The Coyle decision

[cliftonparksufan]

If the move is made, the confidence level in the guy has to be real high and has to be someone that Coyle wants and will own.

And yes I know any new hire whether it be this year or next will have some risk involved.

Hey Bees, I am curious if you think that if there is a new guy, that it has to be someone who has been successful as a head coach at some level. I have no problem with giving a successful coordinator an opportunity to be a head coach but it just doesn't seem that would fit the need right now. I like Shafer and if the school keeps him, then fine, but if a change is made, then find the money somewhere and make a splash. Find someone who has won as a head coach and pay him.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

I get your point, as you've posted this several times. And I respectfully disagree. You state, "... the current staff is not getting their job done...". But the staff doesn't play; players have to execute the scheme on the field. And our players, in terms of size and talent at the skill positions, are no where near the level of Clemson or Florida State. They're not competitive with LV either.

So of course, they're not going to beat these teams. The fact that we played FSU and Clemson tough isn't a testament to our players' talent level. It's a testament to the job the staff is doing with these young players.

If you criticize their recruiting .. I can accept that. But it's improving. And talent is the most important factor in on-field success.

I don't expect to beat FSU, LSU or Clemson but I would expect to have 5 wins right now with a shot at 6 or 7.

If we get a coach that can coach O, use the indoor venue for once, I will be happy. We should at least try that route once because I believe and agree with Townie we are in the Indiana mode at this point, hiring and firing hoping we get it right. We also need a coach that can do more with less because we play some real beasts every year.

 

[orangenirvana]

You and I agree on a lot.

But the single greatest barrier to recruiting is the all the Northeastern schools fishing in the same, shallow talent pool. When we were good, schools like UConn, and Rutgers and Temple didn't really exist as competitors. And schools like Alabama were far, far away. Today --- with 105 games on every Saturday, those schools have all the Northern exposure they could ask for. (Maryland's top recruiting target from the local area *Stefan Diggs brother) just decided on Alabama as his college choice)

For a couple of years now I have been trying to figure out just how good these SEC schools really were. After all, when I see them they are playing one another. But I now believe they are really, really good and that they have much better athletes. And that even the Southern ACC schools are better than the Northern ones. Speed, size, strength and relish for football seems to have slowly migrated South.

It all boils down to the basic "achievability" of us returning to what we were in the 1990's.

Our expectations ought to be at the top range of what is actually achievable.

Recruiting and landing more talent than other programs isn't quite the end-all be-all it once was considering what guys like Leach and Briles have done and are still doing.

A school can get past the talent problem if their AD is smart enough to target guys who know a scheme that will beat opponents.

 

[reedny]

Recruiting and landing more talent than other programs isn't quite the end-all be-all it once was considering what guys like Leach and Briles have done and are still doing.

A school can get past the talent problem if their AD is smart enough to target guys who know a scheme that will beat opponents.

Our record is poor, because our Defense completely turned over and we lost most of our experienced players. However, in the last few games as they've gotten their sea legs, I think we've been playing better -- even overachieving -- because of coaching. Playing #1 Clemson close, even keeping them out of the end zone for an entire half, is a result of good schemes and coaching. It's certainly didn't happen because of our talent. If that had been the metric, we would have lost 56-0. We were outmatched at every position (except punter).

 

[reedny]

I don't expect to beat FSU, LSU or Clemson but I would expect to have 5 wins right now with a shot at 6 or 7.

If we get a coach that can coach O, use the indoor venue for once, I will be happy. We should at least try that route once because I believe and agree with Townie we are in the Indiana mode at this point, hiring and firing hoping we get it right. We also need a coach that can do more with less because we play some real beasts every year.

I share your disappointment over the first half of the season. My wife will tell you, I was not a happy camper as I expected us to beat Virginia and play well enough to have a chance to win against USF, Pitt and LV. We were demolished in two of those games, and took Pitt to the wire. That was disappointing. The rest ... FSU, Clemson and LSU ... we're not there. Not even close.

The immediate cause of the LV and Virginia losses was our D. We scored 17 and 38 points against them ... easily enough to win if we had a quality Defense. Instead, we got gouged all over the field and gave up huge yardage.

