mojo181

It's why Rutherford Co. is king now. Totally disagree. Perfect time to come in. Easier region, lower classification, can't get much worse. ??? Again, ???

Cop out. I asked for an opinion. Agree with you. In fairness, though, from what I saw this year, nobody in the county plays very good defense. BW was just the worst.

I agree with your assessment of a great coach. Obviously, neither of us knows weather the a few were true because we weren't at practice everyday. Not sure they got any better over the two years. It sort of does metro an injustice to say that nearly .500 is a very good result, but that's a different argument. So if I'm understanding your arguments, no one could have done any better than 5-15 over the last 2 years?

Very valid statements. They don't counter anything I said, but they are valid nonetheless. I don't recall saying that if a coach has a bad record for one year he is a bad coach. I don't recall saying that Woodward was a bad coach (even though he has a bad record over an almost 10 year period). I don't recall saying that the coach alone is responsible for a team's success. I don't recall saying that Woodward alone was responsible for Brentwood being really bad the last two years. I said I can't believe there weren't better options. This is a program that hasn't been bad or even average much in the last 20 years. This has been one of the better programs in the state. Suddenly, they are a 5-15 team. It's not all on him, but he WAS the HC. It just seems like everyone is trying to make excuses for him and explain away the fact that they were really bad on his watch. What, exactly, is it about him that makes you call him a great coach?

My only point was that I keep seeing "great coach" thrown around in this thread and 43-54 doesn't scream great coach. Again, not saying I agree with giving him the ax after 2 years. Not saying the administration isn't at fault. After all, they hired him 2 years ago. I just can't figure out why they hired a sub .500 coach in the first place. There had to be better options for a team that had made the playoffs for 15 years or so in a row. We have a pretty good idea though don't we. Crawford would have done what your name says and played tough, physical defense. No Crawford coach team (minus 36 seniors or not) would ever have been gashed the way Woodward's defense has been gashed the last 2 years.

Wow! You sound very unbiased. Are you his wife? I have no idea what was told to him during the year and I do think 2 years is too quick to pull the trigger. With that said, let's be brutally honest here. The guy was a sub .500 coach in metro and he went 5-15 in 2 years at BW. Everyone can say what they want about the brutal schedule. It was, but throw Blackman and Oakland out and the important stat is that the only Williamson Co team he beat was Summit. If Summit hadn't opened he'd be 0-W Co. in 2 years. His only real claim to fame is winning it with Rector and TC Jennings and lots of guys could have done that. Bottom line, no matter how many seniors they lost before he got there, Crawford and a lot of other coaches around here wouldn't have gone 5-15.