I've been reading all the recent posts hypothesizing that this year's series of close defeats are attributable to the coaching staff/coaching philosophy/etc. While I am certainly critical of some of the coaching decisions (especially some in-game decisions), isn't success on a football field more than anything about talent? Put another way, I'm a firm believer that especially in the game of football, depth of talent or superior talent will, over time, tend to eliminate the effect of many mistakes--especially turnovers. Four years ago, we were arguably the worst BCS conference program in the country. Robinson, while a good man, drove this program into the depths. I am personally amazed with many of the wins this program has enjoyed with clearly inferior talent over the last couple of years (N'Western three years ago, West Virginia on the road a few years ago, at Rutgers two years ago, WVA last year all come to immediately mind). My belief is that this is a process and it takes time--especially when we recall where we were as a program when Doug walked onto campus. Most of the mistakes our kids make are a by-product of our kids trying like hell to overcome a talent deficit...and the effect of those mistakes on winning or losing are magnified because the talent deficit makes the margin of error for this team still razor thin. It's not there yet, but it is difficult to argue that top to bottom our program (and the depth of talented football players) is better off now than it was four years ago. I sat first row behind the SU bench the year Doug took over, and the size/speed/talent deficits of the kids in our program was shocking. Today, our kids look more like football players and, at times, play like it. I think we all need to pump the brakes on the reactionary rhetoric, let these competent men do their job, have a little bit of faith in what they are trying to accomplish, and see where this thing shakes out in a year or two.