I ask this because the more I think about it, the more I think that retaining him will only delay the inevitable.
Listen, I like Scott Shafer as a man. I like his core values, his enthusiasm, and I just think he's a good person. But I also felt that way about GRob. And unfortunately, I'm starting to think that, like GRob, Shafer just doesn't have what it takes to be a successful Head Coach. Effective D-Coordinator, yes; HC, not so sure.
Now I'll be the first to admit, if he somehow leads this team to 3 straight wins and a bowl game, my opinion will change b/c he will have then pulled off a miracle and will have justly earned the right to remain HC.
But that 's not likely, imho. It's more likely that we lose all 3. Right now we're lucky to be 3-6 (should be 2-7; thanks Villanova kicker). We're likely NOT going bowling, and while recruiting has improved some (still not killing it), overall, there's just been nothing else that I've seen during Shafer's reign that leads me to believe that the program is definitively trending in the right direction. Since he's taken over, there have just been several poor decisions made on his part that have lead to what will likely be a losing record after his 1st two years at the helm.
There are various examples (Allen over Hunt, misuse of personnel & redshirts, several in-game decisions, etc.) but I'll focus on what I believe to be his most glaring and costly faux paus: The hiring and firing (essentially) of George McDonald.
In theory, it was a smart hire. Bring in a young up & coming coach whose true forte is recruiting; specifically recruiting in talent-rich South Florida. But to pry him away from the SEC job he held, SS had to offer him the OC spot. With that comes a degree of risk but it's a risk I think Shafer was wise to take.
But the problem is that he brings in a guy who wants to run a spread "N-Zone" attack that A) SU simply doesn't have the personnel to run effectively, and B) philosophically doesn't really mesh well with Shaf's wheelhouse which is tough, stifling defense. Everyone knows that ball control and a strong running game is a stout defenses' best friend. Three & outs are the enemy. Even a lousy (head) coach like Rex Ryan was initially able to win when he had the "ground-n-pound" thing working for him.
But this "N-Zone" system is a pass-first system that seems to de-emphasize the run game and instead relies on short passes and bubble screens, which are considered "long handoffs." The problem there is that you need an accurate QB and fast, dynamic playmakers for this offense to really click; components that SU didn't have at the time of the hire (and arguably, still doesn't). What they DID have was returning power back (now on an NFL roster) who had rushed for 1100 yds, and his sidekick who added another 800 yds & a bowl game MVP by exploding for 200+.
So to me, SS's 1st poor decision was moving to this all-shotgun, all-spread, pass-oriented attack when your personnel and strengths as a coach were better suited for a "multiple," more run-oriented style like Marrone/Hackett employed and like Harbaugh/Pep Hamilton ran at Stanford. Both of these balanced but run-oriented styles still incorporated enough passing to allow Andrew Luck to throw his way to the #1 pick and for Ryan Nassib to ascend to a 4th round pick. Why Shafer didn't choose to replicate the Marrone/Stanford approach is baffling to me, considering he was a part of both staffs and saw the successes first hand. Now we all suffer from the repercussions of that initial poor choice when we watch this mismatched, ineffective offensive system continually sputter & stumble every Saturday.
But as bad as choosing to fit the proverbial 'square peg in a round hole' with the GMac hire/N-Zone implementation, imho, demoting the man 18 games into his tenure as OC was an even worse decision. I mean, I know many fans wanted GM's head on a platter and were very pleased when they got it. But let's face it, folks: switching to Lester hasn't made a bit of damn difference on the scoreboard or in the W-L column. The offense sucked under McDonald and it still sucks under Lester. The differences are miniscule at best.
And the reason is pretty obvious: there is a dearth of big time, game changing talent @ the skill positions on this team. There's not one offensive player on this team that keeps opposing D-coordinators up at night. And while GMac may not have been the best play caller in the world, it really doesn't matter what you call when your QB is inaccurate, when your receivers regularly drop passes and your O-line is undisciplined, mistake-prone & often over-matched.
