What grade would you give Weis if you were grading his performance?

[jerseyborn1971]

No problem if you'd like to end ourt discussion. But before you engage in one of these debates, why not do some research and use some facts in your replies? We all are here stating our opinions. But it's good if you can back them up with facts.

You asked for proof that the defense was better in 2004. When I provided it, you got all huffy and sarcastic. What's that about?

I referenced scores and wins & losses. Why are those facts not as good as your national rankings for the defense?

 

[jerseyborn1971]

LOL! Good job, Jerseyborn. (BTW, where in Jersey are you from?)

Jersey Shore originally. Middletown.

 

[johnnd05]

Jersey Shore originally. Middletown.

Cool. I'm from Hillsdale, in North Jersey (Bergen County). We would go to the shore down in Stone Harbor, though.

 

[solo]

I referenced scores and wins & losses. Why are those facts not as good as your national rankings for the defense?

Because they are just numbers. The scores and wins you referenced didn't take into consideration the strength of schedule/quality of the opponents. Your scores also didn't take into consideration what the rest of the teams in the country are doing. You are judged by how you compete with your peers. If the ND defense held every opponent to 24 points for 10 straight years, but our defensive ranking slipped from 40th to 60th, then it would mean that we are falling behind, not staying the same. It would mean that while the rest f the country figured out how to keep the opponents from scoring as much, we didn't.

So your numbers fail to take into consideration that everything is relative. That's why I think that my facts are better than your facts. My facts factored in SOS and national rankings. Your facts were simply numbers.

 

[johnnd05]

That's why I think that my facts are better than your facts. My facts factored in SOS and national rankings. Your facts were simply numbers.

FYI, SOS and national rankings are also just numbers. You should have factored in the opponents' offensive strength rather than SOS, at the very least. But the real way to measure this sort of thing is to look at the tape and see whether guys are making tackles, missing coverages, making nice moves on the line, etc. And I do feel like I've seen a lot of bad defense played in the last couple of years ... then again, I also seem to remember a lot of that from the Willingham era, and with more talent to boot. Not making a genuine claim one way or the other here, just pointing out some key issues that mere "numbers" don't address.

 

[solo]

FYI, SOS and national rankings are also just numbers. You should have factored in the opponents' offensive strength rather than SOS, at the very least. But the real way to measure this sort of thing is to look at the tape and see whether guys are making tackles, missing coverages, making nice moves on the line, etc. And I do feel like I've seen a lot of bad defense played in the last couple of years ... then again, I also seem to remember a lot of that from the Willingham era, and with more talent to boot. Not making a genuine claim one way or the other here, just pointing out some key issues that mere "numbers" don't address.

Yes, my numbers may be just numbers too. But they factor in the relative nature of those numbers. So I take it that you don't believe in stats?

I agree, that looking at tape is the best way. But who has time to watch every team play? Are we going to limit our discussions only to teams that we are intimately familiar with? Stats help to provide some baseline as to performance. They don't tell the whole story, but are telling.

 

[johnnd05]

Yes, my numbers may be just numbers too. But they factor in the relative nature of those numbers. So I take it that you don't believe in stats?

I agree, that looking at tape is the best way. But who has time to watch every team play? Are we going to limit our discussions only to teams that we are intimately familiar with? Stats help to provide some baseline as to performance. They don't tell the whole story, but are telling.

Of course I believe in stats. What I was pointing out is that you could have done a better job of factoring in the "relative nature" of the numbers by considering, e.g., how good the teams we played were on OFFENSE, not just in terms of W-L record (which is what SOS considers). And of course, JerseyBorn had numbers as well. Put them all together, and they'll tell a big part of the story: there are some ways we improved, some ways we slipped, we lost some talent, some guys matured, some guys didn't improve as much as you'd like to have seen, etc. Neither a failure nor a complete success on the defensive end.

 

[DeeRock]

I'll go with an A+. Why? People, Charlie Weis took a 6-6 team and went 19-5. Argue all you want, but that's a TREMENDOUS improvement on BOTH sides of the ball. Is the D National Champioship worthy? No, of course not. Look at his recruiting and what he as done already with 6-6 personnel and you get an A+. Anything else just seems to me like inflated expectations.

