Leavitt/Holtz/Taggart

[Greg Auman]

Remember that Pierre-Paul was gone after one year, so his impact from the 2009 class ended in 2009, and Williams in 2010. Two of the biggest gems of the class.

[Who'sYourData?]

Remember that Pierre-Paul was gone after one year, so his impact from the 2009 class ended in 2009, and Williams in 2010. Two of the biggest gems of the class.

Exactly. The overall impact was very weak for what was supposed to be a Top 25 class.

[Sitting_BULL]

How few? Pierre-Paul and Williams in the NFL with Super Bowl rings. Let's just talk about multi-year starters: Griffin, Webster, Barrington, Lattimore. Lamar was Big East Special Teams Player of the Year. Marc had 54 catches in his career. Jenkins and Sager are returning starters. Bass started for a year. Giddins still has a year left, same for Forte, Hopkins. Sure, there are a dozen guys out of 29 that didn't amount to much if they made it to campus at all. Not a bad class at all, or disappointing.

Also you can't judge the guys left behind. Leavitt recruited them with a purpose in mind, but Skippy tried to change everybody into HIS system and it cost him his job. Skippy even made the band look bad.

[Who'sYourData?]

How few? Pierre-Paul and Williams in the NFL with Super Bowl rings. Let's just talk about multi-year starters: Griffin, Webster, Barrington, Lattimore. Lamar was Big East Special Teams Player of the Year. Marc had 54 catches in his career. Jenkins and Sager are returning starters. Bass started for a year. Giddins still has a year left, same for Forte, Hopkins. Sure, there are a dozen guys out of 29 that didn't amount to much if they made it to campus at all. Not a bad class at all, or disappointing.

Also you can't judge the guys left behind. Leavitt recruited them with a purpose in mind, but Skippy tried to change everybody into HIS system and it cost him his job. Skippy even made the band look bad.

Yeah, Skip wanted a CB to be able to cover a receiver, and a DL to be able to rush the QB. Pretty big change in expectations.

[CRBULL]

Remember that Pierre-Paul was gone after one year, so his impact from the 2009 class ended in 2009, and Williams in 2010. Two of the biggest gems of the class.

Exactly. The overall impact was very weak for what was supposed to be a Top 25 class.

In data terms, I think you are confusing correlation and causation.

[Who'sYourData?]

Remember that Pierre-Paul was gone after one year, so his impact from the 2009 class ended in 2009, and Williams in 2010. Two of the biggest gems of the class.

Exactly. The overall impact was very weak for what was supposed to be a Top 25 class.

In data terms, I think you are confusing correlation and causation.

Someone is.

[CRBULL]

Remember that Pierre-Paul was gone after one year, so his impact from the 2009 class ended in 2009, and Williams in 2010. Two of the biggest gems of the class.

Exactly. The overall impact was very weak for what was supposed to be a Top 25 class.

In data terms, I think you are confusing correlation and causation.

Someone is.

You never responded to my statement that if it truly was the players, and we are about to be rid of them all after this coming year, Holtz deserved more time to get other players in. I have no regrets in relieving Holtz as I have no doubt that is not the case. Do you feel that a majority of currently successful FBS coaches would have had the same results with our team? If so, Holtz should still be here as his firing would be unjustified. If you feel Holtz's firing was justified, then you yourself are refuting the players as the actual cause of their poor performance.

If you wanted to go the faith route, I guess you could always say "I believe the performance of the 2009 class was mainly a lack of talent and not coaching" or something along those lines. However, that belief would probably differ from the majority.

Edited December 29, 2012 by CRBULL

[Who'sYourData?]

I'm not impressed with the job Holtz did while he was here. But I also saw younger players on the field outperforming the old guys that were supposed to be the core of the team. When two true freshmen pass a senior on the depth chart, that senior did not do his job.

Frankly, I think Holtz biggest issue was playing too many upperclassmen that either weren't very good or didn't care enough. If it were me, I'd have had the young guys out there much earlier in the season. I'd rather have guys giving all out effort and making mistakes but making some plays than guys either not giving effort or stinking up the joint. If the younger players were able to make plays, that tells me it wasn't all coaching.

Holtz and staff did a poor job this year, but they were left inferior talent by the previous staff. I do not believe that Matt Grothe got incredible coaching while he was here. What he got was sandlot plays that he was able to make work because he was a unique guy.

[CRBULL]

I'm not impressed with the job Holtz did while he was here. But I also saw younger players on the field outperforming the old guys that were supposed to be the core of the team. When two true freshmen pass a senior on the depth chart, that senior did not do his job.

Frankly, I think Holtz biggest issue was playing too many upperclassmen that either weren't very good or didn't care enough. If it were me, I'd have had the young guys out there much earlier in the season. I'd rather have guys giving all out effort and making mistakes but making some plays than guys either not giving effort or stinking up the joint. If the younger players were able to make plays, that tells me it wasn't all coaching.

Holtz and staff did a poor job this year, but they were left inferior talent by the previous staff. I do not believe that Matt Grothe got incredible coaching while he was here. What he got was sandlot plays that he was able to make work because he was a unique guy.

You started off okay, but individual cases where a psyched up underclassmen was inserted and showed some great energy making some plays doesn't support your cause that strongly. If nothing else it even goes back to coaching where Holtz wasn't able to bring out the strengths of upperclassmen (motivation) who had shown great potential and been given accolades as underclassmen. From their recruitment through their underclassmen years no one was questioning the talent of most of these individuals. If you were referring to our CB situation, that was a known talent issue. Are we talking about lack of actual talent/potential, or just how it was used? If it is how it was used, that again goes back to coaching and the ability to motivate/inspire someone to use their talent/potential.

The rest of the response was pretty general and went back into beliefs. I'm having a tough time with this because it goes against common rationale that lead to the firing of Holtz. BTW, I also do not believe Grothe got incredible coaching while he was here.

[Reliable Source]

How few? Pierre-Paul and Williams in the NFL with Super Bowl rings. Let's just talk about multi-year starters: Griffin, Webster, Barrington, Lattimore. Lamar was Big East Special Teams Player of the Year. Marc had 54 catches in his career. Jenkins and Sager are returning starters. Bass started for a year. Giddins still has a year left, same for Forte, Hopkins. Sure, there are a dozen guys out of 29 that didn't amount to much if they made it to campus at all. Not a bad class at all, or disappointing.

Also you can't judge the guys left behind. Leavitt recruited them with a purpose in mind, but Skippy tried to change everybody into HIS system and it cost him his job. Skippy even made the band look bad.

Hey, lay off the band. I think they were just trying to tune up their instrument.