Its Time to Turn the Page on Willie Taggart

[George_Bullnard_Shaw]

Both Holtz and Taggart were/are terrible coaches here at USF. That's all that needs to be said about both of them.

[Triple B]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

So just more of the usual generalities that basically CWT sucks .... Thanks for the insight.

[Triple B]

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

 

To me, EVERY coach should get at least 3 years to see what he can do with primarily his players on the roster .... 

[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

 

 

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.

 

 

You really like to argue with me, don't you?  Most rational people consider a "team" an entire season, not a couple of cherry picked games.

Edited November 18, 2014 by ShadowBull

[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.

 

 

You really like to argue with me, don't you?  Most rational people consider a "team" an entire season, not a couple of cherry picked games.

 

 

Then how can you assess this year's "team", then?

 

..... And yeah, I do like arguing with you. You're like an old time Homecoming game.

[charsibb]

 

 

 

 

^ 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.

 

 

You really like to argue with me, don't you?  Most rational people consider a "team" an entire season, not a couple of cherry picked games.

 

 

Then how can you assess this year's "team", then?

 

..... And yeah, I do like arguing with you. You're like an old time Homecoming game.

 

 

Like this?

 

[Who'sYourData?]

 

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

 

To me, EVERY coach should get at least 3 years to see what he can do with primarily his players on the roster .... 

 

 

John L Smith, Arkansas.  Arkansas would have been completely insane to let him coach more than one year.  It is never a good idea to use works like EVERY.

Edited November 18, 2014 by ShadowBull

[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

 

 

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.

 

 

You really like to argue with me, don't you?  Most rational people consider a "team" an entire season, not a couple of cherry picked games.

 

 

Then how can you assess this year's "team", then?

 

..... And yeah, I do like arguing with you. You're like an old time Homecoming game.

 

 

Yeah, because 83% of a season is exactly like 25% of a season.  

[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.

 

 

You really like to argue with me, don't you?  Most rational people consider a "team" an entire season, not a couple of cherry picked games.

 

 

Then how can you assess this year's "team", then?

 

..... And yeah, I do like arguing with you. You're like an old time Homecoming game.

 

 

Like this?

 

 

 

That's not a bonfire ..... THIS is a bonfire!

 

[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

 

 

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.

 

 

You really like to argue with me, don't you?  Most rational people consider a "team" an entire season, not a couple of cherry picked games.

 

 

Then how can you assess this year's "team", then?

 

..... And yeah, I do like arguing with you. You're like an old time Homecoming game.

 

 

Like this?