Either get on the Dino train or shut the hell up | Page 7 | Syracusefan.com

Either get on the Dino train or shut the hell up

Have they, though? The OL has been a huge liability in the running game all season long. Not that the RBs have been great, either, but my opinion only, the OL has barely been acceptable, given that they struggle to pass block for longer than 2 seconds. Injuries haven't helped.

The bolded part of your post is interesting, because that's exactly what the T2 strategically is designed to do--compliment what we do on offense, and slow the opponent down. We just don't have the right personnel right now to staff it. You've been really critical of the T2 and the performance this year, but maybe when things click better in year 2, when we have better system fits on the team after a class or two or three of recruits, etc. the bolded criticism from your post won't be a factor anymore.

Again, the coaching staff is building with an eye on the strategic long game, not to adjust the schemes to play differently than how they intend to play on either side of the ball even if there might be some slight short term benefits. The band aid has been ripped off.

I like your thinking. Yes, we are a year away, at least, but we should be more competitive against squads like wake. What scares me is Dinos stubbornness in insisting his 8-12 plays will only be called. We are dreadfully predictable. Long left to AET, short (bubble) right to ish, nothing established over the middle which drives me crazy.
 
Have they, though? The OL has been a huge liability in the running game all season long. Not that the RBs have been great, either, but my opinion only, the OL has barely been acceptable, given that they struggle to pass block for longer than 2 seconds. Injuries haven't helped.

The bolded part of your post is interesting, because that's exactly what the T2 strategically is designed to do--compliment what we do on offense, and slow the opponent down. We just don't have the right personnel right now to staff it. You've been really critical of the T2 and the performance this year, but maybe when things click better in year 2, when we have better system fits on the team after a class or two or three of recruits, etc. the bolded criticism from your post won't be a factor anymore.

Again, the coaching staff is building with an eye on the strategic long game, not to adjust the schemes to play differently than how they intend to play on either side of the ball even if there might be some slight short term benefits. The band aid has been ripped off.

And ty for chatting and being reasonable and not calling me a Shafer Homer. I loooove the babers hire, just think he could be doing more in year 1.
 
And ty for chatting and being reasonable and not calling me a Shafer Homer. I loooove the babers hire, just think he could be doing more in year 1.

Likewise--you and I have been on different sides of numerous debates since week 2, but we can have civil debates and make it about the ideas. Glad to hear you are on board with Babers. This year has been frustrating, but I'm convinced we hired the right guy.
 
Love the total offense numbers argument without taking into account the additional 25 plays per game. Reeks of desperation to find something good to this point in the season.

Reality is that this team is no better this year than last year (probably worse) and that's a tough pill to swallow after many said we would be better if we just had a competent staff.

Wait...what?

How do you think this offense gets those additional 25 plays per game? Welfare?

Why not add that Shafer also didn't have the NCAA leading receiver either?
 
Wait...what?

How do you think this offense gets those additional 25 plays per game? Welfare?

Why not add that Shafer also didn't have the NCAA leading receiver either?
Redistribution of plays, man.
 
I like your thinking. Yes, we are a year away, at least, but we should be more competitive against squads like wake. What scares me is Dinos stubbornness in insisting his 8-12 plays will only be called. We are dreadfully predictable. Long left to AET, short (bubble) right to ish, nothing established over the middle which drives me crazy.

That you watched that game and thought we weren't competitive with Wake tells me everything I need to know. You did watch, right? Not just the final score?
 
I think it's time to put some stats into perspective given our penchant for year to year comparisons.

Total yards being up is good. No caveats. It's good.

Plays per game being up is good because the more plays you run the more chances you have at breaking one.

Possessions per game being up is good because the more times you possess the ball the more chances you have to score.

YPP (yards per play) measures efficiency. If it's the same as last year but yards, possessions, and plays are all up the result is a better offense. The YPP will go up as the team gets better at this offense (experience, better players, etc).

