Marrone and Rahme are just plain wrong

[OrangePA]

I think that's in play for Millhouse, yeah actually.

Yup. I just went there. Let it be known that I don't think it's outside of the realm of possibility for a common message board poster to know more about football.

I think that's in play for Millhouse, yeah actually.

Yup. I just went there. Let it be known that I don't think it's outside of the realm of possibility for a common message board poster to know more about football.

Wow.

Nothing need more be said.

 

[Scooch]

So, you understand offensive football better than Coach Marrone?

Aye, yi, yi!

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that every QB we have faced this year - other than perhaps the Nova kid for Rutgers - was able to run with the ball far better than Nassib, whose feet are more Perry Patterson than even Troy Nunes.

And, Rutgers demonstrated that our WRs have great difficulty getting off the line of scrimmage - every route was jumped during that game without any negative consequence. I can understand Marrone's calculus.

If the best argument you have on a message board is "BUT YOU'RE NOT A COACH" then you don't have a good argument. Debate him on the merits, not on his current job.

Greg Robinson was a head coach for four years. There are frozen cavemen who understand football better than him.

 

[Scooch]

And FWIW, this offense is putrid and makes me terribly sad.

I'm not at all ready to string up Marrone yet, because I think it's fair to give him more time, even though we've seen marginal statistical progress in his 2.5 years. I'll say this, if we're having this debate in early 2013 then we're in deep, deep .

 

[OrangePA]

Yet he was our mix it up option QB in 2009. Showed useful (not dynamic) speed in TD runs against Akron and Washington in 2010, used his legs to extend some drives in the Pinstripe Bowl. I guess this is just one of those rare cases where the calculus is easier than the algebra.

And, Perry Patterson had a long run for TD in the Champs Bowl. He still had bad feet.

Nassib was used in 2009 to extend the field with his arm - he was no threat running the ball even when the option was shown.

I'm not sure what is meant by "useful" speed - to me it means that when the entire field is open and the defense has broken wide the QB can move his legs forward.

There is a reason why SU is running the offense it is running right now and it's not because Ryan has good feet.

I think it's time for some remedial work.

 

[kingottoiii]

And FWIW, this offense is putrid and makes me terribly sad.

I'm not at all ready to string up Marrone yet, because I think it's fair to give him more time, even though we've seen marginal statistical progress in his 2.5 years. I'll say this, if we're having this debate in early 2013 then we're in deep, deep .

I think if we are debating this half way threw NEXT season we are in deep deep doodoo. No excuse to have 3.5 recruiting classes and have nothing to show for it on O. We should be recruiting QBs, WRs, and RBs until the problem is fixed. RBs and WRs can always be moved to D so no harm in having too many. Meanwhile in our next vaunted recruiting class we have zero QBs, 1 RB, and 1 WR. Can someone explain to me how we expect the O to get better? Also why are we still recruiting LBs for this class when we already have 5 that committed? Is LB really a need when our starters contain 1 Soph and 2 Frosh?

The O looks like it will be a problem for awhile and that is really sad.

I really don't get our recruiting strategy one bit. Usually you will see a team recruit a ton of athletes on O and move them to D. For example just look at TCU. They took a million RBs and moved them over, even to DE. Why in the hell are we doing the opposite? Recruiting a ton of D guys? I mean moving a LB to RB. Really?

 

[dollarbill44]

If the best argument you have on a message board is "BUT YOU'RE NOT A COACH" then you don't have a good argument. Debate him on the merits, not on his current job.

Greg Robinson was a head coach for four years. There are frozen cavemen who understand football better than him.

While he was a horrible head coach, I would be willing to bet he could talk circles around 90% of the posters on this board in a football discussion. These discussions remind me of people who go to professional sports games and talk about how much certain players suck at the sport.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Wow.

Nothing need more be said.

There's one more thing to say actually.

