Marrone and Rahme are just plain wrong

[Cuse2010]

holgorson installs his offense in 3 days, marrone 3 decades.

He does have better atheletes to implement you are comparing apples to oranges

 

[Chip]

Reading between the lines and listening to Marrone I am kind of sensing a defeatist attitude regarding the offense. That is really discouraging because I don't know if we can win another game without a better offense because the problem is right now the defense sucks too, when your offense, defense, and special teams stink.. Let me tell you how good your team is, yeah we are 4-2 but most are hoping for 2 more wins... That is the problem, we are 4-2 with almost no shot at say 9-3 or even 8-4, most here would be tickled pink to go .500 from here on out and go 7-5. Just hate not having any firepower and having to grind so gd hard for wins versus uri and Tulane. In addition, if the d doesn't play perfectly tomorrow and we don't get 2-3 turnovers, we have absolutely zero shot at winning and that is the reality, never said we can't win but we certainly can't win going toe to toe, which sucks in itself. As many have said, Syracuse football is a very boring product...

Lucky for us, outside of tomorrow, the rest of the schedule is not difficult. Maybe we lose them all, but they're all going to be close games. The Big East renaissance of 2005-2007 is long since over. It's the league everyone thought it would be. B..A..D. Was bad last year too, which worked to our benefit.

 

[billsin01]

So I'll just ask a couple blunt questions.

Given our team rosters as they were since Marrone took over, could we have run a spread (any variant) successfully?

If so, how many more ypg and ppg do you think it would have resulted in?

This question is pointless b/c it can just be turned around. Do you really think a chip kelly or urban meyer, etc., doesn't get more offensive production than we've had? Are we even running whatever offense we're running effectively? I mean I get that we weren't going to become Oregon or a leach offense or whatever over night, but I don't think anyone could argue against the fact that the staff will have to do some serious re-evaluation of the offense in the off-season if it doesn't make some tangible improvement over the next few weeks.

 

[KaiserUEO]

why the hell are we comparing Syracuse to west virginia???

since 2002 they have won no less than 8 games every goddamn year, including 3 fruckin 11 win years.

since 2002 the Orange have won 8 once!! every other goddamn year they were either .500 or worse, including 6 fruckin losing seasons.

id be be willing to wager that they would have more talent and 'athletes' on hand to make a quicker turn around from such the lousy 3, 11 win seasons followed by the horrific 3 straight 9 win ones, than the Orange did after their classic 1, 4, 2, 3, 4, and 8 win ones...

and the talent is barely better than 2009, but at least its younger.

the legend of grobbycakes continues......



Oh Lord

 

[Scooch]

Well if the talent isn't better than it was in 2009 then the window on the GumpRob blame game is closing really soon.

 

[KaiserUEO]

Well if the talent isn't better than it was in 2009 then the window on the GumpRob blame game is closing really soon.

that it is, but the marone era just begun.

year 2 a bowl.

year 3? we will see.

year 4? a few kids come after success of years 2 & 3. but likely not before.

year 5? should still be winning, and hopefully have a few soph studs and some jrs who can play to go along with a strong frosh class.

etc...

 

[Millhouse]

why the hell are we comparing Syracuse to west virginia???

since 2002 they have won no less than 8 games every goddamn year, including 3 fruckin 11 win years.

since 2002 the Orange have won 8 once!! every other goddamn year they were either .500 or worse, including 6 fruckin losing seasons.

id be be willing to wager that they would have more talent and 'athletes' on hand to make a quicker turn around from such the lousy 3, 11 win seasons followed by the horrific 3 straight 9 win ones, than the Orange did after their classic 1, 4, 2, 3, 4, and 8 win ones...

and the talent is barely better than 2009, but at least its younger.

the legend of grobbycakes continues......



Oh Lord

who cares about 2002?

we are all well aware that rich rodriguez's teams were much better than Robinsons. quite the newsflash there

why did you start at 2002? anything special about that year besides it being after our 10 win season?

no one is claiming that SU would be as good or better than WVU with the same system. the claim is that SU would be better than SU is

 

[suloyalfan]

It's really another canned answer... he just hasn't recruited players at WR, running back, O Line maybe but we shall see. He moved the best athlete Graham to WR and that appears that is may begin to be paying off. Where has Chew been? Holy cow. Marrone has recruited very poorly on offense with regard to the wr/ rb position and the fact that Nassib has not one real competitor is concerning as well. I don't think Nassib is very good but he is head and shoulders above anyone else we have. Marrone should at least have one difference maker out there at this point. It's OK to admit failure once in awhile for these guys, why does everything need to be presented in coach speak babble/ code. I don't know why anyone actually even interviews 90% of coaches anymore. They don't say a GD thing of any substance.

