Nathaniel Hackett: Up-and-coming coach in the Big East

[Aweart23]

6. I would have game planned to the passing game. It would be clear that the objective each game would be to get Lemon/Provo/Bailey 25 receptions a game between them.
So no matter what those three players get targeted around 30 times (since your not going to go 25 for 25) this isn't pop warner you have plays for certain people however when the defense starts jumping those players you go else where. Call BS on this one

Agree with Nova on this...also everyone seems to minimize the injuries and lack of depth...

This isn't a computer game...Bailey was worn out half way through the year, and his production plummeted

Lemon played with one arm

And Provo had shoulder problems as well

As much as people beat on Hackett, its hard to win a fight with one arm tied behind your back

 

[Cadillac]

Hey guys, I just went to every football message board on the whole internet, and about 99% of them hate their offensive playcalling and think they could do better.

 

[JeremyCuse]

Agree with Nova on this...also everyone seems to minimize the injuries and lack of depth...

This isn't a computer game...Bailey was worn out half way through the year, and his production plummeted

Lemon played with one arm

And Provo had shoulder problems as well

As much as people beat on Hackett, its hard to win a fight with one arm tied behind your back

I dont disagree but most of those injuries were caused by the overuse of these players due to the playcalling. How many times did we run Ant Bailey up in the middle for a yard and watch him take a pounding? Every SU fan knew Bailey was a good player but he wasnt Carter he needed series off and wasnt an everydown back. He wasnt used to that type of workload and of course broke down. Ditto for Lemon, how many slant passes are you going to call each game before the kid gets hurt? Just like Bailey we ran him into the ground and kept running him over the middle where he was taking a beating because he was our only real WR threat and linebackers were starting to T off.

That arm was tied behind his back by overuse.

 

[Aweart23]

I dont disagree but most of those injuries were caused by the overuse of these players due to the playcalling. How many times did we run Ant Bailey up in the middle for a yard and watch him take a pounding? Every SU fan knew Bailey was a good player but he wasnt Carter he needed series off and wasnt an everydown back. He wasnt used to that type of workload and of course broke down. Ditto for Lemon, how many slant passes are you going to call each game before the kid gets hurt? Just like Bailey we ran him into the ground and kept running him over the middle where he was taking a beating because he was our only real WR threat and linebackers were starting to T off.

That arm was tied behind his back by overuse.

Who else were you going to play at TB? Answer that to me...

PTG- injured- out for the year
AAM- true freshman, way over weight-
Jerome Smith- true soph with concussion issues
Steve Rene- ???????

There's your depth chart at TB- who should have played more?

Same problem at WR- by the Pitt game we dressed 4 WR's and three of them were injured

Sales- suspended
Lemon has been hurt for several years- that wasn't a 2011 injury
Chew was hurt all year
Kobena was hurt half the year
West was a RSF just learning
Graham couldn't catch- see USF

PS I'm not saying Hackett is the second coming of Bill Walsh, I am saying don't discount the depth, youth and injury issues

 

[orangenirvana]

Hey guys, I just went to every football message board on the whole internet, and about 99% of them hate their offensive playcalling and think they could do better.

That must mean Hackett did a brilliant job in 2011 and #101 out of 120 teams is actually a tremendous accomplishment. Good to know.

 

[JeremyCuse]

Who else were you going to play at TB? Answer that to me...

PTG- injured- out for the year
AAM- true freshman, way over weight-
Jerome Smith- true soph with concussion issues
Steve Rene- ???????

There's your depth chart at TB- who should have played more?

Same problem at WR- by the Pitt game we dressed 4 WR's and three of them were injured

Sales- suspended
Lemon has been hurt for several years- that wasn't a 2011 injury
Chew was hurt all year
Kobena was hurt half the year
West was a RSF just learning
Graham couldn't catch- see USF

PS I'm not saying Hackett is the second coming of Bill Walsh, I am saying don't discount the depth, youth and injury issues

Both Smith and Rene could have handled a few carries a game to get Bailey a blow and if your going to burn AAM' redshirt then you better play the kid regardless if he is overweight or not. Smith showed some flashes at the end of the year at the very least he should have played more and between him, Rene, and even Harris we could have lessened the load for Bailey by 5-7 carries a game which would have likely kept him fresher for the end of the year.

