New defense, new offense, does CWT get 2 more years?

[USFbulls24]

prove that it wasn't 77. many of our recruits committed after Jan 1.

 

Sure it was a big class (did you know rivals ranks classes on their size as well as quality so a team that signs 25 2 stars will be ranked as hig as a class that signs 10 5 stars) so it would be skewed anyway.

 

I can't prove it and you know that. But after the 2-10 season if our recruiting class was ranked 77 at this point last year everyone is going crazy. It was ranked higher and it gave people a reason to be hopeful. YES, IT GOT EVEN BETTER LATE due to a few flips, but it was not rated this low at this point last year. Yes I know how they rate the classes. 

Edited December 19, 2014 by USFbulls24

[Bull94]

 

 

 

I think he was being sarcastic. as if that is reason enough to look down our noses at our conference competition.

 

 

 

Sadly I was kidding, and I'm with you. We're in no position to feel like we are in any better position than anyone in the conference.

 

 

Right now, and as of the last 4 years we aren't in a better position. But you're simply fooling yourself if you don't think USF is a better program for football compared to Tulsa, Tulane, Temple, UCONN etc. I know things have been bad, but c'mon.

 

so the bottom 4. basically you are saying we should be better than them and that I would agree with. In fact as bad as we are now we did finish higher than them this year.

 

that's much different than saying we should consistently be at the top. football is cyclical and there are some programs in our conference that have a lot of potential. Many of them in much better situations with new stadiums and better funding in just as furtile recruiting grounds.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Bull94

[Bull94]

 

prove that it wasn't 77. many of our recruits committed after Jan 1.

 

Sure it was a big class (did you know rivals ranks classes on their size as well as quality so a team that signs 25 2 stars will be ranked as hig as a class that signs 10 5 stars) so it would be skewed anyway.

 

I can't prove it and you know that. But after the 2-10 season if our recruiting class was ranked 77 at this point last year everyone is going crazy. It was ranked higher and it gave people a reason to be hopeful. YES, IT GOT EVEN BETTER LATE due to a few flips, but it was not rated this low at this point last year. Yes I know how they rate the classes. 

 

so then you know that if we have a smaller class that it will no doubt be ranked lower. even if the star average is the same.

[bullsfan1983]

I don't see how our low rated recruiting class this year is because we are waiting on undecided recruits that will commit late. The classes are ranked in relation to other teams in the country. Presumably all teams would suffer from similar situations of undecided recruits which wouldn't effect the rankings. Unless you are saying that USF has an abnormal number of recruits committing late. Last years class was looking good and rated higher than 50 from very early on.

[inTransit]

I don't see how our low rated recruiting class this year is because we are waiting on undecided recruits that will commit late. The classes are ranked in relation to other teams in the country. Presumably all teams would suffer from similar situations of undecided recruits which wouldn't effect the rankings. Unless you are saying that USF has an abnormal number of recruits committing late. Last years class was looking good and rated higher than 50 from very early on.

 

For perspective on Rivals we are behind FAU and FIU but ahead of Michigan and UF.  Cant put much stock in this yet,

[Bull94]

I don't see how our low rated recruiting class this year is because we are waiting on undecided recruits that will commit late. The classes are ranked in relation to other teams in the country. Presumably all teams would suffer from similar situations of undecided recruits which wouldn't effect the rankings. Unless you are saying that USF has an abnormal number of recruits committing late. Last years class was looking good and rated higher than 50 from very early on.

players tend to commit to their best offer early if they commit early at all. Taggart is going after players that have better offers right now.

 

last year we had about 10 3 or 4 star high school players commit after January 1 according to rivals. not all have dates listed.

 

they include guys like D'Ernest johnson who had offers from west virginia and many others or bayes who had offers from wisconsin and west virginia.

 

it's not uncommon to pick up quite a bit of your talent late whhen you are in our position. we are not alabama or florida where people jump at their offers.

 

we are second choice (maybe even lower) for many players that just happen to fall to us when other situations don't pan out. sometimes these players do want to go elsewhere but a scholarship falls through or that school only had them as a backup and their first choice signs. sometimes our coaches sway them at the last minute and yes sometimes we get lucky and a guy wants to stay close to home and commits early.

 

that's how it works for programs like ours. we get the players that are backup plan for big time schools. once their rosters fill out then we start getting leftovers. better than getting an early commit that only has offers from middle tennessee state.