Ask yourself this honestly...after the last game of the 6-6 season, if someone told you that ND would go 19-5, go to 2 BCS games in a row, have the Maxwell Award winner and a Top 10 recruiting class 2 years in a row, would you say "Damn, that would be incredible!" or "That would be really good."

this team should have a one loss season- with the "creampuff" schedule, any of the previous coaches could have "snaked" out a 9-3/ 10-2 season....CW has underachieved in my estimation- if he is getting sooooo much better talent- and given the easy schedule (with the exception of two games- and they were blowouts- I haven't seen anything earth shattering!

 

[njuneardave]

any of the previous coaches could have "snaked" out a 9-3/ 10-2 season

disagree. completely disagree. how quickly you forget how we lost to a horrible BYU team, got blown out by a terrible Syracuse team, eeked by worser Navy teams.... the list could go on and on

 

[jerseyborn1971]

this team should have a one loss season- with the "creampuff" schedule, any of the previous coaches could have "snaked" out a 9-3/ 10-2 season....CW has underachieved in my estimation- if he is getting sooooo much better talent- and given the easy schedule (with the exception of two games- and they were blowouts- I haven't seen anything earth shattering!

Einstein, he has only recruited 1 class so far on the team. Those guys are at least a year away from making a difference. "Creampuff" schedule? It's ranked in the top 25. If any of the previous coaches could have done it, why didn't they when they actually were the coach. We're BYU, PITT, BC and Purdue REALLY that much better than GT, Penn St, UCLA and UNC?

You're one of the idiots who expected to take a 6-6 program to the national championship in 1 year. LIke many other ND fans who don't like CW because of your NFL affilitiations, you're torn between wanting ND to succeed and hating Charlie Weis. Of course, I don't expect you to admit that, but don't worry, we all know.

If you're going to come on a ND board and criticize the coach or team, at least have some kind of thought out argument. Otherwise, you sound like either a fan who is disgruntled because the team didn't live up to your unrealistic expectations or just another troll from ESPN.com

 

[johnnd05]

Nice job, njune and Jerseyborn ... reps to both of you.

 

[rontdtarchala]

listen guys I don't even attempt to go into numbers...ok? I have been a fanatical ND follower since 1965...I didn't say I didn't like CW...I frieking love that he's our coach...opinions were asked for I offered mine....our offense didn't get any better and our defense got worse...we get our tails whooped by any top 5 team we play and we got lucky against some very average teams. Will it get better....nooooo doubt! but for this year to this point c+ is what I give. Some of you people need to get your heads out of the fog there in and take a real look...and for goodness sakes I am not dissing any one just being real...our O line can't pass block and for the last two years hasn't done much for the run game either. BQ's back has been pasted to the grass far too often this year...no run game to speak of...it doesn't work if you run for 6 on first down and lose 3 on second...with no run game they focus on our pass game so they can shut it down...how did our receivers fair in oh so many games this year. I know someone is goiing to whip out big numbers but in too many instances they got shut down...on defense we got a fair amount of sacks only to give up too many 3 and long plays...so many people out of position poor tackling etc. etc. Thats why I gave my grade...what I do take offense too is being called a band wagon fan or fair weather fan....I went through the f____ing foust years so bite me...I got a reprieve with lou and then davyham....I still shiver thinking about it....please be careful how you treat us...if you don't know someone don't judge them please

 

[ojo_223]

Okay, here goes. I'll give Weis a B+. Why? Well, I think for one thing that nobody has mentioned, this is his first HEAD COACHING experience. I think that that says a lot. It is one thing to just call plays and worry about the offense, but he is the HEAD coach now and this is just his second season. I think he is still learning how to be a head coach and he is starting to turn his attention to the rest of the team instead of just the offense. He came in with virtually all of his coaching experience on the offensive side of the ball and you can tell that so far. While I will agree that the defense has been below average, can you really say that we have had a true playmaker on D for the last 4-5 years? For a guy that has been a head coach at a big time college football program for all of two years, I'll say that back to back BCS bowls is a pretty damn good job. When was the last time that ND put back to back seasons this good? I'm a little worried that this year the two losses (unargueably bad losses) were a blemish, but as I said he is still learning. The Fiesta Bowl last year was NOT a blowout. Buckeye fans can brag about that all they want. I remember our defense watching Holmes and Ginn fly by them the whole game, but with under 3 to play in the fourth the score was 27-20 and we had them on back to back 3rd and longs and Troy Smith burnt us twice. This despite all of their big plays. You make a stop there and we have a chance to get the game to OT or win it. Don't just look at that score and say we got blown out.

