Have players meet with Woolard?

[snarling Bull]

is it the players or the failure of coaches to develop them?

[CRBULL]

Wrong, schemes that don't play to your team's strengths or make any sort of logical sense can absolutely make you lose to teams like Ball State. Players are a problem, but my god coaching is a bigger one right now.

You saw George Baker last night, right? You saw the rest of the defensive secondary throughout the second half? That was 100% scheme that kept us in that game. There is no strength you can play to on that... ask the CBs to press and we get interference all after interference call. Ask them to play back and you watch the opposing team go up and down the field, 8 yards at a time. There isn't a scheme to correct that. It goes back to recruiting and talent development (both of which fall to coaching staff). I honestly think we are all just grossly mistaken on how good of a team we have. THe future is bright, the talent coming in looks much better. But clearly our 2007 - 2009 recruiting classes have missed the mark.

I'm not sure if you're serious on this. Though I'm not calling the recruiting sites the best evaluation of talent on each individual at their position, that's a pretty bold statement to make across a full recruiting class and across multiple years considering the upward trend in talent in those classes.

Along the same lines but a separate point, isn't it up to coaching to take potential and mold it/inspire it to fit the next level of play. For example, take elite programs that make a bad choice at coach (e.g. ND prior to Kelly and 'Bama prior to Saban). Their recruiting classes are top notch, but take a look at the performance on the field without being aware of the potential from the high school performance and you will probably say that the players are just not very good. In reality the potential was there all along and it's up to the coaching staff to tap it by motivating it and scheming to its strengths.

Motivation can make average players good and good players exceptional. Look at Kansas St and their recruiting classes over the past few years and tell me it's not coaching that is providing the right kind of motivation and scheming to strengths that has put them in the position they are in.

Edited November 5, 2012 by CRBULL

[USF_Grouper]

Wrong, schemes that don't play to your team's strengths or make any sort of logical sense can absolutely make you lose to teams like Ball State. Players are a problem, but my god coaching is a bigger one right now.

You saw George Baker last night, right? You saw the rest of the defensive secondary throughout the second half? That was 100% scheme that kept us in that game. There is no strength you can play to on that... ask the CBs to press and we get interference all after interference call. Ask them to play back and you watch the opposing team go up and down the field, 8 yards at a time. There isn't a scheme to correct that. It goes back to recruiting and talent development (both of which fall to coaching staff). I honestly think we are all just grossly mistaken on how good of a team we have. THe future is bright, the talent coming in looks much better. But clearly our 2007 - 2009 recruiting classes have missed the mark.

I'm not sure if you're serious on this. Though I'm not calling the recruiting sites the best evaluation of talent on each individual at their position, that's a pretty bold statement to make across a full recruiting class and across multiple years considering the upward trend in talent in those classes.

The measure of a recruiting class is how that class performs during its junior and senior years. This current class has been the biggest disappointment in USF history. Sure we have had less talented teams, but as far as where we are as a program, this recruiting class has far and away been the most underperforming. That isn't information you can pull from recruiting sites. It is not about stars, it is about performance on the field.

Along the same lines but a separate point, isn't it up to coaching to take potential and mold it/inspire it to fit the next level of play. For example, take elite programs that make a bad choice at coach (e.g. ND prior to Kelly and 'Bama prior to Saban). Their recruiting classes are top notch, but take a look at the performance on the field without being aware of the potential from the high school performance and you will probably say that the players are just not very good. In reality the potential was there all along and it's up to the coaching staff to tap it by motivating it and scheming to its strengths.

Motivation can make average players good and good players exceptional. Look at Kansas St and their recruiting classes over the past few years and tell me it's not coaching that is providing the right kind of motivation and scheming to strengths that has put them in the position they are in.

You are comparing a completely different caliber of program. There are only a handful that fit the mold of legendary program and they will get solid recruiting classes year in and year out. For the most part they also field solid teams. It is far and few between you see loses like Michigan had to 1-AA programs. Int he case of Kansas State I think it is a collection of things... they are a very good program and have been for some time. Things came together for them this year and in general their recruiting classes get underrated by more coastal focused recruiting services. Again, in general, I think it is short-sighted to judge an incoming class by the number of stars. Mostly those stars are blindly generated based on number of offers and kids that grow-up and stay in the mid-west don't often bother to take official visits to USC or Michigan.

As I said in my original post, talent development falls on coaching as well. But we seem to be in the mindset that we have the talent on the field, they just aren't being put in a position to win. Maybe that is the case, but from my seats I can't see that. I saw a defense that couldn't cover in any scheme - not in zone, not in man. The blitz was more effective against UCONN only because they seemed less able to make the quick reads, but had we pressed more against say Rutgers we'd have watched them beat us in 1:1 coverage all day.

[Bruce Blingstein]

Who should meet with someone to talk about Woolard ?

[Dhambuc]

Agree Starts with Woolard. He needs to go, Take the Peanuts gang (Skip and company)with him.