When I broke those games down on replay, there were a few minor in-game coaching decisions that I could quibble with. But mostly, I saw execution failures on the field (inexperience) and a cavernous talent deficit. We didn't lose because of bad coaching. So if you make a change, the coaching may get worse, not better. And we'd be in the same boat with recruiting .. trying to punch up 2-3 levels in weight class. I'd rather stick with the staff, continue the progress we've made in recruiting and pray like hell that the Chancellor announces a Dome renovation plan soon.

 

[JoeSU]

Can you sustain success is the question? teams put together 1 good year quite often.

That would be my question with programs like Temple and USF are you building or just catching lightning in a bottle with a good group of seniors etc?

This is exactly my view. Guys like Turner Gill (Buffalo), Skip Holtz (ECU), and Randy Edsall (UConn) cashed-in on their limited success coaching-up teams playing in weak conferences, but were unable to repeat their success on a bigger stage. I'm not sold on guys like Rhule for this reason.

 

[orangenirvana]

Our record is poor, because our Defense completely turned over and we lost most of our experienced players. However, in the last few games as they've gotten their sea legs, I think we've been playing better -- even overachieving -- because of coaching. Playing #1 Clemson close, even keeping them out of the end zone for an entire half, is a result of good schemes and coaching. It's certainly didn't happen because of our talent. If that had been the metric, we would have lost 56-0. We were outmatched at every position (except punter).

A lot of teams lose most of their starters. That shouldn't mean they go in the tank like this team did.

You think the defense overachieved giving up 45 points to Florida State and 41 points to Louisville? My goodness.

I'm sorry but I think you're either delusional or your expectations are sadly low.

 

[reedny]

A lot of teams lose most of their starters. That shouldn't mean they go in the tank like this team did.

You think the defense overachieved giving up 45 points to Florida State and 41 points to Louisville? My goodness.

I'm sorry but I think you're either delusional or your expectations are sadly low.

You're agreeing with me ... because my point is that our talent level is not anywhere near FSU or Clemson. These are top 20 perennial FB powers, with solid recruiting bases. They reload, and their younger players are ready to contribute. Ours are smaller, slower and NOT ready to contribute (with some exceptions). We rely on player development -- since the kids that are talented and ready coming out of HS are 4/5 stars. The issue isn't our record .. it's whether talent or coaching is the root of the problem. I think it's talent.

As to the second part of your post, I think we gave up a lot of points against FSU but we also scored 3 TD's against them. The 45 points resulted from a slower, smaller, less experienced D-secondary and a very thin D line. Coaches can't run onto the field and cover FSU's or Clemson's speedy, 6'4 receivers, or stop the pass rush so we can throw, or open holes for runners. They can't give our WR's and TE's separation, and they can't give us a RB with breakaway speed. Our runners get stopped, and even on the rare occasions when they break away, they get caught. It's talent.

The "overachieving" was against Clemson. Talent-wise, we lose 56-0. Playing them close was coaching, pure and simple.

 

[Alsacs]

Our record is poor, because our Defense completely turned over and we lost most of our experienced players. However, in the last few games as they've gotten their sea legs, I think we've been playing better -- even overachieving -- because of coaching. Playing #1 Clemson close, even keeping them out of the end zone for an entire half, is a result of good schemes and coaching. It's certainly didn't happen because of our talent. If that had been the metric, we would have lost 56-0. We were outmatched at every position (except punter).

Please explain how we are 2-15 in our last 17 games against P5 competition and the only 2 wins are against Wake Forest.

Playing Clemson close would be okay if this were year 1 of the SS era. This is year 3 we should be going upward not being stagnant after being awful last year. Our offense is ranked 13th in the ACC and the defense is 14th in the ACC. We are a doormat. It is not going to get better. We are 13-22 under SS. He is not the answer.

 

[Full_Rebar]

To me, the question to ask is "Can this staff develop the talent to move up higher than the recruiting rankings?" National numbers are better, but we are still in the bottom half of the conference, so what's going to be the difference maker moving forward.

I think you can point to the defense and say patience, but I'm curious as to what people see on offense that gives them faith?

 

[reedny]

Please explain how we are 2-15 in our last 17 games against P5 competition and the only 2 wins are against Wake Forest.

Playing Clemson close would be okay if this were year 1 of the SS era. This is year 3 we should be going upward not being stagnant after being awful last year. Our offense is ranked 13th in the ACC and the defense is 14th in the ACC. We are a doormat. It is not going to get better. We are 13-22 under SS. He is not the answer.

