SU FB: Delayed gratification is more efficient/smart

[SU94]

I believe that the Syracuse program had to do some serious analysis as to why we are in a 15-year rut. Fifteen years going on 25, or so it seems.

Why aren’t we winning at all? And when we do win, who are we beating and by how many. What is our margin? Even when we win, our margin is thin.

There are a myriad of factors that go into this. We “talk” about them all here. The variables include: head coaching, head coaching orientation (offense or defense), coaching staff depth salary, smaller private school, location in state NYS with lacking emphasis on football, location in greater Northeast recruiting territory, combating the allure for regional recruits to play CFB in the south, playing 6-7 games at the Dome (indoors), apathetic/shrinking/greying local/regional fanbase, most alumni live 3-6 hours away, scale down of local media market (one newspaper), basketball school perception, tendency to have run-oriented offensive attack, higher (than most/not all) academic standards, lack of propensity to recruit JUCOs, poor line play, facilities (improving, but …). There are undoubtedly more.

I have had one idea that some have occasionally touched on, but I think it merits some serious analysis …

Red-shirt every player. No exceptions (or very rare exceptions … like kickers or long snappers).

It’s simple really. We need to become the Pitt basketball of ACC Football (and I hate Pitt hoops).

Think about these players as playing assets that improve with time. By about the 3rd play I saw from Eric Dungey, I was relatively certain he was going to be VERY GOOD. Maybe great someday.

Injuries aside, how much better would Eric Dungey’s output be in 2020 be as opposed to 2015? In a vacuum, with nearly equal talent around him, he’d be “twice” the player 4 years from now. Same for Jordan Fredericks. Same for Steve Ishmael. Same for Doug Hogue. Same for Johnnie Morant. Personally, I think that this is especially true for linemen on both sides of the ball

But the “analytics” would have to expand well beyond Dungey 2015 vs. Dungey 2020. We have every reason to believe that Eric Dungey would be better in his first game as a red-shirt frosh than he was as a true frosh, when he took the field for the first time having been on campus for about 5-6 weeks (did Dungey come in for Spring ball? Regardless, the point remains). But he’s also be better in every year along the way.

So, let’s put some admittedly made-up numbers on this …

4-Year Dungey
True Frosh 1.0
True Soph 2.0
True Junior 3.0
True Senior 4.0
CAREER TOTAL 10.0

5-Year Dungey
Red Shirt 0.0
RS Frosh 1.5
RS Soph 2.5
RS Junior 3.5
5th-Year Senior 4.5
CAREER TOTAL 12.0

In this instance, BY THE END OF A PLAYERS’ CAREER, a bigger, stronger, wiser version of Eric Dungey produces at a 20% higher rate than Eric Dungey/True Frosh, who is ushered through the program in 4 years, at a “hyper” speed.

Yes, admittedly there are issues with this tact. You could lose some recruits who don’t want to wait. No margin for error on season-ending injuries. You could only get only 2 or 3 years out of certain stud players (who go pro early) as opposed to 4 years. We don’t have a lot of guys like this, but we’ve had some … J.Pugh, C.Jones, etc. And some kids might choose to only play four years and move on or transfer to another program (the 5th-year grad transfer option).

But I think you make up for it by telling parents that their child will have ample time to grow into being a college student, they will be more prepared to play when called upon and they can leave SU with a grad degree if they stay on schedule.

To me, this requires some terrific patience on the part of the AD, the head coach and the fanbase. Delayed gratification. It’s not all bad.

Look at baseball. Look at the Cubs right now as opposed to the previous 100 years. They had a plan, it took about 4 years and they are sticking to it. Look at the KC Royals, who just won it all. It all gets down to enhanced player development. It gets down to how long you can retain your talent. Theo Epstein resisted the temptation to promote Kris Bryant the first 6 weeks of the 2015 season and now, much to Scott Boras chagrine, the Cubs have control of Bryant's contract through 2021 (as opposed to 2020).

SU football just cannot keep doing the same thing. We have to study and think about the problem at hand. Look at Navy football. About 30 years ago, they came up with a new method to attack their size deficiency. And for the most part, it has worked wonders. We need to be smart in this process and admit that we don’t know everything. Let’s make a great HC hire, but then let’s take it a step further and brand our program as smart and efficient. Let's always be a veteran team. Let's out muscle out opponents.

Because, SU players that are 21 or 22 years old (smarter, better, bigger, stronger) will have a MUCH better chance to complete/win against those that are 18 and 19 at BC, Virginia, FSU and Clemson. I propose that this is how we begin to close the gap in the ACC. One dream 9-win season would be a ton of fun, but it's negated if we win 6, 5 or 3 games in the years that follow. This red-shirt method will allow us to foster a more consistent program. One that is best able to compete at or at least near the top of the conference.

 

[Lou_C]

Jim Grobe at Wake Forest used this strategy for years, and rode it to a fair amount of success for Wake Forest. But they gave up on it after a couple losing seasons, and never got back to the level they had been on competitively and Grobe was fired.