 

[solo]

Okay, here goes. I'll give Weis a B+. Why? Well, I think for one thing that nobody has mentioned, this is his first HEAD COACHING experience. I think that that says a lot. It is one thing to just call plays and worry about the offense, but he is the HEAD coach now and this is just his second season. I think he is still learning how to be a head coach and he is starting to turn his attention to the rest of the team instead of just the offense. He came in with virtually all of his coaching experience on the offensive side of the ball and you can tell that so far. While I will agree that the defense has been below average, can you really say that we have had a true playmaker on D for the last 4-5 years? For a guy that has been a head coach at a big time college football program for all of two years, I'll say that back to back BCS bowls is a pretty damn good job. When was the last time that ND put back to back seasons this good? I'm a little worried that this year the two losses (unargueably bad losses) were a blemish, but as I said he is still learning. The Fiesta Bowl last year was NOT a blowout. Buckeye fans can brag about that all they want. I remember our defense watching Holmes and Ginn fly by them the whole game, but with under 3 to play in the fourth the score was 27-20 and we had them on back to back 3rd and longs and Troy Smith burnt us twice. This despite all of their big plays. You make a stop there and we have a chance to get the game to OT or win it. Don't just look at that score and say we got blown out.

That game wasn't a blowout, but it asn't competitive either. They handled us. Ask yourself thiese questions:

Did we ever have the ball in the 4th quarter with a chance to tie or take the lead? No

Did they get conservative while protecting a lead? Yes they did.

Did we give up 600+ yards of offense to them? Yes.

Did they run for 275 yards versus ur 62? Yes

Did they pass for 342 yards vesus our 266? Yes

Basically, they sat on the lead in the 2nd half with conservative play calling. And then when the game got within 7 points, they turned it on again. We couldn't stop them. They ended up winning by 14 points. The game was never in question. We never had the ball in the 4th quarter with a chance to tie.

So maybe it wasn't a blowout, but it wasn't competitive either. In fact, it was the least competive game of all the BCS bowls. So please don't rationalize away the fact that we were soundly defeated. You are fooling yourself with the "if and buts" if you can't see that this game was not close.

 

[jerseyborn1971]

Reading everything posted in most threads on this board you would think ND was 5-19 over the last two years. Our defense got worse, our offense did nothing, the oline is terrible, we can't run, our receivers got shut down, we give up too many sacks, we give up too many big plays, we can't tackle. Yet somehow, we win games. Who cares about all the games we've won, they were against nobodies, right? Well, at least that's what ESPN says. We got blown out twice by top 5 teams in the last 2 years. That's all that really matters anyway. At what point do we say, "hmmm, I'm bashing the hell out of these guys, yet they won 10 games against a top 25 SOS. Maybe I'm being a bit to critical?"

It's not being a blind homer to appreciate going from 6-6 on a downward spiral to 19-5 and being on the way up. It's being too hard on the team and CW to expect them to win more than 19 out of 24 games right out of the box and rip them for getting beat handily on the road by a team that has been a strong NC contender for 4 straight years. Have all the opinions and analysis you people want, the proof is in the win-loss record.

These kinds of irrational expectations are why Alabama can't find a decent coach to take the job. Apparently, not going undefeated and winning the national championship in only his second year gives CW a c+.

And people who have been fans for a hundred years shouldn't seperate themselves into "us". It smells of elitism and arrogance.

 

[njuneardave]

bingo. nice post, jersey. i'm extremely happy with where we are. I expect improvement over the next few years, but, with the talent we have, the progress that we have made is almost unbelievable.

 

[solo]

Reading everything posted in most threads on this board you would think ND was 5-19 over the last two years. Our defense got worse, our offense did nothing, the oline is terrible, we can't run, our receivers got shut down, we give up too many sacks, we give up too many big plays, we can't tackle. Yet somehow, we win games. Who cares about all the games we've won, they were against nobodies, right? Well, at least that's what ESPN says. We got blown out twice by top 5 teams in the last 2 years. That's all that really matters anyway. At what point do we say, "hmmm, I'm bashing the hell out of these guys, yet they won 10 games against a top 25 SOS. Maybe I'm being a bit to critical?"

