media would rip brew for kill's comment

[Bob_Loblaw]

Someone needs to give me a specific gimmick Kill has used. He isn't gimmicky in the least. I just don't get you Brewster defenders and why you go out of your way to find similarities between him and Kill when there are none. Kill hasn't used one gimmick since he's arrived, not one.

I'm not defending Brewster!

I said repeatidly in my post that he deserved to be fired, that I think Kill is a much better coach, that Brew was underqualified and ill suited for success as a coach.

The point is this: Both of the coaches are full of schtick. It wasn't Brew's schtick or gimmicks that made him a bad coach at the U. It was the pragmatic reasons of not being able to teach the game well enough and not being able to assemble a good enough staff. His lack of success had nothing to do with him wanting a piece of the Rose Bowl or talking about the Rose Bowl.

As far as Kill's schtick...I can't believe most people don't think this is obvious. To me, I think it's obvious that he plays up the whole "working hard, simple country boy routine". I'm not ripping on Kill for having a gimmick, we all do it (like Dpo said). The point is that the existance of a gimmick (whether Brew or Kill) does not equate to success or failure.

If Kill is succesful he remains the loveable country bumpkin that gets er done by working hard. If he loses, that schtick will get annoying quickly. (Just like if Brew won, we wouldn't mind his bravado and hyperbolic statements).

 

[wait!what?]

Someone needs to give me a specific gimmick Kill has used. He isn't gimmicky in the least. I just don't get you Brewster defenders and why you go out of your way to find similarities between him and Kill when there are none. Kill hasn't used one gimmick since he's arrived, not one.

I'll be real honest with you...

 

[calminnfan]

One of if not the biggest difference is Kill has a track record, depth of experience and a very good earned reputation. Brew had none of those when starting out at the U. In hindsight, Brewster should have started out in the lower divisions and worked his way up. His hiring had elements in it that suggested he was worth a shot. It just did not work out.

The other thing to say it is Reusse's ability to just character is a little unfair. Who does not want to start out saying the right things and doing the right things? Whether he was the right man or went about it in the right way is definitely in hindsight more apparent, at the same time Brew seemed to be trying to instilling a little optimism and hope into a very desperately negative situation which guys like Reusse and some of the other media wannabe intellects have trashed for years. The u has been plagued by negativism for a long time, some of it earned, but still needed to be addressed. Problem is they needed to hire someone with a track record, though those with that record probably were not wanting to enter into the situation at that time.

As for Brew's demeanor, who does not want to put a best face on right off the bat? As accurate or inaccurate as that may be, personally given the situation, it is unfair IMO.

 

[calminnfan]

You're right on. Kill is genuine, but he is making a conscious decision to highlight the parts of his natural personality and hammering them home with an intent to portray himself as a down-home country boy. Brewster was also genuine, and he too crafted a persona that he felt would portray himself in the best light to potential recruits and stakeholders. The difference is that the "aw, shucks" personality plays very well in this area of the country, while displays of grandeur go over like a fart in church. Brewster spent his formative years in New Jersey, and cut his professional teeth in Texas, two of the most braggadocious and bombastic places on Earth. Had he been the head coach at Rutgers/Pitt/Texas Tech/Baylor, they would've loved his personality and attitude. Because we're in Minnesota, most people think that setting goals that are unlikely to be achieved is idiotic and false bravado. And, again, as you've said, the only reason anybody cared about Brewster's attitude/"schtick" was that he lost a lot more games than he won. Had he gone to the Rose Bowl, or at the very least won 9 or 10 games in a season, nobody would've cared.

And, further, all of us do this every day in our lives. We all portray ourselves differently depending on the circumstances. I'm the same person always, but I act and behave differently when I'm at work, than I do with my buddies, than I do with family. The difference for guys like Kill and Brewster is that they have to be "on" all the time because of the nature of their work. Does anyone think Kill and Brewster act the same in front of a camera as they do at home with their wives? Of course not. Does that make them fake or bad people? Does it mean they lack character? Anyone who claims to act the same regardless of the company they're in at that moment is lying.

Good points

 

[Lakeville Goldy]

MerriamWebster.com defines gimmick as:
"a trick or device used to attract business or attention <a marketing gimmick> "

Brewster saying the Gophers were heading to the Rose Bowl (among other things) was a gimmick. It wasn't bad in the fact that it got media talking about the Gophers possibly being successful, Brewster just wasn't capable of getting it done. I agree with several other people here, had he done it or gotten close, no one would ever have complained, and in fact we'd be saying what a brave and brilliant coach to see the Gophers could do it when no one else saw it.

