This Will Not Sit Well With Some of Our Posters - Good Schiano Article

[mildone]

I was an enormous advocate of GS 2.0.

I wasn't, as you may recall. I never had any thoughts that "he'd definitely turn us around" or "he's the only guy who can do it" type thoughts and advocated for new blood.

Even so, I am not one of the people bashing him or calling for his firing already. Anybody who expected something different from what's happened since GS 2.0 was hired had unrealistic expectations. This was never going to be a 3 season turnaround. It probably won't be a 5 season turnaround. And it was never going to be a straight-line statistical improvement with no backward dips in some seasons.

Will he succeed, ultimately? To some extent, it depends on what people define as "success". And it depends on how long he's given. And on luck with stuff like injuries and great players who, despite other options, decide to come to RU for whatever reasons.

So the answer is maybe, maybe not. We'll have to wait and see because he's not going anywhere for a while.

Incidentally, one of the reasons I didn't want GS back was that I knew that, between folks who became GS haters the first time around and are just dying for him to fail, and disillusioned "GS is God" worshipers who wonder where the imagined God-like coaching prowess went, the forum would get toxic even more quickly than it would with some new blood. Seems like that's already happening.

But he's here and I'm supporting him until he isn't here. Like I do with all coaches. The AD can sweat the hire/fire stuff. My job is to be entertained (or not), no value in piling on or worship anybody.

 

[DJ Spanky]

LOL, those posters are GS haters. They never wanted GS.

Bingo!!! We have a winner!

 

[RUforlife]

I am confused, I thought we were supposed to hate that rag, now they write something positive about Schiano, we love it again? Please make up your minds.

 

[rutgersguy1]

The TLDR version- patience will be rewarded.

There are no certainties with any hire.

Here: two failed hires in 2012 and 2015.
Jimbo Fisher and all that NIL money
Super Mario at Miami (it's still early, but with all that talent--oh boy)
Indiana floundering in mediocrity for how long
Purdue has found some success with Brohm but floundering forever
Frost at Nebraska- fair-haired QB star and alum could not replicate the success of his QB at UCF
Hafley was someone a lot of people thought would have been great at Rutgers. Not so much at BC.

For every flash in the pan quick success (Bielema, Leipold), we can name 3-4 coaches on the other end of spectrum.

Some here were raving about Dino Babers earlier this year, but other than one 10-3 season, his other 5 seasons at Syracuse were losing seasons. (35-46//17-37). And Syracuse at least had a winning history. Season is falling flat with losses to Notre Dame and Pitt.

See Virginia Tech after Beamer retired. Fuentes had two nice seasons to start, but then the Hokies floundered and he was fired. Brent Pry is not off to a great start either.

See Georgia Tech after Paul Johnson retired. 25-38, and not a single winning season after 4 years of Geoff Collins.

It has been stated here many times that a hopeful comparison for Rutgers is Northwestern under Pat Fitzgerald. After a 4-8 start in season 1, he had five decent seasons and one terrific season (10-3) in year 6. Then in year 7, NW went 1-7 in conference, but 2 years later, they were 10-3 again. Now they are on hard times.

Complainers/haters fail to acknowledge the fact that Rutgers has to face three top 15 teams (often top 10 or 5) EVERY year, which, for now, are basically guaranteed losses. Add in having to play Wisconsin and Iowa (they seem to be back on track), every couple of years, and this is a recipe for 4 conference losses for a team trying to establish itself.

Patience will hopefully be rewarded.

Dave Doeren at NC State is an example- did not have a winning conference record until year 5.

Dave Clawson at Wake Forest- did not see a 500 record in conference until year 4, and did not have a winning conference record until year 8.

Jonathan Smith at Oregon State- three losing records to start, went 7-6/5-4 in year 4, and now on track.

Kyle Whittingham at Utah did not have a winning conference record until year 4.

Willie Fritz at Tulane had a winning conference record in year 3, regressed for 3 years, and now has Tulane at 8-1/5-0 and ranked.

Certainly, the haters and negatoids will find fault with the above and bring up Bielema or Leipold, but they were addressed. Unless you are blue blood (but see A&M LOL), most hires are a shot in the dark. But the examples above are where patience and slow builds were rewarded. The signs are there that we are much better on defense in year 3, and much better on special teams. Gavin is developing. With Sam Brown back, the running back room is strong. We need a couple/few solid receivers and TEs and a fortified OL (Greg has recruited well), and we may be on our way. Unless NIL completely derails things, thinking Year 4, or Year 5 will be the year we turn the corner.

