Its Time to Turn the Page on Willie Taggart

[Who'sYourData?]

Of course, if there are haters in the crowd there are always apologists.

[Who'sYourData?]

^ You used far too many far's to be credible, Shadow. The post-BJ Holtz games were very revealing as to how we would fare in the future with Holtz. Mercifully, we didn't have to find out.

 

Ok.  Let's not base a decision on two years, but instead on three games.  That makes a LOT of sense.  :rolleyes

[Triple B]

 

^ You used far too many far's to be credible, Shadow. The post-BJ Holtz games were very revealing as to how we would fare in the future with Holtz. Mercifully, we didn't have to find out.

 

Ok.  Let's not base a decision on two years, but instead on three games.  That makes a LOT of sense.  :rolleyes

 

 

YOU set the criteria by saying "This team is far, far worse than the worst USF team under Holtz". His WORST team would be the one he fielded without BJ against Pitt .... but go right ahead and change the playing field .... It's to be expected.

[raptorcj]

I guess it takes where we are to bring all the Holtz apologists out. I don't blame the comparison, but let's compare 3 years to 3 years as you say instead of trying to tailor stats to our arguments and extrapolate. Where I didn't see hope, I guess you did--the tables are now turned.

[Mission9]

 

Ever notice most taking dumps on Taggart are unapologetic Holtz fans?   USF went  from a team which went to a few bowls and would win 6 to 9 games a season to a real crappy team in 3 years.  So using this logic (if you want to call it that) we give one guy 3 years to flush the team down the toilet but  the successor only gets 2 to get it out of the sewer.  Makes sense.

 

This team is far, far worse than the worst USF team under Holtz.  It isn't even close.  You are delusional if you believe otherwise.

 

But I'll play your game.  How many years would you like to give Taggart before we fire him?  Does he get one more year to move our defense up to #115 in Division I?

 

Edited November 18, 2014 by Mission9

[Mission9]

 

 

Ever notice most taking dumps on Taggart are unapologetic Holtz fans?   USF went  from a team which went to a few bowls and would win 6 to 9 games a season to a real crappy team in 3 years.  So using this logic (if you want to call it that) we give one guy 3 years to flush the team down the toilet but  the successor only gets 2 to get it out of the sewer.  Makes sense.

 

This team is far, far worse than the worst USF team under Holtz.  It isn't even close.  You are delusional if you believe otherwise.

 

But I'll play your game.  How many years would you like to give Taggart before we fire him?  Does he get one more year to move our defense up to #115 in Division I?

 

 

If you think this team is far, far worse than the team Holtz trotted out for Pittsburgh in his last game there's only one thing to say ....

 

 

That small gathering of friends almost seemed on the verge of violence at the end of the game especially after the FG.  I ducked out as soon as I could after that game.The guys with the bags on their heads were docile compared with what I heard being hurled at ol' Skippy.  Made me uncomfortable and by then I was all for his firing.

[slick1ru2]

 

 

 

 

People who think CWT will be fired are completely delusional ... (note, I didn't say "should be fired"... I said "will be fired"... "should" implies opinion, "will" implies fact)

 

He will NOT be fired.  USF cannot afford to pay for THREE HEAD COACHES AT THE SAME TIME.  In 2015, Holtz has one more year of his buyout.  Firing CWT means paying HIS buyout... then paying the salary for another coach.

 

It may be ugly... but 4 wins are double last year... and more than Skip's last year...

 

It may not be fast enough for some people... but the team is improving.

 

Harlan is not going to fire CWT when he is making progress, and we can't really afford it anyway.

 

 

Tell us how much money USF is losing in ticket sales, merchandising, donations, etc. along with intangibles of public opinion, etc.? USF has never made money on football, only about 20 programs do. Are donors going to cough up money next year for this mess or donate more for a change? You have to think  outside the box and not just at one cost factor and take into effect that football straight up is a loss leader that's undertaken not for income but for advertising to donors and potential students.

 

 

Donors already had to cough up to get Taggart... hard to go back and ask them to pay to get rid of him... especially when we have to start paying "full cost of attendance" for student athletes.

 

Sorry, but USF has to factor the costs... and weigh it against the improvement.

 

 

You obviously don't know what you're talking about.  The cost for Taggart plus the annual cost for Holtz not coaching was at a discount since Taggart came in at a much lower salary than Holtz would have gotten for coaching the prior season.  The guaranteed base salary contract amount is only based on the check directly from the University and does not include monies from the donor accounts and other supplemental accounts. USF had to pay for his buyout from WKU of $500K but that plus the salary was only slightly above what Holtz would be making at $2M per year.  Willie's $1.15M per year + Holtz's $500K guaranteed base = $1.65M/yr << $2M/yr for Holtz.

 

 

You have not figured in the cost of assistant coaches.  Because of his lower salary, the assistant salary pool was significantly bumped.  That is why we we are able to have ex-NFL coaches on defense in Breshnahan and Cooper.

 

Uh no. We could hire them because they couldn't get jobs anywhere else after abysmal performances in the NFL and being fired.  CB coached the worse defense ins Raider's entire history, when comparing yards given up. I think it was top 10 in NFL history too.

 

http://blog.sfgate.com/raiders/2012/01/05/bresnahan-officially-unofficially-fired/

 

Raiders defensive coordinator Chuck Bresnahan won’t be back next season, a source close to the coach confirmed. Yahoo’s Mike Silver reported this morning that Bresnahan and cornerbacks coach Rod Woodson, linebackers coach Greg Biekert and safeties coach Kevin Ross have all been told that their contracts will not be renewed when they expire on Jan. 15.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.bucsnation.com/2013/1/11/3865324/ron-cooper-hired-by-usf-buccaneers-lose-dbs-coach

 

Unlike the previous coaching moves, this one may have been prompted by the Buccaneers. Cooper's results in his first year in Tampa were abysmal, as his secondary gave up more yards than any other secondary. Only one defense in the NFL gave up more net yards per pass play than Cooper's. A report suggested that the Bucs would allow Cooper to "explore other opportunities" -- a euphemism for "he's so fired".

 

Edited November 18, 2014 by slick1ru2

[slick1ru2]

 

 

There have been signs of some well coached games.  Wisconsin and ECU were two of them.  I definitely think he needs a full 3 years to see this through before a knee jerk reaction. 

 

There are some key pieces missing from an offense like this to work:

- Running backs that have man strength (our true frosh are good but don't have this yet.  Tice shows that he can now finally run through some arm tackles as an example)

- O-lineman that are better than what Holtz brought in (Knox, Gibbons, etc are on the way).  Need a top JUCO recruit that starts too.

- TE's that can block

- A QB that is confident and is a leader

 

I think next year, some of these pieces will be in place and then we can judge better.

The well coached games were eventually lost due to coaching decisions, if I recall correctly. 

 

 

Please, if possible, elaborate on the coaching decisions that caused the losses to UW and ECU ....

 

 

The same thing they have done most of the year. Not adjust the game plan. When the opposing teams we've played had problems on either side of the ball they have adjusted the game plan. That seems to be a foreign concept to CWT.

[JTrue]

So to summarize, CWT should get 1 more year because:

 

1) Holtz got 3 years, therefore, CWT is required to get the same amount of time

2) this year's team might be better than the team got Holtz fired

Edited November 18, 2014 by JTrue

[charsibb]

Somebody else said it, but it stands as true, if he needs to be fired he needs to be fired now.

 

I think he should be, but I don't know enough about the replacement market to know if he needs to be.

 

Do we get a better coach if we hire this year or if we wait and hire next year?