No doubt our record sucks. This is not debatable. What's debatable is whether our record is a function of poor coaching, or a collosal talent deficit. I think it's the latter.

I'm old enough to remember the days after the Dome was built. We brought in talent, and we won. These days, we're well behind our ACC peers in facilities. The IPF is nice, but the Dome needs lots of work. When that happens, I think the talent will get better, as we've seen in the past.

I don't think this is coaching. I think Furnette and Gallman and all the big speedy receivers we're trying to cover are better players. I'm as frustrated as you with the record.

 

[reedny]

To me, the question to ask is "Can this staff develop the talent to move up higher than the recruiting rankings?" National numbers are better, but we are still in the bottom half of the conference, so what's going to be the difference maker moving forward.

I think you can point to the defense and say patience, but I'm curious as to what people see on offense that gives them faith?

What gives me faith is that we rushed for 242 yards, and scored 27 points against the #3 defense in the country with a 5th string QB and a backup RB.

 

[Alsacs]

No doubt our record sucks. This is not debatable. What's debatable is whether our record is a function of poor coaching, or a collosal talent deficit. I think it's the latter.

I'm old enough to remember the days after the Dome was built. We brought in talent, and we won. These days, we're well behind our ACC peers in facilities. The IPF is nice, but the Dome needs lots of work. When that happens, I think the talent will get better, as we've seen in the past.

I don't think this is coaching. I think Furnette and Gallman and all the big speedy receivers we're trying to cover are better players. I'm as frustrated as you with the record.

Our recruiting is not great. However, it doesn't mean the coaching has to stink. Doug Marrone was a better game planner. SS is not as good at game planning. I don't think our younger players are getting that much better that is player developing and that falls on coaching.

We can do better at coaching. Nobody expect elite coaching we expect better.

 

[Jake]

If keeping Shafer another year was a mistake, it cost us 1 year.

If the next guy is a mistake, it costs us 3 years or more.

If the move is made, the confidence level in the guy has to be real high and has to be someone that Coyle wants and will own.

And yes I know any new hire whether it be this year or next will have some risk involved.

And no I'm not advocating Shafer has to be retained. I'm advocating that whatever the decision is, I have faith in SU and Coyle.

This is pretty much where I am. I don't think Coyle or Syverud will make rash decisions. Both seem to have long term visions.

 

[KaiserUEO]

What gives me faith is that we rushed for 242 yards, and scored 27 points against the #3 defense in the country with a 5th string QB and a backup RB.

what gives me no faith is that, that QB walked in here with all that talent and this staff said...5th string.

 

[CusefanATL]

what gives me no faith is that, that QB walked in here with all that talent and this staff said...5th string.

Not exactly how that happened.

 

[reedny]

Our recruiting is not great. However, it doesn't mean the coaching has to stink. Doug Marrone was a better game planner. SS is not as good at game planning. I don't think our younger players are getting that much better that is player developing and that falls on coaching.

We can do better at coaching. Nobody expect elite coaching we expect better.

I saw a huge improvement on D against Clemson. We came out a little shell-shocked. But once the D got settled, they played very well against the nation's best FB team. That wasn't an accident .. the staff has been working with these players. They've also made some personnel adjustments (working with what we have) that have closed some gaps.

So you and I are seeing different things on the field. I see progress on both sides of the ball. But mostly, I see a talent base that needs serious improvement. The staff is partly responsible for this. Another part of it is the facilities. Stay tuned on that.

 

[Alsacs]

This is pretty much where I am. I don't think Coyle or Syverud will make rash decisions. Both seem to have long term visions.

So when fans are told wait one more year and people don't want to waste 1 year's worth of money they should be told peace?
If people don't agree they should just give their money because they are fans and not be able voice displeasure?

 

[OrangeXtreme]

what gives me no faith is that, that QB walked in here with all that talent and this staff said...5th string.

And yet he saw the field before Wilson...

wouldn't that make him 3rd string (behind Hunt and Dungey).

After all, even Eli was listed as 2nd string behind the grocery bagger at one point.

 

[reedny]

what gives me no faith is that, that QB walked in here with all that talent and this staff said...5th string.

