Mike hart new rbs coach

[CousCuse]

What’s interesting to me is that Bowling Green rolled Western Michigan twice and Babers still wanted to hire these guys.

They are arguably their best two positions coaches and recruiters (so says MLive.com) and Western Michigan has had far and away the MAC’s best recruiting class two years running.

good article on Hart at WM

http://www.mlive.com/broncos/index.ssf/2014/04/wmu_football_assistant_blendin.html

WMU beat BGU in Babers first year.

 

[nzm136]

I was just hoping for NJ, PA, VA, NC, DC, and GA as well but as you wrote they seem to do well in FL. Wins on the field will help any recruiting. If Hart can teach these guys their reads and assignments I'm happy.

I feel the same way. SU and BGSU are two different animals. One has to play Clemson, FSU, UL, and BC (who would have been WAY better sans an abnormally high number of injuries) every year. The other doesn't. Players and coaching styles that work in the MAC won't work as well on the ACC. The staff will either need to recruit Florida a lot better, or recruit a wider area effectively.

That said, I'm willing to give Dino and the BGSU coaches the benefit of the doubt on offense. His Art's system works really well at Baylor and family atmospheres work well for recruiting. Admittedly, I am FAR less confident in our future offense than most posters (we will have trouble getting Baylor-level talent because we aren't located in Texas and the big players in our hot recruiting areas aren't down). However, I'm still content to give it a whirl. Dino coached at Pitt, so he presumably understands the limitations of recruiting in the northeast.

I'm not completely sold on defense, and I would really like to see an aggressive and attacking defense, like the one that we had under DCSS. A fun defense and a fun offense is, at the minimum, fun to watch. At the maximum, a good recruiting tool that also grabs exposure and creates upsets. However, if Dino is willing to cut ties w/ defensive coaches if they don't pan out, and if the school is willing to pay for top-level talent to replace them if need be, then I'm willing to give our MAC D coaches a spin for a year without too much complaining. Who knows, they might actually end up being really good, and that would be great.

And before anyone blasts me for being skeptical of the MAC. Yes, I freely admit that a lot of great coaches started in the MAC. However, (even more) terrible ones started there, too. The average MAC coach is worse than his counterpart at most other conferences.

 

[nzm136]

This is a little OT, but next year is going to be a huge year for DB as a manager. I don't think that we will do that well because of new systems and a tough schedule. So, it will give him the political cover to make any changes to his staff that he needs to make. If he plays his cards right, and if our AD plays his cards right, we should have a great staff (either through great initial hires or good adjustments) heading into year 2 (at the minimum). That, combined with our talent structure and what will probably be an easier schedule means we should have an explosion in on-field results in year 2. To me, that's the year DB will be tested as a coach and a recruiter.

 

[PAcuse]

I feel the same way. SU and BGSU are two different animals. One has to play Clemson, FSU, UL, and BC (who would have been WAY better sans an abnormally high number of injuries) every year. The other doesn't. Players and coaching styles that work in the MAC won't work as well on the ACC. The staff will either need to recruit Florida a lot better, or recruit a wider area effectively.

That said, I'm willing to give Dino and the BGSU coaches the benefit of the doubt on offense. His Art's system works really well at Baylor and family atmospheres work well for recruiting. Admittedly, I am FAR less confident in our future offense than most posters (we will have trouble getting Baylor-level talent because we aren't located in Texas and the big players in our hot recruiting areas aren't down). However, I'm still content to give it a whirl. Dino coached at Pitt, so he presumably understands the limitations of recruiting in the northeast.

I'm not completely sold on defense, and I would really like to see an aggressive and attacking defense, like the one that we had under DCSS. A fun defense and a fun offense is, at the minimum, fun to watch. At the maximum, a good recruiting tool that also grabs exposure and creates upsets. However, if Dino is willing to cut ties w/ defensive coaches if they don't pan out, and if the school is willing to pay for top-level talent to replace them if need be, then I'm willing to give our MAC D coaches a spin for a year without too much complaining. Who knows, they might actually end up being really good, and that would be great.

And before anyone blasts me for being skeptical of the MAC. Yes, I freely admit that a lot of great coaches started in the MAC. However, (even more) terrible ones started there, too. The average MAC coach is worse than his counterpart at most other conferences.