Year 4 is the crucial one. Most coaches who end up possibly doing okay or better have gotten to .500 overall and a bowl game by then. Conference records are important and I mention them often but some sign of progress (meaning .500 overall and bowl) is usually shown by year 4.

Demonstration of consistency of that .500 or better sort of baseline also shows up by that year 4 as well. Of course you only know that looking backwards after some time. Clawson, Stoops, Leach all come to mind. Smith maybe but need more time, he's going to 2 consecutive bowls now though. Leach could be also doing it again at Miss State after his WSU stint.

The only one I can think of that took til year 5 to get that .500 or better and had some staying power was Cutcliffe at Duke and that was decade ago. Times have changed and with the portal quicker results can be demonstrated.

I wouldn't call Elko, Bielema, Liepold as flash in the pans. They are unknowns as far as long term results but again have shown some sign by year 4. Elko is year 1 in a bowl and Bielema/Liepold year 2 in a bowl. Whether that lasts or not we'll see. Leach made a bowl in year 2 at WSU then not in year 3 and then in year 4 a .500 baseline was established. That's the trend I see by and large for coaches who end up doing okay or better. They show something by year 4. You can't see it when they're in the year 4 but now looking back you can see Leach, Clawson, Stoops got to .500 in year 4 and continued to do so in the succeeding years. If you happen to get their earlier I wouldn't say much other than good year but I think year 4 is the year where signs of progress and then looking back hopefully some level of sustainability is shown. Eventually, following behind the establishment of that .500 overall baseline you'd like to see in the vicinity of .500 level give or take a game in conference record annually.

Brohm is somewhat out of that trend but he made a bowls in year 1 and 2 and has made a bowl 3 out 5 years and possibly 4 out 6 depending on the results of this year. Not too bad, but I'd say undeserving of his 6M/yr IIRC contract.

 

[batts]

I think the Schiano hire was a no brainer. The guy knows how to build a program. The big weakness, however, is NIL compensation which is first and foremost on most big time recruits' wishlist. Gregg is going to need a great deal of support from the boosters.

 

[BeantownKnight]

I, by no means, can speak for everyone.

However, I think that - for those who are upset with the current state of the program - and are asking "Why?", it's a fair question. Why is it year 3 - a majority of the players on that field are ones Schiano either recruited or picked-up through the portal - and yet the team is "young" or still needs more development, etc? Schiano and staff weren't developing players in years 1 or 2? By year 4, it will be ALL of the players on the field are Schiano's. Thus, there is no more room for excuses like that. Pardon me for being a bit harsh.

If I look at the Bielema's of the world (turning it around in year 2 .. and, by no means was Illinois a world beater), I understand that that's not every coaching hire. But, like Bielema, this is not Schiano's first gig. He is experienced. He should be putting together a staff that can get things done. He should be picking up players who can get things done.

I recognize that we're in the toughest division in CFB. And, you're right, a lot of these games will look horrible .. for a while yet (i.e. OSU, Michigan, etc). But, the first half of the game against Michigan looked like a revelation. I thought, "where was this the first half of the season?" Only to have things fall apart in the second half. And, that's ok too - even in year 3. Wimsatt is young and we've had injuries at tailback, etc. But, if every game (like the first half of the Michigan game) was close .. and we had a chance .. I wouldn't mind if we lost every one of them. At least, I'd be able to see some tangible progress. Maybe the next year, we'd start winning some of those. And, the year after that, some more.

Whatever we do this year, it should be better next year. Continuous improvement. Those are my expectations.

 

[Knight Shift]

Year 4 is the crucial one. Most coaches who end up possibly doing okay or better have gotten to .500 overall and a bowl game by then. Conference records are important and I mention them often but some sign of progress (meaning .500 overall and bowl) is usually shown by year 4.

Demonstration of consistency of that .500 or better sort of baseline also shows up by that year 4 as well. Of course you only know that looking backwards after some time. Clawson, Stoops, Leach all come to mind. Smith maybe but need more time, he's going to 2 consecutive bowls now though. Leach could be also doing it again at Miss State after his WSU stint.

The only one I can think of that took til year 5 to get that .500 or better and had some staying power was Cutcliffe at Duke and that was decade ago. Times have changed and with the portal quicker results can be demonstrated.

