Bobby Acosta new TE coach...

[TheCusian]

First off, our facilities are fine. There have been numerous threads in this forum to discuss just that. Some schools (i.e. UCF) have thrown down more in the last 5 years, but they started with less. There really aren't many (if any) middle of the road P5 schools with *tangibly* better facilities than us. In all honesty, we're even better than *some* of the elite schools. We have thrown down cash. That's undeniable. If you read my previous comments, you will notice that I never said anything discouraging about having MAC background. My point is that I don't want a coaching staff with nothing but a MAC-level background. The reason why I don't want that is because there's a very good chance that they will give you MAC-level results. As I said previously, I'm OK with hiring a coach here and there from the MAC/Sun Belt/FCS/DIII and so on. The connections and young blood aren't bad. They can actually make valuable contributions that other, more seasoned coached can't. That's undeniable. However, as stated earlier in this thread, those hires need to be balanced with seasoned coaches with proven track records at major institutions. And finally, I think that you are underselling SU. We are very unique in that we have a strong presence in 3 regions of the country (4 B1G rivalries, a NE location, and ACC membership gives us a strong presence in the Midwest, Northeast, and the Southeast) , our coaches sell a quality product (facilities, academics, history, and so on), our fan base is rational (i.e. you won't get fired for getting 7-8 wins/yr), and we are located next to a bunch of high profile NFL teams (who have been hiring SU coaches left and right recently) and the sports reporting capital of the world (CT/NYC, NJ, PA). That's actually a really solid package. Does that beat out Alabama? No. However, does it beat out most mid level P5schools? Yes, absolutely.

This is silly. Shafer believes that coaching with the right guys is more important than bringing in a guy he doesn't know from a p5 school. As mentioned earlier - both our OC and DC had p5 experience. You take a flier on the next level of coaches.

Secondly, if you take the right Mac level coaches and give them p5, talent - they could be better than a retread. They will be hungrier - I guarantee you that. I trust Shafer's connections.

Thirdly, if we get a p5 coach - they are either on their way up (from a worse school) or on their way down (countless passionless coaches on the backside of their careers).

 

[chakka3421]

First off, our facilities are fine. There have been numerous threads in this forum to discuss just that. Some schools (i.e. UCF) have thrown down more in the last 5 years, but they started with less. There really aren't many (if any) middle of the road P5 schools with *tangibly* better facilities than us. In all honesty, we're even better than *some* of the elite schools. We have thrown down cash. That's undeniable.

THIS is a matter of opinion and you have no idea of what you are talking about at all. I knew for a fact facilities was used against us in recruiting - "have them show you their IPF" - "go look how SU supports the basketball program more with its "Melo" center. They are a basketball program just look how SUAD spends their money. All you see for football is a remodel here and there.

The IPF levels the playing field for SU regarding facilities and becomes less of a recruiting negative (probably a positive since the IPF will be new).

However, the main thing used against us to this day is attendance. That's why they don't bring recruits to football games.

 

[nzm136]

This is silly. Shafer believes that coaching with the right guys is more important than bringing in a guy he doesn't know from a p5 school. As mentioned earlier - both our OC and DC had p5 experience. You take a flier on the next level of coaches.

Secondly, if you take the right Mac level coaches and give them p5, talent - they could be better than a retread. They will be hungrier - I guarantee you that. I trust Shafer's connections.

Thirdly, if we get a p5 coach - they are either on their way up (from a worse school) or on their way down (countless passionless coaches on the backside of their careers).

1. Our DC failed for a year at UCLA until he was fired. Unless I'm forgetting someone, only our HC and OC had success at a BCS school, and they just so happen to be viewed as the most talented coaches on the staff. A successful BCS background doesn't make anything a sure thing, just like the absence of one doesn't make anything a sure miss. It's all probabilities, though.

2. You're right, but the key word is *could*. They *could* also be a total failure in way too deep over their head. Unfortunately, the second is more likely. That said, before anyone twists my words, I want to make this clear: I don't think that our coaching staff is bad. I just think that we're 1-2 big time moves away from going from a team with a consistent 8 win season ceiling to a team with a consistent 10 win season ceiling. I trust HCSS as a coach. He has worked miracles at Stanford (as DC), Syracuse (as DC), and a number of other jobs. However, his success hasn't been as a result of his network. It's been his personal genius (and he *is* a genius).

