on a high note. Any current player or coach won't get a fair shake against those that have already become legends.

[WASU 93]

Too many close wins this year for me to say that we would destroy anyone. However, I honestly believe that we could compete with most Bowl teams and probably beat most 6/7 win teams. Watching the Belk Bowl and really wish we could have played Va Tech!!!

A lot of people say too many close wins. We set a Sun Belt record for Points Scored and TD’s and were Top 30 nationally in Points Allowed and Total Defense.

[Yosef84]

Drink and Satt were both excellent coaches. Personally, I give the edge to Satterfield as a head coach. Drink was probably the better OC, but him doing dual duty tempered the benefit we got from that. I think Drink actually tended to go conservative EARLIER than Satterfield did and with a smaller lead. It never caught us, but we caught some really big breaks that made him look good, like going for it on 4th down and Hennigan barely picking up the yards (being pushed by team mates). If the refs had blown that played dead (which could have happened), we would have given the ball back to UL with only a 3 point lead and time on the clock. Against UNC and SC both, the D had to make a stand at the end to prevent a score.

I'm not bashing Drink, but we could have pulled away from all three of those teams if he had shown some of that "offensive genius" in the second halves of those games. Yes, that's just an opinion and I'll happily take the wins that we got!

I do feel that the GS loss was directly attributable to Drink's desire to keep emotions on an even keel. He didn't understand the nature of this rivalry game and him changing "hate week" to "Love week" (playing for the love of your brothers/team mates) in dealing with the team was a mistake. We lost in 2018 because of injuries and penalties that resulted from guys trying to over compensate. We lost 2019 because we didn't match the intensity of GS. I don't think either Satt nor Clark would have lost that game.

Like all the other posts on this board...just one man's opinion.

[NewApp]

Yeah I think it's a video game.....
Like it or not Scott Satterfield and his coaching staff built our FBS program. He recruited the players we watched. Thank you Demetrius Taylor. I believe if Scott where here we would have still beaten UNC. Scott didn't miss the field goal against Wake and he didn't recover a freak fumble against Tennessee but he sure made us competitive. IMO...Drink added very little to this team...he didbt have to. Most people on this board could have coached these wins. Let's see what sucess he has with Missouri.....5 years...no more and he's gone.

I want some of what you're smoking or drinking.

[DoesntEvenGoHere]

I’m not sure we would have beaten UNC or USC if Satt had been here still

Why...this is the team HE built.
I could have done what Drink did.

You could have come in and installed your own offense and then called plays to win 12 games? Why are you not coaching football somewhere?

With Satterfield, we probably would have gone undefeated. I don't think we would have lost to Georgia Southern. But don't diss what Drinkwitz did for any reason. Satterfield handed him the keys to a Porsche and Drinkwitz didn't wreck it. In fact he drove it better than Satterfield ever did here at App. Love Satterfield too, but it's true. Drinkwitz needs to be remembered in a positive manner when it comes to his coaching abilities. You want to think he's a POS for leaving or whatever grudge you want to hold, fine. That's personal. But he did a GREAT job of replacing basically an entire staff & keeping the foot on the gas and not letting this program slip after losing one of it's greatest coaches in program history.

[AppStFan1]

Drink and Satt were both excellent coaches. Personally, I give the edge to Satterfield as a head coach. Drink was probably the better OC, but him doing dual duty tempered the benefit we got from that. I think Drink actually tended to go conservative EARLIER than Satterfield did and with a smaller lead. It never caught us, but we caught some really big breaks that made him look good, like going for it on 4th down and Hennigan barely picking up the yards (being pushed by team mates). If the refs had blown that played dead (which could have happened), we would have given the ball back to UL with only a 3 point lead and time on the clock. Against UNC and SC both, the D had to make a stand at the end to prevent a score.

I'm not bashing Drink, but we could have pulled away from all three of those teams if he had shown some of that "offensive genius" in the second halves of those games. Yes, that's just an opinion and I'll happily take the wins that we got!