I'm not aware of anyone else who has taken this approach. I don't think there is much doubt that it can pay some dividends, but...this is an approach you take when you are basically going to concede that you are unable to recruit P5 caliber players. The ability to play right away is extremely meaningful to kids, and most of the elite recruiting programs play plenty of freshmen. There are always some kids who take scholarships knowing they are going to redshirt, but that usually is in exchange for a scholarship offer that is above where you can go and play right away. So a kid might sign with FSU or Ohio State or Alabama knowing they are going to redshirt, but normally because otherwise they'd be at Illinois or Mississippi State.

For Syracuse to institute this across the board, like Wake did, you are basically signing kids that would otherwise play for Buffalo, Northern Iowa, UMass, etc. You can not battle Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt, BC, etc with this approach...no chance. You will not be fishing from the same pond as even those second- or third-rate P5 programs.

Now, if you want to make the argument that Syracuse can't compete for those kids anyway, then this would be a viable approach to occasional 6-8 win seasons, but that would be the ceiling, because you simply wouldn't sign the type of size, talent, etc that is required to put up big seasons.

I don't know what the answer is, but my gut feeling is that the better answer is bringing in a crazy spread offense. You've got defensive minded programs at BC and Pitt, Penn St is a bit of a mess offensively, who knows what you're going to have at Rutgers or Maryland. While UNC and Clemson run some tempo, for the most part I think Syracuse would be best off bringing some Big 12 style to the ACC.

I just don't think this "hard nosed" approach works when you can't recruit the caliber of linemen and backers that your opponents can. Long term you just can't physically dominate teams with physically better and stronger players than you. It is possible however, to throw things at them that they aren't used to dealing with, the way GT does. GT has had a pretty decent bowl streak with inferior talent because of a unique offense.

The other thing is it would allow Syracuse to recruit dynamic athletes that don't fit the physical profile or dimensions that other programs are looking for...6 foot tall QBs, mobile QBs that are super accurate but maybe have second rate arm strength, 5'6" receivers with speed to burn, O-lineman that might be under 300 lbs but can play 80+ snaps, etc. You just have to accept you're going to give up a lot of points, but if you fill your defense with playmakers that can hopefully take a fumble to the house or just get that one or two stops when the opposing offense is feeling the pressure to keep up.

That's not the profile of a team that wins the college football playoffs obviously. But there is space in the ACC and the Northeast I think to carve out some success. And once your program has a buzz, then the caliber of athlete you can recruit obviously improves. Banging your head against the hard-nosed, pro-style, physically wear you down offensive mindset, I just don't see a path to success.

 

[FAL]

Jim Grobe at Wake Forest used this strategy for years, and rode it to a fair amount of success for Wake Forest. But they gave up on it after a couple losing seasons, and never got back to the level they had been on competitively and Grobe was fired.

I'm not aware of anyone else who has taken this approach. I don't think there is much doubt that it can pay some dividends, but...this is an approach you take when you are basically going to concede that you are unable to recruit P5 caliber players. The ability to play right away is extremely meaningful to kids, and most of the elite recruiting programs play plenty of freshmen. There are always some kids who take scholarships knowing they are going to redshirt, but that usually is in exchange for a scholarship offer that is above where you can go and play right away. So a kid might sign with FSU or Ohio State or Alabama knowing they are going to redshirt, but normally because otherwise they'd be at Illinois or Mississippi State.

For Syracuse to institute this across the board, like Wake did, you are basically signing kids that would otherwise play for Buffalo, Northern Iowa, UMass, etc. You can not battle Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt, BC, etc with this approach...no chance. You will not be fishing from the same pond as even those second- or third-rate P5 programs.

Now, if you want to make the argument that Syracuse can't compete for those kids anyway, then this would be a viable approach to occasional 6-8 win seasons, but that would be the ceiling, because you simply wouldn't sign the type of size, talent, etc that is required to put up big seasons.

I don't know what the answer is, but my gut feeling is that the better answer is bringing in a crazy spread offense. You've got defensive minded programs at BC and Pitt, Penn St is a bit of a mess offensively, who knows what you're going to have at Rutgers or Maryland. While UNC and Clemson run some tempo, for the most part I think Syracuse would be best off bringing some Big 12 style to the ACC.

I just don't think this "hard nosed" approach works when you can't recruit the caliber of linemen and backers that your opponents can. Long term you just can't physically dominate teams with physically better and stronger players than you. It is possible however, to throw things at them that they aren't used to dealing with, the way GT does. GT has had a pretty decent bowl streak with inferior talent because of a unique offense.

The other thing is it would allow Syracuse to recruit dynamic athletes that don't fit the physical profile or dimensions that other programs are looking for...6 foot tall QBs, mobile QBs that are super accurate but maybe have second rate arm strength, 5'6" receivers with speed to burn, O-lineman that might be under 300 lbs but can play 80+ snaps, etc. You just have to accept you're going to give up a lot of points, but if you fill your defense with playmakers that can hopefully take a fumble to the house or just get that one or two stops when the opposing offense is feeling the pressure to keep up.