IMO, Shafer should have rode out the storm w/ McDonald and allowed him work through his struggles the same way Marrone allowed Hackett to work through his. And again, that's something Shafer was witness to but apparently didn't learn from it; not a good sign. McDonald is a bright guy and had he just been afforded the opportunity to grow into his new role the same way Hackett was, in the long run, the program would've been better off for it. While there was no guarantee GM would've "got it" the way NH did, I think Shafer would've been better served micro-managing GMac a little more, being more hands-on in the offensive game plan/play calling or maybe even bringing in a "consultant" to assist McDonald.
But by pulling the plug 18 games in and demoting GMac, Shafer has now virtually guaranteed his departure. And I believe that will ultimately prove to be something he (and we) will regret. While some folks try to diminish his accomplishments as a recruiter, I just have four words for you: Steve Ishmael, Miami Florida. Trying getting another player that damn talented out of Dade county to come to SU without GMac. And he was just getting started, imo. But by unwisely burning that bridge, which I believe Shafer has done, you still have a putrid offense but now you'll be without your ace recruiter who can bring in the kind of studs this team so desperately needs. And now you're kind of stuck w/ Lester as your OC for whatever that's worth (could be a good thing; could not) b/c I don't think Shafer will be able to attract a big time OC coming off of a (likely) losing season that will at the very minimum have his seat warm, if not flat out hot. To me, demoting GM was a reactionary panic move, not a well thought out, measured move; again, another bad sign, imo.
But whether you agree or disagree with the GMac demotion, I don't think it's unfair to say that Shafer's handling of the offensive side of the ball has been poor at best, bordering on incompetent, not unlike the Rex Ryans and GRobs of the world who continually change OCs and reshuffle the offensive deck only to end up in the same inept place.
Again, I really like Scott Shafer but I just don't see the sharpness, the certitude and clarity of vision that one often detects in a winning coach (in any sport). I think what we're seeing in Shaf is guy who's fiery & passionate, good at what he does (defense) but in over his head as a HC. Good Lieutenants don't always make good Generals and I'm afraid that's what we're seeing unfold w/ SS.
And we've all seen this movie before. It rarely ends well.
So back to my original question: Assuming Shafer doesn't run the table, does Gross (or the next AD if there is to be one) give SS a third year to try to right the ship? Or does he see another GRob situation developing and cut his losses now like he erroneously DIDN'T do with Robinson? Your thoughts.
Listen, I like Scott Shafer as a man. I like his core values, his enthusiasm, and I just think he's a good person. But I also felt that way about GRob. And unfortunately, I'm starting to think that, like GRob, Shafer just doesn't have what it takes to be a successful Head Coach. Effective D-Coordinator, yes; HC, not so sure.
Now I'll be the first to admit, if he somehow leads this team to 3 straight wins and a bowl game, my opinion will change b/c he will have then pulled off a miracle and will have justly earned the right to remain HC.
But that 's not likely, imho. It's more likely that we lose all 3. Right now we're lucky to be 3-6 (should be 2-7; thanks Villanova kicker). We're likely NOT going bowling, and while recruiting has improved some (still not killing it), overall, there's just been nothing else that I've seen during Shafer's reign that leads me to believe that the program is definitively trending in the right direction. Since he's taken over, there have just been several poor decisions made on his part that have lead to what will likely be a losing record after his 1st two years at the helm.
There are various examples (Allen over Hunt, misuse of personnel & redshirts, several in-game decisions, etc.) but I'll focus on what I believe to be his most glaring and costly faux paus: The hiring and firing (essentially) of George McDonald.
In theory, it was a smart hire. Bring in a young up & coming coach whose true forte is recruiting; specifically recruiting in talent-rich South Florida. But to pry him away from the SEC job he held, SS had to offer him the OC spot. With that comes a degree of risk but it's a risk I think Shafer was wise to take.
But the problem is that he brings in a guy who wants to run a spread "N-Zone" attack that A) SU simply doesn't have the personnel to run effectively, and B) philosophically doesn't really mesh well with Shaf's wheelhouse which is tough, stifling defense. Everyone knows that ball control and a strong running game is a stout defenses' best friend. Three & outs are the enemy. Even a lousy (head) coach like Rex Ryan was initially able to win when he had the "ground-n-pound" thing working for him.
