Coyle's list of criteria

[RF2044]

Obligatory qualifier: I like Shafer, have and will support the team, but I think it is fairly clear that he just isn't a good enough HC / strategist to return the program to where it needs to be. At some point, Coyle is going to have to make a decision. What criteria should he focus on?

Here's my list:

• New coach absolutely has to have previous HC experience, and a track record of success. No more bringing in coordinator types who are unproven. No more extending a rebuild. There are some quality pieces of the puzzle in place on this team, and a good coaching staff would be able to actualize that potential fairly quickly.

• New HC has to have strong offense credentials. Time for us to get with the program and be innovative. Use the Dome as the resource it should be, instead of trying to play like a 1990s team.

• Recruiting contacts, northeast ties, etc. should not significantly factor into the decision. Win, and the recruits and fans will follow.

• Need to be prepared to open up the coffers--we have ACC revenue, and we're going to have to spend it to land a high caliber candidate and a quality staff of ACs. Nothing against HCSS, who is an easy guy to root for, but when you are employing the lowest paid coach in a conference, you generally get what you pay for [obviously, there are exceptions, but it doesn't appear that HCSS is one of them].

• No more NFL types. The college game is different than how the game is played at the NFL level, and we need somebody who understands those nuances and doesn't try to force a round peg, square hole pro style offense on us. Been there, done that.

Any others? What other attributes / factors / criteria did I leave out?

 

[Toga]

I wonder sometimes if being a game day meathead isn't just the norm in football and fans simply notice it more on their own team. Take the Jets game yesterday. With like 3-4 minutes left and I believe the Jets down to 1 TO, Oakland is up 14 and keeps throwing (incompletions!). Then you have the general stupidity of not going for 4th and short in enemy territory. See that all the time. What about trying wind down the clock but snapping the ball with 10 seconds left on the play clock. See that too.

Listen - I was beside myself with stupidity at the end of the first half, but wonder if the stupid stuff is the norm rather than the exception. It's stuff any 10 year old who watches football would know, yet you see it all the time. It's perplexing.

 

[Scooch]

I wonder sometimes if being a game day meathead isn't just the norm in football and fans simply notice it more on their own team. Take the Jets game yesterday. With like 3-4 minutes left and I believe the Jets down to 1 TO, Oakland is up 14 and keeps throwing (incompletions!). Then you have the general stupidity of not going for 4th and short in enemy territory. See that all the time. What about trying wind down the clock but snapping the ball with 10 seconds left on the play clock. See that too.

Listen - I was beside myself with stupidity at the end of the first half, but wonder if the stupid stuff is the norm rather than the exception. It's stuff any 10 year old who watches football would know, yet you see it all the time. It's perplexing.

Yes, in-game management is very difficult and even the very best coaches make decisions that can easily be second-guessed.

Shafer is worse than average, IMHO, but that could be acceptable if his other strengths compensated for it.

My concern is that his game planning appears to be subpar as well. Certainly much worse than Marrone's, and peak-era Pasqualoni. Couple that with subpar in-game management and it's a lethal combo.

 

[HeaterCuse22]

Obligatory qualifier: I like Shafer, have and will support the team, but I think it is fairly clear that he just isn't a good enough HC / strategist to return the program to where it needs to be. At some point, Coyle is going to have to make a decision. What criteria should he focus on?

Here's my list:

• New coach absolutely has to have previous HC experience, and a track record of success. No more bringing in coordinator types who are unproven. No more extending a rebuild. There are some quality pieces of the puzzle in place on this team, and a good coaching staff would be able to actualize that potential fairly quickly.

• New HC has to have strong offense credentials. Time for us to get with the program and be innovative. Use the Dome as the resource it should be, instead of trying to play like a 1990s team.

• Recruiting contacts, northeast ties, etc. should not significantly factor into the decision. Win, and the recruits and fans will follow.

• Need to be prepared to open up the coffers--we have ACC revenue, and we're going to have to spend it to land a high caliber candidate and a quality staff of ACs. Nothing against HCSS, who is an easy guy to root for, but when you are employing the lowest paid coach in a conference, you generally get what you pay for [obviously, there are exceptions, but it doesn't appear that HCSS is one of them].

• No more NFL types. The college game is different than how the game is played at the NFL level, and we need somebody who understands those nuances and doesn't try to force a round peg, square hole pro style offense on us. Been there, done that.

Any others? What other attributes / factors / criteria did I leave out?

So Schiano

 

[Toga]

Yes, in-game management is very difficult and even the very best coaches make decisions that can easily be second-guessed.

Shafer is worse than average, IMHO, but that could be acceptable if his other strengths compensated for it.

My concern is that his game planning appears to be subpar as well. Certainly much worse than Marrone's, and peak-era Pasqualoni. Couple that with subpar in-game management and it's a lethal combo.

For this year I would agree. Yet, SS has a deserved rep as a good defensive coach. It may be he just doesn't have the horses in the back 7 on D to make adjustments. On offense we need WRs. Why he isn't apparently making that a recruiting priority is beyond me. Lester is a step up from an extremely low bar. It's a frustratingly mixed bag.

