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

[rocklloyd]

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've been watching this post with great interest. Lots of great points and counter points, but you just hit the nail. We're muscling through hackett's maturation as a d1 coach. In no way did he have the skills set when he came here. Might he get there, I hope so, but then be prepared to lose him to something bigger and better.

 

[orangenirvana]

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?

I know exactly what I'm talking about. I have SU's awful offensive stats under Hackett on my side. You have blind love.

It's likely going to take more than Broyld and Zach Allen to make Nate Hackett a "better coach" but I hope you're right.

 

[OrangePA]

I know exactly what I'm talking about. I have SU's awful offensive stats under Hackett on my side. You have blind love.

It's likely going to take more than Broyld and Zach Allen to make Nate Hackett a "better coach" but I hope you're right.

So under the Orangenirvana rule, Hackett was a great coach when Syracuse moved the ball over WVU and K-State but was a lousy coach when the Orange couldn't move the ball against Cincy?

Is that the "statistical" analysis that the "I know exactly what I'm talking about" but can't articulate scheme or game planning but want "an exciting offense" poster relies upon?

Yes sir, you know exactly what you're talking about.

Nothing more to discuss with you.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

So under the Orangenirvana rule, Hackett was a great coach when Syracuse moved the ball over WVU and K-State but was a lousy coach when the Orange couldn't move the ball against Cincy?

Actually, I think under the Orangenirvana rule Hackett hasn't ever been a great coach, because he statistically averages out to having a pretty poor offense.

 

[orangenirvana]

So under the Orangenirvana rule, Hackett was a great coach when Syracuse moved the ball over WVU and K-State but was a lousy coach when the Orange couldn't move the ball against Cincy?

Is that the "statistical" analysis that the "I know exactly what I'm talking about" but can't articulate scheme or game planning but want "an exciting offense" poster relies upon?

Yes sir, you know exactly what you're talking about.

Nothing more to discuss with you.

So basically you're saying Syracuse's talent on offense is much greater than that of West Virginia's defense, but equal to or worse than Tulane and Toledo.

Wow.

I would break down scheme and gameplanning, but it is simply not necessary in discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of Nate Hackett. All we need to know is that 101st out of 120 teams is not good. Even an idiot could figure that out. But apparently, not you.

But keep celebrating your 101st ranked offense and banging that "coaching is irrelevant, talent is all that matters" drum.

 

[Crusty]

Good OC's don't grow on trees. Usually (but not always) they learn under successful programs. Successful head coaches that have a system breed OC's that are talented enough to enhance the system and put their own stamp on it when they get a chace to be a HC.

Marrone has to create an offense that works at SU. I don't think he was entirely prepared to do this in the past, partly because of some early success, but I think he gets it now and he has some playmakers coming in that can execute. Until the last five games last year we were getting by and looked headed for another bowl season. I am sure he was aware that we had been very lucky and had looked weak in victories over Toldeo and Tulane, but he probably believed/hoped (as did I) that we would improve over the season. We didn't.

I think DM now gets it big time and he is making an effort to change things up. IMO I believe the reason that practice was closed was to keep the new things under wraps from BE DCs. Maybe this is wishing thinking but I think he probably didn't show us much in the spring game either. This year might tell us where we are headed as an offense.

 

[OrangePA]

So basically you're saying Syracuse's talent on offense is much greater than that of West Virginia's defense, but equal to or worse than Tulane and Toledo.

Wow.

I would break down scheme and gameplanning, but it is simply not necessary in discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of Nate Hackett. All we need to know is that 101st out of 120 teams is not good. Even an idiot could figure that out. But apparently, not you.

But keep celebrating your 101st ranked offense and banging that "coaching is irrelevant, talent is all that matters" drum.

Okay, so now you do understand the x's and o's of offensive football?

You just won't?

This sounds like Romney not releasing his tax records, don't you think?

I think that in order to maintain your meritless position you are ignoring what has been observed.

So, for the final time, let me explain it to you.

As I said, the determining factor in most - not all games - is the talent level of the two teams.