That's not the profile of a team that wins the college football playoffs obviously. But there is space in the ACC and the Northeast I think to carve out some success. And once your program has a buzz, then the caliber of athlete you can recruit obviously improves. Banging your head against the hard-nosed, pro-style, physically wear you down offensive mindset, I just don't see a path to success.

I think your approach will have a lot of our posters agreeing with you. Thanks for taking the time to post a well thought out response. We need all the help we can get!:bat:

 

[tep624]

Jim Grobe at Wake Forest used this strategy for years, and rode it to a fair amount of success for Wake Forest. But they gave up on it after a couple losing seasons, and never got back to the level they had been on competitively and Grobe was fired.

I'm not aware of anyone else who has taken this approach. I don't think there is much doubt that it can pay some dividends, but...this is an approach you take when you are basically going to concede that you are unable to recruit P5 caliber players. The ability to play right away is extremely meaningful to kids, and most of the elite recruiting programs play plenty of freshmen. There are always some kids who take scholarships knowing they are going to redshirt, but that usually is in exchange for a scholarship offer that is above where you can go and play right away. So a kid might sign with FSU or Ohio State or Alabama knowing they are going to redshirt, but normally because otherwise they'd be at Illinois or Mississippi State.

For Syracuse to institute this across the board, like Wake did, you are basically signing kids that would otherwise play for Buffalo, Northern Iowa, UMass, etc. You can not battle Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt, BC, etc with this approach...no chance. You will not be fishing from the same pond as even those second- or third-rate P5 programs.

Now, if you want to make the argument that Syracuse can't compete for those kids anyway, then this would be a viable approach to occasional 6-8 win seasons, but that would be the ceiling, because you simply wouldn't sign the type of size, talent, etc that is required to put up big seasons.

I don't know what the answer is, but my gut feeling is that the better answer is bringing in a crazy spread offense. You've got defensive minded programs at BC and Pitt, Penn St is a bit of a mess offensively, who knows what you're going to have at Rutgers or Maryland. While UNC and Clemson run some tempo, for the most part I think Syracuse would be best off bringing some Big 12 style to the ACC.

I just don't think this "hard nosed" approach works when you can't recruit the caliber of linemen and backers that your opponents can. Long term you just can't physically dominate teams with physically better and stronger players than you. It is possible however, to throw things at them that they aren't used to dealing with, the way GT does. GT has had a pretty decent bowl streak with inferior talent because of a unique offense.

The other thing is it would allow Syracuse to recruit dynamic athletes that don't fit the physical profile or dimensions that other programs are looking for...6 foot tall QBs, mobile QBs that are super accurate but maybe have second rate arm strength, 5'6" receivers with speed to burn, O-lineman that might be under 300 lbs but can play 80+ snaps, etc. You just have to accept you're going to give up a lot of points, but if you fill your defense with playmakers that can hopefully take a fumble to the house or just get that one or two stops when the opposing offense is feeling the pressure to keep up.

That's not the profile of a team that wins the college football playoffs obviously. But there is space in the ACC and the Northeast I think to carve out some success. And once your program has a buzz, then the caliber of athlete you can recruit obviously improves. Banging your head against the hard-nosed, pro-style, physically wear you down offensive mindset, I just don't see a path to success.

We have an AD from Boise St. So he's more or less coming from the model from making a hell of a lot out of the leftovers. We recruit better than leftovers, but have a harder conference schedule. I think based on his background, he's up for the task.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

Jim Grobe at Wake Forest used this strategy for years, and rode it to a fair amount of success for Wake Forest. But they gave up on it after a couple losing seasons, and never got back to the level they had been on competitively and Grobe was fired.

I'm not aware of anyone else who has taken this approach. I don't think there is much doubt that it can pay some dividends, but...this is an approach you take when you are basically going to concede that you are unable to recruit P5 caliber players. The ability to play right away is extremely meaningful to kids, and most of the elite recruiting programs play plenty of freshmen. There are always some kids who take scholarships knowing they are going to redshirt, but that usually is in exchange for a scholarship offer that is above where you can go and play right away. So a kid might sign with FSU or Ohio State or Alabama knowing they are going to redshirt, but normally because otherwise they'd be at Illinois or Mississippi State.

For Syracuse to institute this across the board, like Wake did, you are basically signing kids that would otherwise play for Buffalo, Northern Iowa, UMass, etc. You can not battle Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt, BC, etc with this approach...no chance. You will not be fishing from the same pond as even those second- or third-rate P5 programs.

Now, if you want to make the argument that Syracuse can't compete for those kids anyway, then this would be a viable approach to occasional 6-8 win seasons, but that would be the ceiling, because you simply wouldn't sign the type of size, talent, etc that is required to put up big seasons.

