Coyle's list of criteria | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

Coyle's list of criteria

RF2044 said:
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?
Expand...
I'm not sure I agree about the part of having to have previous HC experiences and a track record of success. By insisting on that as a qualification you are looking at an extremely small pool of candidates. I'd also argue that success outside of an FBS conference as a HC is not correlative of success within an FBS conference unless the guy is the cream of the crop that all of the big boys want. I don't think SU can compete with all of the other openings out there if we are just looking at HC's with track records of success. I'm not saying don't talk to them but I think an equally likely bet is an innovative OC who knows how to put points on the board and knows how to recruit. We need to think out of the box here. For the record I don't remember Marrone ever being a HC before he got Syracuse and that was working out ok until he left.

I'd also add as criteria:
- someone who is able to assemble a really good coaching staff
- someone who has demonstrated that they are able to fit their system to the talents of the team and not force a system on the players
- someone who has shown that they learn from their mistakes
 
OrangeFoo said:
I'm not sure I agree about the part of having to have previous HC experiences and a track record of success. By insisting on that as a qualification you are looking at an extremely small pool of candidates. I'd also argue that success outside of an FBS conference as a HC is not correlative of success within an FBS conference unless the guy is the cream of the crop that all of the big boys want. I don't think SU can compete with all of the other openings out there if we are just looking at HC's with track records of success. I'm not saying don't talk to them but I think an equally likely bet is an innovative OC who knows how to put points on the board and knows how to recruit. We need to think out of the box here. For the record I don't remember Marrone ever being a HC before he got Syracuse and that was working out ok until he left. I'd also add as criteria: - someone who is able to assemble a really good coaching staff - someone who has demonstrated that they are able to fit their system to the talents of the team and not force a system on the players - someone who has shown that they learn from their mistakes
Expand...

Exactly. I prefer smart, innovative and hungry to former HC retreads.

Campbell at Toledo, Frost at Oregon.
 
TheCusian said:
Exactly. I prefer smart, innovative and hungry to former HC retreads.

Campbell at Toledo, Frost at Oregon.
Expand...
HC retreads. Boom. I like it. Smart, innovative and hungry sounds like a younger man on the upswing.
 
Scooch said:
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.
Expand...

BC also beat a very good and highly ranked USC last year. In fairness, this year they are decimated with injuries and look as bad as we did last year. If Coyle can get "his guy" whomever that is, then he will make a move. If not, I think he gives HCSS one more year. He is here to fix football, he has to get this right
 
Scooch said:
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.
Expand...
So, you're saying that they did really well when they had an NFL QB and started to decline after he left? Where have we seen that before? ;)
 
Dmcnabbrules said:
This is my guy.

http://www.si.com/college-football/...-babers-bowling-green-falcons-spring-practice
Expand...

I like Babers as well, I like the fact that he is a bit older which to me it may make him a bit less appealing to a few others. Guy has lead some serious offensive units at Eastern Illinois and BG, he has the right pedigree. I don't want a guy that MIGHT be able to be a HC and put an explosive offense out there, I want a guy that has demonstrated exactly that. No more guessing. Sure, we will need to sew up the defensive side but that is where your biggest risk is. Also like that he is a journeyman, paid his dues, shown success and seems to be very humble from reading about him. He also seems to relate well to the kids he coaches
 
RF2044 said:
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?
Expand...

With the above being said, name 3 people available today who would meet these expectations?
 
corpjet said:
With the above being said, name 3 people available today who would meet these expectations?
Expand...
agree. innovative head coaches with strong offensive credentials and a track record of success that are on the job market that see syracuse as their best option among the available openings might be tough to find.

we need to ignore our small sample of failures at syracuse and look at college football as a whole - much bigger sample. hiring a coordinator is not as terrible as we think - just because shafer and robinson weren't good choices doesn't mean we have to get a guy with HC experience.

i'm fine with an offensive coordinator and i can live with a defensive head coach *only* if he is credible about opening up the offense (those guys are rare - eventually people will learn from stoops and patterson but that will take time)
 
corpjet said:
With the above being said, name 3 people available today who would meet these expectations?
Expand...

Millhouse said:
agree. innovative head coaches with strong offensive credentials and a track record of success that are on the job market that see syracuse as their best option among the available openings might be tough to find.

we need to ignore our small sample of failures at syracuse and look at college football as a whole - much bigger sample. hiring a coordinator is not as terrible as we think - just because shafer and robinson weren't good choices doesn't mean we have to get a guy with HC experience.

i'm fine with an offensive coordinator and i can live with a defensive head coach *only* if he is credible about opening up the offense (those guys are rare - eventually people will learn from stoops and patterson but that will take time)
Expand...