There are going to be games where the less talented team beats the more talented team. It is unusual but it happens and oftentimes it happens because of funny bounces of the ball or a bad call or a blown play or perhaps a deft coaching move.

I would like to think that you are honest enough to concede that the 2011 WVU team had more talent than the Orange last year.

If you're willing to admit that, you must have a reason why the Orange moved the ball so well that day.

Was it because WVU had some injuries? Was it because WVU took the Orange for granted? Was it because of untimely TOs? Was it because of a few bad calls by the referee? Was it because Hackett and Marrone outschemed the Mountaineers? I'm not sure I know the answer.

Do you? Do you think Shaffer is a good defensive coach? Why do you feel he is or is not?

The reality is that you don't really have any clue. And neither do I since neither of us knows football that well. We are just fans.

I do know one thing, based upon my experience playing sports and watching sports for most of my life - the team with the best talent normally wins and the coaches with the best talent normally win more and have better stats than the coaches who have less talent.

Nothing Hackett does is going to make Nassib thrown long more accurately or make Lemon faster or make our OL more athletic.

He works with the talent he is given and based on the talent he had last year he ran a conservative offense that tried to hold the ball, work long drives and keep the only QB on the team who could play, healthy. If you don't get that, you don't get it.

And apparently you just don't or you just refuse to admit the obvious truth.

I promise. I will not respond to you anymore. It's getting really old. Take care.

 

[SoBristol]

. . . .I would break down scheme and gameplanning, but it is simply not necessary in discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of Nate Hackett. All we need to know is that 101st out of 120 teams is not good. . . .

1) It has to be more complicated than that. Hackett arrived with a slim resume -- he was Marrone's protege in season one (Marrone's offensive schemes; Marrone as HC/OC and Hackett as deputy calling plays from the Marrone offense). Hackett was elevated to OC in season two, but he continued the basic schemes in place (the HC's schemes). Game planning undoubtedly is a joint effort with Marrone and Marrone has the final oversight. Hackett is a work in progress under Marrone's guidance. So, slam the output if you want, but try to be clear about what part is Hackett and what part is the HC.

2) The OL is a big ingredient in the 101st ranking of our offense (Marrone & Atkins). Talent at skill positions may not be the only factor, but it certainly is a factor. If your WRs are Cruz and Nix (the Giants), the passing game rocks -- simple plays sometimes go to the house. We had decent starting talent (Provo, Bailey and Lemon, with Nassib), but not much help from the underclassmen.

3) Consider this: Shafer is a top DC, with experience enough to be his own man. It showed in 2010 when he had senior LBs in Hogue and Carter; seniors in the secondary and at DT; and a full year of Chandler Jones. His defensive stats were bad in 2011 . Is that all you need to know in judging Shafer? Or is he a good DC who will be much better this year (better LBers, and possibly a pass rush)?

4) If that offense moves up the charts from 101st, are you going to credit Hackett or believe the OL, WRs, and RBs had something to do with it?

 

[Crusty]

1) It has to be more complicated than that. Hackett arrived with a slim resume -- he was Marrone's protege in season one (Marrone's offensive schemes; Marrone as HC/OC and Hackett as deputy calling plays from the Marrone offense). Hackett was elevated to OC in season two, but he continued the basic schemes in place (the HC's schemes). Game planning undoubtedly is a joint effort with Marrone and Marrone has the final oversight. Hackett is a work in progress under Marrone's guidance. So, slam the output if you want, but try to be clear about what part is Hackett and what part is the HC.

2) The OL is a big ingredient in the 101st ranking of our offense (Marrone & Atkins). Talent at skill positions may not be the only factor, but it certainly is a factor. If your WRs are Cruz and Nix (the Giants), the passing game rocks -- simple plays sometimes go to the house. We had decent starting talent (Provo, Bailey and Lemon, with Nassib), but not much help from the underclassmen.

3) Consider this: Shafer is a top DC, with experience enough to be his own man. It showed in 2010 when he had senior LBs in Hogue and Carter; seniors in the secondary and at DT; and a full year of Chandler Jones. His defensive stats were bad in 2011 . Is that all you need to know in judging Shafer? Or is he a good DC who will be much better this year (better LBers, and possibly a pass rush)?