I don't know what the answer is, but my gut feeling is that the better answer is bringing in a crazy spread offense. You've got defensive minded programs at BC and Pitt, Penn St is a bit of a mess offensively, who knows what you're going to have at Rutgers or Maryland. While UNC and Clemson run some tempo, for the most part I think Syracuse would be best off bringing some Big 12 style to the ACC.

I just don't think this "hard nosed" approach works when you can't recruit the caliber of linemen and backers that your opponents can. Long term you just can't physically dominate teams with physically better and stronger players than you. It is possible however, to throw things at them that they aren't used to dealing with, the way GT does. GT has had a pretty decent bowl streak with inferior talent because of a unique offense.

The other thing is it would allow Syracuse to recruit dynamic athletes that don't fit the physical profile or dimensions that other programs are looking for...6 foot tall QBs, mobile QBs that are super accurate but maybe have second rate arm strength, 5'6" receivers with speed to burn, O-lineman that might be under 300 lbs but can play 80+ snaps, etc. You just have to accept you're going to give up a lot of points, but if you fill your defense with playmakers that can hopefully take a fumble to the house or just get that one or two stops when the opposing offense is feeling the pressure to keep up.

That's not the profile of a team that wins the college football playoffs obviously. But there is space in the ACC and the Northeast I think to carve out some success. And once your program has a buzz, then the caliber of athlete you can recruit obviously improves. Banging your head against the hard-nosed, pro-style, physically wear you down offensive mindset, I just don't see a path to success.

Good post. Many here would agree with you, yet some would still like to see 3 yards and a cloud of dust or 3 yards and a bunch of black pellets from our field turf/ indoor stadium

 

[Willy75]

Good post. Many here would agree with you, yet some would still like to see 3 yards and a cloud of dust or 3 yards and a bunch of black pellets from our field turf/ indoor stadium

GT/Navy are more like 8 yards and a cloud of black pellets.

 

[two3zone]

I believe that the Syracuse program had to do some serious analysis as to why we are in a 15-year rut. Fifteen years going on 25, or so it seems.

Why aren’t we winning at all? And when we do win, who are we beating and by how many. What is our margin? Even when we win, our margin is thin.

There are a myriad of factors that go into this. We “talk” about them all here. The variables include: head coaching, head coaching orientation (offense or defense), coaching staff depth salary, smaller private school, location in state NYS with lacking emphasis on football, location in greater Northeast recruiting territory, combating the allure for regional recruits to play CFB in the south, playing 6-7 games at the Dome (indoors), apathetic/shrinking/greying local/regional fanbase, most alumni live 3-6 hours away, scale down of local media market (one newspaper), basketball school perception, tendency to have run-oriented offensive attack, higher (than most/not all) academic standards, lack of propensity to recruit JUCOs, poor line play, facilities (improving, but …). There are undoubtedly more.

I have had one idea that some have occasionally touched on, but I think it merits some serious analysis …

Red-shirt every player. No exceptions (or very rare exceptions … like kickers or long snappers).

It’s simple really. We need to become the Pitt basketball of ACC Football (and I hate Pitt hoops).

Think about these players as playing assets that improve with time. By about the 3rd play I saw from Eric Dungey, I was relatively certain he was going to be VERY GOOD. Maybe great someday.

Injuries aside, how much better would Eric Dungey’s output be in 2020 be as opposed to 2015? In a vacuum, with nearly equal talent around him, he’d be “twice” the player 4 years from now. Same for Jordan Fredericks. Same for Steve Ishmael. Same for Doug Hogue. Same for Johnnie Morant. Personally, I think that this is especially true for linemen on both sides of the ball

But the “analytics” would have to expand well beyond Dungey 2015 vs. Dungey 2020. We have every reason to believe that Eric Dungey would be better in his first game as a red-shirt frosh than he was as a true frosh, when he took the field for the first time having been on campus for about 5-6 weeks (did Dungey come in for Spring ball? Regardless, the point remains). But he’s also be better in every year along the way.

So, let’s put some admittedly made-up numbers on this …

4-Year Dungey
True Frosh 1.0
True Soph 2.0
True Junior 3.0
True Senior 4.0
CAREER TOTAL 10.0

5-Year Dungey
Red Shirt 0.0
RS Frosh 1.5
RS Soph 2.5
RS Junior 3.5
5th-Year Senior 4.5
CAREER TOTAL 12.0

In this instance, BY THE END OF A PLAYERS’ CAREER, a bigger, stronger, wiser version of Eric Dungey produces at a 20% higher rate than Eric Dungey/True Frosh, who is ushered through the program in 4 years, at a “hyper” speed.

Yes, admittedly there are issues with this tact. You could lose some recruits who don’t want to wait. No margin for error on season-ending injuries. You could only get only 2 or 3 years out of certain stud players (who go pro early) as opposed to 4 years. We don’t have a lot of guys like this, but we’ve had some … J.Pugh, C.Jones, etc. And some kids might choose to only play four years and move on or transfer to another program (the 5th-year grad transfer option).

