Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Points

    52 [ Donate ]

About Buller64

  • Birthday 06/26/1964

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    drifting aimlessly in cyberspace

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Buller64's Achievements


Veteran (13/14)

  • Very Popular Rare
  • Great Content Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine

Recent Badges



  1. I'll stick with the prediction that I made when realignment started all those many years ago. There will be four mega conferences with 16 teams each and USF will not be in any of them (neither will UCF). With the ACC at 15, SEC at 16, B1G at 14, and PAC at 12 there are only 3 spots open because the PAC will not come over the Mississippi. Most likely WV to ACC, Kansas and one Texas school (most likely Texas Tech, Iowa would not want Ia St.) to B1G, and 4 to PAC.
  2. USF had a number of problems last year that I don't think will be repeated this year. First, I think we will settle in on a quarterbac, probably Fortin (although he does seem injury prone). Williams (the most likely backup) did well with Miami until he got happy feet late in the season, so I'm hoping a couple more years of maturity eases that. Marsh wasn't ready but did show some talent. McClain is new so I don't expect him to contribute on the field this year. Running back was pretty good especially Battie who averaged over 7 yards per carry but like Fortin he seems injury prone. Once the WR position was changed later in the season (the original starters seemed like they were going through the motions for a while) the passing game greatly improved. OL was a mess at the beginning of the season due to COVID and injuries but it settled down later in the season. While the offense was up and down like a yoyo it did get better as the season wore on. Defense is a different story. The DL was just not good enough last year. It rarely got pressure on QBs and just couldn't seem to stop the running game. The DL play was poor enough it made the rest of the defense look bad as well. I don't know how well the LBs can play since they were constantly having to deal with blockers that blew past the DL. The secondary was also poor but with no pressure on the QB the other teams offenses had a lot of time to pick and choose receivers. On the good side of the equation USF had players that choose not to play last year on defense (due to COVID, which included 2 starters from 2019). Add in the injuries and other COVID issues and USF was playing with a pieced together defense by the end of the season. Remember COVID had such an effect on the defense that we had to cancel the Navy game because we didn't have enough players to field a defense. Add in that USF played very well against Memphis, Temple, UCF, and Cincinnati. The Memphis and Temple games were very winnable while turnovers were the story for UCF (two fumbles that led to 2 UCF TDs) and Cincinnati (three interceptions, 2 inside our 30). This indicates to me that USF has a better team than most are thinking. Is it enough to challenge for the east? No, but I think the team will not be at the bottom of the league and will probably win 4 - 6 games.
  3. I think the key to the 2021 season is defense. Last year in 9 games we only kept 2 teams below 30 and only 4 teams below 40. We gave up 50 or more in 3 games. In conference play USF averaged almost 26 points per game and despite being shut out by ND over 23 points a game over the course of the season. Offense doesn't need all that much improvement to be competitive in the American but the defense needs a major overhaul.
  4. I would not put too much on this, its only 4 practices and, with the exception of Marsh, the other guys competing for the spot probably don't know the playbook or philosophy of the offense yet. Lets see where it's at after spring practices are completed.
  5. USF finished in 4th for the first round 10 strokes back. Considering that the weather conditions got worse as the day went on (wind increased) and USF was the last team to start the round, I think they did pretty well today.
  6. CJS had a tough year last year but looking at key metrics I was surprised to see where the issues were. I (like a lot of people) thought that the offense had fallen off from 2019. It turns out that in 2020 the offense did play marginally better in most key metrics. There was some offensive improvement but it was small (+3 points per game, +23 yards per game, +2 first downs per game). The real disaster was on the defensive side of the team. There was a very sharp drop off there (+13 points per game, +115 yards per game, declines in sacks and pressures). I think we suffered through the loss of key players due to Covid-19. I remember 1 game where we only had 17 defensive players who could dress for the game. Hopefully, that issue will be improved this year. I also hope that 2020 is the last season where the CCS philosophy of smaller but faster finally works its way out of the system.
  7. I've noticed this over the last few games. I know we play a 3-3-5 defense but why do we only rush 3 on third and long?
  8. Not yet, we still need to fumble the ball away and throw and interception.
  9. Obvious that the way to attack the defense is go to the edges. USF has nothing out there.
  10. Talk about different perspectives. Lets win this. The other don't suck.
  11. It was legit under the rules, but it really wasn't targeting, he began the tackling motion before the slide.
  12. There are always examples of quick turnarounds. USF could quickly turnaround if the coaching staff went out a recruited a lot of JUCO players, they have good talent to start with, and the players buy into the system immediately. Under that way your will have quick success for three years (long enough for the coach to get a contract with a high- paying school). The coach that follows up has nothing to build on so the program sinks back into mediocrity (at best). If you don't have those three items it takes more time. The rebuild path listed is not built out of some fantasy. This is how programs at Oklahoma State (under Gundy), Minnesota (under Fleck), Virginia Tech (under Beamer), Florida State (under Bowden), Florida (under Hall), Miami and Louisville (under Schnellenberger, sp.?) were built. Indeed, USF under Taggart was rebuilt this way. Taggart's first year the team sucked. The second year it was improved but there was still a lot of losses. Third year began rough but showed results. It wasn't until the fourth year that USF was a conference title contender. So no, process is not a fairy tale. It is a series of objectives that has been proven to work. Why do you think that everyone says to wait until the third year? The third year is the one that tells you if you are on the right track.