3. Your third point is A. misleading and B. factually not true. Your post was misleading because when you say "they are ... on their way up (from a worse school)..." I think you mean it as if that's a bad thing. In reality it isn't. There are bright spots in most coaching staffs. Purdue might have a great running game, but be a bad overall program with little to offer. Odds are that in such a hypothetical situation, the OL coach and/or the RB coach who was able to successfully run against schools like Nebraska, PSU, Michigan, MSU, and OSU would be a good hire, despite coming from a worse P5 school. Your post isn't accurate because you leave out yard sales which is how most major assistant coaches are hired at our level. We didn't get Atkins because he was coming from a weaker program (he came from Tennessee), and we didn't get him because he was on the way down (he was thought t be one of the best assistant coaches in the nation when he as hired here). We got him because his HC, Phil Fulmer, got canned.

 

[nzm136]

THIS is a matter of opinion and you have no idea of what you are talking about at all. I knew for a fact facilities was used against us in recruiting - "have them show you their IPF" - "go look how SU supports the basketball program more with its "Melo" center. They are a basketball program just look how SUAD spends their money. All you see for football is a remodel here and there.

The IPF levels the playing field for SU regarding facilities and becomes less of a recruiting negative (probably a positive since the IPF will be new).

However, the main thing used against us to this day is attendance. That's why they don't bring recruits to football games.

Reread the words in bold.

It seems like you agree with me, despite claiming that " have no idea of what [I'm] talking about." I think that you need to reread my posts. You pretty much summed them up while trying to disagree.

 

[kcsu]

I'm not comparing anyone to any season. I know Hunt was a 1st year starter. But the only point was the QB was as much an issue as the WRs as to why our passing game was so bad most if the year. Doesn't matter what year they were. The bad passing game was a team effort.

Agreed Bees it was a combination. New O, New OC, New QB, plus we really didnt have a true number one wr. West is a good two at best. Add in the fact that our OC put our TE on the shelf and you end up with a weak passing game.

 

[RMH44]

1. Our DC failed for a year at UCLA until he was fired. Unless I'm forgetting someone, only our HC and OC had success at a BCS school, and they just so happen to be viewed as the most talented coaches on the staff. A successful BCS background doesn't make anything a sure thing, just like the absence of one doesn't make anything a sure miss. It's all probabilities, though.
.

Most talented coaches according to who...you?

We have a number of very talented coaches on staff, i.e. Lester, Daoust, Lea and Smith, that are nationally respected but are in earlier stages of their careers than HCSS and McDonald. I fully expect other programs to begin poaching them over the next couple of years. As I much as I like McDonald as a recruiter, one could make the argument that he is still unproven as an OC. Imo, this is a big year in his career trajectory.

Btw, just because you continue to use the terms "it's undeniable" or "that's undeniable" doesn't make your point(s) true. It's never good form to posts in "absolutes" when clearly, it only your opinion. In fact, doing so makes you look delusional.

 

[RMH44]

That is such an exaggeration.

The problem with the pass game was as much on the OC and scheme as it was on the QB's or WR's. I'd say 1/3, 1/3, 1/3.

In 2012 Marrone and Hackett played three guys and they didn't suddenly become man beaters, they were schemed open because there was finally a good run game. Audibles, option plays, and heavy dose of play action opened up the pass game.

Last year there was little connection and use of the pass and run games together to leverage the strength of the run game. Very little play action, which would have helped the QB and WR's.

I think even more than 1/3 of the problems could be blamed on scheme over the first half of the season. It appeared that McDonald was struggling to establish an offensive identity early on.

It was pretty obvious that the personnel didn't mesh with his playbook.

 

[Orangeyes]

We didn't get Atkins because he was coming from a weaker program (he came from Tennessee), and we didn't get him because he was on the way down (he was thought t be one of the best assistant coaches in the nation when he as hired here). We got him because his HC, Phil Fulmer, got canned.

We also got him because of the relationship he had with FHCDM

 

[nzm136]

Most talented coaches according to who...you?

We have a number of very talented coaches on staff, i.e. Lester, Daoust, Lea and Smith, that are nationally respected but are in earlier stages of their careers than HCSS and McDonald. I fully expect other programs to begin poaching them over the next couple of years. As I much as I like McDonald as a recruiter, one could make the argument that he is still unproven as an OC. Imo, this is a big year in his career trajectory.

Btw, just because you continue to use the terms "it's undeniable" or "that's undeniable" doesn't make your point(s) true. It's never good form to posts in "absolutes" when clearly, it only your opinion. In fact, doing so makes you look delusional.