Right now I don't think the country boy schtick is a gimmick because I don't think he is doing it to attract attention. I really think it's more of who he is. Either way, if he doesn't win in 4 years we'll be saying we can't belive we fell for what that hick was saying. And if he wins we'll be falling all over how we all were in love with him from the get go...

 

[DMB123]

I'm not defending Brewster!

I said repeatidly in my post that he deserved to be fired, that I think Kill is a much better coach, that Brew was underqualified and ill suited for success as a coach.

The point is this: Both of the coaches are full of schtick. It wasn't Brew's schtick or gimmicks that made him a bad coach at the U. It was the pragmatic reasons of not being able to teach the game well enough and not being able to assemble a good enough staff. His lack of success had nothing to do with him wanting a piece of the Rose Bowl or talking about the Rose Bowl.

As far as Kill's schtick...I can't believe most people don't think this is obvious. To me, I think it's obvious that he plays up the whole "working hard, simple country boy routine". I'm not ripping on Kill for having a gimmick, we all do it (like Dpo said). The point is that the existance of a gimmick (whether Brew or Kill) does not equate to success or failure.

If Kill is succesful he remains the loveable country bumpkin that gets er done by working hard. If he loses, that schtick will get annoying quickly. (Just like if Brew won, we wouldn't mind his bravado and hyperbolic statements).

I think you are underestimating the amount of embarrassment Brewster's constant talking out of his ass and schtick brought to the program, it wasn't just the losing.

"It's real. It's raw. Sometimes it's real raw." - Tim Brewster

The guy was an assclown in every way imaginable.

 

[gopherguy]

I really dislike posts such as this. It's just negative, serves no purpose.

 

[Killjoy]

dopodoll,

You can not change the way people feel about brewster. He was exactly what his Big Ten record says he was. Did he work hard? What has that got to do with anything???? Did he work smart? Perhaps THAT is more important. Was he EFFECTIVE???? In Big Ten play, how often did he win and how often did he lose?

He apparently really turned you on dopodoll. Well, that's really nice for you, I guess. But, he pretty much totally turned me off to Golden Gopher Football...and I have been a Gopher Football Fan for OVER half a century. The ONLY good thing about brewster I can say is that he is FINALLY gone. I don't hold him responsible though. I hold prexy b and bjm responsible for the worst 4 year period of Gopher Football I have lived through. It is the ONLY 4 year period that I can honestly say that the administrators made me resent them each year when I made payment for my season tickets. Had brewball gone on much longer, I KNOW I would have finally bailed on Gopher Football forever. And I LOVE Golden Gopher Football. The brewster/bjm/prexy b era of Gopher Football is a situation that I somehow managed to hold my nose and get through. The kids on the team were just fine. They weren't adequately led and coached and administered to though. With the constant changing of coaches and coordinators, the kids on the team were put to the most distress and poor treatment by the lack of effort in providing adequate coaching and leadership by prexy b and badger joel macturi. I hold those two personally responsible for the absolute rip off of my season ticket payments and scholarship donations. The last couple years of brewball I DID bail on the concept of donating any money to the scholarship funds. It is going to take some really EXCELLENT administrative leadership from the new prexy and the new AD to get me to start making scholarship contributions. With the millions and millions of dollars macturi and prexy b threw away with the buyouts and consequent hiring of the incompetent brewster as the football coach when they were paying over two million for a hoops coach really seemed crazy to me. They were going to be bringing an almost 300 million dollar stadium back on campus and they went CHEAP and INEXPERIENCED for the football coaching hire. STUPID...STUPID...how STUPID could prexy b and badger joel macturi be????????

So, don't expect everyone to have nice "fuzzy-warm-post-brew-
ball memories..." of your little brewboy, dopodoll. Some of us still feel ripped off, cheated and screwed over by the administration for ever having given brewster the keys to the football program. It was an excellent example of prexy b and badger joel macturi not giving a tinker's damn about either the players in the program OR the long-time-extremely loyal season ticket fan base.

Your brew-boy WAS what his Big Ten record WAS. Nothing more and nothing less. Work is work. You can work hard or you can hardly work if you are smart about your work and do a MUCH better job than if you work hard, but hardly anything you work at is smart. Your brew-boy was not a very smart worker and his Big Ten record attests to that fact. He is gone. THAT is good.

I hope for better leadership at the U from Prexy K and I hope he hires a new AD very soon.