Lemon wasnt hurt all year, he picked up the injury through the course of the season from the beating he was taking. Kobena played most of the season and could have taken a few more snaps at WR ditto for Flemming where the hell was he? Graham not being able to catch is a coach's problem, if he is that bad why play him at WR? Same goes for the two freshmen we brought in Hale and the other kid, if they werent gonna be ready we should have looked at a Juco.

 

[kingottoiii]

3. I would have wiped my butt with the page of the playbook that has that ridiculous bunch formation and flushed it.

Not all bunch formations are garbage. The bunch if ran correctly can give you space by picks & crossing. It also allows you a one on one match up on the backside with your stud receiver. Example a bunch formation ran while Mike Williams was on the backside would have done wonders. I am not going to say we didn't struggle in that formation because we did but that doesn't mean it doesn't work and can't work with more reps this spring and fall. Timing is very important for a offense and wide receivers have to be smooth and they need to pre read the defense pre snap when playing zone so all of them know what there doing and on the same page when working that close in with each other.

That is true in theory. My issue with that formation and our system overall is that it isn't something that can be pulled off at this level with the caliber of talent SU can bring in. You need practice reps, timing, preciseness, talent, quick and correct decisions which IMO simply is not possible for an SU O to handle with any type of consistency. That is what my issue is with Hackett. I actually think given the talent and given the system that he is a pretty good OC. He seems to mix it up pretty well. The problem is the system for a school like SU sucks ass. Hopefully he and Marrone evlove the system to be more compatible for the college game. Otherwise we will continue to have struggles.

 

[OrangePA]

As far as assessing the value of records, how about using the following standard - when your record-breaking season results in #101 out of 120 FBS teams, then the value of those records is equivalent to that of dog poo and can be pretty much ignored.

You really don't get it.

Let me try to explain a final time.

Nobody is suggesting that the Orange had a superior offense last year. Clearly there is much room for improvement.

That improvement will come with better and more mature offensive talent.

If the Orange had had say, Marcus Sales last year, our ranking would have been better.

The quality coaching that the Orange received allowed rather mediocre players - not great or even very good college players - to set season records. In other words, the coaching they received allowed those players to maximize their abilities.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I challenge any poster here to explain to me why any of the above 8 changes would have been a mistake.
I will give it a try I disagree with
3. I would have wiped my butt with the page of the playbook that has that ridiculous bunch formation and flushed it.

Not all bunch formations are garbage. The bunch if ran correctly can give you space by picks & crossing. It also allows you a one on one match up on the backside with your stud receiver. Example a bunch formation ran while Mike Williams was on the backside would have done wonders. I am not going to say we didn't struggle in that formation because we did but that doesn't mean it doesn't work and can't work with more reps this spring and fall. Timing is very important for a offense and wide receivers have to be smooth and they need to pre read the defense pre snap when playing zone so all of them know what there doing and on the same page when working that close in with each other.

5. The offense would have moved at a quicker pace before the snap. Quicker getting the play in, quicker substitutions, quicker getting to the line, because I wouldn't give a defense all the time in the world to assess our formation and personnel.
This is a very common misconception by fans. It's always a lot easier said then done. Your either a no huddle team all the time or have a two minute offense and sub during the game. When you sub like you suggest you also slow down the quick attack for 5 additional seconds at least which would give the defense a chance to match personnel and adjust. Quick queston for you how long do you think it takes the Mike to make the call according to the offense? A defense can be set up easy in 5 seconds so unless your moving Oregon speed the no huddle isn't as great as you think. I know you never said no huddle in number 5 but not sure what the difference would have been by the Oline sprinting to the line instead of jogging.

6. I would have game planned to the passing game. It would be clear that the objective each game would be to get Lemon/Provo/Bailey 25 receptions a game between them.
So no matter what those three players get targeted around 30 times (since your not going to go 25 for 25) this isn't pop warner you have plays for certain people however when the defense starts jumping those players you go else where. Call BS on this one

7. I would have gone for the TD against Buttgers. And I would have gotten it.
You can go for 6 all you want but you hav zero idea how that would have turned out. You can't statethat as a fact no matter how you want to spin it

Nice job, Nova.