You do realize that HCSS was one of the most sought after DC's in all of college football when he left Stanford for Michigan, right? Name another coach on our staff who has his resume. I'm not sure if you realize how big a of a deal it was for Stanford to overcome USC, or how important HCSS was in the event, but I assure you it wasn't peanuts. The same goes for SU's defensive turnaround. Go back to the GRob year and watch those defenses. We used a swiss cheese formation with a Hodini philosophy. There were a bunch of holes and then the defense just disappeared. That wasn't the case by HCSS' last year as DC. We held our own against what was widely regarded as the best offense in college football (USC - before the injuries took their toll on USC's thin post-sanction roster).

Also, there's a reason why McD is the #2 guy on the coaching staff. There's a reason why he got promoted to coordinator and the other haven't yet.

So no, this isn't a matter of my opinion. It's a matter of my opinion, HCSS' opinion, and basically everyone that I have ever talked to about SU football except for apparently you.

As for your rant at the end, that's the logical equal of claiming that temperature is subjective, so "it isn't undeniable that the glowing red stove is hot" and then grabbing it to show me that I'm wrong. It makes you look stubborn and stupid. If you want to make an argument that there's a coach on this staff that's more talented that HCSS and McD, then go for it. Bust out their resume.

 

[baggerbob]

You do realize that HCSS was one of the most sought after DC's in all of college football when he left Stanford for Michigan, right? Name another coach on our staff who has his resume. I'm not sure if you realize how big a of a deal it was for Stanford to overcome USC, or how important HCSS was in the event, but I assure you it wasn't peanuts. The same goes for SU's defensive turnaround. Go back to the GRob year and watch those defenses. We used a swiss cheese formation with a Hodini philosophy. There were a bunch of holes and then the defense just disappeared. That wasn't the case by HCSS' last year as DC. We held our own against what was widely regarded as the best offense in college football (USC - before the injuries took their toll on USC's thin post-sanction roster).

Also, there's a reason why McD is the #2 guy on the coaching staff. There's a reason why he got promoted to coordinator and the other haven't yet.

So no, this isn't a matter of my opinion. It's a matter of my opinion, HCSS' opinion, and basically everyone that I have ever talked to about SU football except for apparently you.

As for your rant at the end, that's the logical equal of claiming that temperature is subjective, so "it isn't undeniable that the glowing red stove is hot" and then grabbing it to show me that I'm wrong. It makes you look stubborn and stupid. If you want to make an argument that there's a coach on this staff that's more talented that HCSS and McD, then go for it. Bust out their resume.

Regardless of all your comments, the bottom line is what you, or I, or anyone else thinks, the only person who matters in all this is Scott. Its his job which is on the line, and he is going to choose the people he feels will do the job. Scott also has over 20 years of coaching experience, he probably has a better feel for what needs to be done.

 

[nzm136]

Wow... reality check. We're talking about position coaches here. For every Pete Carroll you cite, I can counter with an Art Briles.

It ridiculous for you to imply that HCSS hasn't surrounded himself with quality coaching talent.

If you don't think that position coaches matter, you know very little about college football. They are exceedingly important, especially on the college level.

And no, aside from our DC who was fired from UCLA after a year and has been unimpressive here, I never said that he didn't surround himself with quality talent. I just opened up that possibility. However, it's ridiculous that you think that VT, UNC, Miami, FSU, Clemson, BC, Pitt, UL, and GT are just sitting on their hands. "Just" being "good" isn't good enough unless you want to have to fight for 6 wins every year. We are in a very competitive conference that's on the rise.

 

[nzm136]

Regardless of all your comments, the bottom line is what you, or I, or anyone else thinks, the only person who matters in all this is Scott. Its his job which is on the line, and he is going to choose the people he feels will do the job. Scott also has over 20 years of coaching experience, he probably has a better feel for what needs to be done.

So I can't have an opinion?

 

[timkay99]

This isn't true. There's nothing keeping anyone at schools like Purdue, Indiana, Iowa State, and any other of the bottom level P5 schools over Syracuse.

Am I the only one that prefers D3 head coaches to position coaches from bad P5 programs?

 

[RMH44]

You do realize that HCSS was one of the most sought after DC's in all of college football when he left Stanford for Michigan, right? Name another coach on our staff who has his resume. I'm not sure if you realize how big a of a deal it was for Stanford to overcome USC, or how important HCSS was in the event, but I assure you it wasn't peanuts. The same goes for SU's defensive turnaround. Go back to the GRob year and watch those defenses. We used a swiss cheese formation with a Hodini philosophy. There were a bunch of holes and then the defense just disappeared. That wasn't the case by HCSS' last year as DC. We held our own against what was widely regarded as the best offense in college football (USC - before the injuries took their toll on USC's thin post-sanction roster).