I wouldn't call Elko, Bielema, Liepold as flash in the pans. They are unknowns as far as long term results but again have shown some sign by year 4. Elko is year 1 in a bowl and Bielema/Liepold year 2 in a bowl. Whether that lasts or not we'll see. Leach made a bowl in year 2 at WSU then not in year 3 and then in year 4 a .500 baseline was established. That's the trend I see by and large for coaches who end up doing okay or better. They show something by year 4. You can't see it when they're in the year 4 but now looking back you can see Leach, Clawson, Stoops got to .500 in year 4 and continued to do so in the succeeding years. If you happen to get their earlier I wouldn't say much other than good year but I think year 4 is the year where signs of progress and then looking back hopefully some level of sustainability is shown. Eventually, following behind the establishment of that .500 overall baseline you'd like to see in the vicinity of .500 level give or take a game in conference record annually.

Brohm is somewhat out of that trend but he made a bowls in year 1 and 2 and has made a bowl 3 out 5 years and possibly 4 out 6 depending on the results of this year. Not too bad, but I'd say undeserving of his 6M/yr IIRC contract.

The funny thing about Bielema is that he did not do well in 5 years at Arkansas. Maybe they were not patient enough? Year 2 he was 7-6/2-6, year 3, 8-5/5-3, year 4, 7-6/3-6, and then year 5, 4-8/1-7. The SEC teams are less forgiving. But overall, his record was 29-34/11-29 over 5 years. Take away his great season 3, and he never had a winning or even .500 conference record at Arkansas.

Greg has said many times and I agree that success/progress is not always linear.
I did not mention Elko. As far as Leipold, with the win against OK State, he is having a really fine year (yes, I said it). The question is how will he do in year 3 and 4 and 5 if he sticks around that long. Time will tell.

 

[jtung230]

I, by no means, can speak for everyone.

However, I think that - for those who are upset with the current state of the program - and are asking "Why?", it's a fair question. Why is it year 3 - a majority of the players on that field are ones Schiano either recruited or picked-up through the portal - and yet the team is "young" or still needs more development, etc? Schiano and staff weren't developing players in years 1 or 2? By year 4, it will be ALL of the players on the field are Schiano's. Thus, there is no more room for excuses like that. Pardon me for being a bit harsh.

If I look at the Bielema's of the world (turning it around in year 2 .. and, by no means was Illinois a world beater), I understand that that's not every coaching hire. But, like Bielema, this is not Schiano's first gig. He is experienced. He should be putting together a staff that can get things done. He should be picking up players who can get things done.

I recognize that we're in the toughest division in CFB. And, you're right, a lot of these games will look horrible .. for a while yet (i.e. OSU, Michigan, etc). But, the first half of the game against Michigan looked like a revelation. I thought, "where was this the first half of the season?" Only to have things fall apart in the second half. And, that's ok too - even in year 3. Wimsatt is young and we've had injuries at tailback, etc. But, if every game (like the first half of the Michigan game) was close .. and we had a chance .. I wouldn't mind if we lost every one of them. At least, I'd be able to see some tangible progress. Maybe the next year, we'd start winning some of those. And, the year after that, some more.

Whatever we do this year, it should be better next year. Continuous improvement. Those are my expectations.

Didn’t GS beat Bielema last year? You should be happy he did that in year 2.

 

[sct1111]

S

Guy behind me who's on the NIL inside (not KTR) showed me some credible texts on some players. Makes me want to get sick. Who wants what to come or stay.
1.0 didn't play in this league or this schedule. Wish divisions were ending next year. We're not going to be top 10 team. IDK. Just get us to 7-5/8-4 playing solid not crazy hard one.

Hopefully not our stud freshman RB.

 

[brgRC90]

I, by no means, can speak for everyone.

However, I think that - for those who are upset with the current state of the program - and are asking "Why?", it's a fair question. Why is it year 3 - a majority of the players on that field are ones Schiano either recruited or picked-up through the portal - and yet the team is "young" or still needs more development, etc? Schiano and staff weren't developing players in years 1 or 2? By year 4, it will be ALL of the players on the field are Schiano's. Thus, there is no more room for excuses like that. Pardon me for being a bit harsh.

If I look at the Bielema's of the world (turning it around in year 2 .. and, by no means was Illinois a world beater), I understand that that's not every coaching hire. But, like Bielema, this is not Schiano's first gig. He is experienced. He should be putting together a staff that can get things done. He should be picking up players who can get things done.

I recognize that we're in the toughest division in CFB. And, you're right, a lot of these games will look horrible .. for a while yet (i.e. OSU, Michigan, etc). But, the first half of the game against Michigan looked like a revelation. I thought, "where was this the first half of the season?" Only to have things fall apart in the second half. And, that's ok too - even in year 3. Wimsatt is young and we've had injuries at tailback, etc. But, if every game (like the first half of the Michigan game) was close .. and we had a chance .. I wouldn't mind if we lost every one of them. At least, I'd be able to see some tangible progress. Maybe the next year, we'd start winning some of those. And, the year after that, some more.

