CWT's Bus: who's on, off, undecided?

[charsibb]

How these hypothetical quips get turned into a "real" scenario is beyond me. Hyperbole = literary license, not an actual situation.

 

Even on our best days, "literary" cannot be used to describe the pen.

[raptorcj]

^^ You should just be proud some of we penners can still use those high school words!

[Who'sYourData?]

On.

The ridiculous expectations of this fanbase sicken me.  The cupboard was beyond bare(now made obvious by 50% of the 2-deep being Fr and So) when he got here.  Constantly changing coaches every 3rd year makes it impossible to build something.  Coach T is building something.

 

I don't think it is obvious that 50% of the 2-deep being Fr and So means the cupboard was bare.  What it means is that Taggart was unable to adjust his philosophy to the players that were here to play a different system.  The question is whether he can get the players he wants and be successful.  Doesn't mean a more flexible coach couldn't have won with what was here.

[Who'sYourData?]

Taggart's missing his best player by far on offense (Andre Davis) 

 

 

But wait, I thought the cupboard was bare?

Edited October 6, 2014 by ShadowBull

[charsibb]

 

On.

The ridiculous expectations of this fanbase sicken me.  The cupboard was beyond bare(now made obvious by 50% of the 2-deep being Fr and So) when he got here.  Constantly changing coaches every 3rd year makes it impossible to build something.  Coach T is building something.

 

I don't think it is obvious that 50% of the 2-deep being Fr and So means the cupboard was bare.  What it means is that Taggart was unable to adjust his philosophy to the players that were here to play a different system.  The question is whether he can get the players he wants and be successful.  Doesn't mean a more flexible coach couldn't have won with what was here.

 

 

This.

 

Long-term you recruit the Jimmies and Joes to fit your X's and O's, but short-term you adjust schemes to get the best result out of the players you have.

 

College football is part of the entertainment budget.

 

Entertain or you don't get budgeted.

[Triple B]

 

 

On.

The ridiculous expectations of this fanbase sicken me.  The cupboard was beyond bare(now made obvious by 50% of the 2-deep being Fr and So) when he got here.  Constantly changing coaches every 3rd year makes it impossible to build something.  Coach T is building something.

 

I don't think it is obvious that 50% of the 2-deep being Fr and So means the cupboard was bare.  What it means is that Taggart was unable to adjust his philosophy to the players that were here to play a different system.  The question is whether he can get the players he wants and be successful.  Doesn't mean a more flexible coach couldn't have won with what was here.

 

 

This.

 

Long-term you recruit the Jimmies and Joes to fit your X's and O's, but short-term you adjust schemes to get the best result out of the players you have.

 

College football is part of the entertainment budget.

 

Entertain or you don't get budgeted.

 

 

Disagree. Every situation is different. It all depends on what you have to work with that determines on whether you adjust to what you have or start setting the new foundation right away. What scheme out there takes advantage of an inexperienced qb and an o line that sucks? 

[Bull Dozer]

On.

The ridiculous expectations of this fanbase sicken me. The cupboard was beyond bare(now made obvious by 50% of the 2-deep being Fr and So) when he got here. Constantly changing coaches every 3rd year makes it impossible to build something. Coach T is building something.

I don't think it is obvious that 50% of the 2-deep being Fr and So means the cupboard was bare. What it means is that Taggart was unable to adjust his philosophy to the players that were here to play a different system. The question is whether he can get the players he wants and be successful. Doesn't mean a more flexible coach couldn't have won with what was here.

This.

Long-term you recruit the Jimmies and Joes to fit your X's and O's, but short-term you adjust schemes to get the best result out of the players you have.

College football is part of the entertainment budget.

Entertain or you don't get budgeted.

With the dumpster fire we had at QB last season I'm not sure what offense we could have adapted towards. Floyd and Eveld were nice kids but had no business as starters at the FBS level, Bench can run a bit but has poor accuracy throwing the football, and White was a twig of a true freshman with slightly better accuracy than Bench. Then throw in how awful our offensive line was and I'm stumped how we adapt to the situation we had on offense. Maybe we run a little more read option with Bench but he couldn't stay healthy last year without that upped work load and I don't think he's explosive enough as a runner for that to translate to more wins. Spreading it out and tossing it around isn't an option due to poor accuracy at the QB spot and the fact we needed to max protect to even give our Qbs a chance to get rid of the ball. I'm waiting to hear a legitimate scheme we could've used last year to get more wins considering the dumpster fire we had on offense. People love to throw that argument around but never have a realistic suggestions about what could've actually been done. My thinking is if you have a throw away year (which anyone with a lick of sense knew it would be) you install your system and immerse the players in it so it's second nature by the next season. Edited October 6, 2014 by Bull Dozer

[Who'sYourData?]

 

 

 

On.

The ridiculous expectations of this fanbase sicken me.  The cupboard was beyond bare(now made obvious by 50% of the 2-deep being Fr and So) when he got here.  Constantly changing coaches every 3rd year makes it impossible to build something.  Coach T is building something.

 

I don't think it is obvious that 50% of the 2-deep being Fr and So means the cupboard was bare.  What it means is that Taggart was unable to adjust his philosophy to the players that were here to play a different system.  The question is whether he can get the players he wants and be successful.  Doesn't mean a more flexible coach couldn't have won with what was here.

 

 

This.

 

Long-term you recruit the Jimmies and Joes to fit your X's and O's, but short-term you adjust schemes to get the best result out of the players you have.

 

College football is part of the entertainment budget.

 

Entertain or you don't get budgeted.

 

 

Disagree. Every situation is different. It all depends on what you have to work with that determines on whether you adjust to what you have or start setting the new foundation right away. What scheme out there takes advantage of an inexperienced qb and an o line that sucks? 

 

 

For starters, how about an offense that doesn't require the QB to make a bunch of reads while standing in the pocket?  How about an offense that doesn't ask a QB that has difficulty throwing on the run to throw on the run?  How about not asking a smallish OLine to block for running plays and pass plays that require a massive OLine?  

 

Are you telling me that our OLine recruits are the 118th worst in DI?  Our QBs are the 118th worst in DI?  I'm not buying either of those stories, but that is what you are saying.

[Who'sYourData?]

Akron has a middle of the road offense in DI.  What you are saying is that our recruits were far less talented than the recruits Akron signed.  That is ridiculous.  At some point excuses are just excuses.

[Triple B]

Akron has a middle of the road offense in DI.  What you are saying is that our recruits were far less talented than the recruits Akron signed.  That is ridiculous.  At some point excuses are just excuses.

 

And at some point, we have to realize that some people do nothing on here but peruse threads looking for something to argue about, even to the point of making up stuff to do so (see the Reilly Gibbons thread). Coach Dozer had a more detailed response that I 100% agree with that you ignored for obvious reasons. Please feel free to engage him ...