‘Returning # of starters’ has a high correlation to winning in CFB. The first thing that everybody has conveniently forgotten is that RU returns less starters than anybody in the Big Ten, which means that across RU’s opponents, RU is at a big disadvantage in most if not all games. This was true before RU had the recent losses due to the players getting in trouble and suspended so things have even gotten worse. When the QB position turns overs, it makes things even more challenging. Hamilton being out and Turay being injured only compounds things.
I personally believed that a lot of the success in pulling out those close games last year was based on having an experienced team and expected the turnover at so many positions to be problematic and that was before the other issues (DB, Hamilton, Turay) surfaced.
Last year’s team was more experienced than this year’s team and there is only so much that any set of coaches can do to make this not matter, regardless of how much people don’t want to accept that. Most people were satisfied with the staff last year but now already say they suck. It is like clockwork. Same coaches for the most part….different personnel.
I am pretty sure that a Temple alumni I know said they returned 10 starters on defense. They came out like a machine in week 1….nothing a coach can do to replace experience.
I am not certain WHO committed the penalties, but I’ll ask whether many were by the new starters?
We know that 3 mistakes were made by the new QB and I firmly believe that Rettig would have his own set of mistakes. It is just hard to overcome and there is a reason why the ‘returning # of starters’ is such a critical statistic that links to winning.
I only rewatched part of the game so far, but already on the first TD, Wharton got beaten one on one. I think it is fair to say that when we have had experienced CBs in the past, maybe that play gets challenged more closely.
New starter Laviano had those two bad throws and the fumble. Last year as a three year starter, Nova had gotten most of this out of his system.
The good news is that young and inexperienced teams should improve more quickly than their peers so I’d suggest giving this all a big long look before jumping right to the predictable ‘fire Flood’, ‘bench Laviano’ and ‘fire Rossi’ type of approaches. If you think the staff, AD or anybody else is listening to the nonsense, you are sorely mistaken because they are in tune with the challenge right now.
I personally believed that a lot of the success in pulling out those close games last year was based on having an experienced team and expected the turnover at so many positions to be problematic and that was before the other issues (DB, Hamilton, Turay) surfaced.
Last year’s team was more experienced than this year’s team and there is only so much that any set of coaches can do to make this not matter, regardless of how much people don’t want to accept that. Most people were satisfied with the staff last year but now already say they suck. It is like clockwork. Same coaches for the most part….different personnel.
I am pretty sure that a Temple alumni I know said they returned 10 starters on defense. They came out like a machine in week 1….nothing a coach can do to replace experience.
I am not certain WHO committed the penalties, but I’ll ask whether many were by the new starters?
We know that 3 mistakes were made by the new QB and I firmly believe that Rettig would have his own set of mistakes. It is just hard to overcome and there is a reason why the ‘returning # of starters’ is such a critical statistic that links to winning.
I only rewatched part of the game so far, but already on the first TD, Wharton got beaten one on one. I think it is fair to say that when we have had experienced CBs in the past, maybe that play gets challenged more closely.
New starter Laviano had those two bad throws and the fumble. Last year as a three year starter, Nova had gotten most of this out of his system.
The good news is that young and inexperienced teams should improve more quickly than their peers so I’d suggest giving this all a big long look before jumping right to the predictable ‘fire Flood’, ‘bench Laviano’ and ‘fire Rossi’ type of approaches. If you think the staff, AD or anybody else is listening to the nonsense, you are sorely mistaken because they are in tune with the challenge right now.