It's not being a blind homer to appreciate going from 6-6 on a downward spiral to 19-5 and being on the way up. It's being too hard on the team and CW to expect them to win more than 19 out of 24 games right out of the box and rip them for getting beat handily on the road by a team that has been a strong NC contender for 4 straight years. Have all the opinions and analysis you people want, the proof is in the win-loss record.

These kinds of irrational expectations are why Alabama can't find a decent coach to take the job. Apparently, not going undefeated and winning the national championship in only his second year gives CW a c+.

And people who have been fans for a hundred years shouldn't seperate themselves into "us". It smells of elitism and arrogance.

I think what you are seeing is a product of Weis raising the bar back to where it used to be. Davie abd Willingham sunk us to new depths. People's exepctations were lowered. I don't even think the players that played under those guys expected to win every game.

That mindset is gone. The expectatons are once again high. That's all good. When people are complaining about 10 win seasons and BCS bowls, that's when you know that we are on the way back.

Weis isn't throwing a no hitter. He's made plenty of mistakes and we as fans are entitled to point them out. But if you go back and ask every person that posted a critical post about Weis if they are happy that he is our coach, I think that most would say yes. I know that I am happy he is with us.

So be happy that people are complainign about 10 win seasons. That's a good sign. As for the complaints, most are on the money. The defense hasn't improved. The offense didn't improve from year one to year two. We do get handled every time we play a top 5 team. We did come out flat in many of our games this year. These things are evident. They don't mean that Weis is bad coach. Only that he isn't a miracle worker. Listen, if you aren't willing to look critically into the mirror, you will never achieve excellence. Notre Dame is about excellence.

 

[jerseyborn1971]

I'll agree with that. But there is a difference between raised expectations and full on bashing every aspect of the team. When someone says we can't effectively run, pass, play defense or kick, yet we are 10-2, it's hard to take that opinion seriously.

I don't agree we got handled everytime we played a top 5 team. Michigan and USC were #3 and #1 respectively when we played them last year and neither handled us. Since then, umm, not so good.

 

[solo]

I'll agree with that. But there is a difference between raised expectations and full on bashing every aspect of the team. When someone says we can't effectively run, pass, play defense or kick, yet we are 10-2, it's hard to take that opinion seriously.

I don't agree we got handled everytime we played a top 5 team. Michigan and USC were #3 and #1 respectively when we played them last year and neither handled us. Since then, umm, not so good.

I forgot about the USC game in 2005...DUH. I stand corrected. Now, I don't count the 2005 Michigan game as a competive game versus a top 5 team. Rankings at the time of the game mean very little to me. Michigan finished the season unranked and with 5 losses. So in my mind, they weren't a top calinre team. They were just WAY overrated when we played them. I should have stipulated that. When I refer to a "top 5 team", I mean a team that finished in the top 5.

 

[NDOM]

I would probably give him a B+.

I think he has done a good job but that there is room for improvement.

He immediately upgraded our offense. We started winning again. He has gotten us 2 BCS bowls. We've been consistantly ranked during his tenure. He has recruited exceptionally well. We haven't had a bunch of off the field problems. Overall, he has gotten the ship going in the right direction. Things are looking up.

On the flip side, there are some deficiences.

2 blowout losses in one season is poor.

2 near misses (UCLA, MSU) against unranked teams is not good (and that is not counting GT who is also unranked).

Zero progress defensively in 2 season is poor.

No progress offensively from last year to this year despite a seasoned offense returning.

Performance in big games has not been so good.

Not delivering yet on the "nasty" promise is also not good. We don't play with attitude and often came out flat, particlualry in the 1st quarter.

Our offensive line underachieved leaving us unable to effectively and consistantly run the ball and often unable to protect BQ.

Of course, I think that most of the problems listed above are personnel issues. And these are all players that Weis didn't recruit. So it's hard to fault him for much of this. But some of that must be attributed to the present coaching staff. hence the B+ and not an A.

Anyone else care to give their assessment?

I MUST add too that since Charlie has taken over, Who has he beaten????? Think about it. He has beaten NOBODY. The only good win was last year against michigan and they sucked last year. Overall I would grade him a B-. Once he wins some big games, Wins a bowl, and Fires DICK MINTER the grade will go up a bit.

