OT: FYI, JZ says Newsweek article is still a go. (edit: Story now spiked)

[MtNittany]

Wishing I never started this thread right about now. Don't know who to argue with or who to point to for blame - as I have so many people on ignore that I don't probably see 25% of the posts. I do know that I'm tired of minutia, which this thread has in spades.

Like this whole mess, it's exhausting. People hate on JZ. He's just filling a truth void that needed to be filled. Anyone that thinks he doesn't know the truth (or anyone that has never been to Mill Hall) is simply wrong. Period. Then his personality and the repeated cowardice of the msm doom another "bombshell".

As they would say in PA: "Warteryougonnado?"

I did find it funny that PS4RS continues to ignore his findings - findings of evidence that goes the very CORE of their original mission. I can only say that PS4RS has become what they originally set out to reform.

 

[MtNittany]

JZ just sent me a link to his "Paterno" movie podcast. I'm too beaten up from this and work to listen now, but here it is:

podcast link here

 

[bdgan]

I think it's very possible Schultz understood that if he told Harmon, then Harmon would have to open a file on it. I think they took into consideration the delicate nature of the situation and erred on the side of Sandusky's privacy and reputation. The prosecution tried to make their discretion look like some conspiracy to conceal the sexual abuse of a child.

In reality, I don't think they believed Sandusky did anything that wouldn't have been perfectly acceptable in public. It was the 'alone' part that concerned them. They wanted to prevent the potential he said/he said scenario. Their actions were intended to protect PSU in the future, without hurting Sandusky's reputation or TSM in the present. It was "humane and a reasonable way to proceed".

It all comes down to what Mike told C/S after he had presumably had 10 days or so to calm down. Not what he "would have told them", but what he actually did tell them. No matter how you slice it, there's no evidence to suggest they even considered the possibility that there was a young victim to factor into the equation.

The evolution of MM's story from '01 to today, not to mention the lies Jonelle Esbach slipped into the GJ presentment and how the state whiffed on all 15 felonies should be the basis for a brand new narrative. And Penn State should be the one to write it.

MM's dad, Dranov, Joe, Curley, and Shultz all said that MM didn't tell them about sexual assault. Spanier & Raykovitz said similar things about what they were told. I think it's abundantly clear that MM gave a "soft" story which led to a "soft" response.

Handled poorly by C&S and a lot of cya by nearly everybody involved (BOT, TSM, DPW, Corbett).

 

[PSUCYCLING]

Joe also had the knowledge that this was not a first accusation against Sandusky. He knew about 1998 in 2001.

Joe’s knowledge of 1998 probably amounted to Sandusky was investigated and cleared. So what.

 

[MtNittany]

BTW, here's JZ's FB tease for this latest podcast:

With HBO's "Paterno" fairytale out Friday, here's a brand-new podcast on why blaming JVP is absurd no matter what your view of the case. It includes (@ 44:15) a secret & never-released interview with Ira Lubert, head of PSU BOT who paid the PSU settlements.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

This is one of the most completely irrational posts that you have made. AND, that is a high standard right there. FU@K you Pinkhippo!!!

You obviously started following the story recently.

 

[nits74]

BTW, here's JZ's FB tease for this latest podcast:

With HBO's "Paterno" fairytale out Friday, here's a brand-new podcast on why blaming JVP is absurd no matter what your view of the case. It includes (@ 44:15) a secret & never-released interview with Ira Lubert, head of PSU BOT who paid the PSU settlements.

Were you able to hear this interview clearly? I couldn't. Poor quality.

 

[MtNittany]

Were you able to hear this interview clearly? I couldn't. Poor quality.

No problems on my end.

 

[indynittany]

...Handled poorly by C&S and a lot of cya by nearly everybody involved (BOT, TSM, DPW, Corbett).

I know I'm in the minority on this, but I think they handled it thoughtfully and effectively. Admittedly, had another shower incident occurred, leading to an accusation of some sort, PSU would have then "become vulnerable for not having reported this", as Spanier feared, but I still think it was the right thing to do under the circumstances. The objective was to prevent a he said/he said in the future. They were successful.

They weren't the least bit worried that what had happened posed an immediate concern. Raykovitz and Heim obviously didn't take the matter too seriously. There's a compelling statement by Allen Meyers in which he says he was not abused. Who, really, thought anything of it at the time? Mike? There's evidence to the contrary on that too!