; 0 )

This is just another example of childish behavior by a simplistic person. It time again to ban wren again if he can't even be civil in spouting his mean spirited diatribe.

 

[dpodoll68]

Someone needs to give me a specific gimmick Kill has used.

First of all, the word "gimmick" has an automatic negative connotation whenever it is brought up. As it's already been illustrated, gimmicks are mere devices to draw attention to or away from something. They can be either negative or positive.

Secondly, are you serious with this question? He's only been here six months, and off the top of my head:

- Brown Lopher shirts; translation: "Coach Kill is all about accountability, and you're either all-in or all-out. There's no in-between". A gimmick.

- Constant refrains that our team is lacking in depth, speed, skill, etc.; used to downplay expectations and buy him more time. A gimmick.

- Refusing to give any kind of depth chart until after fall practice, thus giving his players the illusion that they all have a shot at starting and/or receiving heavy playing time. A gimmick.

- "I don't think there's any question"; translation: "Your question is obvious and stupid, but I can't say so because I'm a good ol' boy and my momma will take me over her knee if I'm not polite." A gimmick.

- "I've been doing this for 28 years" or "In my 28 years of coaching"; translation: "I've been doing this for a long time, and I know how it works. Don't question me." Also, a direct contrast to his predecessor, who was lambasted because of his lack of experience. A gimmick in more ways than one.

- "Stability is key. You can't be successful if you're going through 4 or 5 coordinators"; Direct shot at his predecessor, also paints a contrast between the two of them. A gimmick.

- "I hear what you say, and I'll trust what you do"; translation: "Everyone has a fair shot, and you'll earn it by what you show me, not by your pedigree or history." A gimmick.

I think you are underestimating the amount of embarrassment Brewster's constant talking out of his ass and schtick brought to the program, it wasn't just the losing.

"It's real. It's raw. Sometimes it's real raw." - Tim Brewster

The guy was an assclown in every way imaginable.

Give me a fricking break. Just get it over with and state that you, along with many others, have an irrational hatred for Brewster. Don't try to rationalize it, because it's transparent and pathetic. You didn't like how the guy talked because he didn't win much. You would go to hell and back for the guy if he had won lots of games. Admit it.

 

[DMB123]

First of all, the word "gimmick" has an automatic negative connotation whenever it is brought up. As it's already been illustrated, gimmicks are mere devices to draw attention to or away from something. They can be either negative or positive.

Secondly, are you serious with this question? He's only been here six months, and off the top of my head:

- Brown Lopher shirts; translation: "Coach Kill is all about accountability, and you're either all-in or all-out. There's no in-between". A gimmick.

- Constant refrains that our team is lacking in depth, speed, skill, etc.; used to downplay expectations and buy him more time. A gimmick.

- Refusing to give any kind of depth chart until after fall practice, thus giving his players the illusion that they all have a shot at starting and/or receiving heavy playing time. A gimmick.

- "I don't think there's any question"; translation: "Your question is obvious and stupid, but I can't say so because I'm a good ol' boy and my momma will take me over her knee if I'm not polite." A gimmick.

- "I've been doing this for 28 years" or "In my 28 years of coaching"; translation: "I've been doing this for a long time, and I know how it works. Don't question me." Also, a direct contrast to his predecessor, who was lambasted because of his lack of experience. A gimmick in more ways than one.

- "Stability is key. You can't be successful if you're going through 4 or 5 coordinators"; Direct shot at his predecessor, also paints a contrast between the two of them. A gimmick.

- "I hear what you say, and I'll trust what you do"; translation: "Everyone has a fair shot, and you'll earn it by what you show me, not by your pedigree or history." A gimmick.



Give me a fricking break. Just get it over with and state that you, along with many others, have an irrational hatred for Brewster. Don't try to rationalize it, because it's transparent and pathetic. You didn't like how the guy talked because he didn't win much. You would go to hell and back for the guy if he had won lots of games. Admit it.

Those are all innocent comments made by Kill and you call them gimmicks? None of those are gimmicks. That's who Kill is.

My dislike for Brewster isn't irrational at all. Not only did he not win, especially against Iowa and Wisconsin, but he embarrassed the U constantly while doing it.

 

[Killjoy]

First of all, the word "gimmick" has an automatic negative connotation whenever it is brought up. As it's already been illustrated, gimmicks are mere devices to draw attention to or away from something. They can be either negative or positive.

Secondly, are you serious with this question? He's only been here six months, and off the top of my head:

- Brown Lopher shirts; translation: "Coach Kill is all about accountability, and you're either all-in or all-out. There's no in-between". A gimmick.