I do feel that the GS loss was directly attributable to Drink's desire to keep emotions on an even keel. He didn't understand the nature of this rivalry game and him changing "hate week" to "Love week" (playing for the love of your brothers/team mates) in dealing with the team was a mistake. We lost in 2018 because of injuries and penalties that resulted from guys trying to over compensate. We lost 2019 because we didn't match the intensity of GS. I don't think either Satt nor Clark would have lost that game.

Like all the other posts on this board...just one man's opinion.

Agreed here. That love week thing was so stupid. I think Satt and Clark definitely win that game. I also think Satt likely would have lost to UNC. He had not shown he could win a close game with a P5 yet. Glad we got the wins and I'll take 13-1. I felt Satt would have gone 12-2 or 13-1 with this team.

[Yosef84]

Drink and Satt were both excellent coaches. Personally, I give the edge to Satterfield as a head coach. Drink was probably the better OC, but him doing dual duty tempered the benefit we got from that. I think Drink actually tended to go conservative EARLIER than Satterfield did and with a smaller lead. It never caught us, but we caught some really big breaks that made him look good, like going for it on 4th down and Hennigan barely picking up the yards (being pushed by team mates). If the refs had blown that played dead (which could have happened), we would have given the ball back to UL with only a 3 point lead and time on the clock. Against UNC and SC both, the D had to make a stand at the end to prevent a score.

I'm not bashing Drink, but we could have pulled away from all three of those teams if he had shown some of that "offensive genius" in the second halves of those games. Yes, that's just an opinion and I'll happily take the wins that we got!

I do feel that the GS loss was directly attributable to Drink's desire to keep emotions on an even keel. He didn't understand the nature of this rivalry game and him changing "hate week" to "Love week" (playing for the love of your brothers/team mates) in dealing with the team was a mistake. We lost in 2018 because of injuries and penalties that resulted from guys trying to over compensate. We lost 2019 because we didn't match the intensity of GS. I don't think either Satt nor Clark would have lost that game.

Like all the other posts on this board...just one man's opinion.

Agreed here. That love week thing was so stupid. I think Satt and Clark definitely win that game. I also think Satt likely would have lost to UNC. He had not shown he could win a close game with a P5 yet. Glad we got the wins and I'll take 13-1. I felt Satt would have gone 12-2 or 13-1 with this team.

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding Satt having not proved he could win. I get the history and frustration that drives that opinion, but the losses to Wake, Penn and Tennessee were not coaching issues. Maybe at Wake he should have changed kickers earlier than he did, but we wouldn't have been counting on a field goal if our punt coverage team hadn't lined up off sides (a guy who wasn't even rushing but who dropped back into coverage at that!) and preserved Wake's go-ahead drive. Penn State wasn't a clock management issue. Moore scored with more time remaining than we would have liked but when an athlete breaks a run, he's NOT going to fall down for clock management purposes and I don't believe any coach would coach that. Tennessee was a fumble into the end-zone on a play where our D had them stopped. That's jump ridiculously bad luck.

From what I saw, Drink tended to go conservative even earlier than Satt. I honestly don't think either the UNC or the SC would have been as close with Satt as the coach. I think he would have built a bigger lead before going conservative. Just my opinion and we'll never really know.

[WASU 93]

Drink and Satt were both excellent coaches. Personally, I give the edge to Satterfield as a head coach. Drink was probably the better OC, but him doing dual duty tempered the benefit we got from that. I think Drink actually tended to go conservative EARLIER than Satterfield did and with a smaller lead. It never caught us, but we caught some really big breaks that made him look good, like going for it on 4th down and Hennigan barely picking up the yards (being pushed by team mates). If the refs had blown that played dead (which could have happened), we would have given the ball back to UL with only a 3 point lead and time on the clock. Against UNC and SC both, the D had to make a stand at the end to prevent a score.

I'm not bashing Drink, but we could have pulled away from all three of those teams if he had shown some of that "offensive genius" in the second halves of those games. Yes, that's just an opinion and I'll happily take the wins that we got!

