Say what you want about our coaches

[GoSU96]

Why do you repeatedly say that this staff has lost a significant portion of the fanbase? Where does this come from besides you continuing to beat the drum?

Projection.

 

[javadoc]

A class of 3 star guys will get you results that we have been experiencing, 5-7/6-6/7-5 type seasons. Would you agree that those results are "mediocre"? Your winning half of your games. You are successful half the time. To get to the next step, an aggregate of all the recruiting rankings is showing that we need to get at minimum a combination of 10 4 and 5 star kids. Until that starts happening, we are what we are.

I think the baseline is 7 wins, depending on how you schedule. You go 4-4 in conference, and 3-1 OOC. If you schedule soft OOC you can go 4-0 and 8-4 for the year. In a year where you get some bad breaks, you go 6-6. Every year is a bowl year.

7-5/8-4 as a baseline is good enough for me. We can work upward from there. I wouldn't be happy with it long term, but as a baseline - and a walk before you run waypoint - it's something we have yet to achieve.

 

[Alsacs]

Projection.

You don't like me I don't like you. Why do you want to start every time. Do you seriously think the SU fanbase isn't divided on Scott Shafer as HC?
Hell even you have agreed Doc Holiday could have been a good candidate. If you hate my guts that much I honestly don't care, but to be so petty to stick your nose into this thread for that comment just makes laugh because I don't care to do the same with you as their are plenty of posters who don't care for you either.

 

[TheCusian]

If we went 5-7 and the injuries really killed us, but we didn't have a pathetic offense I wouldn't be upset. Scott Shafer led Syracuse team last year looked like it had Greg Robinson coaching. We were undisciplined, and looked horrible in the second half. Honestly, that press conference after the Louisville game should be must watch. The ISIS stuff is unconscionable for any HC to be saying. Our recruiting is better than P, but that doesn't make them great recruiters. It makes them better than what we have had, but not great.

That's what I said, no?

- fair to be disappointed
- we don't know how good of recruiters they are
- but they are better than a bunch of our previous coaches at recruiting

 

[GoSU96]

You don't like me I don't like you. Why do you want to start every time. Do you seriously think the SU fanbase isn't divided on Scott Shafer as HC?
Hell even you have agreed Doc Holiday could have been a good candidate. If you hate my guts that much I honestly don't care, but to be so petty to stick your nose into this thread for that comment just makes laugh because I don't care to do the same with you as their are plenty of posters who don't care for you either.

Plenty?

 

[Alsacs]

That's what I said, no?

- fair to be disappointed
- we don't know how good of recruiters they are
- but they are better than a bunch of our previous coaches at recruiting

You are the idealist version of me. We can agree to disagree. I just think this staff isn't good enough to be anything more than mediocre. Last year after sitting thru 4 years of Greg Robinson was enough to pull the plug. Obviously I wishing more than it would ever happen. Next year is the make or break year, but keeping the staff if it fails next year sets us back 2 years which is why I would have made the move now and give next year as the honeymoon year to the next staff.

I hope I am wrong. I want to win every game and hope SS makes me eat my word. When I am wrong I say it. I just think this staff is average at recruiting which compared to the previous staffs may be an upgrade.

 

[Alsacs]

Plenty?

I will change the word to some if that makes you feel better. My point is why the hell do you have to start every damn time. If you need to have these feuds to make you feel better fine. We don't care for each other no need to stoke it up every damn time. I am sure there are things you say I could start with as well. I don't care to waste my energy doing so. You damn well Scott Shafer lost some of the fanbase. I have said a lot of wrong things I admit when I am wrong. You don't like fine, but just go with detente for when I actually saying something you disagree with. If you were honest you know this point wasn't crazy.

 

[Louie and Bouie]

Do yourself a favor stop reading my posts you don't like them and you aren't worth my time to debate. Unlike others who disagree with me like TheCusian who atleast debate and is reasonable.

If you don't think a significant portion of the fanbase wanted a change you aren't right. I never said a majority or put a percentage.

My point is that your opinion (not fact) is not accurate. The only objective measure is attendance and a look at the numbers doesn't support your assertion.

As far as my posting, as long as you continue to present opinions as facts and continue to negatively comment on the staff, players and program I will continue to be a part of the other side of the argument when I have time to do so.

I could post the attendance figures going back the past 10 years but they are readily available for anyone to find. As and for losing a significant (a defined word) portion the fans, 2014 was the second highest average figure in the last 10 years. If the fan base was lost it was long before HCSS.