What would you want Marrone to say? Is he going to come out and say "We've been a complete failure at recruiting offensive players... the players we recruited aren't good enough, and the offensive system we've put in place is horrible and poorly conceived." Do you think that would be a good statement from a head coach? How do you think that would fly with the players that Marrone recruited being slammed in public by their head coach? Do you think this would be good, or bad for the team?

This same topic has come up before (thousands of times, not just with SU sports)... athletes and coaches are constantly badgered for information, and they supply "canned answers" because the any time they open their mouths and say what's really on their minds they get crucified for saying something that either offends someone, criticizes someone, gives someone bulletin board material, or rubs someone the wrong way. Remember last year before the SU game with WVU when Scooter Berry forgot this "rule"? He forgot to give the canned answer and gave SU some insight into how much respect WVU had for SU coming into the game last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwXmUx7Ej5s

 

[RF2044]

I've seen this excuse a ton, but I'd like to bring up two points:

1) How about all the IAA teams that have piled up yardage and points against us? How about Toledo? Those weren't teams that physically outmatched us offensively..

"Excuse?" Your example inadvertently makes my point, Bills01. When an OL executes properly, on offense can be effective even with mediocre talent. THAT'S why the 1AA teams and Toledo were able to pile up yardage / points despite not necessarily physically outmatching us.

It doesn't matter whether your offensive system is to run 100 times a game or throw 100 times a game--if the OL doesn't do it's job, you aren't going to be terribly effective at whatever you're trying to do. And when it does, you can be.

Mind you, this is not a debate about the caliber of player, and I'm not suggesting that we don't need to get better talent / athleticism / speed / playmaking ability on the offensive side of the ball--we absolutely DO. But even with the talent on hand, the offense can and should be better--but the OL is a sieve that doesn't pass nor run block effectively. And that has resulted in the coaches limiting the playcalling to a smaller number of plays that they think the unit can run without getting blown up.

Until the OL improves, we're going to continue to see subpar offensive play. Which dovetails right into your next point...

2) Marrone and Adkins are our OL coaches. We're not absolving Marrone by blaming an offensive line. That's HIS group! And believe me, coaching is huge in that area. I watched ND suck on the offensive line throughout John Latina's tenure only to play immeasurably better under Verducci and Ed Warriner (Kelly's guy). I'm not advocating we fire anyone, but the fact this OL has not taken significant steps forward is concerning any way you slice it -- regardless of talent and depth (which I agree is also a concern).

I'm with you 100% here. SU [relatively speaking] has never enjoyed "strong" OL play, even back when we were good. I was hoping that Marrone would be the type of coach that OL prospects would want to come play for, and that he might reverse that to a certain extent. Thus far, I've been pretty disappointed.

But it's important to keep in mind that the play of the OL plummeted under GRob, going from slightly below average at the end of the Pasqualoni era to "worst in college football" the next couple of years. I don't think we've set the world ablaze on the recruiting front for OL, but last year's class brought in several players [including two 4-stars in Trudo / Foy], many of whom are redshirting. This year's [class of 2013] similarly has four prospects who presumably will also benefit from a redshirt. So I think that the pipeline is improving there. How that translates into quality / improvement remains to be seen.

 

[Millhouse]

"Excuse?" Your example inadvertently makes my point, Bills01. When an OL executes properly, on offense can be effective even with mediocre talent. THAT'S why the 1AA teams and Toledo were able to pile up yardage / points despite not necessarily physically outmatching us.

It doesn't matter whether your offensive system is to run 100 times a game or throw 100 times a game--if the OL doesn't do it's job, you aren't going to be terribly effective at whatever you're trying to do. And when it does, you can be.

Mind you, this is not a debate about the caliber of player, and I'm not suggesting that we don't need to get better talent / athleticism / speed / playmaking ability on the offensive side of the ball--we absolutely DO. But even with the talent on hand, the offense can and should be better--but the OL is a sieve that doesn't pass nor run block effectively. And that has resulted in the coaches limiting the playcalling to a smaller number of plays that they think the unit can run without getting blown up.

Until the OL improves, we're going to continue to see subpar offensive play. Which dovetails right into your next point...

I'm with you 100% here. SU [relatively speaking] has never enjoyed "strong" OL play, even back when we were good. I was hoping that Marrone would be the type of coach that OL prospects would want to come play for, and that he might reverse that to a certain extent. Thus far, I've been pretty disappointed.