Millhouse's knowledge of football > Paul Pasqualoni's knowledge of football.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I think if we are debating this half way threw NEXT season we are in deep deep doodoo. No excuse to have 3.5 recruiting classes and have nothing to show for it on O. We should be recruiting QBs, WRs, and RBs until the problem is fixed. RBs and WRs can always be moved to D so no harm in having too many. Meanwhile in our next vaunted recruiting class we have zero QBs, 1 RB, and 1 WR. Can someone explain to me how we expect the O to get better? Also why are we still recruiting LBs for this class when we already have 5 that committed? Is LB really a need when our starters contain 1 Soph and 2 Frosh?

The O looks like it will be a problem for awhile and that is really sad.

That's where I don't understand the optimism.

 

[kingottoiii]

While he was a horrible head coach, I would be willing to bet he could talk circles around 90% of the posters on this board in a football discussion. These discussions remind me of people who go to professional sports games and talk about how much certain players suck at the sport.

There is a difference between technical knowledge and the ability to understand the game strategically. GRob is good at one and a moron at the other.

 

[Millhouse]

So, you understand offensive football better than Coach Marrone?

Aye, yi, yi!

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that every QB we have faced this year - other than perhaps the Nova kid for Rutgers - was able to run with the ball far better than Nassib, whose feet are more Perry Patterson than even Troy Nunes.

And, Rutgers demonstrated that our WRs have great difficulty getting off the line of scrimmage - every route was jumped during that game without any negative consequence. I can understand Marrone's calculus.

Did any of those teams we played this year whose QBs can run better than Nassib run the air raid?

If Nassib is such a terrible runner, why did Marrone put him in the games to run the option in 2009? Are you saying you know more than Doug Marrone? Do yo? Do you?? Give that stupid nonsense a rest, please.

Here's what I think.

Marrone isn't the smartest guy. (Tommy Boy graduated quicker.) He is a very good coach who knows a lot in depth about his own offense. He can't stop on a dime and undo everything he's worked for. That takes time. He has his offense and he has to run with it. That's how it works with these guys - there's specialization and you hope like hell that the competitive environment allows what you know to be successful. Alot of these most successful coaches hit the jackpot.

Marrone knows complex multiple non descript NFL 12th derivative west coast anti-systems. Those don't work as well in college due to youth and limited practice time. It especially doesn't work here where his recruiting philosophy is to teach raw NYC talent basics. He's finding that it doesn't work so well in college and has to come up with terrible excuses for why we can't run anything but the thing that he knows best. He can't possibly believe what he said about running qbs in WVU's current offense.

His way out of this is to hand the keys to an up and coming offensive coordinator who knows the right system in depth - he can narrow his focus to offensive line technique and managing the overall program.

 

[Millhouse]

Seriously. What a circle jerk.

Gee - is it so hard to understand that not all spread offenses are created equal, and that each requires the right components to work? It is entirely possible that a TT type offense, or the one that Houston ran in the early 90's, is simply not in the conversation because our coach is not a believer.

Yes - those offenses put up ridiculous numbers, but yes - those offenses ultimately did squat against top 25 teams (with an exception here or there). I don't want to be the Loyola Maramount of college football.

I'd rather have a sustainable arc of progress than be a flash in the pan vs. weak competition. In our (recent) glories days under P, we beat some great football teams. Houston never did. I believe our coach is building this program the old fashioned way - and when we get to where he wants us, we'll be competing again with the big boys. Ultimately it is you clowns who are the ones pining for mediocrity.

beating top 25 teams is usually the exception. that's why they're in the top 25!

texas tech never beat undefeated national champions, i'll give you that.

 

[DaveR52]

Upon further review and some sober self-scouting, I must say this story was poorly conceptualized, poorly researched and poorly executed. I am embarrassed my name is on it. I should have stuck with my original plan of writing a Nick Provo profile with the short week. I let myself be persuaded otherwise despite some issues going on outside the job. I agree with CIL that Marrone's vision is more Northwestern than New Orleans and believe I saw a lot of that early in the season before foes exposed the weaknesses, which have been well documented by me and others. I believe the mobility of Kinder, Hunt and presumably Broyld plus the premium of running quarterbacks in the ACC point in that direction. It was just a piss-poor job on my part. Unfortunately, there is no delete button in the newspaper.