 

[Alsacs]

My point is that your opinion (not fact) is not accurate. The only objective measure is attendance and a look at the numbers doesn't support your assertion.

As far as my posting, as long as you continue to present opinions as facts and continue to negatively comment on the staff, players and program I will continue to be a part of the other side of the argument when I have time to do so.

I could post the attendance figures going back the past 10 years but they are readily available for anyone to find. As and for losing a significant (a defined word) portion the fans, 2014 was the second highest average figure in the last 10 years. If the fan base was lost it was long before HCSS.

I never say my opinion is a fact. f anything that is how you perceive my sentence structures. If I give a link obviously that is likely to be a fact. I give a strong opinion which tends to either be liked or disliked. If people disagree with me fine I don't get insulted. My opinion is one's man opinion. It doesn't make it any less important or immaterial. It is my opinion is the staff should have been replaced. You don't fine. My opinion is not without merit. You disagree fine. If having different opinions is what is great about this country. I don't want an echo chamber when good stuff happens I give praise.

 

[Louie and Bouie]

I never say my opinion is a fact. f anything that is how you perceive my sentence structures. If I give a link obviously that is likely to be a fact. I give a strong opinion which tends to either be liked or disliked. If people disagree with me fine I don't get insulted. My opinion is one's man opinion. It doesn't make it any less important or immaterial. It is my opinion is the staff should have been replaced. You don't fine. My opinion is not without merit. You disagree fine. If having different opinions is what is great about this country. I don't want an echo chamber when good stuff happens I give praise.

I agree. You're obviously a big fan of Syracuse sports based upon the time you spend here so I humbly apologize if you believe my posting is personal. It's not.

You seem to have strong opinions and I just want to offer a different opinion sometimes. Usually its a counterpoint to your postings because you post a lot (so they're readily available) and lately, most of them have been in a negative light toward the staff and administration. That's why you'll see me replying to your comments.

What we all must remember at times is we're all in the same boat. We want a competitive, winning program in Syracuse. We just differ in our expectations and on a road map of how to get there. I'll try and take your view more into consideration but I won't stop replying if I think your off base or wrong. Its all good.

 

[Alsacs]

I agree. You're obviously a big fan of Syracuse sports based upon the time you spend here so I humbly apologize if you believe my posting is personal. It's not.

You seem to have strong opinions and I just want to offer a different opinion sometimes. Usually its a counterpoint to your postings because you post a lot (so they're readily available) and lately, most of them have been in a negative light toward the staff and administration. That's why you'll see me replying to your comments.

What we all must remember at times is we're all in the same boat. We want a competitive, winning program in Syracuse. We just differ in our expectations and on a road map of how to get there. I'll try and take your view more into consideration but I won't stop replying if I think your off base or wrong. Its all good.

Good post. I never have a problem if someone disagrees with me. I have been tough on Scott Shafer I hope he turns it around I don't think he will. My opinion is no betters than anyone else's I don't I claim it is either.

If you want to disagree with me in the future please feel free to do so. When good stuff happens I will be right there giving praise.

 

[TheCusian]

This is all that I need to quote. According to that site, our class from last year was 24 commits, 20 3-star, 1 4-star (who did not make it to campus). I don't care about the relative team rankings, jockeying for "rating service" relative measures, etc. If our classes are predominantly "3-star guys" then we should be competitive with almost anyone on our schedule. I am only interested in what those sites can tell us, in broad terms, about the talent level we are bringing in, because IMO once you are filled with 3-star guys as the baseline, you have what you need. (To get to the next level (not what we need, what we want), it will take more winning and some buzz. I do think the IPF will help as well.) I am only addressing the opinion that our staff is doing a bad job recruiting, and getting guys we can't be competitive with.

Yep. And I think this year will be the anomaly. Injuries, freshman QB, coaching changes, etc.

I still think we are trending up. And the recruiting rankings are a bit of that positive momentum.

I'd also add that the philosophy change Andomander wrote about would suggest that they valued an early start on the next recruiting class more than really stretching for 4-star guys or lower % guys. Went with the surer thing (guys who really want to be here) to get a leg up on the next cycle. Bit of a gamble - but I like it. You don't get better standing still.

 

[TheCusian]

A class of 3 star guys will get you results that we have been experiencing, 5-7/6-6/7-5 type seasons. Would you agree that those results are "mediocre"? Your winning half of your games. You are successful half the time. To get to the next step, an aggregate of all the recruiting rankings is showing that we need to get at minimum a combination of 10 4 and 5 star kids. Until that starts happening, we are what we are.

Your proof is in the numbers. We are getting more high 3-star guys than ever and filling in with low 3 star and high 2. Previous recruiting had us with less 3, more 2.

