I have NEVER seen our fan base so ready to abandon our program

[rutgersguy1]

OOC:
2006- 6-0 (UNC: 3-9; Ill: 2-10; Ohio 9-4; Howard; Navy 9-4; K State 7-6)
2007-5-1 (Buffalo 5-7; Navy 8-5; Norfolk State; Lost to 6-6 Maryland; Army 3-9; Ball State 7-5)
2008 3-3 (Lost Fresno; Lost UNC; Lost Navy; Morgan State; Army 3-9; NC State 6-6)
2009 6-0 (Howard; FIU, Maryland 2-10; Texas Southern?; Army 5-7; UCF 8-5)
2010 3-2 (Norfolk, FIU, Lost UNC 8-5; Lost Tulane 4-8; Army 6-6
2011 5-1 (NC Cent; Lost UNC 6-6; Ohio; Navy 5-7; Army 3-9; Iowa State 6-6)

28-7 looks impressive, but 23 of those wins were against teams that had losing or 6-6 records or cupcakes like Norfolk or Morgan State. No thanks.

Thanks for taking the trouble to put all the facts out in black and white and this takes into account the end of his tenure as opposed to the beginning. You see his conference record is just around .500 and what comprises his OOC record. I always bring up conference record not just overall because that matters more to me in evaluation. That's the meat of your schedule, your peers so to speak, you can't run away from it and that's where your bread will be buttered.

He's not on my list really but I could be okay with him depending on the type of offense he runs and if he'd be able to find OCs to implement it and leave them alone. If it's McNulty or similar then I don't want him but if he can find quality spread guys and let them do their thing while not my favorite it could be acceptable to me. Just like Ash when he was hired even though he wasn't on my list either.

People always mention recruiting with the B10 behind Schiano etc..and I always say you can't look at things in a vacuum and it never really gets addressed when I bring it up. We're not recruiting with B10 behind us and then competing in the BE still.

In the BE we were near the top tier in terms of recruiting, resources etc...and we didn't do all that much like you see...about .500 in conference no BCS bowls etc..no wins over Kelly/WVU (top coaches/programs in the BE, he'll be facing much steeper competition in the B10 in terms coaching)....etc.. Just look at RichRod...and even his much better results in the BE didn't translate and at a high status program like Michigan no less. His offense as coming along but his defense sucked.

But in the B10 even if he improves recruiting, and the way I judge recruiting in my tiered pyramid view I'm not sure he will, for arguments sake say it will, we will still be behind most of our division rivals and probably about par with others. In terms of recruiting, resources and the like we will always be in the bottom tier of the B10.

So if he was about mediocre or so in the BE where we were in the top tier in terms of recruiting grounds, resources, etc...how does that translate to doing well in the B10 where we are in the bottom tier in terms of recruiting, resources, etc...

IMO, any chance to reconcile that issue to lies in the type of offense and the people he's able to put in place for that....if it's just the same as the BE (McNulty or any other pro style type) then I don't see any chance of reconciliation of that issue. If he has evolved on offense and can put quality spread people in place then there could be chance.

 

[krup]

Not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that he will recruit well. Just because RU fans love him doesn't mean recruits will love him.

What's his sales pitch going to be in his first couple seasons? Hey, I was .500 as a coach, but don't look at my pro coaching career because that hurts my lifetime average?

He could try hey, I was a OSU defensive coordinator. But, well, we got a guy that can say that and it's not working out so great.

If I remember correctly, in his last class he had convinced more than half of the NJ top 15 to commit here even though things were pretty dark for RU in terms the Big East (Pitt, Syr and WVU had announced they were leaving).

The idea that he could reverse a lot of the decline in recruiting that has happened over the last 6 years is his big selling point.

There are a lot of better coaches out there, but RU isnt paying for any proven ones and I am worried that one of the young up and coming types would need some immediate success to build recruiting momentum,and that is going to be really hard to do with what Ash has done to our talent pool.

 

[rutgersguy1]

I’m no Schiano lover, in fact, I’m considered a hater here. That being said, schiano is a big name coach that will immediately create a buzz with not only recruits but also boosters and fans. Putting his record up from day 1 is unfair because he literally took over a Patriot league team playing in the Big East. From 2006 on he was exactly 500 in conference. Also, hopefully his time with Meyer will have helped him to learn how a CEO should operate. Provide your input but don’t micro manage the crap out of people. Will schiano ever get us to OSU or PSU levels on a consistent basis? No, but nobody will because our press and school won’t allow us to cheat enough to. Could he get us to Iowa or Northwestern levels? I believe he could and I’d be good with that.

If he doesn't bring Wilson with him or any other quality spread guy and instead keeps McNulty or some other pro style OC then what would you think?

 

[vkj91]

Thanks for taking the trouble to put all the facts out in black and white and this takes into account the end of his tenure as opposed to the beginning. You see his conference record is just around .500 and what comprises his OOC record. I always bring up conference record not just overall because that matters more to me in evaluation. That's the meat of your schedule, your peers so to speak, you can't run away from it and that's where your bread will be buttered.