I agree with the 1st 2 stats, but the possessions per game one I'm not buying as necessarily being good. We've had more possessions because we run a much faster attack. We score faster, or we turn the ball over on downs faster. And unfortunately, our opponents seem to score A LOT faster.
 
I agree with the 1st 2 stats, but the possessions per game one I'm not buying as necessarily being good. We've had more possessions because we run a much faster attack. We score faster, or we turn the ball over on downs faster. And unfortunately, our opponents seem to score A LOT faster.

I agree in a sense. Our pass D is so bad that we give up too many big plays/quick strikes. If we can limit that to average and up our own O efficiency - that stat would be a net +.
 
i like dino as well. i like the way he leads, self confidence, deliberate stay the course mode, and the way he responds to questions. i also feel we lack the talent at this time to be competitive in his scheme. i am not sure that at this point he is able to maximize what does have and adjust the his scheme as necessary. maybe he has and this is the best we can do at this point. i am not skilled enough to know the what other options he has, if any.
i do know i had more confidence in marrone, his plan,and staff. as ish said i felt that we were on verge of a return to some degree of success under him, despite his personality.again, i apologize for my true lack of expertise just a feeling i had at the time and still have. he coached up, and maximized the existing talent.
recruiting is the major issue now(and always) . i hope for the best and will be at the va.tech game. i am not throwing dino under a bus just stating my personal preference
 
Wait...what?

How do you think this offense gets those additional 25 plays per game? Welfare?

Why not add that Shafer also didn't have the NCAA leading receiver either?

The additional plays are directly attributable to pace of play and is not an effect of a high-scoring or efficient offense. Its really not that hard to grasp. We snap the ball quicker in the play clock. Our plays per minute is 12th in the country. Its pace alone that is leading to the additional plays and nothing else at this point in time.

Our yards per play is 73rd in the country, our % of possessions with points is 106th, our points per game (even at an accelerated pace) is 91st, our % of 1st downs gaining 4+ yards is 119th, etc. etc. I could go on and on. The offense has been bad halfway through the season. Statistically, in most significant statistical categories, we are worse than last year.

The consequence of running fast at this point with a wholly inefficient offense has been the opposing team getting more possessions, more plays, more points, etc. against an undermanned and outmatched defense. Running an inefficient offense faster with a weak defense doesn't make you a better team in the win/loss column it actually makes your chances of winning go down.

Some may understand it better in a basketball context. If I am outmanned from a talent perspective do I want to quicken the pace of the game or slow down the pace of the game to maximize my chances of winning? While running the ball up and down the court may be more fun for the fans does it lead to wins in this scenario? That is my primary concern for the future of this system.

As I've said repeatedly, I want this to work in the short-term and long run and will continue to support the program as I have for the past 30 years. However, I can say with certainty that the offensive play to this point in the season just doesn't come close to what correlates to a good offense in 2016 FBS football. There is a long way to go and not a few quick fixes on both sides of the ball. As they say, the numbers don't lie.
 
The additional plays are directly attributable to pace of play and is not an effect of a high-scoring or efficient offense. Its really not that hard to grasp. We snap the ball quicker in the play clock. Our plays per minute is 12th in the country. Its pace alone that is leading to the additional plays and nothing else at this point in time.

Our yards per play is 73rd in the country, our % of possessions with points is 106th, our points per game (even at an accelerated pace) is 91st, our % of 1st downs gaining 4+ yards is 119th, etc. etc. I could go on and on. The offense has been bad halfway through the season. Statistically, in most significant statistical categories, we are worse than last year.

The consequence of running fast at this point with a wholly inefficient offense has been the opposing team getting more possessions, more plays, more points, etc. against an undermanned and outmatched defense. Running an inefficient offense faster with a weak defense doesn't make you a better team in the win/loss column it actually makes your chances of winning go down.

Some may understand it better in a basketball context. If I am outmanned from a talent perspective do I want to quicken the pace of the game or slow down the pace of the game to maximize my chances of winning? While running the ball up and down the court may be more fun for the fans does it lead to wins in this scenario? That is my primary concern for the future of this system.

