In Defense of Nate Hackett | Syracusefan.com

In Defense of Nate Hackett

I think Hackett has done a fine job. Let's remember that he's still learning on the fly as well. He's young and should prove to be a VALUABLE resource once this all gets turned around. I have the feeling that IF we can turn it around, we're going to be more than pleased that Doug took a flier on this guy.
 
I've always cut Hackett some slack, mainly because you have to have the horses to execute the plays. Our play execution has been less than outstanding. I don't care what kind of offensive alignments you throw at the opposition, an average to poor offensive line is a serious handicap to have to overcome.

I recently heard an interview with him. He sounds like a bright personable young guy.
 
He may be a valuable resource in the future, but right now he is a liability. His play calling cost SU the Minnesota game and turned the Stony Brook game into a near-nailbiter.
 
OrangeinBoston said:
He may be a valuable resource in the future, but right now he is a liability. His play calling cost SU the Minnesota game and turned the Stony Brook game into a near-nailbiter.
Expand...

Complete nonsense
 
Hackett doesn't need a defense (except for that toss sweep to Smith) -- the offensive output is much improved, and that speaks for itself.

He came here as Doug's protege (QB coach with Doug as OC in 2010); last season was his first as OC. He didn't have much to work with last season, other than the starters. With Sales out, and once Gulley was injured, there was not much in reserve. This season he changed the tempo and the formations; went all shot-gun; ditched the blocking FB. Took advantage of having more weapons. The improvements are evident.

As far as red-zone execution (that notorious goal line sequence against Minny), the traditional run on first down didn't get anything; the 3rd down pass attempt was stuffed by pressure up the middle. Minny's defense dominated what we tried to do. They won the chess match, and they also won the physical match. On that sweep, the blockers didn't execute. (I am not defending the choice to use Smith.)

We had a tough OOC start to the season. The test of the coaches is how we respond in the next 3 weeks.
 
Lots of excuses being made. C'mon. The guy ran the ball on 3rd and 7/3rd and 8 several times, against Minnesota. Once, while in scoring position on one of our better drives of the day so it wasn't close to a scenario where it made any sense to play conservative like that.

There is no excuse for those calls, and don't give any "it's only one play" stuff either. Running the ball on 3rd and 8 and not even giving the team a real chance to continue what could've been a TD drive is a BIG deal, in a 7 point loss, and it's a playcall that makes absolutely zero sense on any level. It was something you'd see on a bad high school team that has no passing game whatsoever. If there is any down and distance that screams "passing down" it's 3rd and 7/8 or so.

And I should add that I agree with the original post...I'm not calling for him to get fired. But he had a bad game againse Minnesota in my opinion, and no excuses need to be tossed out for him.
 
At a critical time in the program's history, when we are in a bad slump, we really need more than a guy who is learning on the job. But we aren't going to get one so I hope he grows up fast.
 
bevosu said:
I've always cut Hackett some slack, mainly because you have to have the horses to execute the plays. Our play execution has been less than outstanding. I don't care what kind of offensive alignments you throw at the opposition, an average to poor offensive line is a serious handicap to have to overcome.

I recently heard an interview with him. He sounds like a bright personable young guy.
Expand...

Yep. The best play-calling in the world isn't worth a darn when your guys are volleyballing passes into the air for interceptions.
 
The trajectory from the chart looks good; however, when comparing current year against 2011, an additional 14 plays per game and 140 more yards per game yielding only 3 pts per game more highlights the red zone problems perfectly.
 
Winning one game against a worthy opponent is simply not too much to ask in 2012.
 
Like I said over at the other forum, if we only win 4 games take a guess at the first coach axed. His name ain't Doug.
 
'72 Orange said:
The trajectory from the chart looks good; however, when comparing current year against 2011, an additional 14 plays per game and 140 more yards per game yielding only 3 pts per game more highlights the red zone problems perfectly.
Expand...
Do we have a red zone problem? I thought I read in one of the P-S articles that we were 11 for 11 in the red zone at one point, with 8 TD's. I think it's more of a first-half move the ball but peter out after a couple first downs symptom. Don't have the stats in front of me tho.
 
javadoc said:
Do we have a red zone problem? I thought I read in one of the P-S articles that we were 11 for 11 in the red zone at one point, with 8 TD's. I think it's more of a first-half move the ball but peter out after a couple first downs symptom. Don't have the stats in front of me tho.
Expand...
Early in the season we were efficient; however, in the last two games we have not been as good. Vs Stony Brook we were stopped twice in point blank range of the end zone with no points. On another drive in the 2nd Qtr which ended at the 21 yrd line (not red zone) we missed a FG.

Against Minn who could forget the interception the play after the run wide from the 1 yard line. Also AB fumbled on the 23 yrd (although not a red zone play, as killer none-the-less).

Maybe my original use of the term red zone was not 100% accurate, but our shortcomings when deep in scoring range recently have been troubling
 
javadoc said:
Do we have a red zone problem? I thought I read in one of the P-S articles that we were 11 for 11 in the red zone at one point, with 8 TD's. I think it's more of a first-half move the ball but peter out after a couple first downs symptom. Don't have the stats in front of me tho.
Expand...

I think we have a goal line problem at the moment. Not necessarily the entire red zone.
 
GoSU96 said:
No it didn't.
Expand...