If they had reported it, the report, in and of itself, might have invited a civil suit. I'm not saying that motivated them. In hindsight, reporting would seem to have been the thing to do. But if you accept that they honestly didn't believe there was a victim here, reporting could have done more harm than good.

And just because I don't believe Sandusky abused Allen Meyers, doesn't mean I think he's completely innocent. It just means I believe C/S/S tried to do the right thing in '01 under the circumstances. Getting fooled by a serial pedophile is not a scandal.

 

[L.T. Young]

I think it's very possible Schultz understood that if he told Harmon, then Harmon would have to open a file on it. I think they took into consideration the delicate nature of the situation and erred on the side of Sandusky's privacy and reputation. The prosecution tried to make their discretion look like some conspiracy to conceal the sexual abuse of a child.

In reality, I don't think they believed Sandusky did anything that wouldn't have been perfectly acceptable in public. It was the 'alone' part that concerned them. They wanted to prevent the potential he said/he said scenario. Their actions were intended to protect PSU in the future, without hurting Sandusky's reputation or TSM in the present. It was "humane and a reasonable way to proceed".

It all comes down to what Mike told C/S after he had presumably had 10 days or so to calm down. Not what he "would have told them", but what he actually did tell them. No matter how you slice it, there's no evidence to suggest they even considered the possibility that there was a young victim to factor into the equation.

The evolution of MM's story from '01 to today, not to mention the lies Jonelle Esbach slipped into the GJ presentment and how the state whiffed on all 15 felonies should be the basis for a brand new narrative. And Penn State should be the one to write it.

So they were trying to keep it quiet, but it’s okay because they were doing it for the right reasons?

But what if there was another reason? Like a big one that can be linked to the very of day of Curley’s email?
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_0c2322c5-a775-5e45-a9cf-f3266a07f6b3.html

I mean you’re the one who brought up them keeping it quiet because they weren’t sure what happened.

Bottom line is they screwed up. No rational person thinks they were told of rape and covered it up. But an ambiguous report that would be turned into a political football? That’s something they might choose to handle as quietly as possible.

 

[berklion]

Jay was exactly the kind of AC JVP always hired.
Other than Ron Vanderlin name 1 AC JVP hired that had a ' big' resume or wasn't a former player?
I'll wait.

Kinda what I was thinking. Seemed like most JVP searches went to the far reaches of Center County.

 

[pandaczar12]

So they were trying to keep it quiet, but it’s okay because they were doing it for the right reasons?

But what if there was another reason? Like a big one that can be linked to the very of day of Curley’s email?
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_0c2322c5-a775-5e45-a9cf-f3266a07f6b3.html

Just when I thought no one was still clinging to this nonsense...

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

So they were trying to keep it quiet, but it’s okay because they were doing it for the right reasons?

But what if there was another reason? Like a big one that can be linked to the very of day of Curley’s email?
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_0c2322c5-a775-5e45-a9cf-f3266a07f6b3.html

I mean you’re the one who brought up them keeping it quiet because they weren’t sure what happened.

Bottom line is they screwed up. No rational person thinks they were told of rape and covered it up. But an ambiguous report that would be turned into a political football? That’s something they might choose to handle as quietly as possible.

Can't understand why it's so difficult for the numbskulls to acknowledge that sex faire played a part in not reporting.

 

[jerot]

MM's dad, Dranov, Joe, Curley, and Shultz all said that MM didn't tell them about sexual assault. Spanier & Raykovitz said similar things about what they were told. I think it's abundantly clear that MM gave a "soft" story which led to a "soft" response.

Handled poorly by C&S and a lot of cya by nearly everybody involved (BOT, TSM, DPW, Corbett).

Dranov has testified in the past that when Mike McQueary told him about the incident, he was clearly shaken but did not directly describe it as sexual.

Emails have shown that Spanier, Curley and Schultz agreed to tell Sandusky he could not bring children into the locker rooms and to seek professional help and that Curley would inform psychologist Jack Raykovitz, the director of Sandusky's Second Mile charity, where Sandusky found most of his victims.

Raykovitz testified on Tuesday that Curley told him that an investigation into what McQueary reported found nothing inappropriate had occurred.

Raykovitz said he informed several board members and told Sandusky he should wear swim trunks if he showered with children, according to the Associated Press.