As I've said repeatedly, I want this to work in the short-term and long run and will continue to support the program as I have for the past 30 years. However, I can say with certainty that the offensive play to this point in the season just doesn't come close to what correlates to a good offense in 2016 FBS football. There is a long way to go and not a few quick fixes on both sides of the ball. As they say, the numbers don't lie.

While much of what you say is true, you still refuse to acknowledge a few things.

1. Tempo = more possessions and plays = a higher % of scoring chances (There is nothing wrong with this formula, it's tried and true).

2. So even if our efficiency is only 73rd nationally (as measured by YPP), it's still more chances at scoring which is good.

3. For example: I'd rather be 73rd at YPP with 14 possessions than 73rd with 8 possessions.

Yes, that does give the opposition more possessions. And yes, that mixed with a bad defense is a formula for disaster. But you're still leaving out something...

Let's look at your basketball analogy. If you have less talent you may want to slow down the game, hold the ball, and hope you can execute on both ends of the floor (because if you don't, you're screwed. Lower margin of error.) But what if you decide it's in your best interest to run because running and trying to score before the defense is set makes scoring easier? What if you recruit to that system and get rangy, athletic, fast guys? Playing with tempo in CFB gets your more reps in practice and more plays which should help you get more efficient - but even if it doesn't - it makes scoring easier (see the Louisville game).

Now what if you marry you're running style with a defense that is abnormal and hard to prepare for (think, um... zone or a press). You recruit defenders that fit your unique scheme.

Does any of this sound familiar?
 
The additional plays are directly attributable to pace of play and is not an effect of a high-scoring or efficient offense. Its really not that hard to grasp. We snap the ball quicker in the play clock. Our plays per minute is 12th in the country. Its pace alone that is leading to the additional plays and nothing else at this point in time.

Our yards per play is 73rd in the country, our % of possessions with points is 106th, our points per game (even at an accelerated pace) is 91st, our % of 1st downs gaining 4+ yards is 119th, etc. etc. I could go on and on. The offense has been bad halfway through the season. Statistically, in most significant statistical categories, we are worse than last year.

The consequence of running fast at this point with a wholly inefficient offense has been the opposing team getting more possessions, more plays, more points, etc. against an undermanned and outmatched defense. Running an inefficient offense faster with a weak defense doesn't make you a better team in the win/loss column it actually makes your chances of winning go down.

Some may understand it better in a basketball context. If I am outmanned from a talent perspective do I want to quicken the pace of the game or slow down the pace of the game to maximize my chances of winning? While running the ball up and down the court may be more fun for the fans does it lead to wins in this scenario? That is my primary concern for the future of this system.

As I've said repeatedly, I want this to work in the short-term and long run and will continue to support the program as I have for the past 30 years. However, I can say with certainty that the offensive play to this point in the season just doesn't come close to what correlates to a good offense in 2016 FBS football. There is a long way to go and not a few quick fixes on both sides of the ball. As they say, the numbers don't lie.

What is so hard to understand that this is a process in making a radical transformation and that maybe they are additionally hamstrung by the issues on the OL.

Regardless of how much you want to discount this they are currently 36th in total offense vs 118th last year. That matters and its significantly better, not worse.

Even with a worse offense than last year according to you, they are significantly improved on 3rd down, 59th vs 113th last year, currently 41% vs 33% last year.

Passing efficiency is 54th vs 94th last year.

The team already has 6 more pass plays of 10 or more yards than they had all of last year. Currently 9th in the country vs 119th.

That isn't just a pace of play thing.
 
While much of what you say is true, you still refuse to acknowledge a few things.

1. Tempo = more possessions and plays = a higher % of scoring chances (There is nothing wrong with this formula, it's tried and true).

2. So even if our efficiency is only 73rd nationally (as measured by YPP), it's still more chances at scoring which is good.