- Constant refrains that our team is lacking in depth, speed, skill, etc.; used to downplay expectations and buy him more time. A gimmick.

- Refusing to give any kind of depth chart until after fall practice, thus giving his players the illusion that they all have a shot at starting and/or receiving heavy playing time. A gimmick.

- "I don't think there's any question"; translation: "Your question is obvious and stupid, but I can't say so because I'm a good ol' boy and my momma will take me over her knee if I'm not polite." A gimmick.

- "I've been doing this for 28 years" or "In my 28 years of coaching"; translation: "I've been doing this for a long time, and I know how it works. Don't question me." Also, a direct contrast to his predecessor, who was lambasted because of his lack of experience. A gimmick in more ways than one.

- "Stability is key. You can't be successful if you're going through 4 or 5 coordinators"; Direct shot at his predecessor, also paints a contrast between the two of them. A gimmick.

- "I hear what you say, and I'll trust what you do"; translation: "Everyone has a fair shot, and you'll earn it by what you show me, not by your pedigree or history." A gimmick.

+1
I always amazed why people have such difficulty in understanding what the real messages are behind what Kill is saying. Your close personal friend wren I am sure will accuse you of trying to get into Kill's head. Now if you want to get into wren's head.......

 

[dpodoll68]

Those are all innocent comments made by Kill and you call them gimmicks? None of those are gimmicks. That's who Kill is.

Making players wear shirts to single them out in front of their teammates isn't a gimmick? I'd love to hear your argument on that one.

Consciously being aware of your predecessor's weaknesses and purposefully portraying yourself as his complete opposite isn't a gimmick?

Also, to steal a thought from Rosemountain, pretending that you don't use gimmicks is itself a gimmick. Even if Kill didn't use gimmicks (which he does, plenty), that is a gimmick in itself.

My dislike for Brewster isn't irrational at all. Not only did he not win, especially against Iowa and Wisconsin, but he embarrassed the U constantly while doing it.

Thank you for admitting why you really hate Brewster.

 

[Word]

Those are all innocent comments made by Kill and you call them gimmicks? None of those are gimmicks. That's who Kill is.

First - before my post is misinterpreted - so far I like coach Kill and hope he's successful. I liked Brewster's positivity but after the downward trend last year I agreed that it was time for him to go. I didn't have a problem with Brewster's gimmicks (as long as he had won) and I don't care what kind of gimmicks Kill uses as long as he wins.

Couldn't you say that Brewster's "gimmicks" were "who he is" too? He had a style of motivating players (comments like "real raw", "bring some to get some", etc.). Like has been pointed out here, that didn't fly too well with the Minnesota public. It still could be Brewster's personality though, even though you didn't like it. I'll bet lots of players (remember, they're 18-23 years old, not all from Minnesota) DO get motivated by those kinds of rah-rah speeches. If you've seen Kill's practice footage he has plenty of rah-rah moments and I'll bet in 5 years if Kill hasn't won very much we'll be hearing quotes from those videos ridiculing how bad Kill was.

 

[SMU GOPHS FAN]

Not having a gimmick is his gimmick.

 

[Gopher07]

Kill's tactics/gimmicks/shtick will be great to us if he's winning in 3 years. If he's not, they won't be that great. Right now I enjoy what I'm hearing and hopefully will be doing the same in 2014.

 

[Monty519]

Again, what is wrong with using "tactics" (since apparently people don't like the word "gimmick") to aid your program and get your points across?? You say Kill uses gimmicks and some are flipping out. Why? Sounds like he's just a smart coach who understands the psychology of it all. He "gets it" LOL.

 

[mom8pop]

Gimmick or not, every coach is a salesman. Every effective leader is a salesman. Getting people to buy into your ideas requires that.

Kill's strengths are in better understanding our program, players and fans and selling work ethic, discipline and team. I would guess, and hope, that he has the same goals that Brew had, but publicly speaking to that would not be his approach.

 

[Killjoy]

But does wren "gets it"?

Again, what is wrong with using "tactics" (since apparently people don't like the word "gimmick") to aid your program and get your points across?? You say Kill uses gimmicks and some are flipping out. Why? Sounds like he's just a smart coach who understands the psychology of it all. He "gets it" LOL.

It is interesting to see how differently people put together the pieces of information we have from Coach Kill's past and his time here at the University of Minnesota. I think most of us understand that he is trying to change the culture of the program.