 

[PhatOrange]

I think bullet point #3 has to factor into the equation. I wouldn’t want a HC and/or majority of staff that hasn’t recruited East of the Rockies. You have to have pre-existing relationships or it’s going to take 3 years to develop them. Sure, recruits will follow winning, but they’ll be more apt to jump on board (earlier) for coaches they’re already familiar with.

If a west coast coach surrounds himself with eastern seaboard assistants that works.

 

[RF2044]

Yes, in-game management is very difficult and even the very best coaches make decisions that can easily be second-guessed.

Shafer is worse than average, IMHO, but that could be acceptable if his other strengths compensated for it.

My concern is that his game planning appears to be subpar as well. Certainly much worse than Marrone's, and peak-era Pasqualoni. Couple that with subpar in-game management and it's a lethal combo.

Agree 100%.

 

[CuseCactus]

No more over 40 guys who are career DCs. That is all.

 

[AAM62]

Sorry but its hard to question game planning when you have young 3 star talent. Maybe the plan is good but the players aren't quite there yet to execute it at a high level. I get the clock management issues but people are overstating everything else. Also, for those of you who all over the staff's "inability to make adjustments", i would like to point out that Bullough would make good half time adjustments last year and he had the defense to execute it.

I'm not going all out to defend the staff but you guys just smell blood and any mistake you see is magnified x100000.

 

[skytop44]

Obligatory qualifier: I like Shafer, have and will support the team, but I think it is fairly clear that he just isn't a good enough HC / strategist to return the program to where it needs to be. At some point, Coyle is going to have to make a decision. What criteria should he focus on?

Here's my list:

• New coach absolutely has to have previous HC experience, and a track record of success. No more bringing in coordinator types who are unproven. No more extending a rebuild. There are some quality pieces of the puzzle in place on this team, and a good coaching staff would be able to actualize that potential fairly quickly.

• New HC has to have strong offense credentials. Time for us to get with the program and be innovative. Use the Dome as the resource it should be, instead of trying to play like a 1990s team.

• Recruiting contacts, northeast ties, etc. should not significantly factor into the decision. Win, and the recruits and fans will follow.

• Need to be prepared to open up the coffers--we have ACC revenue, and we're going to have to spend it to land a high caliber candidate and a quality staff of ACs. Nothing against HCSS, who is an easy guy to root for, but when you are employing the lowest paid coach in a conference, you generally get what you pay for [obviously, there are exceptions, but it doesn't appear that HCSS is one of them].

• No more NFL types. The college game is different than how the game is played at the NFL level, and we need somebody who understands those nuances and doesn't try to force a round peg, square hole pro style offense on us. Been there, done that.

Any others? What other attributes / factors / criteria did I leave out?

I agree that previous head coaching experience is critical and someone that has east coast ties. I think the recruiting ties are a big thing but not the most important thing. I would like an offensive minded coach as well but if we were to go the defensive minded route, I would have zero problem with that if they hired a stud OC. Also, I want a HC that can bring in a great staff. A well respected staff and one that is great in coaching, developing and recruiting in the areas we need to succeed in. To me, the head coach is the most important, but the staff he will bring with him will be critical as well.

 

[RF2044]

Sorry but its hard to question game planning when you have young 3 star talent. Maybe the plan is good but the players aren't quite there yet to execute it at a high level. I get the clock management issues but people are overstating everything else. Also, for those of you who . . . . all over the staff's "inability to make adjustments", i would like to point out that Bullough would make good half time adjustments last year and he had the defense to execute it.

I'm not going all out to defend the staff but you guys just smell blood and any mistake you see is magnified x100000.

Sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm a huge Shafer supporter, and would love to see the guy succeed. But my concerns were raised after last year's debacle, and have increased even more this year.

We've had three years of evidence to assess game planning, game day coaching, and in-game adjustments. I don't think that it can be legitimately argued that he isn't subpar in all three of those aspects as a function of the unprepared product we often see on the field. I'm not suggesting by any means that he is incompetent, or totally overmatched a la GRob, but he is not strong in any of those dimensions. It is more than just youth / inexperience, and it isn't overstated by any means.

 

[Scooch]

Sorry but its hard to question game planning when you have young 3 star talent. Maybe the plan is good but the players aren't quite there yet to execute it at a high level. I get the clock management issues but people are overstating everything else. Also, for those of you who . . . . all over the staff's "inability to make adjustments", i would like to point out that Bullough would make good half time adjustments last year and he had the defense to execute it.

I'm not going all out to defend the staff but you guys just smell blood and any mistake you see is magnified x100000.

This is far from a perfect comparison, but its the first thing that leapt to mind...

In the past 3 seasons SU is 0-5 against FSU and Clemson, while BC is 0-6. SU has lost those 5 games by an average of 29 points. BC has lost their 6 games by an average of 10 points.

BC did not lose any of those 6 by more than 17 points. SU only was *within* 17 points once.