Go look at the Baylor level talent in the early years of Art's tenure.
Dino has shown a willingness to move coaches on the defense side of the ball McCloud to Ward. Ward's defense improved a ridiculous amount with the amount of new starters he had.
Ward has soon that he does like the Tampa 2 defense, but will slide into the 4-2-5 against the spread teams.
This offense is the McLaren of college football offenses and we will have it in a controlled environment, we are about 15 years to late doing this IMO
This team will put up some crazy numbers in no time, we will have some 48-42 games for sure and even get hit over the head by some 52-38 games I'm sure.
Once this train is fulling rolling it's going to be fun and wins will come in bundles.

 

[PAcuse]

This is a little OT, but next year is going to be a huge year for DB as a manager. I don't think that we will do that well because of new systems and a tough schedule. So, it will give him the political cover to make any changes to his staff that he needs to make. If he plays his cards right, and if our AD plays his cards right, we should have a great staff (either through great initial hires or good adjustments) heading into year 2 (at the minimum). That, combined with our talent structure and what will probably be an easier schedule means we should have an explosion in on-field results in year 2. To me, that's the year DB will be tested as a coach and a recruiter.

So in a system where Dino has said it won't click 100% until mid way to year 2 the staff should only get a year? Seems a bit fast to rush judgement. Dino has worked with most of the guys for years. Hart, WR coach to be named, and Reynolds will most likely get more then one year to prove themselves.

 

[nzm136]

So in a system where Dino has said it won't click 100% until mid way to year 2 the staff should only get a year? Seems a bit fast to rush judgement. Dino has worked with most of the guys for years. Hart, WR coach to be named, and Reynolds will most likely get more then one year to prove themselves.

I think you're missing what I'm saying. When a new coach is hired and he brings his old staff with him, he's subject to different constraints than before. In this case, it might be political constraints rather than budget constraints (like it previously was at BGSU). A bad first year alleviates the political constraints.

 

[nzm136]

Go look at the Baylor level talent in the early years of Art's tenure.
Dino has shown a willingness to move coaches on the defense side of the ball McCloud to Ward. Ward's defense improved a ridiculous amount with the amount of new starters he had.
Ward has soon that he does like the Tampa 2 defense, but will slide into the 4-2-5 against the spread teams.
This offense is the McLaren of college football offenses and we will have it in a controlled environment, we are about 15 years to late doing this IMO
This team will put up some crazy numbers in no time, we will have some 48-42 games for sure and even get hit over the head by some 52-38 games I'm sure.
Once this train is fulling rolling it's going to be fun and wins will come in bundles.

Art went 4-8 in both of his first 2 years at Baylor and was recruiting Texas talent to a Texas school during an era when the university of Texas was on the decline (Texas fell off in Art's 3rd season and went 5-7, and A&M has one top 25 season between 2000 and 2010).

You (or others) are asking Dino to recruit Florida kids to play in New York at a time when UF, FSU, and Miami are all probably going to be juggernaughts and UCF is running an exciting offense AND USF is making bowls.

See the difference?

I hope it pans out (and it might very well work), but it isn't even close to being as much of a sure thing as many on here would like to believe.

*FWIW, Art also went 7-5 in year 3. He didn't have a great year until his fourth year. Having the right talent really matters.

 

[TheCusian]

Art went 4-8 in both of his first 2 years at Baylor and was recruiting Texas talent to a Texas school during an era when the university of Texas was on the decline (Texas fell off in Art's 3rd season and went 5-7, and A&M has one top 25 season between 2000 and 2010). You (or others) are asking Dino to recruit Florida kids to play in New York at a time when UF, FSU, and Miami are all probably going to be juggernaughts and UCF is running an exciting offense AND USF is making bowls. See the difference? I hope it pans out (and it might very well work), but it isn't even close to being as much of a sure thing as many on here would like to believe. *FWIW, Art also went 7-5 in year 3. He didn't have a great year until his fourth year. Having the right talent really matters.

2 things:

- we've been so bad on offense for so long, Babers typical 1st year results at his first two stops would be enormous for fan support, recruiting, and overall perception. W-L can take a bit to catch up. But it will be fun.

- schemes and systems like Briles/Baber work all the time. They really work with better talent. I think we'll see enough hope to give him time to build it and for recruiting to take off.

I think that's what people are confident in around here. I don't think there's a ton of "we're winning the ACC next year" type posts. Level headed and optimistic. I'm amped for the ride.

 

[Toga]

Oof. Don't go to urban dictionary.

It can not be unseen.