A couple of rebuttals to your points.

3. We didn't have a Mike Williams to run a bunch formation with. We can agree to disagree on philosophical grounds though on this one. Given our personnel I think a bunch formation was the worst thing we could have possibly used in most cases. Let's take our guys that already aren't burners or block particularly well and make them easy pickings for a defense by putting them all in one place.

5. Fair points on 5, and I definitely exaggerated. When I watch other teams execute their offense they all seem to play faster than we are. I figure the strategic reason for that is to keep the defense on their heels. It is a lot easier said than done to play fast. That said, I would have emphasized that from the start. We seem to play slow by design in the interests of ball control. I just don't think that's the way to win.

6. Part of my thought is that if we're playing faster and spread out more we get more snaps in general so those guys will have more opportunities to make plays. Part of my frustration last year is that we kept hearing how the staff's objective was to establish the run. When I watch other teams I see a concerted effort to utilize playmakers in the passing game. I'm not as convinced that we decide to do that yet.

7. Well, yeah, I exaggerated again. But where I differ from a lot of people is that I feel when it's OT and you're on the 6 inch line it is the right call every time to go for the TD, regardless of the outcome. I don't know how it would have turned out, you're right. I do know it was the wrong call, regardless of the outcome, and going for it would have been the right call, regardless of outcome.

 

[kingottoiii]

3. We didn't have a Mike Williams to run a bunch formation with. We can agree to disagree on philosophical grounds though on this one. Given our personnel I think a bunch formation was the worst thing we could have possibly used in most cases. Let's take our guys that already aren't burners or block particularly well and make them easy pickings for a defense by putting them all in one place.

Actually when you have guys who have issues getting open a bunch formation can help.

 

[orangenirvana]

You really don't get it.

Let me try to explain a final time.

Nobody is suggesting that the Orange had a superior offense last year. Clearly there is much room for improvement.

That improvement will come with better and more mature offensive talent.

If the Orange had had say, Marcus Sales last year, our ranking would have been better.

The quality coaching that the Orange received allowed rather mediocre players - not great or even very good college players - to set season records. In other words, the coaching they received allowed those players to maximize their abilities.

Actually, I get it just fine, thanks.

If a team finishes outside the Top 100 out of 120 teams, then it's more than fair to criticize the paid adults responsible for that.

When an offense finishes the season below the 16th percentile, the coaches did not allow anyone to "maximize their abilities." That is a delusional assumption.

 

[NovaOrange]

Nice job, Nova.

A couple of rebuttals to your points.

3. We didn't have a Mike Williams to run a bunch formation with. We can agree to disagree on philosophical grounds though on this one. Given our personnel I think a bunch formation was the worst thing we could have possibly used in most cases. Let's take our guys that already aren't burners or block particularly well and make them easy pickings for a defense by putting them all in one place.

5. Fair points on 5, and I definitely exaggerated. When I watch other teams execute their offense they all seem to play faster than we are. I figure the strategic reason for that is to keep the defense on their heels. It is a lot easier said than done to play fast. That said, I would have emphasized that from the start. We seem to play slow by design in the interests of ball control. I just don't think that's the way to win.

6. Part of my thought is that if we're playing faster and spread out more we get more snaps in general so those guys will have more opportunities to make plays. Part of my frustration last year is that we kept hearing how the staff's objective was to establish the run. When I watch other teams I see a concerted effort to utilize playmakers in the passing game. I'm not as convinced that we decide to do that yet.

7. Well, yeah, I exaggerated again. But where I differ from a lot of people is that I feel when it's OT and you're on the 6 inch line it is the right call every time to go for the TD, regardless of the outcome. I don't know how it would have turned out, you're right. I do know it was the wrong call, regardless of the outcome, and going for it would have been the right call, regardless of outcome.

I totally understand your frustration and I would be lying if I said I didn't have issues with the offense last year. I even understand wanting to get rid of formations and etc I know I prefer never to see a draw or bubble screen used on third downs, but I doubt that will happen. Long story short I always love debating football and thanks for putting that together it made my morning pass by. You have some very valid concerns that I think are very reasonable but for now I am going to put my Orange color glasses on and enjoy being undefeated for the 2012 season

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Actually when you have guys who have issues getting open a bunch formation can help.