But I think you make up for it by telling parents that their child will have ample time to grow into being a college student, they will be more prepared to play when called upon and they can leave SU with a grad degree if they stay on schedule.

To me, this requires some terrific patience on the part of the AD, the head coach and the fanbase. Delayed gratification. It’s not all bad.

Look at baseball. Look at the Cubs right now as opposed to the previous 100 years. They had a plan, it took about 4 years and they are sticking to it. Look at the KC Royals, who just won it all. It all gets down to enhanced player development. It gets down to how long you can retain your talent. Theo Epstein resisted the temptation to promote Kris Bryant the first 6 weeks of the 2015 season and now, much to Scott Boras chagrine, the Cubs have control of Bryant's contract through 2021 (as opposed to 2020).

SU football just cannot keep doing the same thing. We have to study and think about the problem at hand. Look at Navy football. About 30 years ago, they came up with a new method to attack their size deficiency. And for the most part, it has worked wonders. We need to be smart in this process and admit that we don’t know everything. Let’s make a great HC hire, but then let’s take it a step further and brand our program as smart and efficient. Let's always be a veteran team. Let's out muscle out opponents.

Because, SU players that are 21 or 22 years old (smarter, better, bigger, stronger) will have a MUCH better chance to complete/win against those that are 18 and 19 at BC, Virginia, FSU and Clemson. I propose that this is how we begin to close the gap in the ACC. One dream 9-win season would be a ton of fun, but it's negated if we win 6, 5 or 3 games in the years that follow. This red-shirt method will allow us to foster a more consistent program. One that is best able to compete at or at least near the top of the conference.

I don't think there is anything wrong with this strategy nor any other outside of the box thinking at this point. We have a broken system that needs an absolute shock to it for us to have even a little bit of success. I really do think that if we can get to a point where we're at 6-8 wins for 4-6 years in a row then we can start talking about long term sustainable success and becoming a football power once again. The key is to find a way to win, win quickly, and sustain it, if it takes something like what you've suggested, it's better than what we're doing now.

 

[Millhouse]

No more doing things the hard way. Let's stop going against the grain. We can be different in the northeast by being like almost everyone else outside the northeast. No reason to tie our hands

 

[Scooch]

Good post. Many here would agree with you, yet some would still like to see 3 yards and a cloud of dust or 3 yards and a bunch of black pellets from our field turf/ indoor stadium

THE RUN MUST BE ESTABLISHED!!!

SMASH!!!

 

[IthacaBarrel]

THE RUN MUST BE ESTABLISHED!!!

SMASH!!!

Exactly... Just like Larry Csonka and Coach Ben use to do!

 

[Millhouse]

The graduate transfer could really put a monkey wrench in this too. redshirt a guy with a brain in his head and only get three years out of him while shops around for a perfect fit senior year

 

[DoctorBombay]

Jim Grobe at Wake Forest used this strategy for years, and rode it to a fair amount of success for Wake Forest. But they gave up on it after a couple losing seasons, and never got back to the level they had been on competitively and Grobe was fired.

I'm not aware of anyone else who has taken this approach. I don't think there is much doubt that it can pay some dividends, but...this is an approach you take when you are basically going to concede that you are unable to recruit P5 caliber players. The ability to play right away is extremely meaningful to kids, and most of the elite recruiting programs play plenty of freshmen. There are always some kids who take scholarships knowing they are going to redshirt, but that usually is in exchange for a scholarship offer that is above where you can go and play right away. So a kid might sign with FSU or Ohio State or Alabama knowing they are going to redshirt, but normally because otherwise they'd be at Illinois or Mississippi State.

For Syracuse to institute this across the board, like Wake did, you are basically signing kids that would otherwise play for Buffalo, Northern Iowa, UMass, etc. You can not battle Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt, BC, etc with this approach...no chance. You will not be fishing from the same pond as even those second- or third-rate P5 programs.

Now, if you want to make the argument that Syracuse can't compete for those kids anyway, then this would be a viable approach to occasional 6-8 win seasons, but that would be the ceiling, because you simply wouldn't sign the type of size, talent, etc that is required to put up big seasons.

I don't know what the answer is, but my gut feeling is that the better answer is bringing in a crazy spread offense. You've got defensive minded programs at BC and Pitt, Penn St is a bit of a mess offensively, who knows what you're going to have at Rutgers or Maryland. While UNC and Clemson run some tempo, for the most part I think Syracuse would be best off bringing some Big 12 style to the ACC.

I just don't think this "hard nosed" approach works when you can't recruit the caliber of linemen and backers that your opponents can. Long term you just can't physically dominate teams with physically better and stronger players than you. It is possible however, to throw things at them that they aren't used to dealing with, the way GT does. GT has had a pretty decent bowl streak with inferior talent because of a unique offense.