But it's important to keep in mind that the play of the OL plummeted under GRob, going from slightly below average at the end of the Pasqualoni era to "worst in college football" the next couple of years. I don't think we've set the world ablaze on the recruiting front for OL, but last year's class brought in several players, many of whom are redshirting. This year's [class of 2013] similarly has four prospects who presumably will also benefit from a redshirt. So I think that the pipeline is improving there. How that translates into quality / improvement remains to be seen.

i'm not intentionally trying to be contrarian but i don't think the OL is a relatively big problem. i think it's just what people point to when an offense stinks rather than the more obvious and boring observation that our WR aren't open enough and when they do get open deep, our QB misses. also we're getting nothing from backup RBs. but i think that would improve if we could throw the ball.

we're doing fine on tackles for loss. granted, we play a hot potato offense. middle of the road on sacks allowed.

 

[RF2044]

i'm not intentionally trying to be contrarian but i don't think the OL is a relatively big problem. i think it's just what people point to when an offense stinks rather than the more obvious and boring observation that our WR aren't open enough and when they do get open deep, our QB misses. also we're getting nothing from backup RBs. but i think that would improve if we could throw the ball.

we're doing fine on tackles for loss. granted, we play a hot potato offense. middle of the road on sacks allowed.

I don't agree--this offensive line is decidedly subpar in quality, depth, and execution. Part of the reason that there aren't more sacks / TFL is that we're running plays like slants, designed for the QB to get rid of the ball before the pass rush blows up the blocking.

Millhouse, as we discussed in another thread last week, the issue is systemic--there's no one root cause of the offensive struggles. It's not just the OL--the skill players aren't good enough, either. But I maintain that with an OL that executes properly, this same group of personnel would be much more effective. See: Pitt and UConn last season.

Like everybody else, I want the skill players to improve. I want guys [like in the late 80s / early 90s] who were threats to score every play, who give us the ability to feature a dynamic, high scoring offense. And I don't view it as contrarian, I view it as overlooking [not you specifically] the cascade effect that happens when the OL can't do it's job.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

I don't agree--this offensive line is decidedly subpar in quality, depth, and execution. Part of the reason that there aren't more sacks / TFL is that we're running plays like slants, designed for the QB to get rid of the ball before the pass rush blows up the blocking.

Millhouse, as we discussed in another thread last week, the issue is systemic--there's no one root cause of the offensive struggles. It's not just the OL--the skill players aren't good enough, either. But I maintain that with an OL that executes properly, this same group of personnel would be much more effective. See: Pitt and UConn last season.

Like everybody else, I want the skill players to improve. I want guys [like in the late 80s / early 90s] who were threats to score every play, who give us the ability to feature a dynamic, high scoring offense. And I don't view it as contrarian, I view it as overlooking [not you specifically] the cascade effect that happens when the OL can't do it's job.

The question is, is the O Line worse than last year? I maintain that it is and the rest is self explanatory as why we are

 

[Millhouse]

I don't agree--this offensive line is decidedly subpar in quality, depth, and execution. Part of the reason that there aren't more sacks / TFL is that we're running plays like slants, designed for the QB to get rid of the ball before the pass rush blows up the blocking.

Millhouse, as we discussed in another thread last week, the issue is systemic--there's no one root cause of the offensive struggles. It's not just the OL--the skill players aren't good enough, either. But I maintain that with an OL that executes properly, this same group of personnel would be much more effective. See: Pitt and UConn last season.

Like everybody else, I want the skill players to improve. I want guys [like in the late 80s / early 90s] who were threats to score every play, who give us the ability to feature a dynamic, high scoring offense. And I don't view it as contrarian, I view it as overlooking [not you specifically] the cascade effect that happens when the OL can't do it's job.

let's assume you're right that marrone is scared of the line and that's why we do what we do

We're 18th in tackles for loss, and slightly above average in sacks allowed

with production as bad as we are getting, doesn't it seem overly cautious to focus so much on avoiding sacks? they could risk more tackles for loss in to get big play rewards.

maybe it's not because Marrone's so scared of the line, maybe it's because he just doesn't think it's worth very much to try to give Nassib time to do anything downfield when the guy struggles mightily to just keep the ball in bounds.

teams like Oregon don't care much about tackles for loss. you're going to have some plays where an overcommitting defender lucks out. but those are bad probabilities, run enough plays and you'll get a big one. i know we're not oregon. my point is that we're terrified of TFL because we know nassib can't give you any big reward for taking risk. it's not about the line

this whole offense is designed around what nassib can do. which is not much. he can throw slants. so that's what we do.

