The Coyle decision

[donniesyracuse]

I think it's talent.

which is also an important part of "coaching."

 

[phil77]

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.

How can any long term vision include Shafer? We are clearly trending in the wrong direction one of the worst P5 football schools in the nation. Long term vision?? Seems the only reason to keep him is using short term vision because they don't want a new coach for 12 road games. That is completely opposite of long term vision.

 

[orangenirvana]

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. 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 stop the pass rush or open holes for runners. They can't give our WR's and TE's separation, they can't give us a RB with breakaway speed. Our runners get stopped, and even 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.

"Talent! Talent! Talent!" You're stuck in the stone age, sir.

How many Top 10 recruiting classes has Baylor had under Art Briles? None. In fact, Baylor and Syracuse were basically looking in a mirror in recruiting leading up to Baylor's 10 win season in 2011.

Since then Baylor's average recruiting rank is a humble #35, yet have won 10 games in three of the last four seasons, finished #7 last year and is currently in the Top 10 this year.

During that same span of time Syracuse's average recruiting rank is #56. Aside from 2012 I don't think we've come close to that on the field. And this season we're setting records for incompetence.

Yet we should be placing all of the blame on the players? Recruiting will turn at any moment now? Open your eyes!

 

[reedny]

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

Because we don't have that many ready options. I think they're trying to bring kids up to speed week to week, mostly using freshmen (at least on D).

 

[reedny]

"Talent! Talent! Talent!" You're stuck in the stone age, sir.

How many Top 10 recruiting classes has Baylor had under Art Briles? None. In fact, Baylor and Syracuse were basically looking in a mirror in recruiting leading up to Baylor's 10 win season in 2011.

Since then Baylor's average recruiting rank is a humble #35, yet have won 10 games in three of the last four seasons, finished #7 last year and is currently in the Top 10 this year.

During that same span of time Syracuse's average recruiting rank is #56. Aside from 2012 I don't think we've come close to that on the field. And this season we're setting records for incompetence.

Yet we should be placing all of the blame on the players? Recruiting will turn at any moment now? Open your eyes!

I think if you check the last 3, 4 or 5 national champions, you will see that each one had a top recruiting class. Also, it's a proven fact that stars (at the team, not individual, level) correlate with success on the field. Yes there are a few counterexamples - Baylor is a good one. But in the vast majority of cases, talent wins with decent coaching. I think we have decent coaches. I don't think our talent is competitive in the ACC -- and I think that's obvious.

 

[Full_Rebar]

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.

Fair enough. For me, I look at the 3 previous games where the offense failed to score a 2nd half TD and I don't have a lot of faith.

 

[reedny]

which is also an important part of "coaching."

Sort of. Coaches can certainly bring out the talent that's there, but they also can't coach size and speed. I'm as disappointed in our record as anyone. I just don't think the coaches should bear the lion's share of the blame.

 

[phil77]

I think if you check the last 3, 4 or 5 national champions, you will see that each one had a top recruiting class. Also, it's a proven fact that stars (at the team, not individual, level) correlate with success on the field. Yes there are a few counterexamples - Baylor is a good one. But in the vast majority of cases, talent wins with decent coaching. I think we have decent coaches. I don't think our talent is competitive in the ACC -- and I think that's obvious.

Can we get to a bowl game on a regular basis before we start thinking about national championships and how our talent stacks up.

 

[Alsacs]

SS has a contract to be SU FB HC thru the 2016 season. Unless Coyle believes SS is the long term HC like the next 5 years then he should have two options either fire him at the end of this season or extend his contract.

If Coyle thinks SS is the guy he owns the results 100% but he shouldn't keep this HC because next year 12 road games that is just wrong to this HC and staff. Either give the guy a long term contract and own the future or move on now.

We shouldn't keep SS for 1 more year that would make no sense. Who is going to be available 1 year from now that isn't available now? Either give SS multiple years or cut bait now. He only has 1 year let on his contract same as Gerg when he was fired.

 

[Crusty]

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. 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 stop the pass rush or open holes for runners. They can't give our WR's and TE's separation, they can't give us a RB with breakaway speed. Our runners get stopped, and even 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.

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

Hardly. Matchups matter in all sports. We ran the option at both LSU and Clemson, which worked against their aggressive style defenses. (Doesn't work as well with read and react defenses, which are more prevalent.)

Mahoney is great at running the option, he even fooled the cameramen. That isn't coaching, it is Mahoney's skill at ball handling.

 

[reedny]

Can we get to a bowl game on a regular basis before we start thinking about national championships and how our talent stacks up.

The point was about talent equating with success. No one's pretending we're shooting for a NC. We just need better players.