 

[PAcuse]

I think you're missing what I'm saying. When a new coach is hired and he brings his old staff with him, he's subject to different constraints than before. In this case, it might be political constraints rather than budget constraints (like it previously was at BGSU). A bad first year alleviates the political constraints.

Nope didn't miss what you said

 

[nzm136]

Nope didn't miss what you said

Then your post is wrong because it's internally inconsistent. If they've been together for years, he isn't necessarily making the determination based off of one year, now is he?

 

[TheCusian]

Then the implied underlying assumption that BGSU and SU have the same budget is almost assuredly wrong, or your view of how the world works doesn't involve either money or resources.

Or he just believes in his guys?

 

[nzm136]

Or he just believes in his guys?

His belief is irrelevant to the fact that he will likely have the opportunity to make changes. If you read what I said, I never said that he *would* make changes, only that he probably would be in a great position to make them if he sees fit. The implication of that is our year 2 coaching staff is more reflective of his ability to manage than his year 1 staff (which may have been hired with political constraints that carryover from BGSU's initial budget constraints). As such, judging a year 1 staff is a little harsh. Judging a year 2 staff is more appropriate.

 

[nzm136]

2 things:

- we've been so bad on offense for so long, Babers typical 1st year results at his first two stops would be enormous for fan support, recruiting, and overall perception. W-L can take a bit to catch up. But it will be fun.

- schemes and systems like Briles/Baber work all the time. They really work with better talent. I think we'll see enough hope to give him time to build it and for recruiting to take off.

I think that's what people are confident in around here. I don't think there's a ton of "we're winning the ACC next year" type posts. Level headed and optimistic. I'm amped for the ride.

PA called Dino's offense "the McLaren of college football" and that it would put up "crazy numbers." It may be a McLaren, but not all roads are the same. Baylor drives on a different road than we do. Extrapolating one to the other is tough. Admittedly, I only looked at W/L records (i.e. as opposed to straight offensive numbers) and wasn't following Baylor in '07 and '08, but be it because of a mediocre offense, and/or the effects of the offense on a under-talented defense, the overal results were mediocre.

Since SU's ability to stockpile talent is far worse than Baylor in '08 (due to location and competition), promises that we're going to get "bundles of wins" and put up "crazy numbers" are amazingly premature.

It could happen, and I hope it does, but pretending like there aren't real question marks is a little much.

 

[leftytg]

PA called Dino's offense "the McLaren of college football" and that it would put up "crazy numbers." It may be a McLaren, but not all roads are the same. Baylor drives on a different road than we do. Extrapolating one to the other is tough. Admittedly, I only looked at W/L records (i.e. as opposed to straight offensive numbers) and wasn't following Baylor in '07 and '08, but be it because of a mediocre offense, and/or the effects of the offense on a under-talented defense, the overal results were mediocre.

Since SU's ability to stockpile talent is far worse than Baylor in '08 (due to location and competition), promises that we're going to get "bundles of wins" and put up "crazy numbers" are amazingly premature.

It could happen, and I hope it does, but pretending like there aren't real question marks is a little much.

I think you have a distorted notion of Baylor's history, before Briles. Baylor was just a gawd awful excuse of a football program. As bad as Syracuse has been, Baylor was way worse. Baylor had not had a winning season since 1995 when Briles took over and had won only 11 conference games in 12 years. Sure, Baylor is in Texas, a fertile recruiting ground. But practically every program recruits Texas. Baylor was getting 3rd tier Texas talent. Your point about Baylor being fortunate to catch UT and A&M on downswings is naive. Outside of the last couple of years, Baylor wasn't swimming in the same recruiting pools as UT or A&M. They certainly didn't benefit from any supposed downswing from the big dogs, which didn't even happen until several years into Briles' tenure (in UT's case, anyway). Baylor's recruiting classes from 2005-2011 (so the players Briles inherited plus his first 4 recruiting classes) were ranked 64, 55, 52, 55, 44, 51, and 52, respectively. It wasn't until 2012 that they broke through with a 30th ranked class.

Briles turned around an abysmal program with subpar talent. He was successful in 1) having a unique system 2) having a sharp eye for the kinds of talent that was available to him that would thrive in this unique system and 3) he brought in RGIII in his first recruiting class.

If the argument is that Baylor's ultimate ceiling is higher than Syracuse because of its proximity to Texas high school football talent, then I would readily agree. However, the notion that Baylor, during its ascent, was getting the kind of talent unavailable to Syracuse now is incorrect in my view.