[CRBULL]

(1)The measure of a recruiting class is how that class performs during its junior and senior years. This current class has been the biggest disappointment in USF history. Sure we have had less talented teams, but as far as where we are as a program, this recruiting class has far and away been the most underperforming. That isn't information you can pull from recruiting sites. It is not about stars, it is about performance on the field.

(2)You are comparing a completely different caliber of program. There are only a handful that fit the mold of legendary program and they will get solid recruiting classes year in and year out. For the most part they also field solid teams. It is far and few between you see loses like Michigan had to 1-AA programs. (3)Int he case of Kansas State I think it is a collection of things... they are a very good program and have been for some time. Things came together for them this year and in general their recruiting classes get underrated by more coastal focused recruiting services. Again, in general, I think it is short-sighted to judge an incoming class by the number of stars. Mostly those stars are blindly generated based on number of offers and kids that grow-up and stay in the mid-west don't often bother to take official visits to USC or Michigan.

(4)As I said in my original post, talent development falls on coaching as well. But we seem to be in the mindset that we have the talent on the field, they just aren't being put in a position to win. Maybe that is the case, but from my seats I can't see that. I saw a defense that couldn't cover in any scheme - not in zone, not in man. The blitz was more effective against UCONN only because they seemed less able to make the quick reads, but had we pressed more against say Rutgers we'd have watched them beat us in 1:1 coverage all day.

1. My point in bringing up ND and ‘Bama was that you can start with top notch recruits with great potential and point to them in their junior/senior years and call them a failure if they haven’t had the right coaching and motivation (i.e. the years prior to their current coaches where ND and ‘Bama were 6-7 wins or less).

2. I knew you would probably bring up caliber and I almost mentioned something about it. True they are a different caliber, but there is a range and it is dictated by your recruiting capability. Ours is in the upper third of the BCS teams and we should reflect that in our play on average, just as theirs is in the upper tenth and they should reflect that. What does that mean? It means finishing in the top of our conference on a regular basis (half of our conference does not recruit as well, and we should be competitive with the rest) and beating teams that recruit lower than the upper third of the BCS (Nevada/Ball State/Temple/Syracuse).

3. Kansas State has definitely not been good for some time, at least not prior to Snyder coming back. When you look closely at their record and Scout recruiting rankings over the last seven years, it makes what Snyder has done even more impressive.

‘11 – 10-3 – #85

‘10 – 8-6 – #61

‘09 – 6-6 – #99 (Snyder Hired)

‘08 – 5-7 – #112

‘07 – 5-7 – #45

‘06 – 7-5 – #55

‘05 – 5-7 – #48

I don’t think you can look at that and say it isn’t all about the coaching. This is an example of motivation making average players good and good players exceptional.

4. Again, if you looked at ND’s recent 3-9 season, would you say that those seniors and juniors were a disappointment? My point is that what you see on the field is a culmination of all the time and effort put in coaching the player off the field. If he looks bad on the field, a large portion goes to how he is coached in all those hours off the field and the motivation/mentality he is given to perform on the field.

To sum it up, even if the seniors aren’t as good as advertised it should mean a 7-5 season, not a 3-9, 4-8, 5-7 season given our recruiting base and conference. A 5-7 season should be part of bringing a program back from a rebuild, not the precursor to a worse season. When you take a team to 5-7 or below in consecutive years, there is a high probability you are going to be the problem the next guy is fixing - and it’s probably not your recruiting if you’re in the BE.

Edited November 5, 2012 by CRBULL

[CRBULL]

After looking up those K State records it made me curious about what Snyder is doing over there. An answer to the 'how' question when talking about Snyder being an example of motivating average players to be good and good players to be exceptional can be found in the following article - definitely worth reading the whole thing

http://sports.yahoo....m-20432109.html

It ties into the points on #3 & #4 above.

I think Holtz tries to emulate that style a bit, but unfortunately without the same results at this level.

Edited November 5, 2012 by CRBULL

[Triple B]

2. I knew you would probably bring up caliber and I almost mentioned something about it. True they are a different caliber, but there is a range and it is dictated by your recruiting capability. Ours is in the upper third of the BCS teams and we should reflect that in our play on average, just as theirs is in the upper tenth and they should reflect that. What does that mean? It means finishing in the top of our conference on a regular basis (half of our conference does not recruit as well, and we should be competitive with the rest) and beating teams that recruit lower than the upper third of the BCS (Nevada/Ball State/Temple/Syracuse).

How are you arriving at that we're in the upper 3rd of the BC teams in recruiting capability? By my math, there are currently 69 BCS teams. Upper 3rd would be in the 20-25 range ... I don't see it.

[SRQ]

After looking up those K State records it made me curious about what Snyder is doing over there. An answer to the 'how' question when talking about Snyder being an example of motivating average players to be good and good players to be exceptional can be found in the following article - definitely worth reading the whole thing

http://sports.yahoo....m-20432109.html

It ties into the points on #3 & #4 above.

I think Holtz tries to emulate that style a bit, but unfortunately without the same results at this level.

Thank you for sharing this. I'm pumped for the day!

[cophbulls]

Holtz is not being fired (this year, and probably not next either). Get over it.