He's not on my list really but I could be okay with him depending on the type of offense he runs and if he'd be able to find OCs to implement it and leave them alone. If it's McNulty or similar then I don't want him but if he can find quality spread guys and let them do their thing while not my favorite it could be acceptable to me. Just like Ash when he was hired even though he wasn't on my list either.

People always mention recruiting with the B10 behind Schiano etc..and I always say you can't look at things in a vacuum and it never really gets addressed when I bring it up. We're not recruiting with B10 behind us and then competing in the BE still.

In the BE we were near the top tier in terms of recruiting, resources etc...and we didn't do all that much like you see...about .500 in conference no BCS bowls etc..no wins over Kelly/WVU (top coaches/programs in the BE, he'll be facing much steeper competition in the B10 in terms coaching)....etc.. Just look at RichRod...and even his much better results in the BE didn't translate and at a high status program like Michigan no less. His offense as coming along but his defense sucked.

But in the B10 even if he improves recruiting, and the way I judge recruiting in my tiered pyramid view I'm not sure he will, for arguments sake say it will, we will still be behind most of our division rivals and probably about par with others. In terms of recruiting, resources and the like we will always be in the bottom tier of the B10.

So if he was about mediocre or so in the BE where we were in the top tier in terms of recruiting grounds, resources, etc...how does that translate to doing well in the B10 where we are in the bottom tier in terms of recruiting, resources, etc...

IMO, any chance to reconcile that issue to lies in the type of offense and the people he's able to put in place for that....if it's just the same as the BE (McNulty or any other pro style type) then I don't see any chance of reconciliation of that issue. If he has evolved on offense and can put quality spread people in place then there could be chance.

couple things:
I hate the Rich Rod example. Michigan didn't give him the time he needed. Their boosters weren't ready for his style of O.
Schiano wasn't the lights out recruiter people make him out to be. His classes were usually top 3 or 4 in the conference. That puts you at about a 500 level talent wise.
I agree about the need to run some variation of the spread. I hated the McNulty hire this year and hopefully being around Urban Schiano has learned something.
I guess my argument is this: we can't blow the next hire. If we do we are talking generational bottom feeder status. We need a "safe hire" and he is literally the definition of safe for this program.

 

[vkj91]

If he doesn't bring Wilson with him or any other quality spread guy and instead keeps McNulty or some other pro style OC then what would you think?

I wouldn't be happy BUT if we had to keep McNulty and he tweeked what he is doing I'd survive. I think he is a competent coach and given the tools, he could adapt. He did with Marriota.
We've discussed this in the past but it's worth repeating how "spread" can mean so many different things. For example, if you asked me what my ideal offense is I'd say the OSU spread. That immediately brings our fans to the DM hurry up disaster. However, when Cardale Jones was at OSU he only ran the ball 7 times a a game. Haskins even less at 3 times a game. On the other hand, when people think MSU they think Pro Style. Yet, their QB Lewerke averaged 10 carries a game last season. If you look at highlights of Minnesota when Kill was there you see that very nice blend he referred to as multiple.

 

[rutgersguy1]

couple things:
I hate the Rich Rod example. Michigan didn't give him the time he needed. Their boosters weren't ready for his style of O.
Schiano wasn't the lights out recruiter people make him out to be. His classes were usually top 3 or 4 in the conference. That puts you at about a 500 level talent wise.
I agree about the need to run some variation of the spread. I hated the McNulty hire this year and hopefully being around Urban Schiano has learned something.
I guess my argument is this: we can't blow the next hire. If we do we are talking generational bottom feeder status. We need a "safe hire" and he is literally the definition of safe for this program.

I think with more time Michigan MAY have come around and I agree the fans weren't ready for his style offense...frankly I'm not sure our fans are either when it doesn't click right away....but he needed to get rid of Robinson. Like I've said strong offense but you need at least a mediocre defense which he didn't have. Nonetheless though he was fired and didn't come close to doing what he did in the BE.

I agree with you he was a good recruiter and some additions from Pitt helped but you make my point. I didn't look it up but I'd guess most years by numerical ranking at least we were 1-4 so top tier of the BE like I say but results in conference just .500 and no BCS bowls or wins over the top coaches or programs like Kelly/RichRod. We're not going to be recruiting in the top tier of the B10 regardless of whatever improved recruiting he brings so how does that translate....looking at his results in the BE when he was recruiting in the top tier. We don't operate in a vacuum recruiting with the B10 name and then compete in the BE.

Sounds like you'd still very reluctantly go with Schiano even if he went prostyle. For me that's a deal breaker. I'm not big on him but I could go along if he has quality spread OCs in his pocket if it's just prostyle like the BE I don't want to go down that road.