But how is he doing it? The best clues are from how he did it in the past and understanding what his vision is and the tactics he is using to get there. For some, this seems to be a little bit like the Japanese film "Rashomon" were everybody saw things through their own glasses or perspective. Even a word like “gimmick” causes people to add meanings that were not attended. When that happens we are not seeing the forest through the trees.

 

[Uffda]

Definition fo word Gimmick in American Heritage Dictionary

is : 1) A device employed, often illegally, to cheat, deceive, or trick, a mechanism for the secret control of a gambling wheel or other apparatus.


2) A strategem or scheme employed to promote a project : an advertising gimmick

3) A significant feature that is obscured or misrepresented; catch

4) A trivial or unnecessary innovation , as a gadget, added to enhance appeal

5) A small object whose name eludes one.


Definition of strategem ( A millitary maneuver designed to deceive or surprise an enemy. A deception)

I feel that calling Coach Kill a man who uses gimmicks continuously is not correct in any way. I feel that the word gimmick is associated with dishonesty and misleading people purposely. I feel that he is a very honest person who is not trying to portray himself as something he is not. Thats why he is successful and is why all of his staff is very loyal to him and why the fans at schools he has been at still have the highest regard for him to this day.

Rose and DPOL and Killjoy, please explain your negative selves and your know-it-all generalizations about ALL COACHES use gimmicks.

 

[JoeDirt]

Christ, I can't wait for fall. I just read through a three page thread arguing the merits of definitions of gimmicks and schticks. And honestly people, who fuc&ing cares about Brewster and Mason, and why are we CONSTANTLY talking about them.

 

[Killjoy]

Are we having a pissing contest?

Uffda – As I said earlier I think we are missing the forest as we look through the trees. Language and words needs to be understood in the context that they are being used. Dpodoll certainly could have used a word like tactic or tool instead of gimmick but I don’t think he was too much off the mark per the following definition from the web site Dictionary: Gimmick - an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal. For me “especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal” is what Dpodoll was trying to express. The truth is that language is often not precise. That why poetry is often used to express the inexpressible. But whatever, this is not worth having a pissing contest over.

 

[Ogee Ogilthorpe]

You're right on. Kill is genuine, but he is making a conscious decision to highlight the parts of his natural personality and hammering them home with an intent to portray himself as a down-home country boy. Brewster was also genuine, and he too crafted a persona that he felt would portray himself in the best light to potential recruits and stakeholders. The difference is that the "aw, shucks" personality plays very well in this area of the country, while displays of grandeur go over like a fart in church. Brewster spent his formative years in New Jersey, and cut his professional teeth in Texas, two of the most braggadocious and bombastic places on Earth. Had he been the head coach at Rutgers/Pitt/Texas Tech/Baylor, they would've loved his personality and attitude. Because we're in Minnesota, most people think that setting goals that are unlikely to be achieved is idiotic and false bravado. And, again, as you've said, the only reason anybody cared about Brewster's attitude/"schtick" was that he lost a lot more games than he won. Had he gone to the Rose Bowl, or at the very least won 9 or 10 games in a season, nobody would've cared.

And, further, all of us do this every day in our lives. We all portray ourselves differently depending on the circumstances. I'm the same person always, but I act and behave differently when I'm at work, than I do with my buddies, than I do with family. The difference for guys like Kill and Brewster is that they have to be "on" all the time because of the nature of their work. Does anyone think Kill and Brewster act the same in front of a camera as they do at home with their wives? Of course not. Does that make them fake or bad people? Does it mean they lack character? Anyone who claims to act the same regardless of the company they're in at that moment is lying.

Very well said.

 

[Uffda]

Killjoy, I agree. I just wanted to defend Coach Kill because I felt he was being portrayed as a phoney who uses gimmicks. I find him very refreshing and will continue to feel that way. Thank you for your response back. I respect that a lot. We are both Gopher fans and that is the most important thing.

 

[Ogee Ogilthorpe]

Those are all innocent comments made by Kill and you call them gimmicks? None of those are gimmicks. That's who Kill is.

My dislike for Brewster isn't irrational at all. Not only did he not win, especially against Iowa and Wisconsin, but he embarrassed the U constantly while doing it.

I fart in your general direction.

Furthermore,

I blow my nose at you

 

[gophmeister]

Kill has what Brewster didn't have - credibility. Yes he has gimmicks and we've all heard his stump speech several times now. We didn't hire him to be invisible or did we?