Also, there's a reason why McD is the #2 guy on the coaching staff. There's a reason why he got promoted to coordinator and the other haven't yet.

So no, this isn't a matter of my opinion. It's a matter of my opinion, HCSS' opinion, and basically everyone that I have ever talked to about SU football except for apparently you.

As for your rant at the end, that's the logical equal of claiming that temperature is subjective, so "it isn't undeniable that the glowing red stove is hot" and then grabbing it to show me that I'm wrong. It makes you look stubborn and stupid. If you want to make an argument that there's a coach on this staff that's more talented that HCSS and McD, then go for it. Bust out their resume.

No one, especially me, ever suggested or implied that HCSS isn't a great coach or doesn't have a great resume...so let's put that straw man to bed. We're very fortunate to have him.

Personally, even though McDonald struggled at times last year, I think he was a fantastic hire. But using your logic, bringing him in as OC was bad hire. Why didn't HCSS go after an established P5 OC? Instead he hired an up and coming coach (with whom he worked with previously) who served primarily as a P5 position coach. What gives?

Bottom line, successful P5 OC's don't come to SU...we can't afford them. Chad Morris of Clemson, for example, makes $1.3m per year. That's as much as our HC knocks down.

You asked baggerbob above "So I can't have an opinion?" Obviously, the answer yes... but you state opinions as if they're stone cold facts. It makes you come across as a condescending richard. Try prefacing your remarks with a "IMO" or "IMHO" and you'll run into far less problems.

Btw, horrendous analogy above. It makes you look stubborn and stupid like a twelve year old.

 

[Cusester]

Does anyone have anything to say about our new TE coach and New Jersey recruiter? God, I hope so.

 

[GoSU96]

We didn't get Atkins because he was coming from a weaker program (he came from Tennessee), and we didn't get him because he was on the way down (he was thought t be one of the best assistant coaches in the nation when he as hired here). We got him because his HC, Phil Fulmer, got canned.

In other words, he was UNEMPLOYED.

 

[nzm136]

In other words, he was UNEMPLOYED.

Unless there is a new NCAA rule against hiring unemployed coaches, that's IRRELEVANT.

 

[nzm136]

Guys - there is only one word I can think of regarding Shafer's coaching hire strategy:

"Loyalty"

Coach P also had that strategy.

 

[Whitey23]

I'm not entirely sure what this thread is about anymore.

 

[nzm136]

No one, especially me, ever suggested or implied that HCSS isn't a great coach or doesn't have a great resume...so let's put that straw man to bed. We're very fortunate to have him.

Personally, even though McDonald struggled at times last year, I think he was a fantastic hire. But using your logic, bringing him in as OC was bad hire. Why didn't HCSS go after an established P5 OC? Instead he hired an up and coming coach (with whom he worked with previously) who served primarily as a P5 position coach. What gives?

Bottom line, successful P5 OC's don't come to SU...we can't afford them. Chad Morris of Clemson, for example, makes $1.3m per year. That's as much as our HC knocks down.

You asked baggerbob above "So I can't have an opinion?" Obviously, the answer yes... but you state opinions as if they're stone cold facts. It makes you come across as a condescending richard. Try prefacing your remarks with a "IMO" or "IMHO" and you'll run into far less problems.

Btw, horrendous analogy above. It makes you look stubborn and stupid like a twelve year old.

The man who starts throwing ad hominem attacks and then cusses claims that the other looks like a 12 year old. That's rich. I guess I shouldn't have used an analogy that involved thinking.

And, for the record, McD was a very successful WR coach at Miami. In other words, he proved that he could do his job at a high level, which is exactly what I'm advocating.

And, wile we're talking about finances, you do realize that SU has one of the most profitable athletic departments in the ACC, right? We also have one of the smallest, meaning we have a bigger pie, and we have to split it both ways. Do the math on that.

 

[GoSU96]

Unless there is a new NCAA rule against hiring unemployed coaches, that's IRRELEVANT.

It actually is given the argument that you have been making. Do you think that SU could have hired Atkins if he had been still employed by UT?

Earlier in this thread you made an argument that SU should go out a grab position coaches from other BCS schools.

How is the hiring of Atkins in any way relevant to your argument?

 

[tep624]

So I can't have an opinion?

Anyone can have an opinion. I take your opinion is that one of the most sought after DC's in college football (your words), who is now our head coach, takes a back seat to your ability to identify competent coaches to be hired to his staff?