That may well be true, and I'm working from imperfect memory, but I don't recall the plays we ran from that formation being successful.

 

[Cadillac]

That must mean Hackett did a brilliant job in 2011 and #101 out of 120 teams is actually a tremendous accomplishment. Good to know.

Haha, yes, that is precisely what I meant.

 

[OrangePA]

Actually, I get it just fine, thanks.

If a team finishes outside the Top 100 out of 120 teams, then it's more than fair to criticize the paid adults responsible for that.

When an offense finishes the season below the 16th percentile, the coaches did not allow anyone to "maximize their abilities." That is a delusional assumption.

Okay.

You're right.

Tell us what they should have done.

Give us the schemes that should have been implemented - what offense should have been installed in pre-season.

Give us the player position changes that should have been made.

And, give us the playcalling schemes - down and distance - that should have been used in say, the Cincinnati game.

And also tell us what you would have done about our KO specialist and our punter.

 

[billsin01]

These are very good questions.

ND was better under Weiss for a limited period of time because the players Ty Willingham brought to the program matured. When those players left Weiss struggled monumentally, don't you remember?

Weiss the so-called genius had a horrible record at ND and was fired because of it.

Quinn goes from being a guy that in two years completed ~50% of his passes for 26 TDs/25 INTs to a guy that over the next two seasons throws nearly 70 TDs/14INTs and completes ~63% because he matured? Nothing to do with system? Nothing to do with coaching? Mo Stovall in three years pre-Weis: 61 catches, ~1,000 yds, 7 TDs. One year with Weis: 69 catches, 1149 yards, 11 TDs. That's some major maturing. Jeff Samardzija couldn't seem to get on the field with good ol' Ty. Two years under weis: 155 catches, 2,065 yards, 27 TDs. I really, really hope PTG or Marcus Sales "mature" that much this year.

I have read numerous articles this offseason about USF being very talented - that the team lost a bunch of games last season that it should not have lost. Plus, I watched them play last year - they were far superior to the Orange at every position. From QB to WR to OL. And if you didn't see that you were not paying attention.

I won't argue with you on the talent point. I agree. As for the shoulda won more games, there's no answer to that argument so believe whatever you want.

Do teams with inferior talent win games against superior teams? Of course they do. SU trashed WVU last year even though we obviously were not as good as the Mountaineers.

And in 2010 we beat some teams that were clearly more talented.

The point is that for the most part, the team with the better talent wins.

In 2011 SU won 8 games and ran and threw the bowl up and down the field against K-State. Does that mean that Hackett was a great coach that year?

Not the question we were debating. Having more talent is great -- I'm not sure we're going to be in that boat very often. But, regardless, we're talking about moving the ball. Talent absolutely plays a role but is simply not the only thing it comes down to (as you assert in the post I originally responded to).

As far as records are concerned, I really don't get what you're trying to say. At what point do we start to assess the value of records? Do we start in 2007 or 2008 or 2001?

Or do we have to begin this year?

So, if this team sets an all-time rushing record this year, you'd give that equal weight to a record of, say, most TD passes? You don't think offenses have changed dramatically since the 80s/early 90s? This seems really simple to me -- SU spent the better part of it's football history as a dramatically run-first offense. The last 10-15 years it has shifted to at least a 50-50 split. That means the passing yardage will be up whether you truly have a dynamic offense or not since you're simply throwing the ball more ... by a lot.

I mean, otherwise you're calling Greg Vaughan's 1998 season (50 HRs) better than any power season Hank Aaron ever produced.

 

[JeremyCuse]

Okay.

You're right.

Tell us what they should have done.

Give us the schemes that should have been implemented - what offense should have been installed in pre-season.

Give us the player position changes that should have been made.

And, give us the playcalling schemes - down and distance - that should have been used in say, the Cincinnati game.

And also tell us what you would have done about our KO specialist and our punter.

Its not his job its the coaches and the results in the win loss column showed it was a failure regardless of what passing record we broke. Either way this is likely a make or break year for Hackett another down offensive year and losing record and he will be out the door.