 

[jerseyborn1971]

He's beaten 19 teams. He's only had 4 chances to play the so-called "somebodies" and was a Bush Push away from beating one of them. HE'S ONLY BEEN HERE TWO YEARS. WHAT WERE YOU GUYS EXPECTING THAT QUICKLY FROM A 6-6 CALIBER TEAM.

 

[connor_in]

I know i'll probably be derided for this post as a newbie, but I gotta say it...

Give the guy a chance!

I agree with the B to B- grade (I have teachers in my family and anything in the B area is considered above average performance, but not great performance).

People were complaining about the recruits that Davie and Willingham brought in and what they did with them. Charlie was working with these same kids (his first recruits were only sophomores this year) and had very good records and back to back BCS bowl trips. Did you honestly expect NC this year? As stated by others, this is really his second year as a head coach anywhere and this is really just his second year as a college coach. That is especially salient as it is at Notre Dame that has such a high graduation rate, so you know that the kids spend a fair share of their time in classes and studying versus full time football at most of the other big time programs (good God, look at the majors listed for these guys versus the majors at USC, Texas and the like). Also, he and the staff seem to be doing a heck of a job on the recruiting trail (just check out the other threads).

Yeah, we have had problems especially against big time opponents. Yeah, we have had problems in various areas as far as execution. But it is all a little early for a final grade, isn't it? This is more like the first nine weeks or at most first semester grade. If these big time recruits actually produce in CW's 4th or 5th year, then he wiill have earned his A.

But for now, objectively as I can get, I'll stay with B or B- as he is performing above average.

 

[njuneardave]

i'm not going to berrate you for that extremely well thought-out post. nicely done, connor. welcome to the board. reps for you.

 

[solo]

I know i'll probably be derided for this post as a newbie, but I gotta say it...

Give the guy a chance!

I agree with the B to B- grade (I have teachers in my family and anything in the B area is considered above average performance, but not great performance).

People were complaining about the recruits that Davie and Willingham brought in and what they did with them. Charlie was working with these same kids (his first recruits were only sophomores this year) and had very good records and back to back BCS bowl trips. Did you honestly expect NC this year? As stated by others, this is really his second year as a head coach anywhere and this is really just his second year as a college coach. That is especially salient as it is at Notre Dame that has such a high graduation rate, so you know that the kids spend a fair share of their time in classes and studying versus full time football at most of the other big time programs (good God, look at the majors listed for these guys versus the majors at USC, Texas and the like). Also, he and the staff seem to be doing a heck of a job on the recruiting trail (just check out the other threads).

Yeah, we have had problems especially against big time opponents. Yeah, we have had problems in various areas as far as execution. But it is all a little early for a final grade, isn't it? This is more like the first nine weeks or at most first semester grade. If these big time recruits actually produce in CW's 4th or 5th year, then he wiill have earned his A.

But for now, objectively as I can get, I'll stay with B or B- as he is performing above average.

It's WAY early for a final grade. Every coach needs at a minumum 3 years to turn things around. I was just giving my assessment of his performance thus far.

However, next year and beyond the expectations go up, way up. We all know that every head coach at ND that has won a title has done so in his 3rd season. We also saw quick turnarounds recently from other coaches like Tressel, Stoops, and Saban. So the stakes go WAY up at year 3 and beyond.

I have tempered my expectations for 2007 based on the personnel losses we will have. But if Weis hasn't won a title or at least played in the title game after 5 years, then he's not the man for the job. Time will tell. Things are looking up right now.

 

[IrishAlum1997]

I think he's definitely got us moving in the right direction. Is that the same thing as saying he has "turned the program around"?

I do think that we are due for a rocky season next year. Probably 8 wins or so. We could be REALLY average next year. Take this years team and subtract the offense and what do you have?

So has he entirely turned things around? Maybe not quite yet. But after next year, the future looks bright.

So what were the thoughts on our record heading into the 2005 season? Did we expect a rocky season? I think you are overestimating our schedule next season and underestimating how quickly our youth will reap benefits under this coaching staff. Michigan and USC are the 2 games that we will be decided underdogs in. 10-2 and a BCS invite are a real possibility if we are competitive vs. those 2 schools. Blowouts put us in the Gator Bowl.

I know the comparison of players and their experience in the program is apples to oranges here, we don't have a returning 2-year starter at QB. But a lot of the psychology that CW surely used early on (Mark May says we're starting 0-6, etc.) in 2005 will be back in play in 2007 with a group of young, fast talent that isn't going to expect to lose.