The other thing is it would allow Syracuse to recruit dynamic athletes that don't fit the physical profile or dimensions that other programs are looking for...6 foot tall QBs, mobile QBs that are super accurate but maybe have second rate arm strength, 5'6" receivers with speed to burn, O-lineman that might be under 300 lbs but can play 80+ snaps, etc. You just have to accept you're going to give up a lot of points, but if you fill your defense with playmakers that can hopefully take a fumble to the house or just get that one or two stops when the opposing offense is feeling the pressure to keep up.

That's not the profile of a team that wins the college football playoffs obviously. But there is space in the ACC and the Northeast I think to carve out some success. And once your program has a buzz, then the caliber of athlete you can recruit obviously improves. Banging your head against the hard-nosed, pro-style, physically wear you down offensive mindset, I just don't see a path to success.

I've wondered for years why we haven't taken this sort of approach to our football program woes.
Being a Giants fan I've always liked a "defense-first" philosophy, but the Dome is tailor-made for a Mike Leach/Chip Kelley/"mad Scientist"-like offense on our fast turf.
At this point, we have to establish a new identity and become known for something unique; ie- Arena Football-type of offense.
It seems like just the ticket. JMHO

 

[721Comstock]

I've wondered for years why we haven't taken this sort of approach to our football program woes.
Being a Giants fan I've always liked a "defense-first" philosophy, but the Dome is tailor-made for a Mike Leach/Chip Kelley/"mad Scientist"-like offense on our fast turf.
At this point, we have to establish a new identity and become known for something unique; ie- Arena Football-type of offense.
It seems like just the ticket. JMHO

Agree 144%
Back in the day (mid-late 80's), we used the uniqueness of the dome's indoor, flat, fast field as a recruiting advantage - we had the "fastest track" in all of college football, and got some great, quick athletes to play there.
There's no reason we couldn't focus on that again. We still have a flat, fast, indoor field, which basically nobody else has, certainly nobody in the NE.

 

[DomeStranger]

What Lou said ... I think he's been reading our board more than me.

Our main selling point to the good recruits is you'll play right away. Heck, I'm sure were telling the kids there's a chance they'll be starting at some point in their Freshman season.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I do think we can be smarter about redshirting. If a guy is going to play a lot, cool, play him as a freshman. It seems like every year we burn a redshirt for a player that could have been a lot better down the road, then the line is we'll over recruit them anyway, and yet every season we do the same thing.

 

[OrangeJohn]

I'm generally in favor of the delayed gratification approach to everything. The Houston Astros have a shot at sustainable success because they went through 3 years of 100+ losses. It takes a lot of courage to stick to the plan when you live in a world dominated by idiotic instant gratification fans but it works in professional baseball.

I'm not so sure about the benefits of red shirting. I think you learn at an exponential rate when you are thrown to the wolves or are put in a sink or swim situation. You don't progress much at all holding a clipboard on the sideline so you're wasting a year. You might even lose recruits who prefer to play right away. The main benefit to red shirting is time in the weight room to build mass and maybe memorize the playbook.

Having said that I'm still open minded to the idea.

 

[Statesman1]

How about instead of instituting arbitrary rules we recruit better players. Let's not make this more complicated than it really is.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

Jim Grobe at Wake Forest used this strategy for years, and rode it to a fair amount of success for Wake Forest. But they gave up on it after a couple losing seasons, and never got back to the level they had been on competitively and Grobe was fired.

I'm not aware of anyone else who has taken this approach. I don't think there is much doubt that it can pay some dividends, but...this is an approach you take when you are basically going to concede that you are unable to recruit P5 caliber players. The ability to play right away is extremely meaningful to kids, and most of the elite recruiting programs play plenty of freshmen. There are always some kids who take scholarships knowing they are going to redshirt, but that usually is in exchange for a scholarship offer that is above where you can go and play right away. So a kid might sign with FSU or Ohio State or Alabama knowing they are going to redshirt, but normally because otherwise they'd be at Illinois or Mississippi State.

For Syracuse to institute this across the board, like Wake did, you are basically signing kids that would otherwise play for Buffalo, Northern Iowa, UMass, etc. You can not battle Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt, BC, etc with this approach...no chance. You will not be fishing from the same pond as even those second- or third-rate P5 programs.

Now, if you want to make the argument that Syracuse can't compete for those kids anyway, then this would be a viable approach to occasional 6-8 win seasons, but that would be the ceiling, because you simply wouldn't sign the type of size, talent, etc that is required to put up big seasons.

I don't know what the answer is, but my gut feeling is that the better answer is bringing in a crazy spread offense. You've got defensive minded programs at BC and Pitt, Penn St is a bit of a mess offensively, who knows what you're going to have at Rutgers or Maryland. While UNC and Clemson run some tempo, for the most part I think Syracuse would be best off bringing some Big 12 style to the ACC.

I just don't think this "hard nosed" approach works when you can't recruit the caliber of linemen and backers that your opponents can. Long term you just can't physically dominate teams with physically better and stronger players than you. It is possible however, to throw things at them that they aren't used to dealing with, the way GT does. GT has had a pretty decent bowl streak with inferior talent because of a unique offense.

