Coaching
- Thread starter Caliknight
- Start date
I've always said that GS is content to discard offensive possessions the moment we are slightly behind schedule in down and distance.
Does he talk to anyone more frequently than our punter?
Does he talk to anyone more frequently than our punter?
Last edited:
I think the penalties are the biggest indictment of the coaching. Did the defense get multiple illegal participation penalties? Where we offsides on a kick off? I am not going to kill him for the end of the first half but it seemed indecisive on what he wanted to do. I get initially trying to avoid giving MSU the ball back or allowing GW to possibly turn it over deep in his own territory but after we got a couple of first downs he could have adjusted more quickly. The reality is at this point he doesn't fully trust GW which is somewhat understandable given his inconsistent play.
I mean, I've been saying this relentlessly for over a year. The only way you can actually support Schiano is if you don't comprehend how to be successful in modern college football. He's a relic that is below average as both a gameday coach and player development
I usually disagree with you on most of these things, but agree with you here on the penalties, however, don't necessarily agree on the not a modern day football coach.
Watch virtually any other team. It looks like they are playing a different sport.
Our coaching is awful across all 3 phases. We have the most ordinary, vanilla schemes on both sides of the ball and there is never (other than the 3+5 end around) anything they do to put their players at an advantage.
I'm sure you know this, but you win the game by scoring points, not by statistics. Agree with you that Wimsatt showed progress. No INTs (one close one). Some badly thrown balls, however. It's a shame we don't have more receivers and options and the coaching is terrible.
I said this earlier in the year, other than maybe Colorado, not team looks as amateurish like ours does.
Some assistants run special teams, along with Greg. They should have kept a special teams coach on staff, or gave responsibility to a position coach.
MSU beat Illinois with the same personnel. You have a tendency to downplay Rutgers' opponents. Be fair.
The no turnovers is an indictment of Schiano ball. He's convinced you win games when you don't turn the ball over.
But not turning the ball over above all else doesn't win games.
Well, it arguably lost the game last week against Michigan in a short time span.
When you have an offense as bad as ours, you have to be conservative because you can't make up mistakes with explosive plays. We were running the ball well.
He's trying to develop a Wisconsin/Iowa type team. Dominant defense/running attack.
Pathetic, and it only gets worse when the free agency portal kicks in to overdrive after the season.
Many fan's still have Schiano's back because he accomplished what no other Rutgers Football Coach could do. He got us to winning minor bowl games!
Now is the time for an honest assessment. Greg Schiano is the HC you hire for a dumpster fire, who will use his micromanagement and slogans to get you to the point where a winning coach can close, and take you to new heights.
I hate to mix sports but I think this analogy works, he is like a poor man's Buck Showalter.
Many fan's still have Schiano's back because he accomplished what no other Rutgers Football Coach could do. He got us to winning minor bowl games!
Now is the time for an honest assessment. Greg Schiano is the HC you hire for a dumpster fire, who will use his micromanagement and slogans to get you to the point where a winning coach can close, and take you to new heights.
I hate to mix sports but I think this analogy works, he is like a poor man's Buck Showalter.
But the reason Schiano was still the chosen one was because “he’s the only one in this country who understood New Jersey Football.” Only he, not Leopold, Keeler, or someone else who’s having a great year or had success, can coach in New Jersey. There’s plenty of NJ talent who can play P5 are not even thought of because they don’t fit the prototype or are not Rutgers Men or are not from Florida.
The problem is you have to develop an offense that works with the kind of talent you are likely to get as opposed to the kind of talent you wish you can get. If you are unlikely to get the kind of talent needed to be Wisconsin you have to pursue another strategy.
I don't buy that. Do we have Alabama talent? No. Do we have UCF talent? Yes.
Wisconsin and Iowa have dominant OL's.
We don't. When you don't, you have to be creative and spread the ball out. And use the entire field. Schiano refuses to use the middle of the field because it might lead to a turnover.
As such, it makes us the easy team in the world to scout. Which in turn makes the offense worse. He does these kids no favors that's for sure.
Yea, that's the dumbest argument I've ever seen on this board.
Not having designed running plays for Gavin totally reduces his effectiveness as a passer and the offense in general.
He's always been obsessed with building a certain type of offense as opposed to working with what he has--which I think is his greatest weakness and why we need a different type of coach. When you're Miami of the 90s or Ohio State you can build whatever offense you want because you can get whatever talent you want. When you're Rutgers you need to be flexible and willing to change the offense a little to fit the talent. A scrappier coach would get more out of the talent he has because of this. Schiano's blue chip resume is his weakness.