I don't see things as bleak as others and don't think generational bottom feeder status. Clawson at WF, Cutcliffe at Duke, Brohm at Purdue, Campbell at ISU, Leach at WSU, Briles at Baylor all have brought varying degrees of respectability...so even if the next hire fails we try again and I don't think it's any worse a situation. You'd have to have bowl bans/scholly losses etc...for me to think of consequences as dire as that.

 

[rutgersguy1]

I wouldn't be happy BUT if we had to keep McNulty and he tweeked what he is doing I'd survive. I think he is a competent coach and given the tools, he could adapt. He did with Marriota.
We've discussed this in the past but it's worth repeating how "spread" can mean so many different things. For example, if you asked me what my ideal offense is I'd say the OSU spread. That immediately brings our fans to the DM hurry up disaster. However, when Cardale Jones was at OSU he only ran the ball 7 times a a game. Haskins even less at 3 times a game. On the other hand, when people think MSU they think Pro Style. Yet, their QB Lewerke averaged 10 carries a game last season. If you look at highlights of Minnesota when Kill was there you see that very nice blend he referred to as multiple.

Yes I'm okay with OSU's offense and I do understand there are different types of spread offenses and I'm pretty much okay with any of them. But when I hear prostyle with spread concepts or being multiple all I think is added complexity and I'm more of KISS....it facilitates everything from learning, find players that fit, easier to plug and play, etc...

Adaptability though like you mention with Cardale Jones (even now with Haskins) or what Kingsbury did last night with Duffy (who isn't a great passer) is good though and actually what I like to see.

 

[vkj91]

I think with more time Michigan MAY have come around and I agree the fans weren't ready for his style offense...frankly I'm not sure our fans are either when it doesn't click right away....but he needed to get rid of Robinson. Like I've said strong offense but you need at least a mediocre defense which he didn't have. Nonetheless though he was fired and didn't come close to doing what he did in the BE.

I agree with you he was a good recruiter and some additions from Pitt helped but you make my point. I didn't look it up but I'd guess most years by numerical ranking at least we were 1-4 so top tier of the BE like I say but results in conference just .500 and no BCS bowls or wins over the top coaches or programs like Kelly/RichRod. We're not going to be recruiting in the top tier of the B10 regardless of whatever improved recruiting he brings so how does that translate....looking at his results in the BE when he was recruiting in the top tier. We don't operate in a vacuum recruiting with the B10 name and then compete in the BE.

Sounds like you'd still very reluctantly go with Schiano even if he went prostyle. For me that's a deal breaker. I'm not big on him but I could go along if he has quality spread OCs in his pocket if it's just prostyle like the BE I don't want to go down that road.

I don't see things as bleak as others and don't think generational bottom feeder status. Clawson at WF, Cutcliffe at Duke, Brohm at Purdue, Campbell at ISU, Leach at WSU, Briles at Baylor all have brought varying degrees of respectability...so even if the next hire fails we try again and I don't think it's any worse a situation. You'd have to bowl bans/scholly losses etc...for me to think of consequences as dire as that.

Dig Deeper and those guys are doing exactly what Schiano did and would do here.
Cutliff: took until year 6 to have a winning ACC record, In year 9 he went 1-7. His ACC record is 28-53
Clawson: year 5 and yet to have a winning ACC record. overall he is 9-25
Briles: cheated his way to the top can't include him.
Brohm: still to be seen, to early
Campbell: same as Brohm but I do like both of them.
Leach: a national treasure is 28-29 in the PAC12

 

[vkj91]

Yes I'm okay with OSU's offense and I do understand there are different types of spread offenses and I'm pretty much okay with any of them. But when I hear prostyle with spread concepts or being multiple all I think is added complexity and I'm more of KISS....it facilitates everything from learning, find players that fit, easier to plug and play, etc...

Adaptability though like you mention with Cardale Jones (even now with Haskins) or what Kingsbury did last night with Duffy (who isn't a great passer) is good though and actually what I like to see.

Pro Style with spread concepts doesn't need to be complex and can keep with your KISS philosophy. At the end of the day, "spread" is simply about creating a numbers advantage and then taking what the D gives you. It's the Jim Harbaugh version of Pro Style that over complicates things. Even he has gotten away a bit from that with Shea Patterson.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

There are no sure things in College Football, Schiano could just as easy come back and crash and burn harder than he did in the NFL.
He could also just as easily at the very least get us back to being a .500 team or better. which always beats the hell out of going 1-11 every year.

Schiano will most likely never get us to the point where we become a power in the B1G East division. But maybe he can get us good enough that when the big boy programs are having a bad season we can you know actually take advantage of it unlike now.

I still say that he is NOT the person that will be able to turn Rutgers into a Northeastern Powerhouse. That is not him, that will have to be someone else.