 

[Millhouse]

There's one more thing to say actually.

Millhouse's knowledge of football > Paul Pasqualoni's knowledge of football.

you're not helping here.

 

[CIL]

CIL, you clearly have more football knowledge than I do, but I have one quibble with the above statement. I think what system we have does matters. We are a private, northeastern school with limited resources compared to many other football schools.

Our offense needs to be less dependent on talent and more dependent on scheme so we don't need the same depth and talent that the other schools have.

Our offense needs to appeal to recruits to give us a fighting chance at landing some guys we otherwise would have no shot with.

Our offense needs to put butts in the seats to help with our home game atmosphere. We don't have 100K die hards that are coming every week no matter what. We have a fickle fan base as is, let alone with the ability to watch at home on a 65" hi def tv and not pay ticket prices, parking, etc. We need to put on a show each week in the Dome.

I used to not care about the offense as long as it worked, but we can't get by with that anymore, imo. Yes, it may be fine for me as a die hard fan, but we need the fence sitters to be on board. We either need a T Boone for Syracuse or we need to become the fun team to watch and play for in the NE.

Just my 0.02 cents.

Mike,

I think in order to fully understand the situation, we need remove our "inner fandom" from the situation. I think each and everyone of us here is guilty of it. Who wouldn't love to see Syracuse put up fifty points and 500 yards of offense game in and game out? That certainly would be entertaining.

Doug is not a fan nor a meathead. Doug essentially is a CEO - his job security and company's brand ultimately is tied to wins and losses, is it not (insert Steve Jobs innovate joke here)? 3-8 is 3-8 regardless of points scored or yards gained. Doug believes that this current offense gives his team the best chance of winning games right now. We certainly have the right to disagree with him, but if we are to evaluate him on wins and losses, he's done a damn good job turning around one of the worst programs in all of college football.

His paycheck is not dependent upon how entertaining the product is, but rather how successful it is. It's a lot easier to sell 8-4 to a recruit than 3-9 with a spread offense.

Before a poster chimes in on a more exciting offense is easier to sell a recruit, let me flip the situation around a bit. The under performing offense can be a nice recruiting tactic, especially with a winning record - you can promise earlier playing time, imagine how good we can be with more weapons like yourself, etc.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Upon further review and some sober self-scouting, I must say this story was poorly conceptualized, poorly researched and poorly executed. I am embarrassed my name is on it. I should have stuck with my original plan of writing a Nick Provo profile with the short week. I let myself be persuaded otherwise despite some issues going on outside the job. I agree with CIL that Marrone's vision is more Northwestern than New Orleans and believe I saw a lot of that early in the season before foes exposed the weaknesses, which have been well documented by me and others. I believe the mobility of Kinder, Hunt and presumably Broyld plus the premium of running quarterbacks in the ACC point in that direction. It was just a piss-poor job on my part. Unfortunately, there is no delete button in the newspaper.

By and large your coverage is great, Dave, and much appreciated.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

you're not helping here.

Tee hee.

 

[CIL]

I'm very curious to hear what you believe Marrone's issues are.

The biggest issue I have with Doug is that as of right now he overemphasizes experience and mastery of the playbook over talent. It's one thing at the qb position, but I see guys like Vaughan out there struggling to keep up with the speed of the game, where a guy like Lynch has completely outplayed him. Crume does some really nice things when he is in the game. I would love to see Kobena in the game with a few scripted plays that he understands, ala Mike Williams his freshman year.

This isn't the NFL, where the talent level between the ones and twos is razor thin for the most part. The talent discrepancy is much greater in college where physical talent has the ability to overcome mental mistakes most of the time. You think Reddish learned something from getting beat deep? I bet he does his best to never allow an outside release from a receiver when he has over the top help again, or quits on a deep ball thinking it was overthrown.