 

[Killjoy]

Thanks for the Clarification

Killjoy, I agree. I just wanted to defend Coach Kill because I felt he was being portrayed as a phoney who uses gimmicks. I find him very refreshing and will continue to feel that way. Thank you for your response back. I respect that a lot. We are both Gopher fans and that is the most important thing.

I think we just had an excellent example of the problems with misunderstanding in language. I also agree with your assessment of Coach Kill.

 

[TAW]

The best boss I ever had once said to me that everyone is a salesman/woman (I am an accountant). While I don't sell a product, I sell my ideas, my projections, my strategic views, and my suggestions for personnel decisions every day. If you believe in something, whether it is a product or an idea, sales is easy. Delivering on the sale, especially if you are selling ideas, is the hard part.

Kill's history says he delivers. Brewster had no history before Minnesota, which was a non-deliverable. I think Kill has the resume to buy him time to make good on the sale.

(Have I stretched this analogy as far as I possibly can???)

 

[GopherLady]

So because he was not a good head coach that makes him a bad guy? Who are you to make a comment like that?

You're right, who am I? Just someone that actually intereacted with him, knew and talked to many people that dealt with him on a daily basis, and knew the the interactions that many recruits (and their families) would tell me about him. But I'm sure you have more insider info on him.

+1. I'd expect a comment like that from Wren or Art Vandelay, but not from you, GL.

How was Reusse (or myself?) off on that comment at all?

While I obviously respect your opinions and thoughts, NB, let's not get carried away in this case.

Reusse made an educated guess, one that was significantly fortified by the fact that Brewster had never been a head coach before. I wouldn't exactly call him Nostradamus for that. He wasn't alone in his opinions either.

I know this is nitpicking also but I would take issue with the phrase "judge of character" in this case. Few people have raised issue with Brewster's character, work ethic, etc. He was just ill-prepared for the job.

That's because people like myself have kept it to ourselves, for the team, our school and to look better. Trust me, there are MANY that would question his character.

Bob hit the nail on the head. Their gimmicks are different, but about equal. Brewster's lack of success had nothing to do with being a salesman and everything to do with not winning games. In 3-4 years, if kills teams are looking bad...people will likely start ripping his schtick too. People love to buy into coaches gimmicks at the beginning and love to hate them near the end. In reality, as long as they are motivating players...any gimmick is fine.
QUOTE]

If that was the case, I would have the same feeling for Coach Monson as I do for Brew. Both didn't meet expectations on the court or field - but have you ever seen me say a harsh word about Monson's character? No. That has nothing do do with wins and losses, but the fact that this may not have been the best fit for him, but he's a good man.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

GL, I think Rose's point was that your dislike for Brew had nothing to do with the fact that he had a gimmick.

Apparently, he was a jerk to be around (i've heard this from other people than you as well) and he was a bad coach. If I am understanding you correctly, it wasn't his hyperbolic confidence, his going to get the Rose Bowl turf or whatever other campy gimmick he employed that drove you to come to the conclusion that you didn't like him as a person or especially as a coach.

My guess is that if Brew was a good person to be around, friendly and cordial and he won football games...you wouldn't care one way or the other about that kind of gimmicky stuff.

I think the "Kill uses gimmicks" crowd that I am part of aren't arguing that Brew was a nice guy and we certainly aren't arguing that he was a good coach. Our point is that Brew's failures had nothing to do with the existance in some sort of schtick. He appears that he was a really tough person to be around and he was obviously in over his head as a coach. As for Monson, he did a much better job than Brew (first off), and he was a nice guy from the accounts i've heard. Which means, we don't want him as a coach but we don't hate the guy. Kind of like a Wacker.

Now...with Kill (who by all accounts seems to be a nice guy and a much better coach). If he has success his gimmicks won't grate on our nerves. However, if he was to lose and was a jerk to everyone (like Brew)...i'd guess you wouldn't have much good to say about him.

The point: It's not about the gimmicks. It's about winning and losing (on a professional level) and for those who interact with him, it's about how good of a person he is.

 

[Rosemountian]

People get way to caught up on the word gimmick. They are not bad or good. They can be either. I have no problem if someone hates Brewster or loves kill. But if your primary reason for hating Brewster was his gimmicks or cliches...then you are an idiot. If your primary reason for liking kill is his lack of gimmicks or cliches....then you are an idiot.

That's all I'm saying.
For the record, I didn't like Brewster as a coach and I did like his schtick.
For the record, I'm cautiously optimistic about kill and I don't really like his schtick (I actually don't dislike his schtick either, but I do dislike the way everyone seems to be slurping it).