 

[RF2044]

let's assume you're right that marrone is scared of the line and that's why we do what we do

We're 18th in tackles for loss, and slightly above average in sacks allowed

with production as bad as we are getting, doesn't it seem overly cautious to focus so much on avoiding sacks? they could risk more tackles for loss in to get big play rewards.

maybe it's not because Marrone's so scared of the line, maybe it's because he just doesn't think it's worth very much to try to give Nassib time to do anything downfield when the guy struggles mightily to just keep the ball in bounds.

teams like Oregon don't care much about tackles for loss. you're going to have some plays where an overcommitting defender lucks out. but those are bad probabilities, run enough plays and you'll get a big one. i know we're not oregon. my point is that we're terrified of TFL because we know nassib can't give you any big reward for taking risk. it's not about the line

this whole offense is designed around what nassib can do. which is not much. he can throw slants. so that's what we do.

I disagree with your conclusion. Let's be clear--Nassib is no world beater, but I think he's capable of producing at a more prolific level than you give him credit for. He doesn't have time to throw. Our pass plays don't have time to develop. And our WR corps isn't particularly all that good. We throw slants because that's all we have time to do before the protection breaks down.

You view the root cause as Nassib; I think that like Pitt / UConn last year, Nassib would be more than adequate behind a strong OL. Agree to disagree.

 

[billsin01]

"Excuse?" Your example inadvertently makes my point, Bills01. ...

It doesn't matter whether your offensive system is to run 100 times a game or throw 100 times a game--if the OL doesn't do it's job, you aren't going to be terribly effective at whatever you're trying to do. And when it does, you can be.

But even with the talent on hand, the offense can and should be better--but the OL is a sieve that doesn't pass nor run block effectively. And that has resulted in the coaches limiting the playcalling to a smaller number of plays that they think the unit can run without getting blown up.

Until the OL improves, we're going to continue to see subpar offensive play. Which dovetails right into your next point...

I'm with you 100% here. SU [relatively speaking] has never enjoyed "strong" OL play, even back when we were good. I was hoping that Marrone would be the type of coach that OL prospects would want to come play for, and that he might reverse that to a certain extent. Thus far, I've been pretty disappointed.

I think we actually see this fairly similarly, RF. I guess the quote I was responding to in your previous post as more the one that said we don't have any players on offense and the OL sucks. My thought was that you were defending the system based on skill position personnel and poor line play. I agree you need line play to be successful. All I was trying to point out was that an offense shouldn't have to "out-talent" an opponent to move the ball. The second point was that if OL play sucks, that's still something that comes back on Marrone and Adkins to some extent. I think we actually agree on most, if not all of that.

Where we may differ is that, to me, you have to start running your offense and calling the plays you want to call at some point or you'll never start doing it. Marrone talks about this New Orleans Saints offense but if he has to have the perfect personnel to deploy it, we could be waiting a long, long time. I'm just not sure I buy the line that the offense as currently constituted will look drastically different in 2013 simply because of some turnover in personnel.

 

[billsin01]

I disagree with your conclusion. Let's be clear--Nassib is no world beater, but I think he's capable of producing at a more prolific level than you give him credit for. He doesn't have time to throw. Our pass plays don't have time to develop. And our WR corps isn't particularly all that good. We throw slants because that's all we have time to do before the protection breaks down.

You view the root cause as Nassib; I think that like Pitt / UConn last year, Nassib would be more than adequate behind a strong OL. Agree to disagree.

I agree with this. When all you do is throw slants, then that's all you do. I agree with IB that slants are about all we seem to call and that it is Nassib's strength, but I disagree that he couldn't work downfield more (even if his deep balls aren't a strength). I think Nassib's good enough but they don't feel confident enough to call the plays. At some point that has to change.

 

[billsin01]

The question is, is the O Line worse than last year? I maintain that it is and the rest is self explanatory as why we are

This is putting it simply and I'd add that it's disappointing to see the step back here.

 

[Millhouse]

I disagree with your conclusion. Let's be clear--Nassib is no world beater, but I think he's capable of producing at a more prolific level than you give him credit for. He doesn't have time to throw. Our pass plays don't have time to develop. And our WR corps isn't particularly all that good. We throw slants because that's all we have time to do before the protection breaks down.
You view the root cause as Nassib; I think that like Pitt / UConn last year, Nassib would be more than adequate behind a strong OL. Agree to disagree.

That's I brought numbers into it.

