Anyone miss Holtz yet?

[bullsfan1983]

Dykes recruited the 113th ranked class in 2011 and 98th ranked class in 2012. I don't know if you can exactly classify that as Holtz riding coattails or Dykes leaving the cupboards stocked. Can't be possible that Dykes and Holtz are both decent coaches who can get good performances out of lesser talent? Do you think Taggart would have the same success coaching a team built on average recruiting classes in the 100s? Don't think so.

[DELdaBull]

LaTech's #1 WR is a true sophomore. http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/_/id/545677/trent-taylor

Who gives an F.

[slick1ru2]

 

LaTech's #1 WR is a true sophomore. http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/_/id/545677/trent-taylor

Who gives an F.

 

 

 

Not sure that meets the Profanity policy.

[bullsfan1983]

Truth is Holtz turned around UConn in the mid 90s and was at least partially responsible for their transition to FBS football. He took a 3-20 ECU team to 5-6 year 1 and then 4 consecutive bowls after that with 2 conference championships. Don't think he had to ride any coattails there. He failed USF on the recruiting trail, but still was a decent gameday coach playing competitive games despite USFs lack of talent. Taggart has the same lack of talent and has been far less competitive.

Edited November 7, 2014 by bullsfan1983

[Bull94]

 

 

LaTech's #1 WR is a true sophomore. http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/_/id/545677/trent-taylor

who committed in July of 2012 when Sonny Dykes was the coach. and was recruited by Stan Eggen who was with Dykes and stayed at La Tech.

 

https://rivals.yahoo.com/louisianatech/football/recruiting/player-Trent-Taylor-134060

 

 

I said Develop Talent. CWT has numerous players that are Sophomores from Hotlz including 'his' qb Mike White.

 

Mike White was never offered by Holtz or USF until he took the La Tech job. Taggart called him with the offer the day he won the state championship

 

Like I said if skip could develop talent he would still be here.

[Sipher]

 

 

The problem with Taggart is that unlike Holtz in the majority of the games we have played we haven't even been competitive. This dispite the conference taking big steps back in quality the past 2 years. In 13 of the 21 games Taggart has coached, USF has lost by more than 10 points. That is a 61.9% rate where the games aren't even competitive. To put that in perspective, from 2005-2009 Leavitt lost 13 of 64 games by more than 10 points or 20.3%. Holtz lost 7 of 37 games by more than 10 or 18.9%. So under Taggart there are roughly 3 times as many non competitive games, the majority of games where we take the field. This is why fan support is tanking.

Losing close may feel better to some.. .But a loss is a loss. And a win is a win. No matter how close or not the win or loss is. To me, it does not matter how close we were in games. But I understand your general point in relation to the general fan base.

 

I agree that at the end of the day a loss is a loss, but watching the games is less of a chore when the team has at least a chance to win the game.

 

I certainly can't argue that point! In terms of watching the game, you are right.

[Bull94]

Truth is Holtz turned around UConn in the mid 90s and was at least partially responsible for their transition to FBS football. He took a 3-20 ECU team to 5-6 year 1 and then 4 consecutive bowls after that with 2 conference championships. Don't think he had to ride any coattails there. He failed USF on the recruiting trail, but still was a decent gameday coach playing competitive games despite USFs lack of talent. Taggart has the same lack of talent and has been far less competitive.

Holtz had plenty of NFL talent that was left by Leavitt.

 

as soon as that talent started to leave Holtz went downhill.

 

winning at a d 1-aa UConn is way different than winning here. it's like winning at 2-a catholic league compared to 8-a public school league

 

he won at ECU because of his DC. it wasn't his 65ish offensive rankings that did it for him. he never had less than 4 losses in any year at ECU.

[slick1ru2]

 

 

 

LaTech's #1 WR is a true sophomore. http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/_/id/545677/trent-taylor

who committed in July of 2012 when Sonny Dykes was the coach. and was recruited by Stan Eggen who was with Dykes and stayed at La Tech.

 

https://rivals.yahoo.com/louisianatech/football/recruiting/player-Trent-Taylor-134060

 

 

I said Develop Talent. CWT has numerous players that are Sophomores from Hotlz including 'his' qb Mike White.

 

Mike White was never offered by Holtz or USF until he took the La Tech job. Taggart called him with the offer the day he won the state championship

 

Like I said if skip could develop talent he would still be here.

 

 

Point is, Taggart didn't find White, he was on their list. And if you read about the WR at LaTech, he is small and LaTech was his only FBS offer, Holtz could have rejected it. But instead, he developed him. Mike White hasn't developed. And WR play at USF is embarrassing.

 

 

And I say if Skip Holtz knew a better DC he'd still be here.

Edited November 7, 2014 by slick1ru2

[Bull94]

Dykes recruited the 113th ranked class in 2011 and 98th ranked class in 2012. I don't know if you can exactly classify that as Holtz riding coattails or Dykes leaving the cupboards stocked. Can't be possible that Dykes and Holtz are both decent coaches who can get good performances out of lesser talent? Do you think Taggart would have the same success coaching a team built on average recruiting classes in the 100s? Don't think so.

anybody who believes recruiting rankings are anything but backward looking is dumb enough to shell out $10/month for them.

[slick1ru2]

 

Dykes recruited the 113th ranked class in 2011 and 98th ranked class in 2012. I don't know if you can exactly classify that as Holtz riding coattails or Dykes leaving the cupboards stocked. Can't be possible that Dykes and Holtz are both decent coaches who can get good performances out of lesser talent? Do you think Taggart would have the same success coaching a team built on average recruiting classes in the 100s? Don't think so.

anybody who believes recruiting rankings are anything but backward looking is dumb enough to shell out $10/month for them.

 

 

And what contemporary rating do you suggest? How else, in the present time, do you judge talent? Tell us all.