 

[orangenirvana]

Okay.

You're right.

Tell us what they should have done.

Give us the schemes that should have been implemented - what offense should have been installed in pre-season.

Give us the player position changes that should have been made.

And, give us the playcalling schemes - down and distance - that should have been used in say, the Cincinnati game.

And also tell us what you would have done about our KO specialist and our punter.

You've already posted this request once, and I replied to it...

http://syracusefan.com/threads/nath...oach-in-the-big-east.28793/page-3#post-314971

 

[OrangePA]

You've already posted this request once, and I replied to it...

http://syracusefan.com/threads/nath...oach-in-the-big-east.28793/page-3#post-314971

In other words you have no idea what you're talking about.

Right?

You would use a "creative scheme"?

I'll tell you what. You go look for your "creative scheme" and I'll watch Ashton Broyld, Zach Allen and others make Nathaniel Hackett a "better coach."

Deal?

 

[Crusty]

In other words you have no idea what you're talking about.

Right?

You would use a "creative scheme"?

I'll tell you what. You go look for your "creative scheme" and I'll watch Ashton Broyld, Zach Allen and others make Nathaniel Hackett a "better coach."

Deal?

So, your answer is watch the UCONN reply to see what a genius Hackett is? Brilliant. I surrender in the face of such logic.

 

[OrangePA]

So, your answer is watch the UCONN reply to see what a genius Hackett is? Brilliant. I surrender in the face of such logic.

You should surrender.

There was nothing wrong with UConn's defense - it was a very good defensne - the strongest part of their team.

And, the SU offense moved the ball quite well in the second half and was on its way to the go ahead score when Nassib threw a bad INT.

That game highlighted the weakness of our offensive talent level - we did not have enough game breakers - we were forced to rely on long, sustained drives - drives that subject the team to mistakes and TOs.

Good example of how Hackett was forced to adapt to his talent level.

You proved the point. Thank you.

 

[Cadillac]

So, your answer is watch the UCONN reply to see what a genius Hackett is? Brilliant. I surrender in the face of such logic.

No, that was me. And no one called him a genius. I don't know why you're so worked up about it Crust.

 

[Crusty]

No, that was me. And no one called him a genius. I don't know why you're so worked up about it Crust.

Well that is fair, I was just being snarky I suppose. When Hackett's name comes up I have flashbacks to last year and I go a little nuts. Hackett may grow into the role and I hope he does but to suggest that he is anything more than a work-in-progress is just blind loyalty.

I think we had the talent to do better than we did last season and I do feel the game coaching and coordination let us down. It looked to me like the offense lost confidence in the offensive scheme and in Hackett. We were 101st in the nation playing in an inferior conference. We won one game. Those are the Coors Light cold hard facts.

 

[RoysRunts]

In other words you have no idea what you're talking about.

Right?

You would use a "creative scheme"?

I'll tell you what. You go look for your "creative scheme" and I'll watch Ashton Broyld, Zach Allen and others make Nathaniel Hackett a "better coach."

Deal?

Is their a new offensive Line coming in?

 

[Cadillac]

Well that is fair, I was just being snarky I suppose. When Hackett's name comes up I have flashbacks to last year and I go a little nuts. Hackett may grow into the role and I hope he does but to suggest that he is anything more than a work-in-progress is just blind loyalty.

I think we had the talent to do better than we did last season and I do feel the game coaching and coordination let us down. It looked to me like the offense lost confidence in the offensive scheme and in Hackett. We were 101st in the nation playing in an inferior conference. We won one game. Those are the Coors Light cold hard facts.

Cool. Yes, it was an awful season, puketastic at times. I maintain we were closer to 1-11 than 11-1 and the fact that Tulane and Rhode Island were even close had more to do than just playcalling.

The one time we go razzle-dazzle with the playbook, we lose at UConn. And it was such an infuriating game, losing to P and a leaky diaper of a backup quarterback running for 8 yards every snap, no one even took note of the playcalling. It was... pretty good.

We have a senior QB, two senior wideouts, and no idea about the RB and the OL. If the OL can't pass protect, oh boy. We will be screwed so bad that the ghost of Bill Walsh couldn't save us.