But he should be a big improvement over what we have now, at least I hope so.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Dig Deeper and those guys are doing exactly what Schiano did and would do here.
Cutliff: took until year 6 to have a winning ACC record, In year 9 he went 1-7. His ACC record is 28-53
Clawson: year 5 and yet to have a winning ACC record. overall he is 9-25
Briles: cheated his way to the top can't include him.
Brohm: still to be seen, to early
Campbell: same as Brohm but I do like both of them.
Leach: a national treasure is 28-29 in the PAC12

I'm aware and have looked at the records and know what they are and the point wasn't looking at the overall record to trash it but to say see the schools which aren't historically great have been brought to some level of respectability. It doesn't mean every year will be a good one though or that it will be maintained in perpetuity. The point was they were able to put out respectable years after the initial up hill climb.

Cutcliffe was absolutely putrid early (their patience paid off) but someone posted here you could see the offensive numbers improving steadily after the first year.

Clawson same terrible beginning and over .500 over all the last 2 years and .500 in conference last year. Again a couple years over .500 after the initial build up. That's respectable for WF.

Brohm is early and I've said as much but in his first year after a very bad prior regime over .500. Campbell same.

Leach actually is probably the one that can keep them respectable most years...especially if he keeps choosing solid DCs which he did with Grinch and I think may have again with Claeys.

I'm not bringing these up to say these guys will be great forever or that this will be maintained in perpetuity but that they were able to do it at all and have respectable years here and there and then maybe you can build from there. To me that's the same for us. I don't see the dire straits for us as if we'll be some perennial winless or 1 win team.

If the next hire fails, I don't see it as a generational we'll suck thing. Say Schiano fails would all the people that want him badly think then we're going to suck for a generation? I wouldn't think that just like any other hire...we fail...we try again.

 

[rutgersguy1]

There are no sure things in College Football, Schiano could just as easy come back and crash and burn harder than he did in the NFL.
He could also just as easily at the very least get us back to being a .500 team or better. which always beats the hell out of going 1-11 every year.

Schiano will most likely never get us to the point where we become a power in the B1G East division. But maybe he can get us good enough that when the big boy programs are having a bad season we can you know actually take advantage of it unlike now.

I still say that he is NOT the person that will be able to turn Rutgers into a Northeastern Powerhouse. That is not him, that will have to be someone else.

But he should be a big improvement over what we have now, at least I hope so.

The thing with him is that people see him as some savior from absolute doom for eternity. I don't see that. I just see him as any other coaching candidate if he works he works and he doesn't he doesn't.

Suppose he fails then are we in the pit of hell forever? I don't think so but the way it's talked about here that would be the conclusion for the ones who really want him now. To me if he failed we move on just like any other candidate and try again and I wouldn't see the situation as any more dire.

 

[Knight Shift]

Dig Deeper and those guys are doing exactly what Schiano did and would do here.
Cutliff: took until year 6 to have a winning ACC record, In year 9 he went 1-7. His ACC record is 28-53
Clawson: year 5 and yet to have a winning ACC record. overall he is 9-25
Briles: cheated his way to the top can't include him.
Brohm: still to be seen, to early
Campbell: same as Brohm but I do like both of them.
Leach: a national treasure is 28-29 in the PAC12

Maybe Ash needs 5 or 6 or 10 years too.
I'd take Mike Leach in a second. $2.95 Million at WSU. Up him to $3.5 Million, and live in a much better place.
https://www.seattletimes.com/sports...s-and-head-strength-coach-get-raises-in-2017/

 

[Knight Shift]

Dig Deeper and those guys are doing exactly what Schiano did and would do here.
Cutliff: took until year 6 to have a winning ACC record, In year 9 he went 1-7. His ACC record is 28-53
Clawson: year 5 and yet to have a winning ACC record. overall he is 9-25
Briles: cheated his way to the top can't include him.
Brohm: still to be seen, to early
Campbell: same as Brohm but I do like both of them.
Leach: a national treasure is 28-29 in the PAC12

Oh, and Clawson fired his DC mid-season:
https://www.journalnow.com/sports/w...cle_7771edfa-d118-525c-b5c5-78d3b7a10739.html

The repetitiveness of defensive mistakes between losses to Boston College and Notre Dame — some of them the same that plagued the Deacons in the second half of last season — likely cost Sawvel his job.

“So, our kids are giving us great effort, they’re playing hard, they’re working hard, they’re watching film. I just don’t think we’re putting them in the best position right now.”
Also included in Clawson’s post-game comments was a peek into the Deacons’ game plan — and how they failed to even accomplish the simplest of goals.
“We kind of went into the game plan saying, ‘Hey, let’s die the slow death, keep things in front of us, try to get off the field in the red zone,’” Clawson said. “And when you go into a game with the only goal of not giving up big plays and you still give up big plays, we’ve got some problems.”