Well, Kaiser, was Zac better than Hunt of Dungey? No. Was he better than Long or Wilson? Maybe, but they had more experience so it took time for Zack to show what he had. And Long was disqualified medically. So [by edit] he turned out to be 3d string, after a fashion.

 

[Alsacs]

I saw a huge improvement on D against Clemson. We came out a little shell-shocked. But once the D got settled, they played very well against the nation's best FB team. That wasn't an accident .. the staff has been working with these players. They've made some personnel adjustments (working with what we have) that have worked out.

So you and I are seeing different things on the field. I see progress on both sides of the ball. But mostly, I see a talent base that needs serious improvement. The staff is partly responsible for this. Another part of it is the facilities. Stay tuned on that.

Huge Improvement = 570 yards of offense for Clemson? I was damn proud of the effort but we were not good defensively. They shredded us we just did enough to be damn proud of the effort. We are celebrating the fact it wasn't an embarrassment when we shouldn't be embarrassed when we are at home.

The game on Saturday was just like the LSU game. We played well and the team deserves credit but look at the season. Our D scheme gives those easy passes and deep cushions every game. We have one of the worst 3rd and long Ds in the nation.

Staying the course would be a bad option. We need hope and change not more of the same.

 

[Crusty]

For any SU disadvantage anyone can state, there are many examples that dispute their importance. Besides, the facilities argument is about to turn into a net plus.

We have enough talent,to be a bowl team every year. Outside of the elite teams, everybody has more 3 stars than 4 or 5 stars. TCU, K State etc all built programs on 3 stars and JUCO's. Newcomers, like Bowling Green, Temple etc have even fewer advantages than we have as well as lesser talent. There is no reason we cannot play an exciting winning brand of football. We may not be an elite program, but we can threaten every now and then and, just like Georgia Tech, win a conference championship occasionally.

How coaches develop their players and the schemes they use are the most important elements to a successful program. Just compare the backgrounds of our staff with our conference peers and I think you will have your answer.

All employees need to be put in positions where they have a chance to succeed. If the BOT doesn't provide a $6 million budget for a new staff then perhaps they should keep Shafer and give him another $1 million or so to improve his staff. Don't keep him with the same budget or we will get similar results. He is smart enough to learn better game management skills, especially if surrounded by better staff.

Shafer has many admirable attributes. He is of high character, he gets his kids to play hard for him, he is a very good defensive mind, he is well liked, his kids behave (as much as 18-19 years can be expected to) and they get good grades. He needs a D1 experienced offensive coordinator and better assistants. Shafer can win here with the right tools, but it will take him another several years.

My preference is to pay up and get a new staff, but is we aree not going to pay up, then I am for keeping Shafer with additional budget.

 

[KaiserUEO]

Well, Kaiser, was Zac better than Hunt of Dungey? No. Was he better than Long or Wilson? Maybe, but they had more experience so it took time for Zack to show what he had. And Long was disqualified medically. So ... I don't agree with some of your assumptions.

fine. then lets stop calling him a 5th stringer.

dungey > hunt but they gave the 5th year captain his job back...whatever, happens. bad call, but i get it.

i think wilson did come in before mahoney, but they quickly realized they needed a change.

 

[reedny]

Huge Improvement = 570 yards of offense for Clemson? I was damn proud of the effort but we were not good defensively. They shredded us we just did enough to be damn proud of the effort. We are celebrating the fact it wasn't an embarrassment when we shouldn't be embarrassed when we are at home.

The game on Saturday was just like the LSU game. We played well and the team deserves credit but look at the season. Our D scheme gives those easy passes and deep cushions every game. We have one of the worst 3rd and long Ds in the nation.

Staying the course would be a bad option. We need hope and change not more of the same.

Well I do like the phrase "hope and change", I admit. And I agree with your assessment of our performance ... I just don't think it's coaching. I think it's talent.

 

[Crusty]

I saw a huge improvement on D against Clemson. We came out a little shell-shocked. But once the D got settled, they played very well against the nation's best FB team. That wasn't an accident .. the staff has been working with these players. They've also made some personnel adjustments (working with what we have) that have closed some gaps.

So you and I are seeing different things on the field. I see progress on both sides of the ball. But mostly, I see a talent base that needs serious improvement. The staff is partly responsible for this. Another part of it is the facilities. Stay tuned on that.

Why did it take so long to make personnel adjustments? That is on the staff is it not?