 

[PAcuse]

PA called Dino's offense "the McLaren of college football" and that it would put up "crazy numbers." It may be a McLaren, but not all roads are the same. Baylor drives on a different road than we do. Extrapolating one to the other is tough. Admittedly, I only looked at W/L records (i.e. as opposed to straight offensive numbers) and wasn't following Baylor in '07 and '08, but be it because of a mediocre offense, and/or the effects of the offense on a under-talented defense, the overal results were mediocre.

Since SU's ability to stockpile talent is far worse than Baylor in '08 (due to location and competition), promises that we're going to get "bundles of wins" and put up "crazy numbers" are amazingly premature.

It could happen, and I hope it does, but pretending like there aren't real question marks is a little much.

Never said we didn't have real questions marks
I'm worried about the lack of depth at DE
How will our DB's handle the change to the Tampa 2
Will we have enough WRs
How will the new OLine due
This are some of my concerns, not Dino needs to make sure his coaches are doing the job or the need replaced.
Also stating we will have bundles of wins and put up crazy numbers is not amazingly premature. This system works every single places it's been. Does EIU, BGSU, or Toledo have the talent Baylor does? Nope, but they did what you assumed I'm "promising amazingly prematurely"

 

[TheCusian]

His belief is irrelevant to the fact that he will likely have the opportunity to make changes. If you read what I said, I never said that he *would* make changes, only that he probably would be in a great position to make them if he sees fit. The implication of that is our year 2 coaching staff is more reflective of his ability to manage than his year 1 staff (which may have been hired with political constraints that carryover from BGSU's initial budget constraints). As such, judging a year 1 staff is a little harsh. Judging a year 2 staff is more appropriate.

Of course. But you keep mentioning budget constraints. I'd argue that Briles and Babers prefer to groom good young coaches that are "in the family" (especially on offense), as opposed to high salary guys from outside. I don't think budget or political constraints play a part at all in his offensive hires. I think it's an excuse you're leaning on because you don't think they are ACC quality.

 

[TheCusian]

PA called Dino's offense "the McLaren of college football" and that it would put up "crazy numbers." It may be a McLaren, but not all roads are the same. Baylor drives on a different road than we do. Extrapolating one to the other is tough. Admittedly, I only looked at W/L records (i.e. as opposed to straight offensive numbers) and wasn't following Baylor in '07 and '08, but be it because of a mediocre offense, and/or the effects of the offense on a under-talented defense, the overal results were mediocre. Since SU's ability to stockpile talent is far worse than Baylor in '08 (due to location and competition), promises that we're going to get "bundles of wins" and put up "crazy numbers" are amazingly premature. It could happen, and I hope it does, but pretending like there aren't real question marks is a little much.

I think you didn't read what I wrote. There are always a few who overhype (I typically believe the best will happen). But the attitude on the board is justified. Not because Baylor is good, but because Babers reproduced those same offensive results in his last two stops rather quickly.

Of course there are question marks and success won't be a straight line. But you seem insistent on warning everyone the ice cream cone will melt in the sun instead of enjoying the thing.

 

[RoysRunts]

I think you have a distorted notion of Baylor's history, before Briles. Baylor was just a gawd awful excuse of a football program. As bad as Syracuse has been, Baylor was way worse. Baylor had not had a winning season since 1995 when Briles took over and had won only 11 conference games in 12 years. Sure, Baylor is in Texas, a fertile recruiting ground. But practically every program recruits Texas. Baylor was getting 3rd tier Texas talent. Your point about Baylor being fortunate to catch UT and A&M on downswings is naive. Outside of the last couple of years, Baylor wasn't swimming in the same recruiting pools as UT or A&M. They certainly didn't benefit from any supposed downswing from the big dogs, which didn't even happen until several years into Briles' tenure (in UT's case, anyway). Baylor's recruiting classes from 2005-2011 (so the players Briles inherited plus his first 4 recruiting classes) were ranked 64, 55, 52, 55, 44, 51, and 52, respectively. It wasn't until 2012 that they broke through with a 30th ranked class.

Briles turned around an abysmal program with subpar talent. He was successful in 1) having a unique system 2) having a sharp eye for the kinds of talent that was available to him that would thrive in this unique system and 3) he brought in RGIII in his first recruiting class.