The Second Mile was informed in 2008 that Sandusky was being investigated, and that was when the organization first removed him from from program's with children. Raykovitz resigned from the Second Mile shortly after Sandusky was charged in 2011. The organization formally dissolved last year after selling off most of its assets.

No one from the Second Mile, aside from Sandusky himself, has ever been charged.

 

[pandaczar12]

Can't understand why it's so difficult for the numbskulls to acknowledge that sex faire played a part in not reporting.

Proof of your ridiculous claim? I'll wait.

 

[BobPSU92]

Please take this opportunity to use the Ignore feature.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Please take this opportunity to use the Ignore feature.

Because ignoring opposing opinions shows such an open mind....even more so when they are repeated with the SSDD. You must have been an only child.

 

[RussianEagle]

Proof of your ridiculous claim? I'll wait.

Also, considering Gary Schultz is a conservative Christian, I doubt he saw eye-to-eye with Spanier concerning the sex faire. I doubt Gary chose not to report this because he didn't want more negative publicity for Graham.

 

[indynittany]

So they were trying to keep it quiet, but it’s okay because they were doing it for the right reasons?

But what if there was another reason? Like a big one that can be linked to the very of day of Curley’s email?
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_0c2322c5-a775-5e45-a9cf-f3266a07f6b3.html

I mean you’re the one who brought up them keeping it quiet because they weren’t sure what happened.

Bottom line is they screwed up. No rational person thinks they were told of rape and covered it up. But an ambiguous report that would be turned into a political football? That’s something they might choose to handle as quietly as possible.

This line of thinking seems to be a real stretch, IMO. When this whole thing started, I was sure Spanier was the bad guy and protecting the Grand Destiny fund raising campaign was his motive. Of course, I also believed what was written in the GJ presentment back then. I came into this with a confirmation bias against Spanier.

I always go back to the emails. There's no question that C/S/S were motivated to prevent Sandusky from being in one on one situations going forward. More importantly, IMO, there's also no evidence of concern that V2 might have been abused and could initiate a report on his own.

The question that needs to be answered is this:

What could Mike have reported to them that posed no immediate risk to the university, but not reporting it could come back to haunt them should a subsequent incident occur?

The answer can not be the sexual abuse of a child.

Spanier's email is very clear. "The only downside for us is if our message is not heard and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported this."

"Only" means just one thing. An if/then scenario means, by definition, that something yet to occur would have to happen to trigger their vulnerability. And you can't become something you already are.

If they were dealing with the sexual abuse of a child, their vulnerability for not reporting would be immediate and ongoing. It wouldn't matter one bit what Jerry did or did not do in the future. So it had to be something else.

What was their message to Jerry? Was it that it was wrong to shower with TSM kids? Or was it that it was too risky to shower alone with TSM kids? I'd say the latter. Was Jerry's touchy feely nature part of their concern? I'd say yes. You only have to look back to '98 to understand that. V6's mom could have easily filed a civil suit and dragged PSU into it. These kids had shaky backgrounds. I believe it is reasonable that they felt Jerry was naive and needed to be protected from himself. Certainly not that he was a pedophile.

If another '98 occurred, and the '01 incident was uncovered, PSU would then become vulnerable for not reporting it. Preventing that was their motive and failing to prevent that was their concern. I think it's as simple as that.

 

[kgilbert78]

That makes no sense, given that (1) Jay has never been implicated of anything regarding Sandusky, (2) Jay was never mentioned in the Freeh Report, and (3) many of Jay's assistant coach peers have found jobs coaching beyond PSU in the 2012-2018 era.

Jay's not being discriminated against because of his last name. He's being discriminated against because of his coaching track-record.

I try to give you the benefit of the doubt. But after what happened to Schiano, just a few short months ago, let's be real here. If you have equal candidates, you're likely not going to take the one that has controversy associated with his name.

I am not saying Jay is a great coach. I also think he was going for some jobs at a higher level than he should have. He bears some responsibility. But his name also would have to give people pause. And I'll note that if it wasn't for Urban Meyer, I'd not be surprised if Schiano and LJ would have had a tough time finding a job at the level they are at. Took Bradley a while and he was highly respected.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Proof of your ridiculous claim? I'll wait.

Because it was the overarching national narrative regarding Penn state at that time AND was threatening the state budget allocation.