So yeah, I'm comfortable saying that on balance Shafer's game planning is subpar.

*edit* My point, if it isn't clear, is that when facing programs with clear talent advantages one school finds a way to be competitive, and one does not. Game planning plays a substantial role in that.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

This is far from a perfect comparison, but its the first thing that leapt to mind...

In the past 3 seasons SU is 0-5 against FSU and Clemson, while BC is 0-6. SU has lost those 5 games by an average of 29 points. BC has lost their 6 games by an average of 10 points.

BC did not lose any of those 6 by more than 17 points. SU only was *within* 17 points once.

So yeah, I'm comfortable saying that on balance Shafer's game planning is subpar.

*edit* My point, if it isn't clear, is that when facing programs with clear talent advantages one school finds a way to be competitive, and one does not. Game planning plays a substantial role in that.

Agree 100%. Very very few tight games versus better opponents and very few if any big wins. People point to the Minnesota game as his big one. That would be like pointing to K st pinstripe bowl as Marrone's biggest win. I guess.. doesn't really scream BIG WIN or excite a fan base.

 

[MadNY3]

This is far from a perfect comparison, but its the first thing that leapt to mind...

In the past 3 seasons SU is 0-5 against FSU and Clemson, while BC is 0-6. SU has lost those 5 games by an average of 29 points.

Wowsers. That just sits there as an ouch. Good find.

 

[Chip]

New coach should have an attractive wife, no?

 

[IthacaBarrel]

Sorry but its hard to question game planning when you have young 3 star talent. Maybe the plan is good but the players aren't quite there yet to execute it at a high level. I get the clock management issues but people are overstating everything else. Also, for those of you who . . . . all over the staff's "inability to make adjustments", i would like to point out that Bullough would make good half time adjustments last year and he had the defense to execute it.

I'm not going all out to defend the staff but you guys just smell blood and any mistake you see is magnified x100000.

No big wins, no real close games versus large favorites with better talent. ZERO. His gameplanning is below average, well below. It's not smelling blood, it's observing and commenting on what is 2-3/4 seasons with him at the HC spot. He's bad head coach who has a very limited ceiling because we need a coach that can succeed with scheme not 5 star talent because that ain't happening. Recruiting is what it is and always will be, you might see a few upticks but nothing crazy

 

[Ozcuse]

New coach should have an attractive wife, no?

 

[HeaterCuse22]

Wowsers. That just sits there as an ouch. Good find.

Not being an a$$ but BC has also had 10-12 years to build up some more representative talent to the ACC. And now we are going to compare losses also? SMH. 0-5 vs. 0-6 means the same thing. Perception and reasons in losses to the positive side can be used but in the negative they can?

This used to be one of my favorite things of the day, dropping into this board to see what was going on...now I just can't. Syracuse.com is jealous of the discourse being shown in here at times.

 

[Cusefan78]

He was the first person I thought of when I read hot wife.

 

[Millhouse]

who is that "actress"? asking for a friend

 

[Scooch]

Not being an a$$ but BC has also had 10-12 years to build up some more representative talent to the ACC. And now we are going to compare losses also? SMH. 0-5 vs. 0-6 means the same thing. Perception and reasons in losses to the positive side can be used but in the negative they can?

This used to be one of my favorite things of the day, dropping into this board to see what was going on...now I just can't. Syracuse.com is jealous of the discourse being shown in here at times.

BC entered the ACC on a tear. They won 9, 10 and 11 games in their first 3 seasons in the ACC. They finished ranked all 3 years and played in the ACC Championship game twice. That Big East talent level seemed to be able to compete immediately.

They then began a slow decline that saw it's nadir in 2012 when they were 2-10. Since then they've been 17-18 overall, and 8-14 in conference. What decade-plus long build up of talent are you referring to exactly? They've been a little better than us overall the past 3 years and yet manage to not get hammered by the cream of our division every time they play. That's one data point, among many.

 

[Chip]

who is that "actress"? asking for a friend

Obviously.

 

[Millhouse]

Obviously.

hanging curveball

 

[jr4750]

This is far from a perfect comparison, but its the first thing that leapt to mind...

In the past 3 seasons SU is 0-5 against FSU and Clemson, while BC is 0-6. SU has lost those 5 games by an average of 29 points. BC has lost their 6 games by an average of 10 points.

BC did not lose any of those 6 by more than 17 points. SU only was *within* 17 points once.

So yeah, I'm comfortable saying that on balance Shafer's game planning is subpar.

*edit* My point, if it isn't clear, is that when facing programs with clear talent advantages one school finds a way to be competitive, and one does not. Game planning plays a substantial role in that.

Ugh every time the numbers come out, Shaf just looks worse and worse. If I'm not mistaken he is now 0-10 verse ranked opponents. That feels very Gerg to me.

 

[MSOrange]

New coach should have an attractive wife, no?

Hey Chip it looks like Lane Kiffin has hacked into your account and is posting under your name. Might want to look into that.