If Nassib is capable of producing more, why are we so scared of sacks? I think if your offense is this bad and you think your QB is capable of more, it would be rational to be less concerned about sacks. considering you're above average in sacks allowed and below average in passing.

the objective of the offense isn't to avoid sacks.

nassib also fumbles when hit. that plays into it.

 

[Chip]

Well if the talent isn't better than it was in 2009 then the window on the GumpRob blame game is closing really soon.

The further we get from the Robinson era, the further we get from Marrone teams gaining 400 yards against 1A teams. Did it 3 times in 2009, 2 times in 2010, 0 times halfway thru 2011.

It's great that we're winning with defense, beating the teams we should beat, and taking advantage of how weak the Big East has become this year and last. But I don't think it's being negative to say that we need to get a LOT better on offense if we expect to keep winning games.

 

[kingottoiii]

I agree with this. When all you do is throw slants, then that's all you do. I agree with IB that slants are about all we seem to call and that it is Nassib's strength, but I disagree that he couldn't work downfield more (even if his deep balls aren't a strength). I think Nassib's good enough but they don't feel confident enough to call the plays. At some point that has to change.

I don't think that Nassib is good at the quick slants we have been seeing a lot of lately. He is better on the sidelines and with posts. His strength is the mid range passes. Yet we go short short with the occasional deep pass.

 

[SmilinBob]

That's I brought numbers into it.

If Nassib is capable of producing more, why are we so scared of sacks? I think if your offense is this bad and you think your QB is capable of more, it would be rational to be less concerned about sacks. considering you're above average in sacks allowed and below average in passing.

the objective of the offense isn't to avoid sacks.

nassib also fumbles when hit. that plays into it.

Has he fumbled (knock on wood) yet this season? I know he had problems early last year but I think he has improved his tuck and cover.

 

[billsin01]

The further we get from the Robinson era, the further we get from Marrone teams gaining 400 yards against 1A teams. Did it 3 times in 2009, 2 times in 2010, 0 times halfway thru 2011.

It's great that we're winning with defense, beating the teams we should beat, and taking advantage of how weak the Big East has become this year and last. But I don't think it's being negative to say that we need to get a LOT better on offense if we expect to keep winning games.

Yeah, I'm not really even sure how anyone is arguing against this. This is an issue that runs far deeper than simply personnel. That excuse went out the window when Tulane -- a team unlikely to win more than a game or two the rest of the year -- put up close to 500 on us. It wasn't talent that did that. It was offensive system and execution.

 

[Scooch]

Yeah, I'm not really even sure how anyone is arguing against this. This is an issue that runs far deeper than simply personnel. That excuse went out the window when Tulane -- a team unlikely to win more than a game or two the rest of the year -- put up close to 500 on us. It wasn't talent that did that. It was offensive system and execution.

And that is why I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when we discuss the O. No one... let me repeat: NO ONE... expects us to be Oregon. But in year 3 of Marrone's tenure, with a 2 1/2 year starting QB and a veteran OL, we should be better than 90th in the freakin' country on offense. And that's playing against some mediocre defenses.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

And that is why I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when we discuss the O. No one... let me repeat: NO ONE... expects us to be Oregon. But in year 3 of Marrone's tenure, with a 2 1/2 year starting QB and a veteran OL, we should be better than 90th in the freakin' country on offense. And that's playing against some mediocre defenses.

And that is all I have ever tried to say and it's not like we are playing a murderers row schedule either. I mean USC is good but people talk of teams like WVU and USC as if they are the 2001 Miami Hurricanes as if it is so unreasonable to expect to move the ball and score some points and play the game.. geeze

 

[RF2044]

That's I brought numbers into it.

If Nassib is capable of producing more, why are we so scared of sacks? I think if your offense is this bad and you think your QB is capable of more, it would be rational to be less concerned about sacks. considering you're above average in sacks allowed and below average in passing.

the objective of the offense isn't to avoid sacks.

nassib also fumbles when hit. that plays into it.

The objective of the offense is to gain positive yardage. That's tough to do when the defense blows up the offensive line when we drop back to pass, and when the offensive line doesn't give the QB time for the play to develop downfield [a problem exacerbated by an average group of receivers who struggle to get open anyway]. The coaching staff counters that risk by calling plays where the ball gets released quickly, thereby nullifying the pass rush--plays like slants.

I'm not saying that the numbers you referenced are wrong--numbers don't lie--but I think that the reason that we're "above average" [talk about misleading] in sacks allowed is because the staff is calling plays by design to compensate for the likelihood that the line is going to give up a sack in pass protection. If you look at that stat and conclude that the offensive line play is doing a good job of protecting the QB on pass plays, I've got a bridge for sale.