Whatever we do this year, it should be better next year. Continuous improvement. Those are my expectations.

It's all the same excuses I heard for v1.0. The team is young--8 or 10 years in. The o-line, the qb, as if those things aren't all the result of the coaching staff. If he's firing his OC in Year 3 you have to ask yourself why. At this point in his career he didn't know how to hire the right OC?? Isn't that a part of "program building"? Where exactly is the program being built? That's a nice vague term thrown around to support Schiano but I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean.

 

[rutgersguy1]

The funny thing about Bielema is that he did not do well in 5 years at Arkansas. Maybe they were not patient enough? Year 2 he was 7-6/2-6, year 3, 8-5/5-3, year 4, 7-6/3-6, and then year 5, 4-8/1-7. The SEC teams are less forgiving. But overall, his record was 29-34/11-29 over 5 years. Take away his great season 3, and he never had a winning or even .500 conference record at Arkansas.

Greg has said many times and I agree that success/progress is not always linear.
I did not mention Elko. As far as Leipold, with the win against OK State, he is having a really fine year (yes, I said it). The question is how will he do in year 3 and 4 and 5 if he sticks around that long. Time will tell.

They want more at Arkansas but he did get .500+ records. Like I've said I don't believe that style works consistently if you're a team down the totem pole. It's hard to out physical teams like UGA, Alabama, LSU, Auburn when they're good and sometimes even when they're not. Freaking it's not even working for Jimbo with better recruits, let alone Arkansas back then. You need some level of physicality but if that's your bread and butter, it's a much tougher path IMO.

I mention Elko because it's the same theme, he's shown quick results in a place that's had quite a bit of difficulty just like Bielema and Liepold. I can't tell you those results will stick next year. But by your 4 for them (assuming they're still there) you'd think you'd see some level of .500 overall consistency or at least "choppy consistency" like Brohm.

Speaking of Liepold, he's done it with his transfer backup qb Jason Dean. He's also had his starting bruiser RB Hishaw out for the season for some time. Neal his replacement has done a solid job at times. They both had good games against Ok St. Even in their losses, their offense has looked fairly productive for the most part. That's good coaching IMO.

Another example, after Leary went out NC St offense looked neutered. They made another change to their true freshman qb MJ Morris and he's lit a little bit of spark for them so far in 1.5 games. 3 TDs in the VT game to lead a comeback and 3 TDs in the WF game this past weekend.

These are kind examples of when I say "find a way" whatever the the heck the issue is. These programs, these coaches are doing things and having some respectable results.

You know another reason year 4 is critical. I can't think of many coaches who went 4 straight years with below .500 regular season records and didn't get fired. Cutcliffe like I mentioned was one but I can't think of many others. The 8 year contract will likely have some say in that though. So he either has to find 2 more this year or get 6 next year or you never know. Babers was on the verge of it this year, it would have been his 4th straight regular season losing record if he didn't rack up 6 but he has so he should be safe for now.

 

[jtung230]

It's all the same excuses I heard for v1.0. The team is young--8 or 10 years in. The o-line, the qb, as if those things aren't all the result of the coaching staff. If he's firing his OC in Year 3 you have to ask yourself why. At this point in his career he didn't know how to hire the right OC?? Isn't that a part of "program building"? Where exactly is the program being built? That's a nice vague term thrown around to support Schiano but I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean.

LOL, all the GS haters love the Gleeson hire. They wanted the Big 12 offense and not GS “old school” offense.

 

[rutgersguy1]

LOL, all the GS haters love the Gleeson hire. They wanted the Big 12 offense and not GS “old school” offense.

Actually he was a name I brought up, one of a few, but by no means a guarantee and frankly no one is. I mentioned the Fordham OC now but who knows. I still believe that type offense is the path with the most potential. You still need the right person to install it and that is always a crap shoot.

Year 1, I was optimistic but really we haven’t even seen anything close to it and it’s no a surprise as we have no qb that can throw well enough in those first two years. GW may fit the mold but I don’t know. I was surprised we didn’t have some alternative to NV last year. Even though I was optimistic in year 1, I could tell he’s not the one to lead a highly productive offense. He doesn’t throw well enough.

Most of the time, not always, when a team lower down the totem pole is outperforming their status on the landscape it’s on the back of offense and some mediocre defense, occasionally not even that on defense.

If we try and fail using that path, try again and again until you find the right person to install it because that’s the general trend.