 

[Crusty]

Because we don't have that many ready options. I think they're trying to bring kids up to speed week to week, mostly using freshmen (at least on D).

Maybe and maybe not. There is another answer that is not so flattering.

 

[orangenirvana]

I think if you check the last 3, 4 or 5 national champions, you will see that each one had a top recruiting class. Also, it's a proven fact that stars (at the team, not individual, level) correlate with success on the field. Yes there are a few counterexamples - Baylor is a good one. But in the vast majority of cases, talent wins with decent coaching. I think we have decent coaches. I don't think our talent is competitive in the ACC -- and I think that's obvious.

So you think each of SU's recruiting classes over the last five years have been significantly overrated? That they belong in the 100's rather than 50's?

Recruiting has been solid the last few years and we have able players. You're dreaming if you think Syracuse is going to suddenly start churning in Top 25 classes after decades of being between 50 and 70.

That's what we are - and that's okay.

We have to find a way to win 6-8 games annually with those type of classes. And that's not going to happen with defensive-minded head coach who doesn't understand probability, thinks stats is for losers and hires his buddies from division 3 schools to run the offense.

 

[TheCusian]

"Talent! Talent! Talent!" You're stuck in the stone age, sir. How many Top 10 recruiting classes has Baylor had under Art Briles? None. In fact, Baylor and Syracuse were basically looking in a mirror in recruiting leading up to Baylor's 10 win season in 2011. Since then Baylor's average recruiting rank is a humble #35, yet have won 10 games in three of the last four seasons, finished #7 last year and is currently in the Top 10 this year. During that same span of time Syracuse's average recruiting rank is #56. Aside from 2012 I don't think we've come close to that on the field. And this season we're setting records for incompetence. Yet we should be placing all of the blame on the players? Recruiting will turn at any moment now? Open your eyes!

I get so tired of these arguments. The best teams have the right combination of facilities, coaching, and talent. Just like winning national championships involves good defense and good offense.

Baylor is a fine example of doing more with slightly less (and why many here are big fans of Dino Babers), but they are the exception to the rule. They have new facilities and great coaching - but haven't been able to get over the hump yet. Probably need top ten recruiting classes to win it all.

We're getting better facilities wise. IPF is huge, as well as some of the other improvements to the football wing, etc. Dome reno could be huge.

We're better at recruiting looking only at us over the past bunch of years, but Marrone's recruiting was hampered by himself, no IPF, Big East affiliation, etc. I think Shafer and company could be very good recruiters if they could just win more. Show more improvement. But they are running out of time.

As for coaching - we've underperformed this year. We're young but really needed USF, UVa, and Pitt. Last year was Mcit/Injuries.

I think we need a fresh start with a staff who can get more with less on offense. Build towards better recruiting.

 

[phil77]

The point was about talent equating with success. No one's pretending we're shooting for a NC. We just need better players.

We have good enough players to produce 6-8 wins a year. Right now we are one of the bottom P5 schools in the nation. Our recruiting isn't that bad. That is our coaching letting the players down. There is no reason with the way we recruit we shouldn't be getting 6 wins a year. That is what the talent we recruit dictates. Right now we have one of the worst offenses in the nation and one of the worst defenses in the nation. We recruited better talent than that. So it is the coaching.

 

[donniesyracuse]

Sort of. Coaches can certainly bring out the talent that's there, but they also can't coach size and speed. I'm as disappointed in our record as anyone. I just don't think the coaches should bear the lion's share of the blame.

Recruiting is part of the coach's job!

 

[rrlbees]

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.

We've gone the coordinator route forever. Personally if we make a change I'd like to see someone with HC experience.

 

[reedny]

So you think each of SU's recruiting classes over the last five years have been significantly overrated? That they belong in the 100's rather than 50's?

Recruiting has been solid the last few years and we have able players. You're dreaming if you think Syracuse is going to suddenly start churning in Top 25 classes after decades of being between 50 and 70.

That's what we are - and that's okay.

We have to find a way to win 6-8 games annually with those type of classes. And that's not going to happen with defensive-minded head coach who doesn't understand probability, thinks stats is for losers and hires his buddies from division 3 schools to run the offense.

I don't want to make excuses, since I agree with you that we're losing. Our record is poor. One reason why we're performing below our recruiting (which is, itself, not great) is injuries. We were shredded last year. Then this year, we lost our starting QB. Our defense is very very young and inexperienced. That's the biggest factor in our losses, at least IMO. Unfortunately, the D's coming around too little too late. I'll be interested to see how we play against NCSt and BC. If those games are abysmal, then it's possible that Clemson was an aberration. We'll have to see.