He appears to be changing his stance a bit, as he has announced the WR position is open, scripting some plays for Rene and Moore. We will see if it happens though.

 

[Millhouse]

It's a lot easier to sell 8-4 to a recruit than 3-9 with a spread offense

it's a lot easier to sell 8-4 if you actually go 8-4.

 

[orangenirvana]

Upon further review and some sober self-scouting, I must say this story was poorly conceptualized, poorly researched and poorly executed. I am embarrassed my name is on it. I should have stuck with my original plan of writing a Nick Provo profile with the short week. I let myself be persuaded otherwise despite some issues going on outside the job. I agree with CIL that Marrone's vision is more Northwestern than New Orleans and believe I saw a lot of that early in the season before foes exposed the weaknesses, which have been well documented by me and others. I believe the mobility of Kinder, Hunt and presumably Broyld plus the premium of running quarterbacks in the ACC point in that direction. It was just a piss-poor job on my part. Unfortunately, there is no delete button in the newspaper.

I disagree. I thought it was a good story.

The problem people have is what Marrone is saying...not the piece itself. At least that's my understanding. You didn't make Marrone say what he did. People are concerned with Marrone's ideas. It is what it is.

Granted, the idea that Rodriguez's and Holgorsen's offenses are connected is inaccurate.

However, I thought it was a great article, in that there were very interesting quotes from Marrone and it generated interesting and at times intelligent discussion.

Therefore, job well done.

I prefer this over a Nick Provo profile. But that's just me.

IMO among the best things on the internet are your Monday breakdowns. Gives us a glimpse behind the scenes with Marrone's ideas as to how he planned to attack the opponent that Saturday. Great stuff.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Mike,

I think in order to fully understand the situation, we need remove our "inner fandom" from the situation. I think each and everyone of us here is guilty of it. Who wouldn't love to see Syracuse put up fifty points and 500 yards of offense game in and game out? That certainly would be entertaining.

Doug is not a fan nor a meathead. Doug essentially is a CEO - his job security and company's brand ultimately is tied to wins and losses, is it not (insert Steve Jobs innovate joke here)? 3-8 is 3-8 regardless of points scored or yards gained. Doug believes that this current offense gives his team the best chance of winning games right now. We certainly have the right to disagree with him, but if we are to evaluate him on wins and losses, he's done a damn good job turning around one of the worst programs in all of college football.

His paycheck is not dependent upon how entertaining the product is, but rather how successful it is. It's a lot easier to sell 8-4 to a recruit than 3-9 with a spread offense.

Before a poster chimes in on a more exciting offense is easier to sell a recruit, let me flip the situation around a bit. The under performing offense can be a nice recruiting tactic, especially with a winning record - you can promise earlier playing time, imagine how good we can be with more weapons like yourself, etc.

This is an extremely well-written post, CIL, but I do disagree with some of it. One of Coach Marrone's biggest virtues is arguably that he is a fan of the program. I know personally the issue that I take with the idea that this offense gives the team the best chance to win is that the coaches themselves have been quick to point out the flaws in execution. I then ask myself, are there systems in college football not so highly reliant on flawless execution, as our system seems to be, and the answer is yes. So I have a difficult time reconciling that with the coaching staff's belief in the system. My other concern is that we have a winning record that is soooooooo close to not being a winning record. Coach is 12 and 15 against Div 1 teams, with a ton of squeakers. I think we beat the odds last season winning that way as much as we did, and now we're going down the same path in year two. I think that at this point it's fair for fans to be very concerned about that now and in the future. As for the recruiting, I do think you make a fair point, however, I look at the guys we have coming in on that side of the ball and we're not overwhelming really in the recruiting either. So is that message working?