If the sex faire, budget, and PR were not at top of mind for Spanier and the rest they should have been fired right then.

 

[LundyPSU]

I think this is a stretch.


This line of thinking seems to be a real stretch, IMO. When this whole thing started, I was sure Spanier was the bad guy and protecting the Grand Destiny fund raising campaign was his motive. Of course, I also believed what was written in the GJ presentment back then. I came into this with a confirmation bias against Spanier.

I always go back to the emails. There's no question that C/S/S were motivated to prevent Sandusky from being in one on one situations going forward. More importantly, IMO, there's also no evidence of concern that V2 might have been abused and could initiate a report on his own.

The question that needs to be answered is this:

What could Mike have reported to them that posed no immediate risk to the university, but not reporting it could come back to haunt them should a subsequent incident occur?

The answer can not be the sexual abuse of a child.

Spanier's email is very clear. "The only downside for us is if our message is not heard and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported this."

"Only" means just one thing. An if/then scenario means, by definition, that something yet to occur would have to happen to trigger their vulnerability. And you can't become something you already are.

If they were dealing with the sexual abuse of a child, their vulnerability for not reporting would be immediate and ongoing. It wouldn't matter one bit what Jerry did or did not do in the future. So it had to be something else.

What was their message to Jerry? Was it that it was wrong to shower with TSM kids? Or was it that it was too risky to shower alone with TSM kids? I'd say the latter. Was Jerry's touchy feely nature part of their concern? I'd say yes. You only have to look back to '98 to understand that. V6's mom could have easily filed a civil suit and dragged PSU into it. These kids had shaky backgrounds. I believe it is reasonable that they felt Jerry was naive and needed to be protected from himself. Certainly not that he was a pedophile.

If another '98 occurred, and the '01 incident was uncovered, PSU would become vulnerable for not reporting it. I think it's as simple as that.

So why are they ok with creating any vulnerability for PSU or themselves? Graham is acknowledging that by not reporting that incident, there is vulnerability going forward.

 

[Bob78]

Where did Joe say this, or, did he say it to you in a conversation?


As you said..... See the quote above the quote where you use the words "as I said". You didn't address my question at all. You are such a fuc#ing tool.

Joe may have said it to him at a football camp in the 70s. Credible? Not relevant. It has been stated, thus it is so.

 

[Bob78]

Because ignoring opposing opinions shows such an open mind....even more so when they are repeated with the SSDD. You must have been an only child.

I use it fairly liberally for the anti-JVP / move on crowd (mich, hippo, et. al.). But, I stay tuned to a select few who represent an opposite point of view but who can discuss with some level of sanity. That way, I get to read the other views, can consider them, and can block out what I consider to be blathering nonsense. It's not the opposite POV that bothers me; it's the messenger and his/her inanity.

(I've even ignored a couple fanatical pro-JVP peeps over time! Including me! )

 

[indynittany]

So why are they ok with creating any vulnerability for PSU or themselves? Graham is acknowledging that by not reporting that incident, there is vulnerability going forward.

I'd say because the risk was minimal and reporting would have been overkill. Prevention was their objective. It wasn't necessary to throw Jerry under the bus in order to achieve that.

 

[pandaczar12]

Because it was the overarching national narrative regarding Penn state at that time AND was threatening the state budget allocation.

If the sex faire, budget, and PR were not at top of mind for Spanier and the rest they should have been fired right then.

That's just like, your opinion man. I asked for proof.

 

[Bob78]

So why are they ok with creating any vulnerability for PSU or themselves? Graham is acknowledging that by not reporting that incident, there is vulnerability going forward.

That's a great question. My guess is that they were so reasonably certain that they were not dealing with anything criminal (in that they really did not know what they were dealing with) that they let down their guard and didn't really think through all the possibilities having equal risk. Just a guess.

I base that on having to assess workplace risks over time in my career, and me needing to be the person (because of my role) who reminded otherwise very good people and very good business people to not assume too much on the 'safe' side of the ledger.

I also wonder how much time they spent on the situation. More time would have meant more brainstorming, more scenario-playing, and maybe more caution taken. Not sure that that happened based on what we've been shown, but maybe it did, and they could not get past the 'horseplay' mental block.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I use it fairly liberally for the anti-JVP / move on crowd (mich, hippo, et. al.). But, I stay tuned to a select few who represent an opposite point of view but who can discuss with some level of sanity. That way, I get to read the other views, can consider them, and can block out what I consider to be blathering nonsense. It's not the opposite POV that bothers me; it's the messenger and his/her inanity.