[Bull94]

 

I don't see how our low rated recruiting class this year is because we are waiting on undecided recruits that will commit late. The classes are ranked in relation to other teams in the country. Presumably all teams would suffer from similar situations of undecided recruits which wouldn't effect the rankings. Unless you are saying that USF has an abnormal number of recruits committing late. Last years class was looking good and rated higher than 50 from very early on.

 

For perspective on Rivals we are behind FAU and FIU but ahead of Michigan and UF.  Cant put much stock in this yet,

 

can't put any stock into it yet.

 

we need to fill our rosters with players that just miss the cut for the big time programs. good enough to be considered but just not enough room in the end. they are waiting for their first choice to open up now. maybe they have a conditional offer.

[cmhatter]

6 wins with a bad offense he's gone IMO

[USFbulls24]

 

 

 

 

I think he was being sarcastic. as if that is reason enough to look down our noses at our conference competition.

 

 

 

Sadly I was kidding, and I'm with you. We're in no position to feel like we are in any better position than anyone in the conference.

 

 

Right now, and as of the last 4 years we aren't in a better position. But you're simply fooling yourself if you don't think USF is a better program for football compared to Tulsa, Tulane, Temple, UCONN etc. I know things have been bad, but c'mon.

 

so the bottom 4. basically you are saying we should be better than them and that I would agree with. In fact as bad as we are now we did finish higher than them this year.

 

that's much different than saying we should consistently be at the top. football is cyclical and there are some programs in our conference that have a lot of potential. Many of them in much better situations with new stadiums and better funding in just as furtile recruiting grounds.

 

 

Absolutely we should be better than them all day, every day. I am also saying moving forward maybe minus one more season we should be at the top of this conference or very close (not saying we should win it every year). Should absolutely be in the conversation though.

 

A new stadium hardly means anything when you're talking about these kinds of programs. Go ask a recruit based on just the football program (not location, not stadium, not uniforms, etc.) would they rather receive a scholarship from Tulane or USF and 95?? out of 100 would say USF. 

 

Football is cyclical, I agree. But for some programs it's not. For some programs like Tulane they have 1 good season every 10-15 years. That's not cylical. That's a product of a bad program. 

[CousinRicky]

 

 

Glad they made the changes. if something isn't working why shouldn't they change?  

 

Seems like he brought in some guys that might be able to help him tweak his offense. Hopefully he is willing to have an open mind. The playcalling has to be more creative.  I get that he wants to impose his will on teams but you need to have superior talent and we don't have that yet. Maybe in the future if he continues to recruit top notch classes.

 

The defense definitely needed a change, It's ridiculous playing prevent defense as your base defense in college. There is no reason to rush 3 and drop into a soft zone in almost every scenario. We are not playing Tom  Brady and Peyton Manning every week. We need an aggressive, attacking defense and that wasn't what we were getting.

 

It's amazing that most of you called him stubborn and now that it seems he is willing to adapt you say he is grasping at straws. I think he realizes his mistakes and is willing to correct them. He is one of the youngest head coaches in college football. anybody who thought he wouldn't go through some growing pains were being unrealistic. Personally I think we are fine and he is showing progress. It wasn't going to be an instant turnaround. He is bringing in plenty of talent and our AD is willing to surround him with some decent coaches that he can learn from.

 

If it was Taggart's decision to change from a power run to a spread (if we even are) then yes he's shown progress, but we don't know if it was his decision and we don't even know how much of what we've heard is true. Firing a few coaches doesn't show progress, he did that after his first year as well. 

 

As of right now our recruiting class is looking very weak. In the upper 70's as far as rankings go. He's got a month and a half to pull something out of his ......

 

Holtz had his classes locked up by now. That was because he recruited guys that didn't have any better offers for the most part. Taggart is in play for some guys that have some pretty good options. no surprise that it would come down to the last minute. Leavitt was the same way. His quality players generally came down to the last day. Holtz offered guys whose next best offer was middle tennessee state or the like.

 

He is the head coach. Whatever direction the offense takes is his decision. to think otherwise is foolish.

 

 

Getting rid of underperforming employees is a step towards progress. They weren't doing their jobs well so he replaced them. It's the first step towards progress. Hopefully these new guys turn out better.

 

 

Does it not bother you that he's gone through 2 OC's in as many years?  Or that he has to fire guys that he hired after one year?