4) If that offense moves up the charts from 101st, are you going to credit Hackett or believe the OL, WRs, and RBs had something to do with it?

If we improve with a different offensive scheme I will be overjoyed to give credit to the staff. I agree with the point that DM bears a large measure of responsibility for the offensive results (and they were very offensive) but that just proves my point that Hackett is doing on-the-job training and their is NOTHING to support that he is an up and coming coach. Maybe he is a genius waiting to blossom - I hope so - but, so far anyway, it has not been a stellar record. That is all I am saying.

The blocking scheme for the OLine was changed and that may have been an error in appraising the abilities of the OLine. I may be off base with this hypothosis but it is worth considering.

Shafer's record provides a great deal of OBJECTIVE criteria on which to base a judgment of competency. That is my point - Hackett has no such OBJECTIVE criteria to offer as yet. Certainly, you will concede that point.

Of course talent is part of the result but how a coach uses the talent is what they call er... oh yes, coaching. IMO the coaching job last year did not get the most out of the talent on the field. I don't like saying it but I think it is true. I am a huge fan of DM but I think the criticism is fair.

 

[orangenirvana]

Okay, so now you do understand the x's and o's of offensive football?

You just won't?

This sounds like Romney not releasing his tax records, don't you think?

I think that in order to maintain your meritless position you are ignoring what has been observed.

So, for the final time, let me explain it to you.

As I said, the determining factor in most - not all games - is the talent level of the two teams.

There are going to be games where the less talented team beats the more talented team. It is unusual but it happens and oftentimes it happens because of funny bounces of the ball or a bad call or a blown play or perhaps a deft coaching move.

I would like to think that you are honest enough to concede that the 2011 WVU team had more talent than the Orange last year.

If you're willing to admit that, you must have a reason why the Orange moved the ball so well that day.

Was it because WVU had some injuries? Was it because WVU took the Orange for granted? Was it because of untimely TOs? Was it because of a few bad calls by the referee? Was it because Hackett and Marrone outschemed the Mountaineers? I'm not sure I know the answer.

Do you? Do you think Shaffer is a good defensive coach? Why do you feel he is or is not?

The reality is that you don't really have any clue. And neither do I since neither of us knows football that well. We are just fans.

I do know one thing, based upon my experience playing sports and watching sports for most of my life - the team with the best talent normally wins and the coaches with the best talent normally win more and have better stats than the coaches who have less talent.

Nothing Hackett does is going to make Nassib thrown long more accurately or make Lemon faster or make our OL more athletic.

He works with the talent he is given and based on the talent he had last year he ran a conservative offense that tried to hold the ball, work long drives and keep the only QB on the team who could play, healthy. If you don't get that, you don't get it.

And apparently you just don't or you just refuse to admit the obvious truth.

I promise. I will not respond to you anymore. It's getting really old. Take care.

It's a waste of time to discuss x's and o's with you because first of all it's not necessary when evaluating Hackett and secondly you would ignore it anyway in your neverending quest to defend to the death any Syracuse coach past or present.

You believe finishing 101st in the nation is indicative of great coaching. Fine, we'll agree to disagree. There's obviously nothing I can say that can change your shut mind. Have fun continuing to bang that drum.

 

[SoBristol]

. . . .

Marrone has to create an offense that works at SU. I don't think he was entirely prepared to do this in the past . . . . he has some playmakers coming in that can execute. . . . . looked weak in victories over Toldeo and Tulane, but he probably believed/hoped (as did I) that we would improve over the season. We didn't.

I think DM now gets it big time and he is making an effort to change things up. IMO I believe the reason that practice was closed was to keep the new things under wraps from BE DCs. Maybe this is wishing thinking but I think he probably didn't show us much in the spring game either. This year might tell us where we are headed as an offense.