Nonsense--there are plenty at the lower levels who fit that critieria, and some interesting candidates outside of FBS, too.

I don't want to see any more on-the-job training. Our program isn't at a spot where we can afford to let somebody inexperienced learn the ropes. We have the resources to go and get somebody--now, we need to do it.

I'm tired of settling for coordinators who may or may not be able to cut it. I want somebody who has shown they can cut it, who is looking to make the next step up to the P5. It's going to cost a lot to land that candidate, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try or that we should aim lower. Go big or go home.

IthacaBarrel said:
I like Babers as well, I like the fact that he is a bit older which to me it may make him a bit less appealing to a few others. Guy has lead some serious offensive units at Eastern Illinois and BG, he has the right pedigree. I don't want a guy that MIGHT be able to be a HC and put an explosive offense out there, I want a guy that has demonstrated exactly that. No more guessing. Sure, we will need to sew up the defensive side but that is where your biggest risk is. Also like that he is a journeyman, paid his dues, shown success and seems to be very humble from reading about him. He also seems to relate well to the kids he coaches
Expand...

Spot on.
 
RF2044 said:
Nonsense--there are plenty at the lower levels who fit that critieria, and some interesting candidates outside of FBS, too.

I don't want to see any more on-the-job training. Our program isn't at a spot where we can afford to let somebody inexperienced learn the ropes. We have the resources to go and get somebody--now, we need to do it.

I'm tired of settling for coordinators who may or may not be able to cut it. I want somebody who has shown they can cut it, who is looking to make the next step up to the P5. It's going to cost a lot to land that candidate, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try or that we should aim lower. Go big or go home.



Spot on.
Expand...
i agree with you about not worrying about northeast recruiting. once you add that in, you eliminate everyone because everyone in the northeast is stupid.

seems like your candidates are babers, montgomery, and campbell? maybe tuberville?

there are a lot of openings

i want a proven offensive head coach too. but if we don't land him, I don't want to say "oh well, i guess we go to plan b edsall or golden"
 
Millhouse said:
i agree with you about not worrying about northeast recruiting. once you add that in, you eliminate everyone because everyone in the northeast is stupid.

seems like your candidates are babers, montgomery, and campbell? maybe tuberville?

there are a lot of openings

i want a proven offensive head coach too. but if we don't land him, I don't want to say "oh well, i guess we go to plan b edsall or golden"
Expand...

I don't know how realistic Campbell is, but yeah--that's the mold. I would take him in a heartbeat and increase his salarly by x6. Patricia is intriguing to me, as is Babers. I know there are a lot of openings nationally, but not every program is going to be shootinng for the same profile. And there are some big time candidates out there [Holiday, the Houston HC, the Memphis HC, etc.] who will be front of mind for several of the big jobs.

Agree 100% about not wanting to go with the defensive guys, or the retread Edsalls / Goldens. Enough is enough. Burn it down and start fresh with somebody who actually knows what the they are doing--both in terms of running the program and in terms of running an effective, exciting, high powered college offense.

With the personnel we have, it shouldn't take that long for a competent coach to get the ship righted. An unproven coordinator? Who knows. But I'll scream if I have to watch another year or three of some guy not understanding timeouts, learning as he goes, struggling with basic game management decisions, etc.
 
I think Campbell is realistic. Not sure why he wouldn't be.

In terms of his recruiting territory he checks the boxes. Current class in parens.

Roster
Ohio – 54 (5)
PA – 10 (4)
Florida – 8 (2)
Michigan – 8 (5)
MD/DC – 6
IL - 4
VA – 3
NC - 2 (1)
IN – 2
SC – 1
TX – 1 (1)
OK - 1
NJ – 1
GA – 1
LA - 1

I really think experience recruiting the eastern seaboard is important. You bring in the guy from Boise and he's starting from scratch. you better be sure he can get kids/coaches/schools he has no relationships with to syracuse.

I thing I notice while glancing at the Toledo roster, a lot of the kids are from powerhouse high school programs.
 
IthacaBarrel said:
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.
Expand...