If the argument is that Baylor's ultimate ceiling is higher than Syracuse because of its proximity to Texas high school football talent, then I would readily agree. However, the notion that Baylor, during its ascent, was getting the kind of talent unavailable to Syracuse now is incorrect in my view.

http://www.great-quotes.com/quotes/author/Grant/Teaff

 

[IthacaBarrel]

I think you have a distorted notion of Baylor's history, before Briles. Baylor was just a gawd awful excuse of a football program. As bad as Syracuse has been, Baylor was way worse. Baylor had not had a winning season since 1995 when Briles took over and had won only 11 conference games in 12 years. Sure, Baylor is in Texas, a fertile recruiting ground. But practically every program recruits Texas. Baylor was getting 3rd tier Texas talent. Your point about Baylor being fortunate to catch UT and A&M on downswings is naive. Outside of the last couple of years, Baylor wasn't swimming in the same recruiting pools as UT or A&M. They certainly didn't benefit from any supposed downswing from the big dogs, which didn't even happen until several years into Briles' tenure (in UT's case, anyway). Baylor's recruiting classes from 2005-2011 (so the players Briles inherited plus his first 4 recruiting classes) were ranked 64, 55, 52, 55, 44, 51, and 52, respectively. It wasn't until 2012 that they broke through with a 30th ranked class.

Briles turned around an abysmal program with subpar talent. He was successful in 1) having a unique system 2) having a sharp eye for the kinds of talent that was available to him that would thrive in this unique system and 3) he brought in RGIII in his first recruiting class.

If the argument is that Baylor's ultimate ceiling is higher than Syracuse because of its proximity to Texas high school football talent, then I would readily agree. However, the notion that Baylor, during its ascent, was getting the kind of talent unavailable to Syracuse now is incorrect in my view.

Agree 100%, was going to post something similar but you nailed it. Briles totally rebuilt there, fact is the when he started he was probably battling CONF USA and Sam Houston St for recruits. Baylor was a laughing stock regardless of where it is located and had been for years. Babers puts a good brand of football out there, the recruits will come, the dome and facilities upgrades will help as well, but winning will help more. I also think people are putting too much emphasis on the defensive scheme, if your offense is travelling at light speed, a bend but don't break defense is probably a better option. You are really hoping to outscore teams, not to get the game into a rock fight, slug fest and win the game 17-13, which is really what a lot of guys want to do. We needed to almost score on defense because the offense has been horrible for 12 out of 13 years.

It will work, it already has everywhere else, just a question of how well, IMO

 

[SmilinBob]

I 100% agree that HCDB will be successful at SU. My point is getting players north south more than east west. I understand it's their first year and they have to get their foot in the door which is why I liked Beatty who had a southern recruiting base. I have to admit the Cali recruiting is interesting and it honestly reminds me of when XHCSS took over and had a nice range of players when McDonald brought some in that SU never considered. Size and speed are needed to compete in the ACC, especially on D. I can see that possible upgrade and if this staff can get a good % of the targeted available players, I'm thrilled.

 

[PhatOrange]

WMU beat BGU in Babers first year.

talking about this season. BG steamrolled them twice.

 

[PhatOrange]

I also think people are putting too much emphasis on the defensive scheme, if your offense is travelling at light speed, a bend but don't break defense is probably a better option. You are really hoping to outscore teams, not to get the game into a rock fight, slug fest and win the game 17-13, which is really what a lot of guys want to do. We needed to almost score on defense because the offense has been horrible for 12 out of 13 years.

It will work, it already has everywhere else, just a question of how well, IMO

i personally want a good defense because I love defense. that doesn't mean I don't want to score a ton of points.

 

[SmilinBob]

i personally want a good defense because I love defense. that doesn't mean I don't want to score a ton of points.

People imagine Baylor’s offense in the Dome. I imagine Baylor’s offense in the Dome backed up by Alabama’s defense.

True but on the other hand if the offense goes 3 an out or scores quickly the defense is going to have to work incredibly hard to stay off the field themselves. I think Millhouse posted a time of possession BG had in 14 and 15 which will play a large part in the 16 defense. This is going to be a very interesting/exciting/? kind of year.

 

[TheCusian]

True but on the other hand if the offense goes 3 an out or scores quickly the defense is going to have to work incredibly hard to stay off the field themselves. I think Millhouse posted a time of possession BG had in 14 and 15 which will play a large part in the 16 defense. This is going to be a very interesting/exciting/? kind of year.

We've seen it played out in the Big 12. More possessions = more chances to score (for both teams). It can feel like basketball.

Defensive rankings will not be a stat to hang anything on - they will be inflated somewhat. YPP for both offense and defense will be more important.