No, I didn't realize the whole points thing mattered, lol. Believe me, while I was pissed at the penalties and very conservative playcalling, but that doesn't mean I also can't see the progress. This was our best offensive game this year (Wagner doesn't count) and was Wimsatt's best game of the year and he can do even better, especially if we can get him some more weapons and improve the playcalling (It's been annoying me that we don't use the middle of the field much all year). Unfortunately, the D wasn't quite as good today as it has been - if it had, maybe we win this game.
Really disappointed with GS at the end of the half. The excuse he gave in the post game was BS. Losing is one thing but can’t stand playing to keep it close. He needs to beat PSU to save the season.
"I didn't want to go down two scores". Wound up losing by one score.
Loser mentality.
Loser mentality.
Hey you don’t have to agree with what I said, and I really don’t care. But I guess Rutgers is going to shut down football after Schiano l aves whenever he leaves because that “there’s no one else” argument will start up again when he does leave.
Remember when Hobbs got skewered when he wanted to look at other candidates?
Next year is a pivotal year for Schiano. 6-6 is the minimum expectation for "success."
Sept. 2 vs. Northwestern* -No excuses. Must win.
Sept. 9 vs. Temple--Lose and go home. EJ Warner passed for 486 yards and 3 TDs today in 43-36 loss.
Sept. 16 vs. Virginia Tech--No excuses- Must win.
Sept. 23 at Michigan*--Keep it close?
Sept. 30 vs. Ohio--No excuses, must win. (EDITED TO CHANGE FROM WAGNER)
Oct. 7 at Wisconsin*---Probable loss.
Oct. 14 vs. Michigan State*--Winnable if RU plays to win, not lose
Oct. 21 at Indiana*--Winnable if RU plays to win, not lose.
Nov. 4 vs. Ohio State*--No chance.
Nov. 11 at Iowa*--Opportunity for signature win.
Nov. 18 at Penn State*--Probably not.
Nov. 25 vs. Maryland*--tough game if Taulia is back, winnable if RU plays to win, not lose.
On paper, there are 5 very winnable games: NW, Temple, VT, Wagner, Indiana
In year 4, if Schiano can't notch 6 wins, really should be at least 7 wins, he will not get it done at Rutgers.
Last edited:
We’re right about where you would expect for year 3. We can beat bad teams, we can’t beat good teams, and we’re right there with average teams but we dont know how to win yet. Fans can blame coaching. That’s fair. We could be better but I’m not concerned unless we aren’t better next year.
Yea, I am agreeing with you. I'm not saying you are saying that. But there is a big contingent of people that do. And it's silly every time they say it.
Why the Rutgers coach needs to have some special relationship with HS coaches that not other coach has just doesn't ever materialize. I'm sure Schiano is respected amongst the coaches, but he's still not getting their best.
So any decent coach from outside of NJ could likely get the same results.
Oh stop it already with the Hobbs' first hire. Ash was forced on him as he walked in the door. It was basically a done deal. I'm not going to rehash all the articles and the timeline. For God's sake, the urban legend and false narratives on this board are out of control.
Fans and recruits prefer the Rutgers coach to have a special relationship with winning more games than losing them.
Hobbs didn't get Ash right but he's gotten a lot of other right. And Hobbs was very restricted from a compensation level. The $4MM that the board wound up approving for Schiano would have unlocked a lot of options other than Ash.
Hobbs did hire Pike, so there's that...
The sad thing is I think this is Greg giving his all. He's just not capable of leading a team in this conference and winning games.
He has a great skill set for say, a team jumping into D1. He doesn't have a great skill set for teams that need to win football games in the Big Ten Conference.
We are expecting something I believe he's shown he's not capable of. He's not the young Greg he was when he first came here. He's a senior coach with a terrible record. This is what he is. Expecting something different is that old definition of insanity.
And the baseball coach and numerous other winning coaches.
There is a contingent of fans that want to keep Hobbs away from football and let Greg control it, which is ludicrous. Long memories of incorrect facts and short-minded.
Somewhere on this board, I gave a detailed timeline of the Ash hire and how it was basically a done deal when Hobbs was hired. Yes, Hobbs did interview him and said what he said, but it sounded like unless Ash totally bombed in the interview, the Ash deal was done. IIRC, there was something too with Ash removing his name from consideration from the Syracuse job before the interview Hobbs occurred.
Barchi was so mortified by Flood and Julie's "crimes," that RU had to have someone with a squeaky clean resume. Ash had that. I thought the guy was a total zero the first day I met him. Rutgers never learns. They could write a book of bad decisions after going through a rough spell. To add to it, after the Flood and Ash years, RU got railroaded into a 8 year deal for Schiano, someone who did not have any other options at the time of hire. RU will do something boneheaded on the next hire.
I’m not happy about today but I’m not giving up on GS yet. He is in year 3. If this is the product next year, then I’m giving up. Have to bowl next year or notch a win against one of the big 3.
Similar threads