I do feel that the GS loss was directly attributable to Drink's desire to keep emotions on an even keel. He didn't understand the nature of this rivalry game and him changing "hate week" to "Love week" (playing for the love of your brothers/team mates) in dealing with the team was a mistake. We lost in 2018 because of injuries and penalties that resulted from guys trying to over compensate. We lost 2019 because we didn't match the intensity of GS. I don't think either Satt nor Clark would have lost that game.

Like all the other posts on this board...just one man's opinion.

Agreed here. That love week thing was so stupid. I think Satt and Clark definitely win that game. I also think Satt likely would have lost to UNC. He had not shown he could win a close game with a P5 yet. Glad we got the wins and I'll take 13-1. I felt Satt would have gone 12-2 or 13-1 with this team.

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding Satt having not proved he could win. I get the history and frustration that drives that opinion, but the losses to Wake, Penn and Tennessee were not coaching issues. Maybe at Wake he should have changed kickers earlier than he did, but we wouldn't have been counting on a field goal if our punt coverage team hadn't lined up off sides (a guy who wasn't even rushing but who dropped back into coverage at that!) and preserved Wake's go-ahead drive. Penn State wasn't a clock management issue. Moore scored with more time remaining than we would have liked but when an athlete breaks a run, he's NOT going to fall down for clock management purposes and I don't believe any coach would coach that. Tennessee was a fumble into the end-zone on a play where our D had them stopped. That's jump ridiculously bad luck.

From what I saw, Drink tended to go conservative even earlier than Satt. I honestly don't think either the UNC or the SC would have been as close with Satt as the coach. I think he would have built a bigger lead before going conservative. Just my opinion and we'll never really know.

There were definitely some clock management, play calling, conservative issues at the end of regulation against Tennessee.

[EastHallApp]

Drink and Satt were both excellent coaches. Personally, I give the edge to Satterfield as a head coach. Drink was probably the better OC, but him doing dual duty tempered the benefit we got from that. I think Drink actually tended to go conservative EARLIER than Satterfield did and with a smaller lead. It never caught us, but we caught some really big breaks that made him look good, like going for it on 4th down and Hennigan barely picking up the yards (being pushed by team mates). If the refs had blown that played dead (which could have happened), we would have given the ball back to UL with only a 3 point lead and time on the clock. Against UNC and SC both, the D had to make a stand at the end to prevent a score.

I'm not bashing Drink, but we could have pulled away from all three of those teams if he had shown some of that "offensive genius" in the second halves of those games. Yes, that's just an opinion and I'll happily take the wins that we got!

I do feel that the GS loss was directly attributable to Drink's desire to keep emotions on an even keel. He didn't understand the nature of this rivalry game and him changing "hate week" to "Love week" (playing for the love of your brothers/team mates) in dealing with the team was a mistake. We lost in 2018 because of injuries and penalties that resulted from guys trying to over compensate. We lost 2019 because we didn't match the intensity of GS. I don't think either Satt nor Clark would have lost that game.

Like all the other posts on this board...just one man's opinion.

Agreed here. That love week thing was so stupid. I think Satt and Clark definitely win that game. I also think Satt likely would have lost to UNC. He had not shown he could win a close game with a P5 yet. Glad we got the wins and I'll take 13-1. I felt Satt would have gone 12-2 or 13-1 with this team.

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding Satt having not proved he could win. I get the history and frustration that drives that opinion, but the losses to Wake, Penn and Tennessee were not coaching issues. Maybe at Wake he should have changed kickers earlier than he did, but we wouldn't have been counting on a field goal if our punt coverage team hadn't lined up off sides (a guy who wasn't even rushing but who dropped back into coverage at that!) and preserved Wake's go-ahead drive. Penn State wasn't a clock management issue. Moore scored with more time remaining than we would have liked but when an athlete breaks a run, he's NOT going to fall down for clock management purposes and I don't believe any coach would coach that. Tennessee was a fumble into the end-zone on a play where our D had them stopped. That's jump ridiculously bad luck.

From what I saw, Drink tended to go conservative even earlier than Satt. I honestly don't think either the UNC or the SC would have been as close with Satt as the coach. I think he would have built a bigger lead before going conservative. Just my opinion and we'll never really know.

