No Assistants to be Retained?

[Bull Matrix]

8 hours ago, Agent_Danger said:

If this happens...  This board is going to hate the CJL people.

Say we need to give it 4 seasons. 

[Massbull]

21 minutes ago, brybull1970 said:

22 minutes ago, brybull1970 said:

And this is why Kelly should have fired CCS before the season even started. We would have already just completed Year 1 of the rebuild. This is what I meant by saying that keeping Strong around could do incremental damage to the program. Now Scott has an even bigger hold to dig this program out of.

 

Not sure I agree .They had talent last year  but they were so  poorly coached and unprepared. Who knows with a good a coaching staff ,some key transfers and recruits , the turn around may be quicker than we expected.  

[hedgehogfrenzy]

9 hours ago, CousinRicky said:

Some Grad assistants are still listed on USF's website.  Lindsay Lamar is there. Augie is not.

This is like saying...we fired the executive leadership but hey...we kept the mailroom staff for some continuity.  I know grad assistants have serve a purpose in the process but they’re really low on the totem pole.  CJS is 100% starting from scratch. 

[puc86]

1 hour ago, Bull94 said:

clemson has never been known for a dominant o-line. I agree that we need WRs and athletes that we can get into space.

The problem: Clemson has never really mastered the “smashmouth” dimension of the smashmouth spread. They’ve always been at their best at spreading the ball around to speedy skill players and winning matchups on the perimeter. They aren’t stocked with the sorts of OL, TE, or FBs to consistently overpower.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/9/27/17900934/trevor-lawrence-clemson-new-starter-quarterback

My issue is not so much what the system is as much as it is being dogmatic in your adherence to it. If you think that it is more important to stick to your scheme no matter who is on your roster than it is to put up a more success plan for the players you actually have on your roster, that's an insane position to me and I do not understand why it is so pervasive in football. 

[CousinRicky]

41 minutes ago, hedgehogfrenzy said:

This is like saying...we fired the executive leadership but hey...we kept the mailroom staff for some continuity.  I know grad assistants have serve a purpose in the process but they’re really low on the totem pole.  CJS is 100% starting from scratch. 

My response was tongue in cheek about keeping the Grad Assts.

[CousinRicky]

10 minutes ago, puc86 said:

My issue is not so much what the system is as much as it is being dogmatic in your adherence to it. If you think that it is more important to stick to your scheme no matter who is on your roster than it is to put up a more success plan for the players you actually have on your roster, that's an insane position to me and I do not understand why it is so pervasive in football. 

I'm guessing that when a coach gets hired to a new school he believes it was because he was successful at his previous stops.  So they tend to go with what made them have that success.  It then takes a while to learn that not all systems work at all schools.    

[puc86]

Just now, CousinRicky said:

I'm guessing that when a coach gets hired to a new school he believes it was because he was successful at his previous stops.  So they tend to go with what made them have that success.  It then takes a while to learn that not all systems work at all schools.    

Do they not have Google?

[IBulleve]

20 minutes ago, puc86 said:

My issue is not so much what the system is as much as it is being dogmatic in your adherence to it. If you think that it is more important to stick to your scheme no matter who is on your roster than it is to put up a more success plan for the players you actually have on your roster, that's an insane position to me and I do not understand why it is so pervasive in football. 

Could not agree more. The worst part is it usually comes down to ego.

This is why I couldn't stand CCS. Any human with common sense could've taken a step back and said, this team just needs a little help on defense and they'll be on their way. CCS ego couldn't let him do just that. He couldn't have a high flying offense that he didn't understand. 

In this sport, ego from the top ruins more teams than anything else. 

Edited December 17, 2019 by IBulleve

[NewEnglandBull]

3 minutes ago, IBulleve said:

Could not agree more. The worst part is it usually comes down to ego.

This is why I couldn't stand CCS. Any human with common sense could've taken a step back and said, this team just needs a little help on defense and they'll be on their way. CCS ego couldn't let him to that. He couldn't have a high flying offense that he didn't understand. 

In this sport, ego from the top ruins more teams than anything else. 

Ego or intelligence? 

[usf97]

6 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

Ego or intelligence?