Coaching Comments to Recruit

[OttoinGrotto]

Would have stopped the time wasted trying to install a brand new offense and QB.

It's a waste of time that we're not modernizing our offense.

Why am I not surprised that your response is that we shouldn't have changed from what Marrone was doing?

 

[longtimefan]

I have a question about speed. Maybe it's a dumb question. Maybe I'm dumb, who knows. But I'll ask it anyway...

Are human beings living in the South inherently faster than those who live in the North?

If they are, then I get why we we'd have trouble recruiting for speed in our region.

But if not, then why can't we recruit for speed.

I don't know if this is a good data point, but here are the top 10 college programs for men's cross country right now...

1. Colorado
2. Oregon
3. Syracuse
4. Oklahoma State
5. Iona
6. Wisconsin
7. Villanova
8. Portland
9. Stanford
10. Northern Arizona

Now, maybe you don't need fast kids to build a good cross country program. I have no idea, honestly. But there isn't a single southern school in the top 10. And one might assume that there are at least a few kids who can run that live in the north, since 4 of the top 10 are northern schools.

So, sincerely, why can't we recruit fast kids who live in the north?

Cross country is a bad example. Many southern schools don't compete in the sport. One of the dirty little secrets of intercollegiate athletics is how few sports the SEC schools actually sponsor. Apparently, they roll most of that football money back into their football programs.

 

[GoSU96]

It's a waste of time that we're not modernizing our offense.

Why am I not surprised that your response is that we shouldn't have changed from what Marrone was doing?

I don't know, maybe because it worked, and it fit the players on the roster.

It didn't need fixing, and now its done broke busted.

And what was wrong with it. Explosive, uptempo, balanced, great production in both the pass and run game. Adaptable to the opponent. Exactly what needed modernization. It wasn't like they were running the power I or veer.

Considering they reverted to a power run oriented offense the second half of the year not changing would have saved time and probably led to another win or two.

 

[Full_Rebar]

I have a question about speed. Maybe it's a dumb question. Maybe I'm dumb, who knows. But I'll ask it anyway...

Are human beings living in the South inherently faster than those who live in the North?

If they are, then I get why we we'd have trouble recruiting for speed in our region.

But if not, then why can't we recruit for speed.

I don't know if this is a good data point, but here are the top 10 college programs for men's cross country right now...

1. Colorado
2. Oregon
3. Syracuse
4. Oklahoma State
5. Iona
6. Wisconsin
7. Villanova
8. Portland
9. Stanford
10. Northern Arizona

Now, maybe you don't need fast kids to build a good cross country program. I have no idea, honestly. But there isn't a single southern school in the top 10. And one might assume that there are at least a few kids who can run that live in the north, since 4 of the top 10 are northern schools.

So, sincerely, why can't we recruit fast kids who live in the north?

You don't need sprinters to build a good cross country program. A view would be to look at the top teams in the 4x100 or 4x400 in track. I think you'd see a lot more Southern schools there, but I haven't looked closely.

I don't think it's all about speed anymore. Others have talked about the edge that kids from FL, CA, and TX have in terms of football experience. We should be asking why SU isn't recruiting texas HS Qb's who have thousands of reps in the spread offense. Z. Allen might not be playing at TCU, but I would imagine there was a good reason why he was Marrone/Hackett's choice to take over for Nassib.

 

[GoSU96]

Yeah. It's frustrating because he was really close to having the right thing in place, the execution was just poor.

That's delusional. There is zero evidence for that.

 

[TheCusian]

It's a waste of time that we're not modernizing our offense. Why am I not surprised that your response is that we shouldn't have changed from what Marrone was doing?

You realize when he got the job in Buffalo, he and Hackett were correctly attributed to doing things and adding wrinkles (mostly with Lemon) that hadn't been done a lot? There's a grantland article talking about our offense and what they were doing.

Modernizing is the wrong word.

How about what Chip Kelly is doing out of 12 personnel?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

That's delusional. There is zero evidence for that.

People are having a hard time separating out their dislike for McDonald/McDonald's weaknesses from the actual scheme and strategy the offense was shooting for.

The scheme and strategy was sound. The execution was poor, and the guy leading it had issues.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

You realize when he got the job in Buffalo, he and Hackett were correctly attributed to doing things and adding wrinkles (mostly with Lemon) that hadn't been done a lot? There's a grantland article talking about our offense and what they were doing.

Modernizing is the wrong word.