You gotta walk to run. Building takes time. I just hope we are good enough on the field to have these guys coached by their recruiters and not starting over again (I know I'm in the minority).

 

[phil77]

I know what you're getting at, and this really doesn't even relate to the point you were making, but I disagree with Marrone not being able to recruit. He gets far too bad of a rep just because he didn't like recruiting. When he first started we had bottom of the barrel facilities, and 3 wins over 2 seasons. No matter who you are, you aren't going to be pulling kids in. Fast forward to his last class he had before he bolted, after the facility upgrades, and a couple decent seasons, and it was lining up to be a borderline to 40 class. The core guys at the time ended up going to all P5 programs (TCU, Miami, Indiana, Rutgers).

That is what I was going to ask...If I remember correctly we had a pretty good recruiting class coming in on Doug's last year which ranking wise was on par with what we are seeing now. Just most left when Doug left.

 

[phil77]

Our recruiting is good for the Big East the only problem is we are not in the Big East anymore.

 

[PhatOrange]

Why do you repeatedly say that this staff has lost a significant portion of the fanbase? Where does this come from besides you continuing to beat the drum?

I wondered the same thing

 

[PhatOrange]

A class of 3 star guys will get you results that we have been experiencing, 5-7/6-6/7-5 type seasons. Would you agree that those results are "mediocre"? Your winning half of your games. You are successful half the time. To get to the next step, an aggregate of all the recruiting rankings is showing that we need to get at minimum a combination of 10 4 and 5 star kids. Until that starts happening, we are what we are.

syracuse is and always will be a developmental program. a combo of 10 4 and 5 star kids will never happen. the kids we get need to be developed. that's the reality.

 

[tep624]

Other than Trejo, those other JUCO guys were certainly valuable and it would seem as they would have been ready to play earlier than any HS recruit SU was going to land. SU stayed with Williams for a couple of reasons- his talent, and his relationship to Holley.

I'm not debating whether the JUCO's were valuable or not, I'm pointing out that Marrone's staff took a major detour from the strategy that they had their first 3 years where they predominantly targeted HS seniors. And it absolutely impacted how that class appeared "on paper".

To suddenly go the JUCO route and to do it as heavily as they did (remember there were at least 3-4 others that visited but went elsewhere, Page and another of Miller's teammates that we wanted bad who went to Oregon as a couple), it indicates either a complete shift in recruiting strategy or that we missed heavily on our primary targets which would have been HS seniors.

 

[Full_Rebar]

I'm not debating whether the JUCO's were valuable or not, I'm pointing out that Marrone's staff took a major detour from the strategy that they had their first 3 years where they predominantly targeted HS seniors. And it absolutely impacted how that class appeared "on paper".

To suddenly go the JUCO route and to do it as heavily as they did (remember there were at least 3-4 others that visited but went elsewhere, Page and another of Miller's teammates that we wanted bad who went to Oregon as a couple), it indicates either a complete shift in recruiting strategy or that we missed heavily on our primary targets which would have been HS seniors.

Was it that much of a change in philosophy? Marrone grabbed Tiller, Hay, Diabate, Brewster, Walls, Clark (I think I'm missing someone too) from JUCO's so it wasn't a major shift. I think it was more about getting guys into the line-up right away because they were heading into the final year of Marrone's contract and didn't want to wait for HS kids to be ready to contribute. I don't remember the exact scholarship numbers, but were all counting against 2013 class, or were some used to fill 2012 spots?

 

[reedny]

I've seen the 14th out of 14 in the ACC and 48th rated class in the NCAA enough now that I have to say the ACC is on its way up as a conference. It means the ACC takes up roughly 1/3 of the top 48 ranked recruiting classes despite being only 1/5 of the P5. The P5 teams below us must be really bad at recruiting(sarcasm)!

Either way .. 48th in the country, while not horrible, is unlikely to boost our competitiveness... especially when every other team in our conference is doing as well or better (in some cases much better).

 

[reedny]

MD, nc state, Pitt, bc and lville don't have more talent than us. Md, state, lv, those games were due to crushing mistakes.. Duke is right there to, competitive, a few mistakes turned the game.

Phat, seriously? You watched those games and think we have the same talent? Where was the "early" in our secondary? Where on our team were all those receivers we couldn't cover, the runningbacks we couldn't catch, the QB's we couldn't chase down, the defensive lines we couldn't block?

I can't tell you how many times we started at the 35 on offense and wound up at or own goal line or close to it.