But this "N-Zone" system is a pass-first system that seems to de-emphasize the run game and instead relies on short passes and bubble screens, which are considered "long handoffs." The problem there is that you need an accurate QB and fast, dynamic playmakers for this offense to really click; components that SU didn't have at the time of the hire (and arguably, still doesn't). What they DID have was returning power back (now on an NFL roster) who had rushed for 1100 yds, and his sidekick who added another 800 yds & a bowl game MVP by exploding for 200+.
So to me, SS's 1st poor decision was moving to this all-shotgun, all-spread, pass-oriented attack when your personnel and strengths as a coach were better suited for a "multiple," more run-oriented style like Marrone/Hackett employed and like Harbaugh/Pep Hamilton ran at Stanford. Both of these balanced but run-oriented styles still incorporated enough passing to allow Andrew Luck to throw his way to the #1 pick and for Ryan Nassib to ascend to a 4th round pick. Why Shafer didn't choose to replicate the Marrone/Stanford approach is baffling to me, considering he was a part of both staffs and saw the successes first hand. Now we all suffer from the repercussions of that initial poor choice when we watch this mismatched, ineffective offensive system continually sputter & stumble every Saturday.
But as bad as choosing to fit the proverbial 'square peg in a round hole' with the GMac hire/N-Zone implementation, imho, demoting the man 18 games into his tenure as OC was an even worse decision. I mean, I know many fans wanted GM's head on a platter and were very pleased when they got it. But let's face it, folks: switching to Lester hasn't made a bit of damn difference on the scoreboard or in the W-L column. The offense sucked under McDonald and it still sucks under Lester. The differences are miniscule at best.
And the reason is pretty obvious: there is a dearth of big time, game changing talent @ the skill positions on this team. There's not one offensive player on this team that keeps opposing D-coordinators up at night. And while GMac may not have been the best play caller in the world, it really doesn't matter what you call when your QB is inaccurate, when your receivers regularly drop passes and your O-line is undisciplined, mistake-prone & often over-matched.
IMO, Shafer should have rode out the storm w/ McDonald and allowed him work through his struggles the same way Marrone allowed Hackett to work through his. And again, that's something Shafer was witness to but apparently didn't learn from it; not a good sign. McDonald is a bright guy and had he just been afforded the opportunity to grow into his new role the same way Hackett was, in the long run, the program would've been better off for it. While there was no guarantee GM would've "got it" the way NH did, I think Shafer would've been better served micro-managing GMac a little more, being more hands-on in the offensive game plan/play calling or maybe even bringing in a "consultant" to assist McDonald.
But by pulling the plug 18 games in and demoting GMac, Shafer has now virtually guaranteed his departure. And I believe that will ultimately prove to be something he (and we) will regret. While some folks try to diminish his accomplishments as a recruiter, I just have four words for you: Steve Ishmael, Miami Florida. Trying getting another player that damn talented out of Dade county to come to SU without GMac. And he was just getting started, imo. But by unwisely burning that bridge, which I believe Shafer has done, you still have a putrid offense but now you'll be without your ace recruiter who can bring in the kind of studs this team so desperately needs. And now you're kind of stuck w/ Lester as your OC for whatever that's worth (could be a good thing; could not) b/c I don't think Shafer will be able to attract a big time OC coming off of a (likely) losing season that will at the very minimum have his seat warm, if not flat out hot. To me, demoting GM was a reactionary panic move, not a well thought out, measured move; again, another bad sign, imo.
But whether you agree or disagree with the GMac demotion, I don't think it's unfair to say that Shafer's handling of the offensive side of the ball has been poor at best, bordering on incompetent, not unlike the Rex Ryans and GRobs of the world who continually change OCs and reshuffle the offensive deck only to end up in the same inept place.
Again, I really like Scott Shafer but I just don't see the sharpness, the certitude and clarity of vision that one often detects in a winning coach (in any sport). I think what we're seeing in Shaf is guy who's fiery & passionate, good at what he does (defense) but in over his head as a HC. Good Lieutenants don't always make good Generals and I'm afraid that's what we're seeing unfold w/ SS.
And we've all seen this movie before. It rarely ends well.
So back to my original question: Assuming Shafer doesn't run the table, does Gross (or the next AD if there is to be one) give SS a third year to try to right the ship? Or does he see another GRob situation developing and cut his losses now like he erroneously DIDN'T do with Robinson? Your thoughts.