3. For example: I'd rather be 73rd at YPP with 14 possessions than 73rd with 8 possessions.

Yes, that does give the opposition more possessions. And yes, that mixed with a bad defense is a formula for disaster. But you're still leaving out something...

Let's look at your basketball analogy. If you have less talent you may want to slow down the game, hold the ball, and hope you can execute on both ends of the floor (because if you don't, you're screwed. Lower margin of error.) But what if you decide it's in your best interest to run because running and trying to score before the defense is set makes scoring easier? What if you recruit to that system and get rangy, athletic, fast guys? Playing with tempo in CFB gets your more reps in practice and more plays which should help you get more efficient - but even if it doesn't - it makes scoring easier (see the Louisville game).

Now what if you marry you're running style with a defense that is abnormal and hard to prepare for (think, um... zone or a press). You recruit defenders that fit your unique scheme.

Does any of this sound familiar?

I know you're a diehard like I am and know you understand what I'm trying to explain regarding pace of play. You seem like a very thoughtful fan who bleeds Orange. Only time will tell whether this offensive scheme works in the W-L column. No one knows for sure including myself. I want to buy in like you do I'm just still skeptical.

I've limited my argument to the statistics to date because of the OP and the slew of fans who seem to think that the offense is fine/the numbers are historic, its all the defense fault etc. and just ignore the obvious problems with the offense which are big at this time. I wouldn't spend the time on the statistical analysis and correlations to winning if I didn't care.

In sum, I believe that increased pace of play can actually hurt our chances of winning if our efficiency is not significantly above average (Top 30). Unfortunately, my analysis shows me that we are currently well below where we need to be for this formula to be successful. Can we get there over the next few seasons? I certainly hope so. I'll be there cheering for it to happen.
 
I know you're a diehard like I am and know you understand what I'm trying to explain regarding pace of play. You seem like a very thoughtful fan who bleeds Orange. Only time will tell whether this offensive scheme works in the W-L column. No one knows for sure including myself. I want to buy in like you do I'm just still skeptical.

I've limited my argument to the statistics to date because of the OP and the slew of fans who seem to think that the offense is fine/the numbers are historic, its all the defense fault etc. and just ignore the obvious problems with the offense which are big at this time. I wouldn't spend the time on the statistical analysis and correlations to winning if I didn't care.

In sum, I believe that increased pace of play can actually hurt our chances of winning if our efficiency is not significantly above average (Top 30). Unfortunately, my analysis shows me that we are currently well below where we need to be for this formula to be successful. Can we get there over the next few seasons? I certainly hope so. I'll be there cheering for it to happen.

I think you're discounting all of the available evidence that this system will work that comes from all of the other teams where it's run. Remember this is the baby stages for both O and D.

I'd also throw in Amaba's numbers are not due to a direct correlation between plays run/tempo. I'd point to he and Erv as signs that things will work. Dungey's completion % is a nice indicator too.
 
In sum, I believe that increased pace of play can actually hurt our chances of winning if our efficiency is not significantly above average (Top 30). Unfortunately, my analysis shows me that we are currently well below where we need to be for this formula to be successful. Can we get there over the next few seasons? I certainly hope so. I'll be there cheering for it to happen.
Exactly! Which is why Dino said to give it time...the offense wouldn't be firing on all cylinders until at least half way thru year 2. So yeah, currently we are below where we need to be. We were told that we would be. This is not a surprise! Surely you can see signs of improvement...just look at Amba's numbers...even Irv's. Sure they are inflated a little by the increased tempo, but you still need to factor in that they have to make the plays and Dungey has to get them the ball.
 
Exactly! Which is why Dino said to give it time...the offense wouldn't be firing on all cylinders until at least half way thru year 2. So yeah, currently we are below where we need to be. We were told that we would be. This is not a surprise! Surely you can see signs of improvement...just look at Amba's numbers...even Irv's. Sure they are inflated a little by the increased tempo, but you still need to factor in that they have to make the plays and Dungey has to get them the ball.

