reedny
Flame Resistant
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,614
- Like
- 15,212
Both very close games. What do feel the staff did to lose those games?
The Coyle decision
- Thread starter kcsu
- Start date
djorange1989
Living Legend
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2013
- Messages
- 15,484
- Like
- 43,365
that is a MUST as far as I am concerned. I hope Frost doesn't want the job, because I am worried that he is number 1 on Coyle's list. not that I have seen the list or anything.
KaiserUEO
2022 and 2x ESPN Tourney Challenge Winner
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 18,917
- Like
- 22,956
show up.
Bayside44
Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 15,649
- Like
- 32,305
Mismanaged the clock in UVa. Didn't go for the kill shot when they had it in OT. Pitt had the ball for 10 minutes in the 4th, that cannot happen either.
he was 5th string because he had to make some mechanical changes
Crusty
Living Legend
- Joined
- May 21, 2012
- Messages
- 13,603
- Like
- 19,274
Shafer didn't go for two in UVA 2nd OT that would have ended game. Defense hadn't stopped them at all in second half. Also, bad time management decisions.
Pitt had a few bad judgment calls. Lousy defensive calls on Pitts last drive.
We blew leads in both games.
UVA game we had our D give up a tying FG that ate up the last 5 minutes of the game, a TD in 1OT, a TD in 2OT and then when we score a TD doesn't go for 2 pt conversion when we had little to no chance to stop UVA on offense.
Also, SS let the final 30 seconds run off before UVA attempted their game tying FG.
Pitt game I would put more on the D but not having the special teams in punt safe was on the Special teams coach.
SS has not had a good year on the sidelines.
orangenirvana
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 8,133
- Like
- 12,448
The better answer to the recruiting puzzle is to bring in a head coach with knowledge of and expertise in the Air Raid system.
Jake
Mod
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 9,801
- Like
- 72,996
Glad your not the AD, nor advisor to him. I'm not advocating to keep or fire him. I'm saying I'm confident whatever they do will be something they view as a long term plan. Much to your dismay, that might include keeping him a year, if it means getting a better fit for what they are looking for.phil77 said:
Honest question what does this mean? Getting a better fit? What are they looking for that they could get a year from now that they can't get now? I would only keep SS if I were Coyle if he thinks SS is the guy. Keeping him one more year if they are looking for a better fit is wrong to SS. I may not agree with Coyle but if he thinks SS is the guy then atleast he is taking a position and could be right while the people who want change are wrong.
However, waiting and getting a better fit and what you are looking for makes little sense to keep SS as HC if he isn't the long term guy.
Jake
Mod
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 9,801
- Like
- 72,996
Alsacs said:
Honest answer- could be a lot of things, here's just one:
Coaching candidate: "I'm interested in the job."
Coyle: "great, but next year your have no true home games because we're renovating the dome."
Coaching candidate: "click".
Thank you for the answer but I think that could resolved easily but giving the person you are interested an extra year on any contract. If standard contract length would be 5 years Coyle could give that coach a 6th year and since Syracuse is a private institution they never have to release contract length.
Coaches want security. Any new coach here would get atleast 1 honeymoon year. I honestly can't see any real coaches turning down this job because of 1 year having no home games if they are given the contractual support and those new facilities would help recruiting. I would rather my first year have zero home games and low expectations than my first year opening a refurbished Dome and having higher expectations.
Do you really think Shafer and staff didn't try and stop Pitt the last 10 minutes? I don't think their gameplan was to let them run the clock down, move the ball inside the 10 and miss the FG. If you want to argue he mismanaged timeout calls or something like that, ok. But to simply say, we shouldn't have let them keep the ball is not fair. We might as well say, we should have elected to score 10 more points at some point during the game. And if Shafer had gone for the kill at UVA by going for 2 and they didn't get it, we would be ripping him for that too. I don't know if he's the right guy for the job but some of these criticisms are getting a little crazy. Pretty soon we will be blaming him for bad weather.
orangenirvana
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 8,133
- Like
- 12,448
The smart choice against Pitt late in the game would be to let them score. Chances to win would have still been very slim but that was their only chance of ever seeing the ball again. But Shafer has too much meathead pride to do that.
elimunelson
Solvay Fanatic
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,327
- Like
- 12,825
I agree with this 100%. Coyle has to decide simply is Shafer the guy for the next 5 years or is there someone better for that period of time. A retreat and a "well i guess we'll stick w him one more year" is not a decision. It's capitulation.
If he makes his move i would think he already has his guy or guys ready to go.
This is a complete strawman argument. If SS goes for 2 and fails 99% of the fanbase supports and understands the decision. Our D was gassed and getting 2.5 yards for the win would have made sense. If we fail and lose atleast he gives the team a chance to win.
When SS coaches his best game against LSU with an I am going for it reckless abandon people loved it.
SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 34,012
- Like
- 65,639
The Coyle decision is an awfully tough one.
- We have a competitive team that just doesn't quite know how to win and is being held back by inexperience and questionable coaching decisions, (of the sort a lot of coaches make). We need the freshmen and sophomores to become juniors and seniors, (bigger, faster, more confident and with a better knowledge of how to play the game), and to be joined by two more good recruiting classes who will become the freshmen and sophomores who will have the opportunity to play behind them and move into the line-up when they are truly ready. A sudden coaching change could interrupt the flow of talent and isolate this good group of young players, putting us in a vicious cycle of never having enough talent and having to constantly rebuild, rather than reload. And with all the top jobs open this year, whoever he gets to replace Shafer is more likely to be the next Scott Shafer than the next Urban Meyer.
- But as a new AD, he may want his own man in, (since he can't do it in basketball). He really has three choices: fire Shafer and give another guy a new contract for several years so he can recruit. He can keep Shafer for the last year of his contract and see how it works out. But can a lame duck coach recruit? Or he can extend Shafer's contract so he can continue the good recruiting. But then he's stuck with Shafer, who might not be the guy and isn't his guy for several more years. Meanwhile the loses are piling up and the fan base is deserting the team, (not that they ever adequately supported them), and recruits have to be wondering if they want to come an play for a losing team, (maybe they do: they can get to play sooner). And who knows, maybe the next Urban Meyer is out there somewhere.
We all have our opinions. The only one that counts is Coyle's. The only opinion we all share is that we hope he makes the right one.
- We have a competitive team that just doesn't quite know how to win and is being held back by inexperience and questionable coaching decisions, (of the sort a lot of coaches make). We need the freshmen and sophomores to become juniors and seniors, (bigger, faster, more confident and with a better knowledge of how to play the game), and to be joined by two more good recruiting classes who will become the freshmen and sophomores who will have the opportunity to play behind them and move into the line-up when they are truly ready. A sudden coaching change could interrupt the flow of talent and isolate this good group of young players, putting us in a vicious cycle of never having enough talent and having to constantly rebuild, rather than reload. And with all the top jobs open this year, whoever he gets to replace Shafer is more likely to be the next Scott Shafer than the next Urban Meyer.
- But as a new AD, he may want his own man in, (since he can't do it in basketball). He really has three choices: fire Shafer and give another guy a new contract for several years so he can recruit. He can keep Shafer for the last year of his contract and see how it works out. But can a lame duck coach recruit? Or he can extend Shafer's contract so he can continue the good recruiting. But then he's stuck with Shafer, who might not be the guy and isn't his guy for several more years. Meanwhile the loses are piling up and the fan base is deserting the team, (not that they ever adequately supported them), and recruits have to be wondering if they want to come an play for a losing team, (maybe they do: they can get to play sooner). And who knows, maybe the next Urban Meyer is out there somewhere.
We all have our opinions. The only one that counts is Coyle's. The only opinion we all share is that we hope he makes the right one.
Bayside44
Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 15,649
- Like
- 32,305
If it were LSU / FSU / Clemson instead of UVa he goes for it and the glory (I think). That series was right in front of me, we had UVa on their heels.
I agree with one and three. He can't do this. Option two kills SU FB recruiting. Nobody will commit for 2017 and if we are only keeping the guy for 2016 he needs more years on his contract.
orangenirvana
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 8,133
- Like
- 12,448
Why would a coaching change "interrupt the flow of talent"?
And why do some think that there will be more top jobs opening up this year than next year or any other year?
Millhouse
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 29,728
- Like
- 35,602
shafer as ron rolston/ted nolan
sabres were never going to get bylsma to be on board for a tank job. rolston and nolan were in no position to be picky
are we sure they're not playing in the dome next year?
Yeah but their is no Connor McDavid or Jack Eichel prize at the end of the tank job.
If you told me keeping SS around year would net us a franchise QB for 2016 keep him around.
College sports revolve around recruiting. If we keep SS around as a lame duck our 2017 recruiting will be awful. Stupid short sided reason to keep SS around for 1 more year if its all about the Dome renovation. That would reflect horribly on the AD if it were main reason. Money/contract length would cure any coaching candidate nerves about the job.
Millhouse
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 29,728
- Like
- 35,602
that punt against clemson begs to differ
Millhouse
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 29,728
- Like
- 35,602
the better coach is the prize here. not a perfect analogy.
It isn't a good analogy because the coach could be had this year for only an extra year on their contract. If the new coach salary is around 2-2.5 million and SS makes 1.4 million we basically tanking a year to save 2.5 million and have an awful year in the process. That makes no sense.
If SS isn't the long term answer in the eyes of Coyle keeping him an extra year just to suffer a bad transition year and asking your consumers to pay money for that is bad business.