 

[rutgersguy1]

Maybe Ash needs 5 or 6 or 10 years too.
I'd take Mike Leach in a second. $2.95 Million at WSU. Up him to $3.5 Million, and live in a much better place.
https://www.seattletimes.com/sports...s-and-head-strength-coach-get-raises-in-2017/

I think everyone would take him but I don't know that's it's realistic and it'd probably take 4M+. He also seems to go into these out of the way places like Lubbock and Pullman, I think we'd be too close to the shadow of NYC for a personality like his. His press conferences here would be a hoot though lol.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Oh, and Clawson filed his OC mid-season:
https://www.journalnow.com/sports/w...cle_7771edfa-d118-525c-b5c5-78d3b7a10739.html

The repetitiveness of defensive mistakes between losses to Boston College and Notre Dame — some of them the same that plagued the Deacons in the second half of last season — likely cost Sawvel his job.

“So, our kids are giving us great effort, they’re playing hard, they’re working hard, they’re watching film. I just don’t think we’re putting them in the best position right now.”
Also included in Clawson’s post-game comments was a peek into the Deacons’ game plan — and how they failed to even accomplish the simplest of goals.
“We kind of went into the game plan saying, ‘Hey, let’s die the slow death, keep things in front of us, try to get off the field in the red zone,’” Clawson said. “And when you go into a game with the only goal of not giving up big plays and you still give up big plays, we’ve got some problems.”

fired his DC

 

[Knight Shift]

fired his DC

I never said he fired his OC--I said "FILED" :joy:

 

[vkj91]

The thing with him is that people see him as some savior from absolute doom for eternity. I don't see that. I just see him as any other coaching candidate if he works he works and he doesn't he doesn't.

Suppose he fails then are we in the pit of hell forever? I don't think so but the way it's talked about here that would be the conclusion for the ones who really want him now. To me if he failed we move on just like any other candidate and try again and I wouldn't see the situation as any more dire.

I’m not sure I’ll have the Time to research it today but don’t think any of those programs had disastrous back to back to back hires. For a school and community that doesn’t really care about football that’s a tall task.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

Maybe Ash needs 5 or 6 or 10 years too.
I'd take Mike Leach in a second.

The NJ HS coaches will love.. er... mm hummmm

https://www.mycentraljersey.com/sto...-leach-slap-face-new-jersey-coaches/71879736/

 

[waretown]

It's a little silly to say the school hasn't shown it cares. It has sunk tons of money into the football program and hired what would seem to be a legitimate choice for head coach three years ago.

thats why they put erasers on pencils

 

[rutgersguy1]

I’m not sure I’ll have the Time to research it today but don’t think any of those programs had disastrous back to back to back hires. For a school and community that doesn’t really care about football that’s a tall task.

I didn't look them all up but I don't know that all of them had 2 or 3 bad hires in a row but most likely the guy in front of the current hire did bad that's why the current guy is there. I think Danny Hope was okay at Purdue before Hazell. It's really losing longevity you're referring to more than number of hires but that's obviously correlated to a degree.

Here are two (ISU and Duke) that had two in a row (didn't look back farther than that), actually Chizik got hired by Auburn off his crap season. Didn't understand that then and don't now with the benefit of time lol. Yea he won a NC but that to me was more Newton/Malzahn than him. My goodness Duke had 6 out of 10 years winless in conference.

It's probably easier these days on some level with the proliferation of the spread that has leveled the playing field some. Northwestern is another one that was bad for a long time and now doing respectably first with Barnett and now with Fitzgerald. Most of these places aren't football havens. Take Ash out to 4 years and we'd have 5 bad years (Flood's last and Ash's 4) which is probably on par with some of these schools if not better in some cases.

Gene Chizik ISU

2007 Iowa State 3–9 2–6
2008 Iowa State 2–10 0–8

Paul Rhoads ISU

2009 Iowa State 7–6 3–5
2010 Iowa State 5–7 3–5
2011 Iowa State 6–7 3–6
2012 Iowa State 6–7 3–6
2013 Iowa State 3–9 2–7
2014 Iowa State 2–10 0–9
2015 Iowa State 3–9 2–7

Carl Franks Duke

1999 Duke 3–8 3–5
2000 Duke 0–11 0–8
2001 Duke 0–11 0–8
2002 Duke 2–10 0–8
2003 Duke 2–5* 0–4* *

Ted Roof Duke

2003 Duke 2–3* 2–2*
2004 Duke 2–9 1–7
2005 Duke 1–10 0–8
2006 Duke 0–12 0–8
2007 Duke 1–11 0–8

 

[mildone]

If I remember correctly, in his last class he had convinced more than half of the NJ top 15 to commit here even though things were pretty dark for RU in terms the Big East (Pitt, Syr and WVU had announced they were leaving).

The idea that he could reverse a lot of the decline in recruiting that has happened over the last 6 years is his big selling point.

There are a lot of better coaches out there, but RU isnt paying for any proven ones and I am worried that one of the young up and coming types would need some immediate success to build recruiting momentum,and that is going to be really hard to do with what Ash has done to our talent pool.

His last class was looking pretty good before he left. But let's not forget it took 11 years, although it's also true he had a couple decent classes before that, and a couple handfuls of really good, NFL-caliber players (which weren't always reflected in the recruiting ranking). I think, given time, he has a chance to improve recruiting back to somewhere around where it was when he left.