Exactly, the entire point is that we don't have enough athletes on either side of the ball to run the systems they are running. Plus this team is crazy young. There is no quick fix with that. That takes several recruiting classes. People act like Dino walked in and just tweaked things(I don't think you think that way Louie). You couldn't have changed both sides of the ball more than what the new staff is doing. America's slowest offense, a run heavy option offense, changed to America's fastest(eventually) offense, heavily reliant on the passing game. An ultra-ultra aggressive and small defense that blitzed constantly changed to a Cover 2 zone D that needs bigger players. It really isn't that hard to see. There is no guarantee that Dino will be a success here, but he has to be given time to prove it either way. I know Baylor is a program of scumbags who brought in rapists and turned their backs on it, and I know they are in the talent rich state of Texas. But that program was worse than ours currently is and they have proven you can win with this style, you just need to get the right players. I obviously mean the right players on and off the field, not what Baylor meant, but that's what I mean.
 
Does anyone here think we are playing with IVY league guys? Yeah sure we have some talent deficiencies but I'm seeing alot of Grob style apologists around here. I know because I used to be one. This defense is crap. Don't have the talent to run it yet? Then don't. I get installing the offense now, it's a showcase for incoming recruits so even if it has some broken gears, enough of the machine is moving to impress. Defensively? Stop the enabling. Dino loses by alot of points when he loses and that's before he came here. Talent shows itself when the DB gets outran, outjumped, etc. What we have right now are parts of the field so wide freaking open that you can run a 3 run circus in all that real estate. That's a coaching problem. I like Dino very much, he has great personality and his offensive system is shown to work. I have serious reservations about our "He's wide open...again" defense. We don't have personnel to run a zone cover 2 then run a freaking man cover 2, figure it out. That's a coaches job. Does anyone remember how completely ineffective Grob's offenses were? Well some people realized pretty quick in year 1 of Gerg that he was in over his head. I'm worried that Dino has no idea how to contain the talent from an opposing P5 school. Just to be clear this isn't about this past Sat, I didn't see the game as I was at Vanderbilt stadium for my son's competition. I'm talking about the fact that some teams have us down 2-3 TDs in the first 5 freaking minutes of the game. Dino and Ward so far appear completely clueless how to stop the opposition. I hear people say well that's the defense we need to run our offense. Why? Why do we need a bend but don't break defense that allows other teams to wear us down, eat clock, and completely take over a game if our offense goes 3 and out more than twice? Why wouldn't a Shafer style defense that rattles teams not be better suited for the kind of shock and awe campaign that Dino wants to run?
 
No, I didn't I hated the Robinson and Shafer hires. I never got on their trains because they to me where horrible hires. I gave Marrone a chance because after 2009 he showed obvious progress from the Gerg nightmare.

Marrone got heat from me in 2011 and early 2012. However, I would take his crap over Shafer/Gerg.

Babers is the real deal and deserves time. So if people can't see that then I say shut the hell up.
So what you are saying is that you didn't get on the Marrone train until sometime in year 2 but want everyone else to jump on the Dino train by game 5 with one of the worst defenses in FBS competition and if they can't get onboard to basically piss off?

29973596.jpg
 
Exactly, the entire point is that we don't have enough athletes on either side of the ball to run the systems they are running. Plus this team is crazy young. There is no quick fix with that. That takes several recruiting classes. People act like Dino walked in and just tweaked things(I don't think you think that way Louie). You couldn't have changed both sides of the ball more than what the new staff is doing. America's slowest offense, a run heavy option offense, changed to America's fastest(eventually) offense, heavily reliant on the passing game. An ultra-ultra aggressive and small defense that blitzed constantly changed to a Cover 2 zone D that needs bigger players. It really isn't that hard to see. There is no guarantee that Dino will be a success here, but he has to be given time to prove it either way. I know Baylor is a program of scumbags who brought in rapists and turned their backs on it, and I know they are in the talent rich state of Texas. But that program was worse than ours currently is and they have proven you can win with this style, you just need to get the right players. I obviously mean the right players on and off the field, not what Baylor meant, but that's what I mean.
Well said.