Our defense played like men ... but were still outskilled and outmatched by almost every conference foe except one.

I'm not saying these things b/c I'm bashing SU. Far from it. I'm a huge fan and STH. I'm just sick of watching us go nowhere on offense, and delaying the inevitable on defense. The quicker we realize that we're not competitive the faster change happens.

 

[tep624]

Was it that much of a change in philosophy? Marrone grabbed Tiller, Hay, Diabate, Brewster, Walls, Clark (I think I'm missing someone too) from JUCO's so it wasn't a major shift. I think it was more about getting guys into the line-up right away because they were heading into the final year of Marrone's contract and didn't want to wait for HS kids to be ready to contribute. I don't remember the exact scholarship numbers, but were all counting against 2013 class, or were some used to fill 2012 spots?

I tend to think it was because of two things, 1 the sheer number of JUCO's we landed and heavily recruited in that class (there would have been more had we been able to close on them - we would have easily been at 2 times our average for a year and likely 3 times our average under Marrone) and 2, the JUCO schools we were targeting, most of which were out west in Arizona and California. In previous years under Marrone, the majority of our JUCO's came through Anselmo and his relationship with Nassau CC. Tiller, Hay, Diabate, Fisher, Def. Davis (who didn't qualify), all Nassau kids. We were mostly targeting Nassau and ASA kids prior to that year.

 

[reedny]

Some questions for you, since you have cited an article to support your position.

What algorithm does 247 use to rate prospects? The Skowt site says we are 7th in the ACC, 38th nationally. Why do you trust one more than the other?

The 247 site lists us with 23 commits, 19 of them 3-star. Ahead of us they have Utah and Iowa, with 20/19 and 16/16 similar commits, respectively. Does that make sense to you? None of those teams have any higher rated commits, btw.

What is the difference between the teams? Colorado is "dead last" in the PAC-12 with 16/8. Vanderbilt is "dead last" in the SEC with 14/12, but they also have 2 4-star commits. How far off the rest of the conference is the team in last place?

"Dead last" implies that your score is so low as to put you are far outside your peer group. According to the site you have quoted, we have 19 3-star commits. A team comprised of 3-star guys will be competitive with just about anyone, except possibly the teams at the very top.

The doom and gloom in this thread is disheartening. Because behind the claims that "we can't be competitive with these guys" is the unstated, but unavoidable belief that they will cause our coaches to be fired, and that when the next guy comes on board, he'll have to clean house, to get rid of these "uncompetitive" guys. Kids aren't even on campus yet and folks are belittling them. Great.

I'm not belittling anyone. I'm saying we have a clear, obvious and serious talent deficit in our conference that needs to be addressed -- and not just to beat Florida Sate --- i mean to win more than one game a season.

It doesn't do you or me any good to quibble over stars or point systems. We need better players. The coach himself repeated this obvious conclusion at the end of the season. Even if the stars are meaningless, which they're clearly not, we haven't gotten a 5-star recruit in years, and we rarely get a 4-star who makes it to campus. Argue all you want about the ratings -- a quick look at the results on the field will tell you that we haven't recruited the talent we need. That's why were in the conference basement. Whether the 15 class is an improvement or not .. I'll let you and the other experts debate.

 

[Full_Rebar]

I tend to think it was because of two things, 1 the sheer number of JUCO's we landed and heavily recruited in that class (there would have been more had we been able to close on them - we would have easily been at 2 times our average for a year and likely 3 times our average under Marrone) and 2, the JUCO schools we were targeting, most of which were out west in Arizona and California. In previous years under Marrone, the majority of our JUCO's came through Anselmo and his relationship with Nassau CC. Tiller, Hay, Diabate, Fisher, Def. Davis (who didn't qualify), all Nassau kids. We were mostly targeting Nassau and ASA kids prior to that year.

I don't think you can discount the final contract year when looking at the philosophy as it was clear it was "win or be fired" for the staff. I believe that Adkins was the lead on those west coast kids (not sure about Kirkland). It's also worth noting that SU had lost EJ Carter, Torian Phillips, Malcolm Cater, and Kris Curtis by this time, so there were spots where veteran players were missing.

 

[reedny]

I've seen the 14th out of 14 in the ACC and 48th rated class in the NCAA enough now that I have to say the ACC is on its way up as a conference. It means the ACC takes up roughly 1/3 of the top 48 ranked recruiting classes despite being only 1/5 of the P5. The P5 teams below us must be really bad at recruiting(sarcasm)!

That may help us against OOC teams but it won't help us win more than one or two games in conference, unless we start recruiting talent that is ACC-caliber.