If I were the AD | Page 6 | Syracusefan.com

If I were the AD

I bought the fool's gold after LSU. I'm not buying it again. But I said earlier this year that I would be fine with 5-7 and I'll stick with that.

He still doesn't play to win. I realize there isn't much chance to score at the end of the half, but with a couple time outs, why not take a shot? And punting on 4th and 8...did anyone honestly think we would get the ball back? These decisions don't matter against Clemson, but they do matter against Pitt, BC, NC State and Wake.
 
All the coaches we have played stated we are the right path with HCSS. I've heard other announcers saying he has the team going in the right direction. Even Kirk Herbstreit said we where headed in the right direction with HCSS. BUT McDonugh questioned HCSS and it gives the #fireshafer gropu another drum to beat over and over and over and over.

Why would other teams want us to change our coaching staff outside of Wake it's an easy win every year?
 
LSU may have some but Clemson didn't overlook us at all. They tried everything and went balls to the wall. They certainly didn't play vanilla and their QB had over 400 yards of offense.,
Kids played hard, but they always show up every week.

Clemson scored 37 and took a knee on the last drive. Watson had 465 total yards by himself. Is that anything to get excited about? We held them to about their average ppg of 38.7. Probably a better performance for us.

The offense is where I have my questions with respect to trend/sustainability. Did we simply matchup better or have we improved? Trudo's post game remarks make my point. He pointed out that the option works best against aggressive penetrating defenses (like LSU and Clemson) since they overrun the play. Mahoney walked in twice untouched! Everyone knows you have to play read and react against the option Kudos to Lester for recognizing that and having a good game plan. The question is what happens next - do we fall back to the worst offense in the ACC again or do we improve.

The best that can be said is that we don't know. Until we see sustainable progress I won't call this gold.
 
AZOrange said:
We seem to have a lot of offensive identities which I think is a big part of the problem.

I think we've got a couple identities based on which QB is playing.
 
MadNY3 said:
The program did go underfunded absolutely true. To think P had zero accountability or blood on his hands for how HIS teams performed is crazy. I get you both grew up in CT, but goodness, objectively, he was captaining the helm of the decline. To think we got schooled by Temple because we had no facilities is insane to think.

He may have been getting stale, not convinced of that.

But it would have been interesting to see what he could have done with Ray Rice.

The drop off from P to Robinson was pretty dramatic, even with all of P's fault.

But it's all old news now.
 
The d played a good second quarter andd second half giving up only 16 points
 
And punting on 4th and 8...did anyone honestly think we would get the ball back?

Here's why I was ok with punting there: we still had more than 6 minutes on the clock. The way the defense played in the second half, I completely understand why he thought they could get the ball back. 6 minutes is an eternity in football. Meanwhile, it wasn't like it was 4th and 2...it was 4th and 8, and our QB had completed just 8-of-21 passes. The odds of converting there were slim, to say the least, and we'd have been giving it to Clemson 37 yards from the end zone, give or take a few yards from either a short completion or a sack.
 
He may have been getting stale, not convinced of that.

But it would have been interesting to see what he could have done with Ray Rice.

The drop off from P to Robinson was pretty dramatic, even with all of P's fault.

But it's all old news now.
And Courtney Greene, Glenroy Lee, and Tamba Hali
 
Here's why I was ok with punting there: we still had more than 6 minutes on the clock. The way the defense played in the second half, I completely understand why he thought they could get the ball back. 6 minutes is an eternity in football. Meanwhile, it wasn't like it was 4th and 2...it was 4th and 8, and our QB had completed just 8-of-21 passes. The odds of converting there were slim, to say the least, and we'd have been giving it to Clemson 37 yards from the end zone, give or take a few yards from either a short completion or a sack.
The problem with establishing a conservative record of game management is that even your correct calls are questioned. He didn't have any good options on that one.
 