I still think that this comes down to perception. When I watch the games, the biggest factor I notice is that our players don't match up with the opposition talent-wise.

All you guys make good points about our record. But I don't see anyone pointing to huge coaching deficiencies or colossal in-game decisions. There are a few issues with time management, punt versus go for it type plays. But the raw truth is that we're losing to teams with better players.

 

[orangenirvana]

Baylor is a fine example of doing more with slightly less (and why many here are big fans of Dino Babers), but they are the exception to the rule. They have new facilities and great coaching - but haven't been able to get over the hump yet. Probably need top ten recruiting classes to win it all.

Of course Baylor is the exception to the rule. That's how they win. I want Syracuse to be the exception to the rule, too!

And if you consider Baylor's production under Briles to be "haven't been able to get over the hump" then your hump may be too big.

 

[reedny]

Recruiting is part of the coach's job!

True. And we've made only incremental progress. I like some of our young guys ... many of whom have been learning on the job. But we still don't have a RB with enough size/speed to break away (our guys get caught). And our WR's and TE's either can't get separation or can't catch, with the exception of ISH (who's a good player).

So what's the answer to the recruiting puzzle? You sell the academics, a program on the rise, team character/spirit and facilities (which is a WIP). The IPF is a start. IMO we need the Dome to be brought up to state of the art. That's the easiest way to sell recruits.

 

[TheCusian]

Of course Baylor is the exception to the rule. That's how they win. I want Syracuse to be the exception to the rule, too! And if you consider Baylor's production under Briles to be "haven't been able to get over the hump" then your hump may be too big.

The hump being playing in a playoff game with a chance to win it all. If I were a Baylor fan that would be my hope/expectation. They pissed that away last Saturday.

I'm not, so my hope is that we win out this year. My expectation being a split. And yeah, I'd love to snag Babers and be Baylor north.

 

[Crusty]

I don't want to make excuses, since I agree with you that we're losing. Our record is poor. One reason why we're performing below our recruiting (which is, itself, not great) is injuries. We were shredded last year. Then this year, we lost our starting QB. Our defense is very very young and inexperienced. That's the biggest factor in our losses, at least IMO. Unfortunately, the D's coming around too little too late. I'll be interested to see how we play against NCSt and BC. If those games are abysmal, then it's possible that Clemson was an aberration. We'll have to see.

I still think that this comes down to perception. When I watch the games, the biggest factor I notice is that our players don't match up with the opposition talent-wise.

All you guys make good points about our record. But I don't see anyone pointing to huge coaching deficiencies or colossal in-game decisions. There are a few issues with time management, punt versus go for it type plays. But the raw truth is that we're losing to teams with better players.

You said it yourself "Our defense is very very young and inexperienced. That's the biggest factor in our losses...". Shafer knows this as well, but made game decisions that lost us two games because he is a defensive coach who "had confidence our defense could stop them." An offensive minded coach would have the opposite mindset of our offense can score, or make the first down or make the 2 point conversion.

We had enough talent on this team to be 5-5 at this point with a great shot at a bowl or even 7-5. Coaching, not talent is the reason for a non-bowl season, which is all everyone is asking at this point of development.

 

[reedny]

You said it yourself "Our defense is very very young and inexperienced. That's the biggest factor in our losses...". Shafer knows this as well, but made game decisions that lost us two games because he is a defensive coach who "had confidence our defense could stop them." An offensive minded coach would have the opposite mindset of our offense can score, or make the first down or make the 2 point conversion.

We had enough talent on this team to be 5-5 at this point with a great shot at a bowl or even 7-5. Coaching, not talent is the reason for a non-bowl season, which is all everyone is asking at this point of development.

To be 5-5, we weren't going to beat LSU, FSU or Clemson. That leaves two of the remaining losses: Virginia, LV and USF. Virginia was obviously very close - do you pin that loss on the staff?

And as to LV and USF, we had nowhere near the talent to hang with either team. We couldn't cover their receivers or stop their running backs. Was that coaching?

 

[Crusty]

To be 5-5, we would have to have beaten two of: Virginia, LV and USF. Virginia was obviously very close - do you pin that loss on the staff?

And as to LV and USF, we had nowhere near the talent to hang with either team. We couldn't cover their receivers or stop their running backs. Was that coaching?

I pin Pitt and UVA on the staff.

 

[phil77]

To be 5-5, we weren't going to beat LSU, FSU or Clemson. That leaves two of the remaining losses: Virginia, LV and USF. Virginia was obviously very close - do you pin that loss on the staff?

And as to LV and USF, we had nowhere near the talent to hang with either team. We couldn't cover their receivers or stop their running backs. Was that coaching?

We should have beaten UVA and PITT to be 5-5.