(I've even ignored a couple fanatical pro-JVP peeps over time! Including me! )

There really has not been relevant information in a long time. JZ presents it like that and the same people swallow it up every time. People don't like hearing that, but it's really what is going on....nothing. People want new news and I get that, but it's just not happening. There is no easter bunny or Santa. Maybe someday we'll hear why the BoT decided to toss the school and Joe under the bus, but I'm not even holding out hope for that anymore. JZ has a little group who are honestly blind followers at this point in time.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

So why are they ok with creating any vulnerability for PSU or themselves? Graham is acknowledging that by not reporting that incident, there is vulnerability going forward.

That is where they screwed up and indy will NEVER admit to that. At that level you look out for the WHOLE entire university, not Jerry's little feelings. I don't think it was intentional either, but it was a mistake not to make a call.

 

[Bob78]

That is where they screwed up and indy will NEVER admit to that. At that level you look out for the WHOLE entire university, not Jerry's little feelings. I don't think it was intentional either, but it was a mistake not to make a call.

I think we agree here for the most part.... in hindsight it was a mistake to report it only to TSM, regardless of TSM's duty once it was reported to them.
I still maintain that based on what they thought at the time (and clearly didn't understand what they were dealing with), they believed they were taking the necessary step. They didn't play out (i.e. "ask more questions" - T.C.) and then act on the risks to the extent they should have, as they admitted they wished they had given hindsight.

 

[pandaczar12]

So why are they ok with creating any vulnerability for PSU or themselves? Graham is acknowledging that by not reporting that incident, there is vulnerability going forward.

Because it's the nature of risk. Risks are rarely ever completely eliminated, and sometimes you just accept a risk, because it's probability is very low.

From a risk response point of view, they used a combination or strategies. They transferred risk to TSM by passing on the report. They Mitigated risk by telling JS not to bring kids on campus anymore. They accepted the residual risk that those first two risk mitigation strategies were not enough. If you can remove the hindsight bias, it's a reasonable plan. They could not have seen the unavoidable surprise attack headed their way, to be scapegoated for a crime we know never occurred.

 

[Bob78]

There really has not been relevant information in a long time. JZ presents it like that and the same people swallow it up every time. People don't like hearing that, but it's really what is going on....nothing. People want new news and I get that, but it's just not happening. There is no easter bunny or Santa. Maybe someday we'll hear why the BoT decided to toss the school and Joe under the bus, but I'm not even holding out hope for that anymore. JZ has a little group who are honestly blind followers at this point in time.

I may not agree that there has been no relevant information, but I'm still interested in the discussion regardless. As you are. I'm not interested in the name-calling or belittling - there are enough good discussion points to be made without that. (That's why some people go on my ignore list!)

I'm really pissed about the HBO movie and the assumptions of truth that will revitalize. The discussions about it all here are a good thing for many of us, gives us a release, as we know the general public opinion about JVP will likely never be changed to the degree it deserves to be.

 

[indynittany]

That is where they screwed up and indy will NEVER admit to that. At that level you look out for the WHOLE entire university, not Jerry's little feelings. I don't think it was intentional either, but it was a mistake not to make a call.

Jerry was the face of TSM. So more than "Jerry's little feelings" were at stake.

Do you agree that a report on file could have become the impetus for an opportunistic mom to file a civil suit?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I may not agree that there has been no relevant information, but I'm still interested in the discussion regardless. As you are. I'm not interested in the name-calling or belittling - there are enough good discussion points to be made without that. (That's why some people go on my ignore list!)

I'm really pissed about the HBO movie and the assumptions of truth that will revitalize. The discussions about it all here are a good thing for many of us, gives us a release, as we know the general public opinion about JVP will likely never be changed to the degree it deserves to be.

I really don't care about the movie and how it paints Joe to be honest. People that didn't like him will say he was a phony or enabler. People that adored him or even just admired him will think he got a bad shake...even non PSU fans feel that way, but some here only like playing the victim card. I know he got a raw deal and I hold JS accountable for that, he is the biggest reason why. His little addiction to young boys brought all of this upon PSU and impacted more than just Joe. People sticking up for him are basically pissing on Joe's grave because they want to keep this fantasy up that it was all a bad dream.