How about what Chip Kelly is doing out of 12 personnel?

Mostly I was tweaking Go there.

 

[GoSU96]

Mostly I was tweaking Go there.

How, by showing your ignorance?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

How, by showing your ignorance?

Go, our banter... this season... it's all we have left.

 

[CuseOnly]

what would've had to happen this year for you to know that Lester can't get us to average?

the guy couldn't be luckier. he gets a job by default with no competition mid season because mcdonald stunk and he gets to keep the job by default without competition because of injuries

his YPG is 304. that would be 120th in the country. his yards per play would be 123rd

i want someone to admit that there is nothing that Lester could do to lose the job this year

why is this guy making decisions about the future?

Those stats were "earned" with the 2nd, 3rd AND 4th string QB. And the entire 2 and 3 deep OL mostly playing out of position. I really don't think the stats you are relying on to judge mean squat.

 

[GoSU96]

People are having a hard time separating out their dislike for McDonald/McDonald's weaknesses from the actual scheme and strategy the offense was shooting for.

The scheme and strategy was sound. The execution was poor, and the guy leading it had issues.

Yeesh

 

[Millhouse]

Those stats were "earned" with the 2nd, 3rd AND 4th string QB. And the entire 2 and 3 deep OL mostly playing out of position. I really don't think the stats you are relying on to judge mean squat.

Which works out great for a guy who might otherwise have to have results to keep the job

 

[CuseOnly]

Which works out great for a guy who might otherwise have to have results to keep the job

Yeah...it's worked out "great" for us. Funny thing is that guy who lost the job, lost the job for the most part when those OL and the starting QB was healthy. He also had Broyld in the line up. Lester has had none of them.

 

[supp]

Those stats were "earned" with the 2nd, 3rd AND 4th string QB. And the entire 2 and 3 deep OL mostly playing out of position. I really don't think the stats you are relying on to judge mean squat.

You see, that's exactly what makes me want the spread. It seems to me that the Leach/Briles or Rodriguez or Kelly offenses seem to just keep rolling no matter who's behind center, which makes me believe that scheme means more than talent in their case. Not to say that it would work with anyone back there but from my admittedly novice point of view they don't seem to suffer nearly as much from injury or graduation as other offenses do.

Sure, it's hard to judge Lester given what we've lost but I'd feel a lot more confident about the future if he ran an offense that isn't so dependent on a particular type of player (mobile QB or 5-tool TE or whatever) or a particular player (whether that's Hunt or Long or whoever) to make it work. Injuries will happen.

 

[Cootface]

Yeah...it's worked out "great" for us.

The point is it worked out great for Lester, it has nothing to do with "us".

 

[CuseOnly]

The point is it worked out great for Lester, it has nothing to do with "us".

Don't forget that Lester is picking up the peices of an offense he doesn't run. You clearly didn't read this part of the reply ...

Funny thing is that guy who lost the job, lost the job for the most part when those OL and the starting QB was healthy. He also had Broyld in the line up. Lester has had none of them.

If Lester had "won" the job and had the full complement of players and put up the stats that Millhouse was referencing, then I would be concerned. But he didn't put up those stats with the full complement of starters did he.

You can't come in halfway through the argument and cherry pick.

Secondly - Really, what has worked out Great for Lester?

1- He inherited an offense he doesn't run but has to call plays for...bubble screens and all...must be great for him.
2- He has 2 starting linemen that are playing injured, the rest are out and he is relying on 2nd and 3rd stringers to fill in...must be awesome!
3- Top 2 receivers out and best kick returner...this must be the best part.
4- He is hamstringed by ridiculous substitution patterns from someone else's system
5- He is now being judged on his performance by you and others with all of he above against him...This is clearly good for him and his reputation.

It must be great to be OC at SU.

 

[Millhouse]

Yeah...it's worked out "great" for us. Funny thing is that guy who lost the job, lost the job for the most part when those OL and the starting QB was healthy. He also had Broyld in the line up. Lester has had none of them.