I wonder about much of that. As starters, we have the same playmakers on offense as we had last season (Nassib, Lemon) or the year before (Sales) or guys who look fairly equal to what we lost (more of Stevens and Smith in place of Provo and Bailey). We hope some of the new playmakers "can execute", but we are talking about Broyld & Kobena and some true frosh who may or may not contribute, but not likely in September. I am not expecting a lot of changes -- we will depend on Nassib and the veterans (Sales, Lemon, Stevens & Smith) to be our leaders and maybe we get a boost from a couple of youngsters.

"improve over the season" -- hasn't happened. It might be a depth issue or recruiting, as we haven't had F or RS-F emerge as big contributors when starters slow down. November (rivalry month) hasn't been the best month for this coaching staff but maybe this is the year for that to change.

It is wishful to believe that closed Spring practices will fool DCs (no BE games until our 5th game). Our secrets (Broyld will move around) usually find the light of day before the first games. And, here is a clue: Marrone is a meat & potatoes guy (run first, possession passes).

 

[orangenirvana]

1) It has to be more complicated than that. Hackett arrived with a slim resume -- he was Marrone's protege in season one (Marrone's offensive schemes; Marrone as HC/OC and Hackett as deputy calling plays from the Marrone offense). Hackett was elevated to OC in season two, but he continued the basic schemes in place (the HC's schemes). Game planning undoubtedly is a joint effort with Marrone and Marrone has the final oversight. Hackett is a work in progress under Marrone's guidance. So, slam the output if you want, but try to be clear about what part is Hackett and what part is the HC.

Yes, ultimately it is on Marrone. Hackett is Marrone's choice, if he continues to fail and Marrone does nothing about it, then Marrone should be blamed for that.

I think if you cannot finish within the Top 100 in the nation in Year #3 going up against mediocre-at-best competition, then it's not really all that complicated - you're struggling.

2) The OL is a big ingredient in the 101st ranking of our offense (Marrone & Atkins). Talent at skill positions may not be the only factor, but it certainly is a factor. If your WRs are Cruz and Nix (the Giants), the passing game rocks -- simple plays sometimes go to the house. We had decent starting talent (Provo, Bailey and Lemon, with Nassib), but not much help from the underclassmen.

This argument fits when we're talking about an offense that finished somewhere in the middle of FBS Division 1. But that's not what we're discussing here. We're talking about an offense that finished near the very bottom. There's no excuse for such a lack of production, especially in Year #3.

3) Consider this: Shafer is a top DC, with experience enough to be his own man. It showed in 2010 when he had senior LBs in Hogue and Carter; seniors in the secondary and at DT; and a full year of Chandler Jones. His defensive stats were bad in 2011 . Is that all you need to know in judging Shafer? Or is he a good DC who will be much better this year (better LBers, and possibly a pass rush)?

Shafer has already proven many times throughout his coaching career that he is a very capable defensive coordinator. 2011 was the exception for him, not the rule. Hackett has yet to show us anything in his career other than good connections, so he shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt like Shafer.

4) If that offense moves up the charts from 101st, are you going to credit Hackett or believe the OL, WRs, and RBs had something to do with it?

Both. Doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[SoBristol]

. . . .Maybe he is a genius waiting to blossom - I hope so - but, so far anyway, it has not been a stellar record. That is all I am saying.
. . . .

Shafer's record provides a great deal of OBJECTIVE criteria on which to base a judgment of competency. That is my point - Hackett has no such OBJECTIVE criteria to offer as yet. Certainly, you will concede that point.

. . . . IMO the coaching job last year did not get the most out of the talent on the field. I don't like saying it but I think it is true. I am a huge fan of DM but I think the criticism is fair.

I concede much of that. Hackett is a young coach, a work in progress, in our situation (under Marrone, with our talent). We don't know if he is conservative in style, or with a few playmakers, more willing to open things up. We know he was credited by both our QB recruits with selling the program. Basically, the slams on Hackett aren't based on much evidence and don't show a lot of perspective about Marrone's system and style; the talent on hand; or where Hackett stands on his development curve. But fans are impatient and when the team is on a losing streak and not posting good stats, the coaches are easy targets.

Did the coaches get the most out of the talent on the field? We had Rutgers beat but Marrone made the decision to kick a FG. UConn was an even game; Pasqualone was the better coach on that day. You can certainly argue about sticking with Hay, or not bringing in a JUCO playmaker or two. I believe the coaches got the max out of guys like Nassib, Provo, Chew, Bailey -- and Lemon had a stellar year. Where was there un-used or under used talent? Not the spare WRs, not the reserve OL guys.

Could the schemes be more creative; or could there be new wrinkles every week? Could you use less of a blocking FB and more of a wingback? Would another OC have tried different tactics? Sure -- speculate away.

 

[Crusty]

We lost the Rutgers game

I concede much of that. Hackett is a young coach, a work in progress, in our situation (under Marrone, with our talent). We don't know if he is conservative in style, or with a few playmakers, more willing to open things up. We know he was credited by both our QB recruits with selling the program. Basically, the slams on Hackett aren't based on much evidence and don't show a lot of perspective about Marrone's system and style; the talent on hand; or where Hackett stands on his development curve. But fans are impatient and when the team is on a losing streak and not posting good stats, the coaches are easy targets.

Did the coaches get the most out of the talent on the field? We had Rutgers beat but Marrone made the decision to kick a FG. UConn was an even game; Pasqualone was the better coach on that day. You can certainly argue about sticking with Hay, or not bringing in a JUCO playmaker or two. I believe the coaches got the max out of guys like Nassib, Provo, Chew, Bailey -- and Lemon had a stellar year. Where was there un-used or under used talent? Not the spare WRs, not the reserve OL guys.

Could the schemes be more creative; or could there be new wrinkles every week? Could you use less of a blocking FB and more of a wingback? Would another OC have tried different tactics? Sure -- speculate away.

We lost the Rutgers game on three plays:

1. The blocked PAT - no excuses for that - entirely on bad ST coaching. On the replay the gap was so wide I probably could have gotten through it.
2. Thomas drops a pick six that hit him on the numbers.
3. Bailey's fumble

That game hurt a great deal. If we had won it maybe the season would have worked out differently.

 

[orangenirvana]

I concede much of that. Hackett is a young coach, a work in progress, in our situation (under Marrone, with our talent). We don't know if he is conservative in style, or with a few playmakers, more willing to open things up. We know he was credited by both our QB recruits with selling the program. Basically, the slams on Hackett aren't based on much evidence and don't show a lot of perspective about Marrone's system and style; the talent on hand; or where Hackett stands on his development curve. But fans are impatient and when the team is on a losing streak and not posting good stats, the coaches are easy targets.

Calling for Hackett's firing after two seasons may be impatient. But to simply observe that Hackett is struggling is not being impatient...it's simply facing reality. To dismiss criticism of any of the offensive staff as a product of an impatient fanbase and coaches being easy targets is foolish.

Did the coaches get the most out of the talent on the field? We had Rutgers beat but Marrone made the decision to kick a FG. UConn was an even game; Pasqualone was the better coach on that day. You can certainly argue about sticking with Hay, or not bringing in a JUCO playmaker or two. I believe the coaches got the max out of guys like Nassib, Provo, Chew, Bailey -- and Lemon had a stellar year. Where was there un-used or under used talent? Not the spare WRs, not the reserve OL guys.

Can't speak for Crusty but to me the statement "the coaches did not get the most out of the talent on the field" has more to do with the fact that they went 1-6 and finished dead last in the worst conference in the nation than it does with not playing certain players. The team had enough talent to beat every team they faced in conference. Yet the end result was one win. That's coaching.

 

[RF2044]

We lost the Rutgers game

We lost the Rutgers game on three plays:

1. The blocked PAT - no excuses for that - entirely on bad ST coaching. On the replay the gap was so wide I probably could have gotten through it.
2. Thomas drops a pick six that hit him on the numbers.
3. Bailey's fumble

That game hurt a great deal. If we had won it maybe the season would have worked out differently.

Two other things to add to your list:

1. Trying to block the punt when we had them pinned back inside the 5. Instead of getting the ball around midfield or in their territory, we got a roughing the kicker penalty that gave them a first down, and they eventually scored a TD on that possession after we gift wrapped them a second chance.
2. The INT that bounced off of Foster's shoulder pad at the goal line. We score there, and the game starts to turn into a rout.

 

[OttoMets]

Two other things to add to your list:

1. Trying to block the punt when we had them pinned back inside the 5. Instead of getting the ball around midfield or in their territory, we got a roughing the kicker penalty that gave them a first down, and they eventually scored a TD on that possession after we gift wrapped them a second chance.
2. The INT that bounced off of Foster's shoulder pad at the goal line. We score there, and the game starts to turn into a rout.

That's the big one. The Thomas drop was bad, but every D-I scholarship receiver has to make that catch at the goal line every time.

Also, while the Thomas drop was the most egregious, we dropped something like six or seven interceptions that day (for some reason, I chose to count them as I watched the replay on Sunday afternoon). Our guys all played poorly against Rutgers. It was, dare I say, reminiscent of one of our East Carolina/Minnesota type games from the late-'90s. If we'd have come out and executed, we were looking at a 30-something to single-digits rout. Instead, a slopfest and a loss.

 

[JeremyCuse]

That's the big one. The Thomas drop was bad, but every D-I scholarship receiver has to make that catch at the goal line every time.

Also, while the Thomas drop was the most egregious, we dropped something like six or seven interceptions that day (for some reason, I chose to count them as I watched the replay on Sunday afternoon). Our guys all played poorly against Rutgers. It was, dare I say, reminiscent of one of our East Carolina/Minnesota type games from the late-'90s. If we'd have come out and executed, we were looking at a 30-something to single-digits rout. Instead, a slopfest and a loss.

BINGO! The most frustrating game of the Marrone era by far. As the game went on you could literally forsee the mistakes coming before the ball was snapped and we blew numerous opporunities to blow the game wide open. That INT was devestating, whats worse we ran it down there throats the entire drive and decided to pass on the 1 inch line.

 

[CaliCuse]

BINGO! The most frustrating game of the Marrone era by far. As the game went on you could literally forsee the mistakes coming before the ball was snapped and we blew numerous opporunities to blow the game wide open. That INT was devestating, whats worse we ran it down there throats the entire drive and decided to pass on the 1 inch line.

For me the most frustrating loss was the Iowa game. We never tried to run for the pylons once,choosing in stead the middle of their DL and of course the dropped pass in the endzone by tim Lane after the QB put the ball on his numbers.

 

[Frozen]

For me the most frustrating loss was the Iowa game. We never tried to run for the pylons once,choosing in stead the middle of their DL and of course the dropped pass in the endzone by tim Lane after the QB put the ball on his numbers.

Yeah, I remember when Doug Marrone coached SU to that disappointing loss against Iowa. I blame Doug Marrone 100% for that loss.

 

[JeremyCuse]

Yeah, I remember when Doug Marrone coached SU to that disappointing loss against Iowa. I blame Doug Marrone 100% for that loss.

AHAHAHAAHAHAH

 

[ejz555]

Yeah, I remember when Doug Marrone coached SU to that disappointing loss against Iowa. I blame Doug Marrone 100% for that loss.

Phone Line was down from New Orleans, couldnt get his play into Deleone in time or was it Maloney???:crazy:

 

[CaliCuse]

The play calling was

AHAHAHAAHAHAH

absurd for a coach to be calling or allowed to be called in that gameWhen you pound the inside of a defense and fail ,you have just juiced them up for the next play in their zone. Its a fact jack.:crazy:

 

[Frozen]

The play calling was
absurd for a coach to be calling or allowed to be called in that gameWhen you pound the inside of a defense and fail ,you have just juiced them up for the next play in their zone. Its a fact jack.:crazy:

Awesome.

 

[JeremyCuse]

Awesome.

Cali must be on a binge or something, I have no idea what he was tyring to say there. Bath Salts are a hell of a drug.