The other thing is it would allow Syracuse to recruit dynamic athletes that don't fit the physical profile or dimensions that other programs are looking for...6 foot tall QBs, mobile QBs that are super accurate but maybe have second rate arm strength, 5'6" receivers with speed to burn, O-lineman that might be under 300 lbs but can play 80+ snaps, etc. You just have to accept you're going to give up a lot of points, but if you fill your defense with playmakers that can hopefully take a fumble to the house or just get that one or two stops when the opposing offense is feeling the pressure to keep up.

That's not the profile of a team that wins the college football playoffs obviously. But there is space in the ACC and the Northeast I think to carve out some success. And once your program has a buzz, then the caliber of athlete you can recruit obviously improves. Banging your head against the hard-nosed, pro-style, physically wear you down offensive mindset, I just don't see a path to success.

This might be the best post from an outsider that I've ever read. Very well said.

 

[orangenirvana]

I just don't think this "hard nosed" approach works when you can't recruit the caliber of linemen and backers that your opponents can. Long term you just can't physically dominate teams with physically better and stronger players than you. It is possible however, to throw things at them that they aren't used to dealing with, the way GT does. GT has had a pretty decent bowl streak with inferior talent because of a unique offense.

Perfectly stated.

 

[CuseOnly]

I've wondered for years why we haven't taken this sort of approach to our football program woes.
Being a Giants fan I've always liked a "defense-first" philosophy, but the Dome is tailor-made for a Mike Leach/Chip Kelley/"mad Scientist"-like offense on our fast turf.
At this point, we have to establish a new identity and become known for something unique; ie- Arena Football-type of offense.
It seems like just the ticket. JMHO

Why can't we have a smash mouth defensive approach and a high flying spread offense?

 

[007]

Jim Grobe at Wake Forest used this strategy for years, and rode it to a fair amount of success for Wake Forest. But they gave up on it after a couple losing seasons, and never got back to the level they had been on competitively and Grobe was fired.

I'm not aware of anyone else who has taken this approach. I don't think there is much doubt that it can pay some dividends, but...this is an approach you take when you are basically going to concede that you are unable to recruit P5 caliber players. The ability to play right away is extremely meaningful to kids, and most of the elite recruiting programs play plenty of freshmen. There are always some kids who take scholarships knowing they are going to redshirt, but that usually is in exchange for a scholarship offer that is above where you can go and play right away. So a kid might sign with FSU or Ohio State or Alabama knowing they are going to redshirt, but normally because otherwise they'd be at Illinois or Mississippi State.

For Syracuse to institute this across the board, like Wake did, you are basically signing kids that would otherwise play for Buffalo, Northern Iowa, UMass, etc. You can not battle Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt, BC, etc with this approach...no chance. You will not be fishing from the same pond as even those second- or third-rate P5 programs.

Now, if you want to make the argument that Syracuse can't compete for those kids anyway, then this would be a viable approach to occasional 6-8 win seasons, but that would be the ceiling, because you simply wouldn't sign the type of size, talent, etc that is required to put up big seasons.

I don't know what the answer is, but my gut feeling is that the better answer is bringing in a crazy spread offense. You've got defensive minded programs at BC and Pitt, Penn St is a bit of a mess offensively, who knows what you're going to have at Rutgers or Maryland. While UNC and Clemson run some tempo, for the most part I think Syracuse would be best off bringing some Big 12 style to the ACC.

I just don't think this "hard nosed" approach works when you can't recruit the caliber of linemen and backers that your opponents can. Long term you just can't physically dominate teams with physically better and stronger players than you. It is possible however, to throw things at them that they aren't used to dealing with, the way GT does. GT has had a pretty decent bowl streak with inferior talent because of a unique offense.

The other thing is it would allow Syracuse to recruit dynamic athletes that don't fit the physical profile or dimensions that other programs are looking for...6 foot tall QBs, mobile QBs that are super accurate but maybe have second rate arm strength, 5'6" receivers with speed to burn, O-lineman that might be under 300 lbs but can play 80+ snaps, etc. You just have to accept you're going to give up a lot of points, but if you fill your defense with playmakers that can hopefully take a fumble to the house or just get that one or two stops when the opposing offense is feeling the pressure to keep up.

That's not the profile of a team that wins the college football playoffs obviously. But there is space in the ACC and the Northeast I think to carve out some success. And once your program has a buzz, then the caliber of athlete you can recruit obviously improves. Banging your head against the hard-nosed, pro-style, physically wear you down offensive mindset, I just don't see a path to success.

This is a GREAT post!! It should be required reading for all of SyracuseFan.com - especially for those who still are not sure why keeping SS (or to be fair, anyone with that philosophy) is way too risky for SU at this point in our history.

Thanks LouC

 

[Toga]

Jim Grobe at Wake Forest used this strategy for years, and rode it to a fair amount of success for Wake Forest. But they gave up on it after a couple losing seasons, and never got back to the level they had been on competitively and Grobe was fired.