 

[kingottoiii]

Upon further review and some sober self-scouting, I must say this story was poorly conceptualized, poorly researched and poorly executed. I am embarrassed my name is on it. I should have stuck with my original plan of writing a Nick Provo profile with the short week. I let myself be persuaded otherwise despite some issues going on outside the job. I agree with CIL that Marrone's vision is more Northwestern than New Orleans and believe I saw a lot of that early in the season before foes exposed the weaknesses, which have been well documented by me and others. I believe the mobility of Kinder, Hunt and presumably Broyld plus the premium of running quarterbacks in the ACC point in that direction. It was just a piss-poor job on my part. Unfortunately, there is no delete button in the newspaper.

I hope you are being sarcastic as there is nothing wrong with your article and you do a great job. The only thing wrong IMO is Marrone's answers. For example...

"As proof, Marrone pointed to spread teams the Orange has defeated in his brief 31-game tenure – Northwestern in 2009, Cincinnati and West Virginia last season and Toledo earlier this season. WVU has failed to score 20 points with its vaunted offense four times during its current 8-2 domination of SU."

Someone needs to let Marrone know that NW and Toledo we outscored to win. Had nothing to do with a lack of O by either team. Cincy had their backup QB that game. So he has one example of a spread O struggling vs SU? Or how about inferior Rhode Island and Tulane giving SU a scare? Or Colgate hanging with SU for a half last year?

And I agree with your point on Pitt. Good job. I don't think the Spread is the be all. Personally I like the Kevin Roger's O. However Pitt is built for a Power O. They don't have Spread talent. I think we have the opposite happening at SU. Our current roster is more suited for the Spread and we are running a Power O. That is why both SU and Pitt have similar production this year.

Anyway keep up the good work.

 

[CIL]

it's a lot easier to sell 8-4 if you actually go 8-4.

I see what you did there, it was generic. Let me say it much clearer for you leach jr, it's easier to sell winning than losing, bowl vs no bowls.

I'm not anti spread, anti wishbone or anti anything - I too want an offense that scores points, but I'd rather have a team that wins.

I think you're missing my point, which is this offense doesn't have the talent to run any type of effective offense, spread or flexbone. Marrone's belief is that this vanilla pro style offense helps them eat the clock and move the chains. Is it boring? Yup. Are we winning games? Yup.

Once again, I will reiterate the offense we are seeing isn't the one we will have in a few years. He's trying to sell improvement to recruits and fans. That's really tough to do when you lose.

 

[Millhouse]

I see what you did there, it was generic. Let me say it much clearer for you leach jr, it's easier to sell winning than losing, bowl vs no bowls.

I'm not anti spread, anti wishbone or anti anything - I too want an offense that scores points, but I'd rather have a team that wins.

I think you're missing my point, which is this offense doesn't have the talent to run any type of effective offense, spread or flexbone. Marrone's belief is that this vanilla pro style offense helps them eat the clock and move the chains. Is it boring? Yup. Are we winning games? Yup.

Once again, I will reiterate the offense we are seeing isn't the one we will have in a few years. He's trying to sell improvement to recruits and fans. That's really tough to do when you lose.

You're missing my point. We're not going 8-4 with this offense.

BTW we are 110th in time of possession. We are Oregon minus scoring

This is where I would typically try to find an animated gif of someone throwing against the wall hoping it sticks.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

The problem people have is what Marrone is saying...not the piece itself. At least that's my understanding. You didn't make Marrone say what he did. People are concerned with Marrone's ideas. It is what it is.

Yeah.

How dare me, I'm not a football coach.

I'm pretty good at video games though.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

If he keeps tweaking the offense every year, it will always suck, hecomplains about consistency and execution, how the are these kids going to get any better if he can't stikc to one system.. It reminds me so much of P and D the last 4 years, always tweaking and changing things until what you have is one big pile of . we are a running team, we are multiple, we are a WCO with high percantage passes, vertical passing... The guy is a -ing trainwreck right now and has no system that is suitable for the college game. The best college offenses are run by college guys with experience at the college level, whcih we have none of at this point...