But I it's a chance. I do not think it's a sure thing. Still, it's hard to imagine him, specifically, doing worse than we're doing now. Question is, will he better, be good enough to bring fans back. I am far from certain about that.

 

[mildone]

I don’t think you understand how untalented this program was when schiano took over. It wa patriot league level. Right now, we are as talented as at least 1/3 of the conference. Also 100% of who we should be scheduling OOC.

We don't look as talented as 1/3 of the conference to me. If we are how our record says we are, then we're not that talented. And while Ash isn't having acceptable results, I'm not convinced that the problem is entirely about coaching.

 

[mildone]

He is a good not great recruiter. Why will he recruit “well”. Lets see......DBP coach was a QB he put in the NFL, SPP staff the same as when he was here, DP Catholic staff the same, BC HC comes from a family that respects him. Look, I’m not saying he’s getting top 5 classes but the movers and shakers in this state remember him winning and we haven’t since he left

Some good points there.

 

[vkj91]

We don't look as talented as 1/3 of the conference to me. If we are how our record says we are, then we're not that talented. And while Ash isn't having acceptable results, I'm not convinced that the problem is entirely about coaching.

I’m sorry but we are as talented as Illinois, Indiana, Buffalo, and Kansas.

 

[G- RUnit]

I’m sorry but we are as talented as Illinois, Indiana, Buffalo, and Kansas.

For all the apologists, this is indefensible.

 

[Knight Shift]

I’m sorry but we are as talented as Illinois, Indiana, Buffalo, and Kansas.

Probably more than 2 or 3 of those, which is extremely sad, considering the margins of defeat. Seems like our coaches are coaching them down.

 

[mildone]

I’m sorry but we are as talented as Illinois, Indiana, Buffalo, and Kansas.

Not on those four days we weren't.

 

[Knight Shift]

Not on those four days we weren't.

Yes we were. Read Clawson's quotes again:
"I just don’t think we’re putting them in the best position right now.”

“And when you go into a game with the only goal of not giving up big plays and you still give up big plays, we’ve got some problems.”

Boy that sounds familiar.
Do you think Appalachian State is as talented as Penn State?

 

[Wolv RU]

couple things:
I hate the Rich Rod example. Michigan didn't give him the time he needed. Their boosters weren't ready for his style of O.
Schiano wasn't the lights out recruiter people make him out to be. His classes were usually top 3 or 4 in the conference. That puts you at about a 500 level talent wise.
I agree about the need to run some variation of the spread. I hated the McNulty hire this year and hopefully being around Urban Schiano has learned something.
I guess my argument is this: we can't blow the next hire. If we do we are talking generational bottom feeder status. We need a "safe hire" and he is literally the definition of safe for this program.

As someone who is also an avid follower of Michigan, and was a RR supporter, I can tell you your statements are not right. Think of Ash's terrible missteps on offense and apply that to defense for RR. Then think about how Ash has thrown away some Rutgers traditions and people's responses to that, multiply that by about 1,000,000, and you'll have a view of the sentiment at Michigan at that time. It really had nothing to do with offensive philosophy as Denard Robinson may have been the most popular player there of the last 10 years.

Other parts of his problems weren't directly his fault -- including Lloyd Carr's actions at the time.

RR made too many mistakes to be successful there. Not to mention, it is pretty clear by now that the rest of college football caught up with his innovations. When he was at WV he was one of the only guys doing what he was doing. Fast forward a few years and it wasn't as unique.

 

[MVDeli]

I guess my argument is this: we can't blow the next hire. If we do we are talking generational bottom feeder status. We need a "safe hire" and he is literally the definition of safe for this program.

I've been around here since 1988, can't think offhand of a P5 program that hasn't enjoyed AT LEAST the rare bright spots of success that have popped up around here. Every B1G team except Minny and Indiana have been to a Rose Bowl since 1996. Minnesota has a much better history than RU, maybe Indiana is around the same. Maybe Vanderbilt around the same. Duke & Wake Forest probably better. Iowa State around the same, Kansas State much better. Washington State & Oregon State better.

What is this new "generational bottom feeder" status that will come if the next hire is blown?

 

[mildone]

Yes we were. Read Clawson's quotes again:
"I just don’t think we’re putting them in the best position right now.”

“And when you go into a game with the only goal of not giving up big plays and you still give up big plays, we’ve got some problems.”

Boy that sounds familiar.
Do you think Appalachian State is as talented as Penn State?

Semantics. There is literally no way that our coaching staff told the RU line to miss tackles at the LOS, or the linebackers and DBs to vacate the center of the field on running plays. Yet we are constantly getting gashed up the middle (no pun intended).

At some point, not making mistakes is on the players, especially when the coaches can't bench said players for repeatedly making the same mistakes in all four of those games.