I said it worked out great for Lester. Not us

 

[Millhouse]

Don't forget that Lester is picking up the peices of an offense he doesn't run. You clearly didn't read this part of the reply ... Funny thing is that guy who lost the job, lost the job for the most part when those OL and the starting QB was healthy. He also had Broyld in the line up. Lester has had none of them. If Lester had "won" the job and had the full complement of players and put up the stats that Millhouse was referencing, then I would be concerned. But he didn't put up those stats with the full complement of starters did he. You can't come in halfway through the argument and cherry pick. Secondly - Really, what has worked out Great for Lester? 1- He inherited an offense he doesn't run but has to call plays for...bubble screens and all...must be great for him. 2- He has 2 starting linemen that are playing injured, the rest are out and he is relying on 2nd and 3rd stringers to fill in...must be awesome! 3- Top 2 receivers out and best kick returner...this must be the best part. 4- He is hamstringed by ridiculous substitution patterns from someone else's system 5- He is now being judged on his performance by you and others with all of he above against him...This is clearly good for him and his reputation. It must be great to be OC at SU.

Not cherry picking. Those are the results for all of his games. He got a tryout that doesn't get judged at all

 

[longtimefan]

Not cherry picking. Those are the results for all of his games. He got a tryout that doesn't get judged at all

Some folks seem to be making judgments.

 

[TheCusian]

Not cherry picking. Those are the results for all of his games. He got a tryout that doesn't get judged at all

C'mon. That's not true.

He's getting judged - just wasn't enough to have him sent back to QB coach. There was/is pressure from fans and media about him being retained as OC. He gets an "incomplete" for all the reasons cited repeatedly. But no one here is saying he's done a bang up job.

 

[Cootface]

Secondly - Really, what has worked out Great for Lester?

I read all of your post, I only quoted the part I was replying to (as above).

It worked out great for Lester because he was handed a job mid-season with no outside competition because of someone else's incompetence. We literally had no other option at that time so it was his by default. And just by virtue of that, rather than doing something rational like keeping all of our options on the table for a replacement at the end of the year, he automatically gets guaranteed a year and a half in the position regardless of actual offensive performance as well as the latitude to change the entire offensive recruiting philosophy to suit his system. Sounds like a great deal for him.

Personally I think it's a waste of time because I'm skeptical that any of these coaches will be around after next year. And I think it will largely be because of this decision by Shafer. But, as many have said, it's Shafer's ship so he gets to decide how it's going to go down.

 

[CuseOnly]

Not cherry picking. Those are the results for all of his games. He got a tryout that doesn't get judged at all

I wasn't talking to you about Cherry Picking...Lits44 was who I was responding to.

He's not getting judged huh...then what are you and tons of others doing on this board?? Yep...Judging his "tryout".

 

[TheCusian]

I read all of your post, I only quoted the part I was replying to (as above). It worked out great for Lester because he was handed a job mid-season with no outside competition because of someone else's incompetence. We literally had no other option at that time so it was his by default. And just by virtue of that, rather than doing something rational like keeping all of our options on the table for a replacement at the end of the year, he automatically gets guaranteed a year and a half in the position regardless of actual offensive performance as well as the latitude to change the entire offensive recruiting philosophy to suit his system. Sounds like a great deal for him. Personally I think it's a waste of time because I'm skeptical that any of these coaches will be around after next year. And I think it will largely be because of this decision by Shafer. But, as many have said, it's Shafer's ship so he gets to decide how it's going to go down.

I fail to see how it's a problem. Shafer has the authority to give the job to whomever he wants. He also rightly gives the OC the authority to install his system. Most guys who get to call plays for a living are "getting a great deal". We just happened to be more opinionated because we think we know how he's going to call plays based on using QB's 2-4 a busted line and most importantly a completely different offense then what he wants to run.

No one knows what a Lester run offense looks like... Except Shafer and Adams and a bunch of D3 players in Chicago.

 

[Crusty]

I read all of your post, I only quoted the part I was replying to (as above).

It worked out great for Lester because he was handed a job mid-season with no outside competition because of someone else's incompetence. We literally had no other option at that time so it was his by default. And just by virtue of that, rather than doing something rational like keeping all of our options on the table for a replacement at the end of the year, he automatically gets guaranteed a year and a half in the position regardless of actual offensive performance as well as the latitude to change the entire offensive recruiting philosophy to suit his system. Sounds like a great deal for him.

Personally I think it's a waste of time because I'm skeptical that any of these coaches will be around after next year. And I think it will largely be because of this decision by Shafer. But, as many have said, it's Shafer's ship so he gets to decide how it's going to go down.

I think Lester was always the backup plan if GM didn't work out. Shafer knew GM did not have the experience so Lester was a good QB coach choice. GM was given the AHC and OC job for his recruiting skills and Shafer knew it was a risk. He was smart enough to have backup plan.