  13. Now that the board has had a chance to do its meltdown and appropriate exaggerations and overreactions, let us take a more serious look at how the rebuild is going. Remember that a rebuild follows specific patterns First year: There are lots of losses and many of them are ugly, the key is improvement over the course of the year. There are steps forward and backward during the first year. The performance in one game is no indication of performance in the next game. One or more parts of the team will play poorly in most games. Second Year: There are still many losses but there should also be more wins, losses should be closer than in the previous year. This means you still lose more than you win but you begin to lose close. Younger players should be seeing much more playing time. Third year: If the team is having a successful rebuild you now should win at least as much as you lose and games should be close across the board with one or two exceptions (talent differentials here). About half the games should fall into either the "we got lucky" or "dang we were so close" categories. Hopefully more of the former than the latter. Team begins to mature and play should begin to stabilize. The team should be viewed as having a chance to win going into most games with one or two mismatches (either way). Fourth Year: Rebuild should be complete The nature of the team should be established and the team should be reasonably competitive for a conference or division title. With this in mind as the framework for a rebuild let us look at the first third of the season. Special Teams: Placekicking and field goals haven't had many opportunities to show what they got. What they have shown is adequate but not great. Punts have been reasonably good, snapper issues have plagued the team but coverage has been good. Kickoffs are a work in progress, CJS believes in deep KOs limiting the chances of returns while CCS believed in coverage, limiting return yardage (which he didn't do too well at). These strategies require different types of kickers and will probably not be resolved this year. Defense: A mixed bag to this point. The defensive line and linebackers in the 3-3-5 that USF has used extensively have had considerable issues. The D-line is small and doesn't get too much pressure on the opposing QB (he usually has enough time to eat lunch) leaving the secondary vulnerable and exposed. The linebackers have been inconsistent this year. There have been some outstanding play and some that leave you scratching your head. The most positive thing out of the defense is that young players (true and redshirt freshmen) are seeing significant playing time which should advance their development. Offense: The offense has also been a mixed bag. The receivers have shown improvement over the course of the year (Williams, Brinkman, and Dukes) when they have been targeted. USF lacks large running backs to use in the running game. While Ford and Joiner have shown flashes they are too small to rely on for consistency in the running game and pass protection which is needed. Scat backs can break exciting runs but they are more change of pace runners than every down type runners. The O-line has been different in every game this year. This does not help in blocking and understanding what needs to be done. It also makes it difficult to see if any development is occurring. This is the same problem USF had last year. Inconsistency in the O-line limits the play calls and potential of the offense. The QB position has been discussed a lot. Accept that we do not have a QF, BJD, or MG. Those were QBs that could make plays. What USF has are game managers. If you have a strong running game this would work out ok but USF does not have a strong running game. It should be noted that the offense has improved in terms of yardage and time of possession. This hasn't translated to points mostly because USF has had long fields but it does indicate that there has been some improvement in the offense. Assessment: USF has some talent but the talent that is there is limited and lacks depth. The team is improving slowly (much slower than we as fans would like) with more disciplined play (in terms of assignments) but is not yet fully coordinated. If you look at the tapes you will see that on any given play there is usually one player who is out of position or does not know what to do. Against ND and Cinci there were time where multiple players looked out of place or uncertain. This is not at all uncommon in a rebuilding program where players are still learning their assignments and positions. It is encouraging that the one player is different each time which means that the coaching staff is getting through to the players and making corrections. Hopefully, as the season goes on the number of plays where a player does not know what to do will decrease. This is what we should be looking for in the middle third of the season. If the number of players out of position or lost on the field is getting smaller then improvement is occurring. Does this mean more wins? Not necessarily, talent and size issues will not be resolved this year. In the past three games there were many plays where the defense was in position to make the play but did not because the player wasn't either big enough or strong enough to complete the play. What we should look for is improved play from the team. It should be noted that the coaching staff is using young players. This indicates that the coaches do not have a lot of confidence in the more experienced players (or they lack talent) and are taking a development approach to the season. This would be indicated by a small shifting of the starting assignments to younger players over the course of the season.
  14. I doubt that CJS loses anywhere near $250,000. Once again pay attention to what is said. First, its a reduction in salary. If CJS has a standard head coach contract he has a base salary and guaranteed endorsement money. The endorsement money is probably not subject to the reduction. I suspect that only the guaranteed amount would be subject to the reduction and if USF has the endorsement money to cover the guarantee there will be no reduction in this portion at all since that is not salary. The second part is that the reduction is until the end of the year. Is the year the contract year or the calendar year? In either case a few months have already been paid and since the report does not say retroactive he lost no money for that time period. If its the calendar year its 15% of three months pay on his base salary. If its the contract year then it would be 15% until the end of the contract year (normally June 30 for state employees).
  • Create New...

It appears you are using ad blocking tools.  This site is supported through ads.  Please disable in order to enjoy full access to The Bulls Pen.