Our staff might not be the best communicators, and may not be doing a great job of motivating the players, even given the lack of depth with which to use a benching or position competition as extra motivators. That's on the staff, if it's true - and it sure looks that way right now.

But no matter how you look at it, our players were making tons of game-killing mistakes on both sides of the ball (missed tackles, dropped passes, poor blocking, missed assigments, bad reads, critical penalties). The coaches can't play the game for the players.

My point is not that our coaches are brilliant and the players suck. My point is that in the case of those four games, I saw TONs of players screwing up all over the field. That's partially coaching for sure. But it's also on the players.

We could have a team full of 5 star players and I'd say the same thing. On enough plays to kill the game, our players played like a bottom dwelling MAC team. And the results show it.

All the on-paper talent in the world is meaningless unless the players execute to the best of their abilities. That requires good coaching for sure, but it is unlikely to ever be 100% on the coaches, no matter how much our disgruntled fans might wish it were so.

 

[Ridge 22]

Look at my post immediately above this one.
No thanks. Respect what the guy did while he was here, but jasonpsu raises some very valid points. We should aim higher. No disrespect to Greg intended.

Aim higher how exactly? Who is coming to save the day outside of Greg that both WANTS the job with all its warts and has a higher ceiling? And if you can identify that person, then explain exactly how our cheap administration will sign off on paying him? Greg has his faults, but I have a hard time identifying someone better equipped right now who can come in and not only stabilize the program, but get it moving in a positive direction.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

I've been around here since 1988, can't think offhand of a P5 program that hasn't enjoyed AT LEAST the rare bright spots of success that have popped up around here. Every B1G team except Minny and Indiana have been to a Rose Bowl since 1996. Minnesota has a much better history than RU, maybe Indiana is around the same. Maybe Vanderbilt around the same. Duke & Wake Forest probably better. Iowa State around the same, Kansas State much better. Washington State & Oregon State better.

What is this new "generational bottom feeder" status that will come if the next hire is blown?

Sigh.. I can go to the whole history of Rutgers Football for you but the over simplified version is as such:

From 1938 until 1978 we basically behaved as if we were an Ivy league football program. The school had a policy of NO post season play (that means we always decline any and all bowl invites during these years), no spring practice and no football scholarships. Football players got scholarships but not actually football one. Also most of our schedule was made of of schools currently in the Patriot and Ivy league. We were actually pretty damn successful during this time, with winning seasons most years, Heisman talk, lots of All-Americans and two undefeated seasons. But we were not and most importantly were not trying to be a Big Time program during this time.

In 1978, when the NCAA decided to split D1 into two, Rutgers left all of its rivals behind and joined the D1a or FBS as it is now called. The reason was because fans wanted Rutgers to schedule big names, so they did. Rutgers however didn't upgrade anything else besides the schedule. We were still basically a glorified FCS team.

Rutgers was a Northeastern Independent for most of this time. Rutgers joined the Big East 1991.
Rutgers didn't really get serious about football until Schiano was hired. I mean it is not that the school didn't care at all about football or that upgrades were not made or that they didn't try to hire good coaches, but it is just that everything was done half-ass. Schiano comes in and we starting acting like a real program. After rebuilding we started to make bowl games every year. 2006 was our best year since 1978. Rutgers was ranked nationally in the top 10! It always looked like we were almost ready to break through and make a major bowl game or win a major title, but it just never happen. So close so many times, yet but never made it over the hump.

Schiano leaves for the NFL and the program starts going backwards. now it looks like we are back where we started from... so that is why people are angry and upset.

 

[Knight Shift]

Aim higher how exactly? Who is coming to save the day outside of Greg that both WANTS the job with all its warts and has a higher ceiling? And if you can identify that person, then explain exactly how our cheap administration will sign off on paying him? Greg has his faults, but I have a hard time identifying someone better equipped right now who can come in and not only stabilize the program, but get it moving in a positive direction.

1. Who said he wants the job?
2. A dollhouse has a higher ceiling. (that's a joke)
3. Need to stop thinking small.
4. Hopefully the donors feel the same way.
-------
Don't disagree that Greg could stabilize the program and get it moving in a positive direction. But that's my point--we should aspire to more than this.
Last two hires seemed like knee-jerk, rushed decisions. Flood was to preserve a recruiting class. Hobbs made the Ash hire in seven days. All I would like to see is Rutgers take its time and cast a wide net. If they do that, and Greg is the best candidate, I am on board. I am not anti-Greg, but I don't want his hiring to be a foregone conclusion without looking at anyone else.

 

[Ridge 22]

1. Who said he wants the job?
2. A dollhouse has a higher ceiling. (that's a joke)
3. Need to stop thinking small.
4. Hopefully the donors feel the same way.
-------
Don't disagree that Greg could stabilize the program and get it moving in a positive direction. But that's my point--we should aspire to more than this.
Last two hires seemed like knee-jerk, rushed decisions. Flood was to preserve a recruiting class. Hobbs made the Ash hire in seven days. All I would like to see is Rutgers take its time and cast a wide net. If they do that, and Greg is the best candidate, I am on board. I am not anti-Greg, but I don't want his hiring to be a foregone conclusion without looking at anyone else.