In terms of relevant information, I don't consider how much a victim was paid to be relevant anymore to be honest. If one or two lied and they get outed or step forward....ok, golf clap at that point in time. 3 dozen people were paid and it's possible a few lied or stepped up their story....sucks but bad people are out there. It doesn't mean JS is an innocent man, far from it.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Jerry was the face of TSM. So more than "Jerry's little feelings" were at stake.

Do you agree that a report on file could have become the impetus for an opportunistic mom to file a civil suit?

No I don't agree with that. I think it would have said we took MM serious and wanted to ensure it was looked into by the proper agency. It wasn't TC's job to know what Jerry was, but it was all of their jobs to CYA for the school. Sometimes that means making a tough decision, but they are paid well to do exactly that.

 

[Osprey Lion]

I think Joe felt that he was the most qualified person to judge what was in the best interest of Penn State Football. I would agree that he was.
No different that Frank Beamer and Son...Bobby Bowden and Son.....Dennis Ericksen and Son.....Kirk Ferentz and Son.....Steve Spurrier and Son.....Lou Holtz and Son.....Bum Phillips and Son.....Don Shula and Son.......Bill Belichick and Son

If Joe really was the most qualified person to judge the best interests of PSU football,
he wouldn't have stayed until he was 85 years old.

 

[PSU2UNC]

My opinion on Jay comes from:

(1) watching our offense over the entirety of the 2000s. Typically below-average,
(2) quarterbacks who rarely developed under Jay's guidance,
(3) one particular QB (Matt McGloin) who blossomed immediately following Jay's departure, and
(4) a number of published reports as regards how the team and players didn't respect Jay

Joe may have lost his fastball in his older age versus the coach he was in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. But he wasn't a complete idiot either. He watched the same things the rest of us did in the 2000s.

Joe knew he was coaching a top-tier college program but also knew his son wasn't a top-tier coaching talent.

We are getting a little off topic here, but a couple of things:

1) Jay was never the offensive coordinator, so putting the blame for a sub par offense on him seems spurious.

2) In 2011 Jay was named best quarterbacks coach in the Big Ten by rivals.com. In 2008, he was named one of the best offensive coaches in the country following a rose bowl season. Jay coached Micheal Robinson to a Heisman finalist season in 2005 (from Wikipedia)

3) That was also a totally different offense. My bet would be that it had more to do with the offensive playbook (under BOB) than the QB coaching.

4) You didn't provide any links, but I'd be willing to bet the the majority of those reports (if not all) were from the "Dark Years". Playing on teams that lose more than they are expected to rarely have unconditional confidence in their coaching staff.

Anyway, I don't think Jay was a great coach, but he certainly wasn't bad at his job.

 

[Misder2]

Jerry was the face of TSM. So more than "Jerry's little feelings" were at stake.

Do you agree that a report on file could have become the impetus for an opportunistic mom to file a civil suit?

There were enough suspicions, at that time, to warrant them taking a more proactive role. Opportunistic mom or not

 

[Osprey Lion]

We are getting a little off topic here, but a couple of things:

1) Jay was never the offensive coordinator, so putting the blame for a sub par offense on him seems spurious.

2) In 2011 Jay was named best quarterbacks coach in the Big Ten by rivals.com. In 2008, he was named one of the best offensive coaches in the country following a rose bowl season. Jay coached Micheal Robinson to a Heisman finalist season in 2005 (from Wikipedia)

3) That was also a totally different offense. My bet would be that it had more to do with the offensive playbook (under BOB) than the QB coaching.

4) You didn't provide any links, but I'd be willing to bet the the majority of those reports (if not all) were from the "Dark Years". Playing on teams that lose more than they are expected to rarely have unconditional confidence in their coaching staff.

Anyway, I don't think Jay was a great coach, but he certainly wasn't bad at his job.

True, we had no Offensive Coordinator until Joe hired Hall to help Jay. We also had no
DC or OL coach. That is the kind of innovative thinking that comes from someone pushing 80.

 

[sluggo72]

True, we had no Offensive Coordinator until Joe hired Hall to help Jay. We also had no
DC or OL coach. That is the kind of innovative thinking that comes from someone pushing 80.

Bill Kenney, Tom Bradley, Dick Anderson disapprove of this message.