That 4th down call isn't a big deal to me. There is no correct choice in that situation until everything plays out. Then you either chose right or wrong.
 
jekelish said:
Here's why I was ok with punting there: we still had more than 6 minutes on the clock. The way the defense played in the second half, I completely understand why he thought they could get the ball back. 6 minutes is an eternity in football. Meanwhile, it wasn't like it was 4th and 2...it was 4th and 8, and our QB had completed just 8-of-21 passes. The odds of converting there were slim, to say the least, and we'd have been giving it to Clemson 37 yards from the end zone, give or take a few yards from either a short completion or a sack.

We've given up game winning , clock draining drives against Virginia and Pitt.

Look, no great option there. I'm not angry over it. Honestly was more annoyed over the run up the middle on 1st. That seemed like a waste of a down.
 
That 4th down call isn't a big deal to me. There is no correct choice in that situation until everything plays out. Then you either chose right or wrong.
Agreed. If we'd forced a 3 and out, it'd have looked smart. If we'd gone for it and failed, it'd be coal raking time. Playing percentages, I feel like he made the smarter choice that gave us a better shot. It just, unfortunately, didn't work out.
 
You don't have to be mad that SU played a great game. Clemson in no way came out flat. Hell, they threw a bomb on play 1.
Poorly worded post for sure. Should have read it before posting. Meant that Clemson seemed to play flat when comparing how they played last week against Florida State. When was the last time did Dano have to burn a timeout to fire up his team? Not saying SU did not play well but Clemson seemed like a team who thought they could win a game by just showing up and boy were they surprised. I am just frustrated by the mounting losses.
 
Agreed. If we'd forced a 3 and out, it'd have looked smart. If we'd gone for it and failed, it'd be coal raking time. Playing percentages, I feel like he made the smarter choice that gave us a better shot. It just, unfortunately, didn't work out.

After all the teeth-gnashing, I believe people would have appreciated going for it, no matter the result. Getting two stops and two scores in 6 minutes is a lot to ask for any team. If you are going to roll the dice all game against #1, why stop and play conservative there?
 
After all the teeth-gnashing, I believe people would have appreciated going for it, no matter the result. Getting two stops and two scores in 6 minutes is a lot to ask for any team. If you are going to roll the dice all game against #1, why stop and play conservative there?
I didn't like the punt call, because, while it seems we did stop them a few times from getting in the endzone, they still were having no trouble at times picking up first downs. A 3-and-out is really wishful thinking at that point. They changed the tempo of their offense and we were challenged to keep up. Take a shot on fourth down and at least you had the ball in your own hands... As it turned out they continued to get first downs and the game was over. There wasn't a good reason to think the D could get a quick stop twice.
 
How much input do you think the players should have? Especially with what happened in Missouri. Normally it might be the AD's decision and possibly the BOT's. Obviously the fan's vote shouldn't count unless they might be big donors who are influencing the AD or BOT.
players 10%, just like stockholders--the rest are crap shoot---donors get the nod
 
Has McDonough ever coached or played a down of football? I forgot that watching and commenting during a broadcast is a different skillset.
Skillset not withstanding, you don't think McDonough rallying against HCSS on national TV affects the perception of the masses? I do.
 
Skill set not withstanding, you don't think McDonough rallying against HCSS on national TV affects the perception of the masses? I do.
I assume you meant 'railing'. Either way, he was questioning, not 'rallying/railing'.
 
I assume you meant 'railing'. Either way, he was questioning, not 'rallying/railing'.

I think his tirade could be defined as "rallying", but railing is fine also. I still think the point is that his "questioning" still has the same effect on the masses (negative perception).
 
I think his tirade could be defined as "rallying", but railing is fine also. I still think the point is that his "questioning" still has the same effect on the masses (negative perception).
Whatever you say. To me, railing against something is very different from questioning it.
 
I think his tirade could be defined as "rallying", but railing is fine also. I still think the point is that his "questioning" still has the same effect on the masses (negative perception).
Tirade...really?

I would call that exchange with Speilman the most tame tirade in the history of tirades. I get more upset in the drive through of McDonald's about the time it takes to get a burger.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
170,464
Messages
4,892,322
Members
5,999
Latest member
powdersmack

Online statistics

Members online
40
Guests online
891
Total visitors
931


...
Top Bottom