I am all for what you are saying. I just don't know that it is possible at this point, given the situation and all the constraints. If we are being realistic, Greg may be the best of our flawed options at the moment. Let him come in and do his thing for 3-5 years and then we pursue what you are preaching coming off more stable footing and better financials.

 

[IBleedScarlet]

Sigh.. I can go to the whole history of Rutgers Football for you but the over simplified version is as such:

From 1938 until 1978 we basically behaved as if we were an Ivy league football program. The school had a policy of NO post season play (that means we always decline any and all bowl invites during these years), no spring practice and no football scholarships. Football players got scholarships but not actually football one. Also most of our schedule was made of of schools currently in the Patriot and Ivy league. We were actually pretty damn successful during this time, with winning seasons most years, Heisman talk, lots of All-Americans and two undefeated seasons. But we were not and most importantly were not trying to be a Big Time program during this time.

In 1978, when the NCAA decided to split D1 into two, Rutgers left all of its rivals behind and joined the D1a or FBS as it is now called. The reason was because fans wanted Rutgers to schedule big names, so they did. Rutgers however didn't upgrade anything else besides the schedule. We were still basically a glorified FCS team.

Rutgers was a Northeastern Independent for most of this time. Rutgers joined the Big East 1991.
Rutgers didn't really get serious about football until Schiano was hired. I mean it is not that the school didn't care at all about football or that upgrades were not made or that they didn't try to hire good coaches, but it is just that everything was done half-ass. Schiano comes in and we starting acting like a real program. After rebuilding we started to make bowl games every year. 2006 was our best year since 1978. Rutgers was ranked nationally in the top 10! It always looked like we were almost ready to break through and make a major bowl game or win a major title, but it just never happen. So close so many times, yet but never made it over the hump.

Schiano leaves for the NFL and the program starts going backwards. now it looks like we are back where we started from... so that is why people are angry and upset.

I had read somewhere that the undefeated 1961 team was in contention for a Rose Bowl bid, but the RU President was not interested...

 

[Knight Shift]

I am all for what you are saying. I just don't know that it is possible at this point, given the situation and all the constraints. If we are being realistic, Greg may be the best of our flawed options at the moment. Let him come in and do his thing for 3-5 years and then we pursue what you are preaching coming off more stable footing and better financials.

Guessing that Greg is going to want $3.5 to $4 Million/year.
There might be a lot of other coaches who will come here for that kind of money.

Here's a name to consider- Todd Graham. Fired by Arizona state, and is being paid $3.1 Million through 2019.
Graham, who has a 95-61 record in 12 seasons as a head coach at Rice, Tulsa, Pittsburgh and Arizona State.
At Arizona State he was 46-32 and 31-23.

Wonder what @vkj91 (think he met him) and @rutgersguy1 think.
Starting with recruiting rankings in the 30's, his 2014 class was #21, then 20, 32, and 36. In the year before he was hired, their recruiting ranking was #57.

 

[vkj91]

1. Who said he wants the job?
2. A dollhouse has a higher ceiling. (that's a joke)
3. Need to stop thinking small.
4. Hopefully the donors feel the same way.
-------
Don't disagree that Greg could stabilize the program and get it moving in a positive direction. But that's my point--we should aspire to more than this.
Last two hires seemed like knee-jerk, rushed decisions. Flood was to preserve a recruiting class. Hobbs made the Ash hire in seven days. All I would like to see is Rutgers take its time and cast a wide net. If they do that, and Greg is the best candidate, I am on board. I am not anti-Greg, but I don't want his hiring to be a foregone conclusion without looking at anyone else.

my only issue with this is we all know who the hot candidates are. We aren't getting any of them or if we did we would have to give them some ridiculous incentives(like Ash's dumb extension)
We aren't spending Les Miles money.
In my opinion, we can't go with another first time head coach.
Who is left? Schiano vs Charlie Strong?

 

[vkj91]

Guessing that Greg is going to want $3.5 to $4 Million/year.
There might be a lot of other coaches who will come here for that kind of money.

Here's a name to consider- Todd Graham. Fired by Arizona state, and is being paid $3.1 Million through 2019.
Graham, who has a 95-61 record in 12 seasons as a head coach at Rice, Tulsa, Pittsburgh and Arizona State.
At Arizona State he was 46-32 and 31-23.

Wonder what @vkj91 (think he met him) and @rutgersguy1 think.
Starting with recruiting rankings in the 30's, his 2014 class was #21, then 20, 32, and 36. In the year before he was hired, their recruiting ranking was #57.

absolutely love Todd Graham as a coach but have two concerns:
He couldn't wait to get out of the Northeast when he was here.
Some people believe his success was as much or more Norvell than it was him.