Agreed, seriously What. It was one play, the toss sweep it was either going to be a bust which it was or smith walked into the end zone, it didn't work. Move on, but laying it on as if a call or two cost us the game is absurd...turnovers cost us the game. Sure, I agree we have had issues down close to the end zone, need a running qb or more beef upfront. Hackett has done a very good job, is beginning to come on as a recruiter, is very well liked by the staff and the players and right now is the oc for the 25th rated offense in the country but apparently he is incompetent and everyone here a genius. Sure he has made so e questionable calls but who doesnt
 
I would guess Marrone was heavily involved in that sweep call. I didn't like the two 3rd and long runs. Try it once maybe, but we're not 2010 BC.

But to blame this loss on Hackett is ridiculous. I like him as a coach. He's a player's coach and some may hate that but for OC it works. We can't make all decisions about this offense after one bad outing. We should all plan ahead to struggle against Rutgers but our offense can still be very good against the rest of the teams on our schedule.
 
OrangeinBoston said:
He may be a valuable resource in the future, but right now he is a liability. His play calling cost SU the Minnesota game and turned the Stony Brook game into a near-nailbiter.
Expand...


You think the play calling lost the Minnesota game?

Did you watch the game?

Did you see the INT on the first play - after the WR dropped the ball?

Did you see the Nassib INT near the red zone?

Did you see the Nassib fumble near the red zone?

Did you see the Broyld fumble near the red zone?

Did you see the Gophers run the ball with relative ease?

Wow.
 
SWC75 said:
At a critical time in the program's history, when we are in a bad slump, we really need more than a guy who is learning on the job. But we aren't going to get one so I hope he grows up fast.
Expand...


"Learning on the job."

How do you know the extent to which he is learning on the job?

Since I'm sure you have never spoken to him or gauged his knowledge base in any objective way, I gather that you are basing your conclusion on his age, his youthful appearance and the old "he has never been an OC before" adage.

Given that he grew up in the game with a well-regarded father/football coach, I suspect that his knowledge base is quite developed.

I also suspect that Adkins, Marrone, Moore and Wheatly have some input on offensive play/strategy. Don't you think?

I am confident that they have decent knowledge bases.

The fact is that all coaches are constantly "learning on the job."

Our problem is not Nate Hackett's knowledge base. Our problem is unsatisfactory play on the OL, the lack of home run hitters at WR and RB and the INTs and fumbles.
 
OrangePA said:
You think the play calling lost the Minnesota game?

Did you watch the game?

Did you see the INT on the first play - after the WR dropped the ball?

Did you see the Nassib INT near the red zone?

Did you see the Nassib fumble near the red zone?

Did you see the Broyld fumble near the red zone?

Did you see the Gophers run the ball with relative ease?

Wow.
Expand...

I agree that a lot of things contributed to that loss and others. There are always many factors. But a play on the field is an error that wasn't intentional. Errors on the sideline are ones of decision and those decisions (not the outcome) are intentionally made. There have been many of those intentional decisions that have directly led to losses the last 2 seasons.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
 
rrlbees said:
I agree that a lot of things contributed to that loss and others. There are always many factors. But a play on the field is an error that wasn't intentional. Errors on the sideline are ones of decision and those decisions (not the outcome) are intentionally made. There have been many of those intentional decisions that have directly led to losses the last 2 seasons.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Expand...

Exactly, people here have a real short memory. The sweep to Smith was far from the only questionable call last week. I certainly am not blaming Hackett for the loss but the play calling for this team is still mystifying at times and in several cases last week did not match down or distance. Hackett/Marrone have improved in play calling from last year but there are still way to many calls that make no sense that are contributing to our losses.
 
The big question, which really after 4 games shouldn't be a question, is how good is this O/Hackett in the normal flow of a game? So far the majority of production from the O has come after we have fallen a bit behind and were forced to be more agressive. That being said the base O has still been an improvement. It just hasn't been as big of an improvement as it may seem.

PPG Q 1-3 combined 16.75
PPG 4th Q alone 10.25 38% of points

Yards per Q 1-3 avg 116.33
Yards per 4th Q 144.75
 
Chip said:
I would guess Marrone was heavily involved in that sweep call. I didn't like the two 3rd and long runs. Try it once maybe, but we're not 2010 BC.

But to blame this loss on Hackett is ridiculous. I like him as a coach. He's a player's coach and some may hate that but for OC it works. We can't make all decisions about this offense after one bad outing. We should all plan ahead to struggle against Rutgers but our offense can still be very good against the rest of the teams on our schedule.
Expand...

Why should we plan ahead to struggle against Rutgers? Shouldnt we look to come up with a new game plan like we did in 2009 when we ran a bunch of plays and formations RU had never seen and proceeded to bow them out? If Hackett cant game plan to beat Rutgers how the hell are we going to win anything in the ACC.
 
kingottoiii said:
The big question, which really after 4 games shouldn't be a question, is how good is this O/Hackett in the normal flow of a game? So far the majority of production from the O has come after we have fallen a bit behind and were forced to be more agressive. That being said the base O has still been an improvement. It just hasn't been as big of an improvement as it may seem.

PPG Q 1-3 combined 16.75
PPG 4th Q alone 10.25 38% of points

Yards per Q 1-3 avg 116.33
Yards per 4th Q 144.75
Expand...

Good post, I think we do need to be more agressive early, it may not work but we need to take some shots down the field early and at least try and open things up a bit. This team is never going to win games on a consistent basis when every scoring drive has to be a 19 play 12 minute marathon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
    • Like
DUKE DEFENSE - Interesting Article
Replies
0
Views
350
ManleyRocks
M

Forum statistics

Threads
172,409
Messages
5,017,688
Members
6,027
Latest member
Old Timer

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
219
Guests online
2,090
Total visitors
2,309
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom