People making the talent argument, in the end, IMO that

[VaSaltine]

I don't even want to think about what would happen to recruiting if Wheatley were to leave.

 

[OrangeMuskyFish]

Here's the thing IB... the "talent argument" is such a ridiculous cop out that should be permanently stricken from this board. Wow... you want better players... well golly I wish Marrone had thought of that. Most people who use it have no idea what the hell to do about it, and are grasping for as many negative straws as they possibly can.

What do you think the numbers are like on this board, IB? Maybe half of the posters keep a sharp eye out at Rivals, Scout, ESPN, etc, and feel like they have a good feel for our commits? How many of those actually transcend that level and have a similar feel for all the kids that have interest in us? And ditto that for all the kids that we are interested in. Then how many of that handful of posters that are left, know where and how to establish the relationships we need in order to bring in this higher level of talent.

There is no free-agency where you can just say "we need to get better," and make it so. So unless someone actually has something of value, why don't we reduce board clutter and stop whipping this dead horse.

 

[OrangePA]

im sounding like a broken record but doug either wins next year or he is fired.

Right. You do sound like a broken record - kinda like an old Captain & Tenille record.

Of course pretty much nobody listened them either.

 

[OrangePA]

Is what will do Doug in, next year should be all his guys more ore less. If we are still losing because of talent, that falls back on the head coach as well. Its beginning to start to look like grob excuses all over. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that recruiting isn't going very well either

No.

It will take Marrone at least two more classes to get to a point where we can be truly competitive.

It took Coach Mac seven years. It took Beamer almost ten years.

This will take time.

If you think this is Notre Dame or Texas or any like that - where talent can be accumulated quickly, you're just not being realistic.

 

[VirginiaOrange]

Beamer went from 2-9 to 6-4-1 in year 3. Went 6-5 the next year - had two down years - and then never looked back after going 9-3 in year seven. It did not take him anywhere near 10 years although that gets referenced out here all the time.

 

[Aweart23]

Beamer went from 2-9 to 6-4-1 in year 3. Went 6-5 the next year - had two down years - and then never looked back after going 9-3 in year seven. It did not take him anywhere near 10 years although that gets referenced out here all the time.

his down year was 2-8 in year six..so don't sugarcoat Beamers record going into year 7.
At the end of year 6 Beamer was 19-40 for his career at Vtech

 

[MadNY3]

No.

It will take Marrone at least two more classes to get to a point where we can be truly competitive.

It took Coach Mac seven years. It took Beamer almost ten

This will take time.

If you think this is Notre Dame or Texas or any like that - where talent can be accumulated quickly, you're just not being realistic.

Any more recent examples since the 1980s?

Sind then, the game has become an economics arms race. Pressure to succeed has escalated as a a Turner Gill lasting two years and Kaggelthorpe's dismissal quickly testifies.

I would argue that Mac and Beamer are not as realistic examples as they used to be given the times we live in. Seeing what RichRod did at WVa and did not do at Michigan is more of the timetable these days.

 

[Aweart23]

Michigan is a bad example as there was a very large contingent of alumni and people involved in the program that opposed the hire from day 1 and wanted Rich Rod out right from the start. RR's days were numbered at Michigan before he even stepped on campus...

 

[MadNY3]

Michigan is a bad example as there was a very large contingent of alumni and people involved in the program that opposed the hire from day 1 and wanted Rich Rod out right from the start. RR's days were numbered at Michigan before he even stepped on campus...

That is a good point.

 

[Millhouse]

i think it's funny that syracuse fans know more about beamer's worst year than any VT fans do. clingers. we're so scared of false positives (thinking a coach is bad when he isn't) that we don't want to even consider that coaches with bad records might be bad.

marrone's an offensive guy, so I'll wait until he has his own qb to make up my mind.

it's going to be real hard to sit through another 90something ranked offense with a third year from a bad qb he inherited.

 

[Bayside44]

The talent argument is flawed. Playing in the Big Least - the talent level from top to bottom is not overly dramatic. Did USC have significantly more talent than SU - the type of gap that is almost insurmountable? Yes. But to argue that SU's talent is so much worse than any other team in the Big Least that it cannot win isn't valid.

DM has gone after and gotten better athletes - as it seems like part of the plan is to get the best athletes and make them football players. So far that isn't working and a lot of that falls on coaching. If your strategy is to make athletes into players by coaching them up, you better have the coaches to do it. I am not seeing it.

And why is it that it seems like we never see anyone on the football team go through the type of physical makeover that we've seen with Melo and Waiters? Fat guys pretty much remain fat guys. Few of the weak skinny guys ever seem to get bigger. Marinovich and others never seemed to get any bigger or stronger over 5 years. I don't care if they make them do useless curls - at least have some biceps on most of the team. I honestly think that part of the reason people think SU's guys aren't as good is because most of them don't look the part.

I wonder if these athletes who weren't 24 / 7 football guys coming in understand what it takes at the Big East / ACC level.

 

[mantonio]

Here's the thing IB... the "talent argument" is such a ridiculous cop out that should be permanently stricken from this board. Wow... you want better players... well golly I wish Marrone had thought of that. Most people who use it have no idea what the hell to do about it, and are grasping for as many negative straws as they possibly can.

What do you think the numbers are like on this board, IB? Maybe half of the posters keep a sharp eye out at Rivals, Scout, ESPN, etc, and feel like they have a good feel for our commits? How many of those actually transcend that level and have a similar feel for all the kids that have interest in us? And ditto that for all the kids that we are interested in. Then how many of that handful of posters that are left, know where and how to establish the relationships we need in order to bring in this higher level of talent.

There is no free-agency where you can just say "we need to get better," and make it so. So unless someone actually has something of value, why don't we reduce board clutter and stop whipping this dead horse.

You are a condescending & rude person.

It is not the fans' job to identify & bring in the talent, but we have every right to express our opinions about what the team generally needs.

Should I tell the "fire Marrone" crowd to shut up because it doesn't take a genius to make stupid statements like that?

If you don't like other opinions, ignore them or refute them, but don't censor them !

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

Any more recent examples since the 1980s?

Sind then, the game has become an economics arms race. Pressure to succeed has escalated as a a Turner Gill lasting two years and Kaggelthorpe's dismissal quickly testifies.

The problem with using Kragthorpe and Gill as examples is that they walked into quality programs and took them into a nose dive. Louisville was doing very well under Petrino. Kansas was at least competitive under Mangino, with one great year.

You make a good point. I just don't think Marrone can be compared to the two of them.

 

[OrangeMuskyFish]

You are a condescending & rude person.

It is not the fans' job to identify & bring in the talent, but we have every right to express our opinions about what the team generally needs.

Should I tell the "fire Marrone" crowd to shut up because it doesn't take a genius to make stupid statements like that?

If you don't like other opinions, ignore them or refute them, but don't censor them !

No, being rude and condescending would be to tell you that you are a moron. That isn't what I am doing here. All I am saying is that if you are determined to harp on perhaps the most bland, unoriginal, generic, and redundant topic on this board, at least bring it strong and sound like you may actually have an opinion. Instead of just spewing the same vague sentence over and over again. Again, it's the ultimate cop-out.

 

[kcsu]

Right. You do sound like a broken record - kinda like an old Captain & Tenille record.

Of course pretty much nobody listened them either.

Orange PA your we need more talent rant is sounding a little broken as well.
but dont ever forget my friend Love will keep us together...

 

[RF2044]

Let's see how well Marrone adapts his philosophy and schemes to what is actually happening on the field. I think Marrone was honestly shocked that the season played out the way it did. I think he "expected" a bowl bid and expected to be in the hunt for the BE title. When he emphasized preseason that the team goal was to "compete" for the BE tittle, it suggested to me that he didn't realistic think he had the talent to win the BE, but he had the system to come close.

He was wrong...

His fate will rest in how willing and able he is to adapt to that reality.

Good post. Like what you attribute to Marrone, before the season I had us at 5-2 [switching the results of the Rutgers / WVU games]--and in outstanding position to make our second consecutive bowl. Not that the team would be world beaters or anything, just that they'd find a way to get it done over those 5 games.

Didn't happen, for a variety of reasons. This offseason will be telling in terms of what Marrone does to shake things up after an unacceptable, subpar season.

 

[mantonio]

No, being rude and condescending would be to tell you that you are a moron. That isn't what I am doing here. All I am saying is that if you are determined to harp on perhaps the most bland, unoriginal, generic, and redundant topic on this board, at least bring it strong and sound like you may actually have an opinion. Instead of just spewing the same vague sentence over and over again. Again, it's the ultimate cop-out.

It might be vague, but it's TRUE.

Again, you cannot censor vagueness. If you are tired of it, ignore it or don't come to the board.

WAIT !!! I have a better idea !!!!

Why don't you lead by example & do all the research you were talking about, & then show us exactly what we need to get to the next level...

I will wait with eager anticipation...

 

[SarasotaPaul]

Beamer went from 2-9 to 6-4-1 in year 3. Went 6-5 the next year - had two down years - and then never looked back after going 9-3 in year seven. It did not take him anywhere near 10 years although that gets referenced out here all the time.

Then with regard to the thoughts of many on this thread he should have been fired during his first down year. To have a second down year immediately following that should have resulted in Beamer having his head severed. Some posters here would not have tolerated such a lack of leadership, talent evaluation, play calling,etc,etc, etc.
Hell I'd fire him now. He didn't make the necessary half-time adjustments last night. He didn't make the necessary during game adjustments in the second half. His game plan sucked. He didn't holler & scream on the sidelines. He stood there with that "Duh" look and silly smirk. He should have been fired. And yes, sarcasm is an unfortunate major part of my makeup at times.

 

[OrangeMuskyFish]

It might be vague, but it's TRUE.

Again, you cannot censor vagueness. If you are tired of it, ignore it or don't come to the board.

WAIT !!! I have a better idea !!!!

Why don't you lead by example & do all the research you were talking about, & then show us exactly what we need to get to the next level...

I will wait with eager anticipation...

1. I am not trying to censor vagueness, I am trying to urge people to just resist from filling a message board with the same repetitive drivel. If there is some tidbit of logic, intelligence, or just some creativity, then great, fire away. But just repeating "we have no talent" over and over again is just GD stupid. Often, these people don't even clarify what it is that they mean, let alone how to fix it.

2. I am not going to do that work, because I don't think we lack talent. Sure, we certainly have room to improve. But it wasn't talent that led to the downfall, it was consistency. If you wish I can later give you a breakdown of why I think this way, but since I have to get going I will leave it at that for now.

3. You know exactly what I am talking about, too. Let's not pretend that your 321 CAP LOCKED posts of "WE NEED TALENT" are a blessing to us all in the in-game chatrooms. I love your optimism Mantonio, I consider myself on optimist as well, but IMO few things are more annoying on a message board than repetitive reactionary-driven comments constantly pushing good conversation off the front page.

 

[OrangePA]

Any more recent examples since the 1980s?

Sind then, the game has become an economics arms race. Pressure to succeed has escalated as a a Turner Gill lasting two years and Kaggelthorpe's dismissal quickly testifies.

I would argue that Mac and Beamer are not as realistic examples as they used to be given the times we live in. Seeing what RichRod did at WVa and did not do at Michigan is more of the timetable these days.

I will think about it.

But one thing I do know is that instability is not the answer.

Look at Notre Dame - too many changes too quickly. For years now that program has been mediocre.

The same is probably true at UCLA - too many changes.

Turner Gill being fired after two years at Kansas was a mistake.

I agree with Ivan Maisel that firing Mike Sherman at Texas A&M was a mistake.

Firing Frank Solich at Nebraska was a mistake that set back that program back years.

Firing Wannstedt at Pitt after an eight or nine win season was a mistake.

Every time you fire a coach you start the process all over again. You have to reconnect with the recruiting base. Players have to learn a new system and new personnel. All of it takes time and money.

 

[phil77]

When you lack overall talent on the team you really need a play maker at QB. That QB needs to be able to make plays with his arm and feet. Ryan can't do either. He is a good game manager but not a difference maker. Last year looked good because he had a great defense behind so he was able to manage the game. This year we needed a play maker and he showed that he can't be that with his feet or his arm.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

When you lack overall talent on the team you really need a play maker at QB. That QB needs to be able to make plays with his arm and feet. Ryan can't do either. He is a good game manager but not a difference maker. Last year looked good because he had a great defense behind so he was able to manage the game. This year we needed a play maker and he showed that he can't be that with his feet or his arm.

He would be fine with a very strong o line and and a strong running game, without that you need an athlete back there

 

[MadNY3]

I will think about it.

But one thing I do know is that instability is not the answer.

Look at Notre Dame - too many changes too quickly. For years now that program has been mediocre.

The same is probably true at UCLA - too many changes.

Turner Gill being fired after two years at Kansas was a mistake.

I agree with Ivan Maisel that firing Mike Sherman at Texas A&M was a mistake.

Firing Frank Solich at Nebraska was a mistake that set back that program back years.

Firing Wannstedt at Pitt after an eight or nine win season was a mistake.

Every time you fire a coach you start the process all over again. You have to reconnect with the recruiting base. Players have to learn a new system and new personnel. All of it takes time and money.

I do agree with you. And I do not believe in firing Marrone at this time whatsoever. Curious...would you make changes at OC and ST coaching positions?

Coming up with more modern-day examples of sticking to the coach to yield results...is tough. The record may show a Tom Crean at Indiana for hoops...but that is due to the sanction he inherited.

 

[Millhouse]

When you lack overall talent on the team you really need a play maker at QB. That QB needs to be able to make plays with his arm and feet. Ryan can't do either. He is a good game manager but not a difference maker. Last year looked good because he had a great defense behind so he was able to manage the game. This year we needed a play maker and he showed that he can't be that with his feet or his arm.

what the heck does game manager mean

 

[Czar]

I will think about it.

But one thing I do know is that instability is not the answer.

Look at Notre Dame - too many changes too quickly. For years now that program has been mediocre.

The same is probably true at UCLA - too many changes.

Turner Gill being fired after two years at Kansas was a mistake.

I agree with Ivan Maisel that firing Mike Sherman at Texas A&M was a mistake.

Firing Frank Solich at Nebraska was a mistake that set back that program back years.

Firing Wannstedt at Pitt after an eight or nine win season was a mistake.

Every time you fire a coach you start the process all over again. You have to reconnect with the recruiting base. Players have to learn a new system and new personnel. All of it takes time and money.

Notre Dame's problem is not coaching turnover related, only partly so.

Coaching Changes is not UCLA's problem whatsoever

Turner Gill was not a mistake either

Mike Sherman might be the worst game time coach I have ever seen, how is that a mistake?

Solich was getting close the completely demolishing Nebraska's recruiting base.

Wannstedt CONSISTENTLY underperformed for 6 seasons, and he only won 7 games the last season, not 9.

People put way too much stock into the idea that you shouldn't fire a coach at all until after 5 years. That's not true whatsoever, college athletics don't work like that anymore.