I'm not anti-Shafer in any way but if there is one thing that he would have no answer for if we were to get run at the end of the season it's this -- what did you do to keep your job? OK recruiting rankings seemed to improve. OK, we had some good defenses. Yes, there were unfortunate injuries. I guess there was a bowl win ... but honestly, if you're pointing to Minnesota as your high point after three seasons, something ain't right.
 
Scooch said:
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.
Expand...

BC should always be our mirror. Scooch is 100% right. They are our best peer school to judge ourselves by because they are private, have mediocre facilities, recruit out of the same pool for the most part and have somewhat similar fanbases.

If BC is where they are during their nadir and are competing better than we are we need to figure out why.
 
elimunelson said:
BC should always be our mirror. Scooch is 100% right. They are our best peer school to judge ourselves by because they are private, have mediocre facilities, recruit out of the same pool for the most part and have somewhat similar fanbases. If BC is where they are during their nadir and are competing better than we are we need to figure out why.
Expand...

We have better facilities than BC currently I think.
 
Scooch said:
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.
Expand...

Please. The Acc was terrible when they joined. The only good team was Miami
 
HeaterCuse22 said:
Please. The Acc was terrible when they joined. The only good team was Miami
Expand...

Actually the ACC was at their strongest when BC first joined in 2005. They finished 1st or 2nd in the Atlantic Division every year between 2005 and 2009.

2005
#7 Virginia Tech
#17 Miami
#18 Boston College
#21 Clemson
#23 Florida State

2006
#18 Wake Forest
#19 Virginia Tech
#20 Boston College

2007
#9 Virginia Tech
#10 Boston College
#21 Clemson

2008
#15 Virginia Tech
#21 Florida State
#22 Georgia Tech

2009
#10 Virginia Tech
#13 Georgia Tech
#19 Miami
#24 Clemson
 
elimunelson said:
BC should always be our mirror. Scooch is 100% right. They are our best peer school to judge ourselves by because they are private, have mediocre facilities, recruit out of the same pool for the most part and have somewhat similar fanbases.

If BC is where they are during their nadir and are competing better than we are we need to figure out why.
Expand...
OOC why wouldn't Duke be our mirror over BC? They are a top 25 program now and they don't't even have close to the football tradition that we have. They made a really great HC hire in cutcliffe and he's turned them around. I'd argue that they are our closest mirror in the ACC not BC.

BC's big difference from us is whether they are good or bad they always get the big uglies on the lines year in year out. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that they are a destination school for the Catholic prep schools after Notre Dame. I think the fact that they always can compete on the line is why they can keep games close and not get blown out... they might not get the skill players that other teams do but they can at least run the ball and/or stop the run. Contrast that with us who have had a shitty oline for a decade or so now.
 
Ozcuse said:
Actually the ACC was at their strongest when BC first joined in 2005. They finished 1st or 2nd in the Atlantic Division every year between 2005 and 2009.

2005
#7 Virginia Tech
#17 Miami
#18 Boston College
#21 Clemson
#23 Florida State

2006
#18 Wake Forest
#19 Virginia Tech
#20 Boston College

2007
#9 Virginia Tech
#10 Boston College
#21 Clemson

2008
#15 Virginia Tech
#21 Florida State
#22 Georgia Tech

2009
#10 Virginia Tech
#13 Georgia Tech
#19 Miami
#24 Clemson
Expand...
I wonder if Matt Ryan or Hassleback had anything to do with that?
 
OrangeFoo said:
I wonder if Matt Ryan or Hassleback had anything to do with that?
Expand...

Yes, Ryan was there for 2005-2007 but BC was still good the next two to three years after.
 
OrangeFoo said:
I wonder if Matt Ryan or Hassleback had anything to do with that?
Expand...
it was pretty obvious that matt ryan was a very good QB but his numbers are a bit of an indictment of BC. a lot of int in big games. they threw all the time with him but it still wasn't a very good college offensive system .
 
Millhouse said:
it was pretty obvious that matt ryan was a very good QB but his numbers are a bit of an indictment of BC. a lot of int in big games. they threw all the time with him but it still wasn't a very good college offensive system .
Expand...
Nope... if I remember right they ran an NFL style offense with Ryan. BC didn't and does not have the skill players that the top tier programs get. If I remember correctly a lot of Ryan's picks against the really good teams were because he was forcing the ball to compensate for players who couldn't get open.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
170,457
Messages
4,892,004
Members
5,998
Latest member
powdersmack

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
240
Guests online
2,360
Total visitors
2,600
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom