Worst Coaches in the SEC over the last 20 years

There was a discussion of Hallman on the old Geaux Online Board by athletes that played for him. Anyone who read that discussion had to feel anguish for the young men who agreed to play for him. He was terrible although he did recruit better than Archer.

 

Without looking deeper into this thread, it has to be coach "O". Hands down.:lol:

 

give Archer the best team from the Hallman years, and he wins 7-9 games.
give Hallman that '87 team, and he MIGHT get them to Bowl eligibility.

Hallman had issues. His team had issues (see fight with basketball team).
During his tenure, he managed to have the WORST season in school history ('92), the most lopsided loss in school history (UF in '93), the DUMBEST 4th quarter collapse I've ever seen ('Auburn '94), and be the only coach in school history to coach multiple seasons and NEVER have a winning season.

There is a reason the Hallman era is called "The Dark Ages" of LSU football, and Archers recruits are only a small part of that reason.
He earned his spot atop that list.

 

Zook does not deserve to be on that list. He gets way too little credit. You would swear the Florida football program lost every game after SOS left, and Meyer used his Urban magic to get the team to be good again.

 

I think these kinds of unprovable declarations are kind of stupid, but if you want to go there let me give you my stupid unprovable declaration: Give Hallman the program that Archer inherited and he wins more games over the 4 years because he doesn't turn the talent level into a wasteland.

I'll gladly concede that Archer was a better coach, but the head man is a program manager. Hallman was the better program manager. He recruited much better and he was even responsible for initiating one of the most cherished traditions today...the tiger walk. The point is that he left the program in better shape than he received it; Archer wrecked it.

 

I would hate to live on the difference.

 

Agree it''s dumb and unprovable.

I'm trying to tell you the program was not in as bad of shape when Arher left, or as good of shape at all when Hallman left. The only thing he improved was talent, and that difference wasn't as big as people made it out to be.

Hallman took a team 2 years removed from an SEC co-championship, and turned it into a job nobody wanted. He dragged it down to the point where the fans gave up and quit going to games. By the time Hallman was done, NOBODY in the country feared or even remotely respected LSU.
We were the laughing stock of the conference. A complete joke without any hope of rebounding. A guy with ZERO winning seasons under his belt came in after Hallman and improved EVERY facet of the program.

 

Well, this is kind of like arguing about which jackass should get the turnip.

 

This is really a strange post. Archer only won 4 and 5 games his last two seasons, yet Hallman took the team? All you have to do is look at the NFL talent that Archer and DiNardo had and compare it the talent that Hallman had to realize what is going on. Archer is the one who destroyed the program and Hallman at least got recruiting moving again.

 

O.K. let me re-phrase it for you.

When Archer left, the LSU job was still somewhat desireable, we just made a bad hire to replace him.
When Hallman left, best we could get was a guy that had never won anywhere. Nobody was interested in the job anymore because of the mess that needed to be cleaned up.