Have faith in this team next season, and better yet, let's look forward to making those ESPN folks eat some crow and laying the wood to LSU!

 

[NDOM]

I know i'll probably be derided for this post as a newbie, but I gotta say it...

Give the guy a chance!

I agree with the B to B- grade (I have teachers in my family and anything in the B area is considered above average performance, but not great performance).

People were complaining about the recruits that Davie and Willingham brought in and what they did with them. Charlie was working with these same kids (his first recruits were only sophomores this year) and had very good records and back to back BCS bowl trips. Did you honestly expect NC this year? As stated by others, this is really his second year as a head coach anywhere and this is really just his second year as a college coach. That is especially salient as it is at Notre Dame that has such a high graduation rate, so you know that the kids spend a fair share of their time in classes and studying versus full time football at most of the other big time programs (good God, look at the majors listed for these guys versus the majors at USC, Texas and the like). Also, he and the staff seem to be doing a heck of a job on the recruiting trail (just check out the other threads).

Yeah, we have had problems especially against big time opponents. Yeah, we have had problems in various areas as far as execution. But it is all a little early for a final grade, isn't it? This is more like the first nine weeks or at most first semester grade. If these big time recruits actually produce in CW's 4th or 5th year, then he wiill have earned his A.

But for now, objectively as I can get, I'll stay with B or B- as he is performing above average.

Very well put there new guy. great post.

 

[solo]

So what were the thoughts on our record heading into the 2005 season? Did we expect a rocky season? I think you are overestimating our schedule next season and underestimating how quickly our youth will reap benefits under this coaching staff. Michigan and USC are the 2 games that we will be decided underdogs in. 10-2 and a BCS invite are a real possibility if we are competitive vs. those 2 schools. Blowouts put us in the Gator Bowl.

I know the comparison of players and their experience in the program is apples to oranges here, we don't have a returning 2-year starter at QB. But a lot of the psychology that CW surely used early on (Mark May says we're starting 0-6, etc.) in 2005 will be back in play in 2007 with a group of young, fast talent that isn't going to expect to lose.

Have faith in this team next season, and better yet, let's look forward to making those ESPN folks eat some crow and laying the wood to LSU!

I was WAY off on my 2005 prediction. I think I predicted 7 wins or something like that. I was dead on the money this year. I predicted 10-2 with losses to Mich and USC. I also predicted a bowl loss to finish at 10-3 (I made this prediction before the season started).

Unfortunately, I just can't get too pumped up for the bowl game. I see us being outmanned on both sides of the ball. I just don't think have the players and depth that the elite teams have. Of course anything could happen, but I am actually expecting a game similar to last years bowl game or the USC/Michigan games of this year. You never know though. I;ve certainly been wrong before and anything can happen in any given game. That's whay they play 'em.

 

[ojo_223]

That game wasn't a blowout, but it asn't competitive either. They handled us. Ask yourself thiese questions:

Did we ever have the ball in the 4th quarter with a chance to tie or take the lead? No

Did they get conservative while protecting a lead? Yes they did.

Did we give up 600+ yards of offense to them? Yes.

Did they run for 275 yards versus ur 62? Yes

Did they pass for 342 yards vesus our 266? Yes

Basically, they sat on the lead in the 2nd half with conservative play calling. And then when the game got within 7 points, they turned it on again. We couldn't stop them. They ended up winning by 14 points. The game was never in question. We never had the ball in the 4th quarter with a chance to tie.

So maybe it wasn't a blowout, but it wasn't competitive either. In fact, it was the least competive game of all the BCS bowls. So please don't rationalize away the fact that we were soundly defeated. You are fooling yourself with the "if and buts" if you can't see that this game was not close.

Okay take a closer look at those stats and tell me why OSU didn't win by 20+?

 

[jerseyborn1971]

Okay take a closer look at those stats and tell me why OSU didn't win by 20+?

It's somewhere in between what both of you were saying. It wasn't a dramatically close game, but it wasn't the ass whoopin some would like to believe it was. There is no way tOSU in the Fiesta Bowl, sits on a lead until we get within just 7 points before they just decide to turn it back on again. No way.

 

[Win4Gipper]

A-

I grade on a curve......and when you compare him to the last two coaches he deserves at least this grade