I'm not aware of anyone else who has taken this approach. I don't think there is much doubt that it can pay some dividends, but...this is an approach you take when you are basically going to concede that you are unable to recruit P5 caliber players. The ability to play right away is extremely meaningful to kids, and most of the elite recruiting programs play plenty of freshmen. There are always some kids who take scholarships knowing they are going to redshirt, but that usually is in exchange for a scholarship offer that is above where you can go and play right away. So a kid might sign with FSU or Ohio State or Alabama knowing they are going to redshirt, but normally because otherwise they'd be at Illinois or Mississippi State.

For Syracuse to institute this across the board, like Wake did, you are basically signing kids that would otherwise play for Buffalo, Northern Iowa, UMass, etc. You can not battle Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt, BC, etc with this approach...no chance. You will not be fishing from the same pond as even those second- or third-rate P5 programs.

Now, if you want to make the argument that Syracuse can't compete for those kids anyway, then this would be a viable approach to occasional 6-8 win seasons, but that would be the ceiling, because you simply wouldn't sign the type of size, talent, etc that is required to put up big seasons.

I don't know what the answer is, but my gut feeling is that the better answer is bringing in a crazy spread offense. You've got defensive minded programs at BC and Pitt, Penn St is a bit of a mess offensively, who knows what you're going to have at Rutgers or Maryland. While UNC and Clemson run some tempo, for the most part I think Syracuse would be best off bringing some Big 12 style to the ACC.

I just don't think this "hard nosed" approach works when you can't recruit the caliber of linemen and backers that your opponents can. Long term you just can't physically dominate teams with physically better and stronger players than you. It is possible however, to throw things at them that they aren't used to dealing with, the way GT does. GT has had a pretty decent bowl streak with inferior talent because of a unique offense.

The other thing is it would allow Syracuse to recruit dynamic athletes that don't fit the physical profile or dimensions that other programs are looking for...6 foot tall QBs, mobile QBs that are super accurate but maybe have second rate arm strength, 5'6" receivers with speed to burn, O-lineman that might be under 300 lbs but can play 80+ snaps, etc. You just have to accept you're going to give up a lot of points, but if you fill your defense with playmakers that can hopefully take a fumble to the house or just get that one or two stops when the opposing offense is feeling the pressure to keep up.

That's not the profile of a team that wins the college football playoffs obviously. But there is space in the ACC and the Northeast I think to carve out some success. And once your program has a buzz, then the caliber of athlete you can recruit obviously improves. Banging your head against the hard-nosed, pro-style, physically wear you down offensive mindset, I just don't see a path to success.

 

[DoctorBombay]

Why can't we have a smash mouth defensive approach and a high flying spread offense?

Absolutely, we can and should try to have both. But based on LouC's post about our offensive woes, and his use of Georgia Tech is a perfect example, we need to employ a philosophy that goes beyond "grind it out- three yards & a cloud of dust- smash mouth- bubble screen", & try to do something different/unique. We certainly have the facilities to do it.
I think in our case, a featured offensive philosophy a'la Baylor, should be our calling card.

 

[Millhouse]

Why can't we have a smash mouth defensive approach and a high flying spread offense?

i've come to believe that it's hard to have a smash mouth defense when you practice against an offense that is too good at passing the ball and doesn't really allow for gang tackling

s c out teams are only so effective at preparing your defense

the coach that can figure out how to have a smash mouth defensive approach and a high flying spread offense will win national championships - i think it's why you see mega factories still sticking with more ordinary offensive systems. they can score with any offense and they pick the one that helps their defense in practice

 

[Lou_C]

i've come to believe that it's hard to have a smash mouth defense when you practice against an offense that is too good at passing the ball and doesn't really allow for gang tackling

s c out teams are only so effective at preparing your defense

the coach that can figure out how to have a smash mouth defensive approach and a high flying spread offense will win national championships - i think it's why you see mega factories still sticking with more ordinary offensive systems. they can score with any offense and they pick the one that helps their defense in practice

This is a lot of it, I think. How does a defense really learn to play smash mouth going against that offense every day. Plus, when you have an offense like that, your defense is on the field A LOT.

You need to hope to have an opportunistic defense that can make plays in the second half when the other team is exhausted, or they're playing catchup. If you can put a team in a 21 point hole in the second quarter, you've gone a long way to helping out your defense.

That said, Clemson is pretty close with a great defense and the ability to go tempo, but as they've recruited better athletes they've become a bit less gimmicky.

But the biggest reason most teams with that kind of offense don't have a smash mouth defense is because they can't recruit the relative handful of kids every year that fit what is required to play that kind of defense. They can't recruit 270 lb ends that can seal the edge and stop the run. But they can recruit 215 lb pass rush specialists, and then hope their offense forces the opponent to abandon the power running game.

And for the purposes of this theory, it doesn't HAVE to be pass happy, it could be the GT model, but as an opponent, I don't think anyone wants to see another one of those offenses on the schedule, lol.