Look at Texas. They are in year 1 of installing the same offense Dino uses. They have a roster full of 4 and 5 star recruits. They are inconsistent on offense with flashes of dominance and are an absolute dumpster fire on defense. They also happen to be incredibly young on defense, with 16 freshmen or sophomores on the two deep. Charlie Strong built his rep as a defense guy at Florida and then Louisville - did he somehow forget how to coach defense? The reality is that it is next to impossible to have a good defense playing so many young players. If that is true for 4 and 5 star recruits, it is even more true for 2 and 3 star recruits.

The unfortunate truth that many don't seem to want to acknowledge is that the primary goal for this year isn't wins. Dino, of course, would rather win games than lose games, but the overall governing priority for this year is laying a foundation for how Syracuse will play under Dino. that includes revamping conditioning, pace, culture, philosophies and figuring out deficiencies in players and whether those deficiencies can be addressed through technique and growth or if there is an incurable talent deficiency. The fact that the team is so young is a blessing and a curse. A curse in that they are ill equipped to go up against more physically mature and experienced teams, but a blessing in that there are fewer bad habits to break and there is more time to invest in them and receive the payoff. The trade off, of course, is taking a step back before two steps forward.

This year is a necessary step. Syracuse is not the kind of program where even an Urban Meyer or Nick Saban could step in and start winning right away. There is a sea change going on, and like any massive change, it takes time and is nonlinear in gains made.

The worse thing would be to skip this step, sacrifice the future in the name of trying to win games now (i.e. slowing down the pace, changing core philosophies, etc). That would slow down the rebuild. We need wholesale change, and we are getting wholesale change. It seems foolhardy and lacking in perspective to moan and complain about it. Stop the hyper focus on the week to week and start seeing this in panoramas, and one will have the proper perspective to understand what Dino is trying to do, and will be better positioned to judge and critique.

If this season was happening in year 3 or year 4, then this is a very different conversation. But this is transition, and that simply cannot be emphasized enough.
 
So what you are saying is that you didn't get on the Marrone train until sometime in year 2 but want everyone else to jump on the Dino train by game 5 with one of the worst defenses in FBS competition and if they can't get onboard to basically piss off?

29973596.jpg
Okay mate what I was saying was that the Marrone hire scared me because he had no HC experience and after the Gerg 4 years I was scared because of that. However once Marrone showed in 2009 he actually could prepare the team he quieted me down.
I hated the Shafer/Gerg hires because I have been a person who wants HC experience and not hire all first time HCs. I liked the Dino hire because of his experience of being a HC and having a plan.
Go ahead and disagree.
 
Okay mate what I was saying was that the Marrone hire scared me because he had no HC experience and after the Gerg 4 years I was scared because of that. However once Marrone showed in 2009 he actually could prepare the team he quieted me down.
I hated the Shafer/Gerg hires because I have been a person who wants HC experience and not hire all first time HCs. I liked the Dino hire because of his experience of being a HC and having a plan.
Go ahead and disagree.
Thanks for the explanation, no disagreement necessary. It sounded pretty hypocritical at first glance but I get where you're coming from. What's worrying me is that we aren't getting outplayed on D, we're completely inept. The last time I felt so completely helpless watching this team perform was under Gerg. I'm not saying Dino is that kind of clueless but Dino does seem to be a little stubborn regarding his lack of willingness to consider the fact that his scheme isn't just working, it's a full blown disaster. Now add in a little Coach P 'the gameplan isn't the problem so we'll just keep bashing our head against this wall," lack of adjustments attitude after halftime and it's a concern. Clawson outcoached Dino big time this weekend. Read the player's comments about how they couldn't handle all of the blitzing. Dino did nothing but want to run more DeLeone offense. I mean what????
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,710
Messages
4,721,975
Members
5,917
Latest member
FbBarbie

Online statistics

Members online
288
Guests online
1,938
Total visitors
2,226


Top Bottom