There were definitely some clock management, play calling, conservative issues at the end of regulation against Tennessee.

It's funny, I was watching the Saints-Vikings game yesterday and Sean Payton - Super Bowl winner and generally considered one of the best coaches in football - absolutely botched the clock management in the final three minutes. Wound up having to try a long FG to tie instead of having a chance to go for the win, despite having a time out remaining.

It's crazy how even at the highest levels, coaches can mismanage this stuff so badly.

[AppStFan1]

Drink and Satt were both excellent coaches. Personally, I give the edge to Satterfield as a head coach. Drink was probably the better OC, but him doing dual duty tempered the benefit we got from that. I think Drink actually tended to go conservative EARLIER than Satterfield did and with a smaller lead. It never caught us, but we caught some really big breaks that made him look good, like going for it on 4th down and Hennigan barely picking up the yards (being pushed by team mates). If the refs had blown that played dead (which could have happened), we would have given the ball back to UL with only a 3 point lead and time on the clock. Against UNC and SC both, the D had to make a stand at the end to prevent a score.

I'm not bashing Drink, but we could have pulled away from all three of those teams if he had shown some of that "offensive genius" in the second halves of those games. Yes, that's just an opinion and I'll happily take the wins that we got!

I do feel that the GS loss was directly attributable to Drink's desire to keep emotions on an even keel. He didn't understand the nature of this rivalry game and him changing "hate week" to "Love week" (playing for the love of your brothers/team mates) in dealing with the team was a mistake. We lost in 2018 because of injuries and penalties that resulted from guys trying to over compensate. We lost 2019 because we didn't match the intensity of GS. I don't think either Satt nor Clark would have lost that game.

Like all the other posts on this board...just one man's opinion.

Agreed here. That love week thing was so stupid. I think Satt and Clark definitely win that game. I also think Satt likely would have lost to UNC. He had not shown he could win a close game with a P5 yet. Glad we got the wins and I'll take 13-1. I felt Satt would have gone 12-2 or 13-1 with this team.

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding Satt having not proved he could win. I get the history and frustration that drives that opinion, but the losses to Wake, Penn and Tennessee were not coaching issues. Maybe at Wake he should have changed kickers earlier than he did, but we wouldn't have been counting on a field goal if our punt coverage team hadn't lined up off sides (a guy who wasn't even rushing but who dropped back into coverage at that!) and preserved Wake's go-ahead drive. Penn State wasn't a clock management issue. Moore scored with more time remaining than we would have liked but when an athlete breaks a run, he's NOT going to fall down for clock management purposes and I don't believe any coach would coach that. Tennessee was a fumble into the end-zone on a play where our D had them stopped. That's jump ridiculously bad luck.

From what I saw, Drink tended to go conservative even earlier than Satt. I honestly don't think either the UNC or the SC would have been as close with Satt as the coach. I think he would have built a bigger lead before going conservative. Just my opinion and we'll never really know.

The only reason I doubt Satt would have won both is his clock management issues at times. Lets be clear that Drink got lucky with a couple games. I had friends of other schools and even some coaches who said at times Satt messed up with clock management. I prefer Satt over Drink as coach but every coach has a flaw and it is okay. None of us are perfect.

As for Drink he definitely went conservative earlier at times and it almost cost us for sure.

SC was a game that we may have gotten lucky to win with how we shut things down so early. Besides the fact SC has a bad culture they had a lot of players coming off injury who were rusty and a lot of players out for our game. They were very thin and had screwed up in recruiting so they did not have depth of a typical SEC team. I also don't think our OL played as well in the second half. I still feel like Drink's approach hurt us against GSU and our team came out flat.

I'm glad Drink is gone and not sour about it at all but I honestly don't think he will succeed at Missouri. I feel like he is the type of guy who is smart enough to be a good head coach but his ego and personality along with being too conservative at times is going to hurt him in the SEC. I feel like best case he will do is 3rd in the SEC East.

[NewApp]

Not to mention Drinkwitz getting caffeine highs off the 12+ Mountain Dews per day j/k