 

[Knight Shift]

They want more at Arkansas but he did get .500+ records. Like I've said I don't believe that style works consistently if you're a team down the totem pole. It's hard to out physical teams like UGA, Alabama, LSU, Auburn when they're good and sometimes even when they're not. Freaking it's not even working for Jimbo with better recruits, let alone Arkansas back then. You need some level of physicality but if that's your bread and butter, it's a much tougher path IMO.

I mention Elko because it's the same theme, he's shown quick results in a place that's had quite a bit of difficulty just like Bielema and Liepold. I can't tell you those results will stick next year. But by your 4 for them (assuming they're still there) you'd think you'd see some level of .500 overall consistency or at least "choppy consistency" like Brohm.

Speaking of Liepold, he's done it with his transfer backup qb Jason Dean. He's also had his starting bruiser RB Hishaw out for the season for some time. Neal his replacement has done a solid job at times. They both had good games against Ok St. Even in their losses, their offense has looked fairly productive for the most part. That's good coaching IMO.

Another example, after Leary went out NC St offense looked neutered. They made another change to their true freshman qb MJ Morris and he's lit a little bit of spark for them so far in 1.5 games. 3 TDs in the VT game to lead a comeback and 3 TDs in the WF game this past weekend.

These are kind examples of when I say "find a way" whatever the the heck the issue is. These programs, these coaches are doing things and having some respectable results.

You know another reason year 4 is critical. I can't think of many coaches who went 4 straight years with below .500 regular season records and didn't get fired. Cutcliffe like I mentioned was one but I can't think of many others. The 8 year contract will likely have some say in that though. So he either has to find 2 more this year or get 6 next year or you never know. Babers was on the verge of it this year, it would have been his 4th straight regular season losing record if he didn't rack up 6 but he has so he should be safe for now.

Duke's team stats:

#7 of 14 in ACC in team defense, but they are allowing only 23.1 pts/game (best is NC State at 17.8), and that is fairly respectable. Robb Smith is Duke's DC.

But not surprising that Duke is #5 of 14, scoring 34.8 pts/game, which is actually #3 in the ACC. Complementary football results in complimentary results.

 

[yesrutgers01]

It's all the same excuses I heard for v1.0. The team is young--8 or 10 years in. The o-line, the qb, as if those things aren't all the result of the coaching staff. If he's firing his OC in Year 3 you have to ask yourself why. At this point in his career he didn't know how to hire the right OC?? Isn't that a part of "program building"? Where exactly is the program being built? That's a nice vague term thrown around to support Schiano but I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean.

To be fair- it was never the OL until 2010... 🙂

 

[rutgersguy1]

Duke's team stats:

#7 of 14 in ACC in team defense, but they are allowing only 23.1 pts/game (best is NC State at 17.8), and that is fairly respectable. Robb Smith is Duke's DC.

But not surprising that Duke is #5 of 14, scoring 34.8 pts/game, which is actually #3 in the ACC. Complementary football results in complimentary results.

Elko is a good defensive coach who has demonstrated more with less in his career before he moved to ND. He also hired Kevin Johns as OC a name I’ve brought up here in the past as a potential name when we needed one.

 

[DJ Spanky]

I am confused, I thought we were supposed to hate that rag, now they write something positive about Schiano, we love it again? Please make up your minds.

Oh, no. I still hate that rag, even when they throw us a bone.

 

[Knight Shift]

Oh, no. I still hate that rag, even when they throw us a bone.

Are people allowed to like or understand something they agree with even when it is written by someone they usually agree with? Remember when people would keep an open mind and still listen people they disagreed with and found some common ground? Maybe that's not allowed any more.

 

[mikemarc1]

Not a fan of Politi, but what do people think of his take?

Rutgers fans, don’t give up on Greg Schiano | Politi

His third season is a disappointment, but Greg Schiano is still the right coach for Rutgers.

www.nj.com

politi is a huge Schiano buddy. So not surprised by this take at all

 

[NickRU714]

This is probably going to put me in the "Schiano Hater" bucket - but whatever.
This article is exactly why people call out the "Schiano Lovers" and talk about the ongoing excuses and justifications.
This entire article and Politi are BS.

1. Before the season, Politi himself said this was a crucial year (referenced himself in the article)
   https://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/...greg-schiano-and-rutgers-football-politi.html
   "Typically, you have a good idea where a college football program is headed after Year 3. For Schiano’s predecessor, you didn’t need to get deep into September to know that Chris Ash was in deep, deep trouble — a 55-14 dismantling at Kansas was all the evidence required. Kyle Flood reached a bowl game in his third season, but if you looked closely, you could see the cracks in recruiting and culture that would sink his tenure."
2. But now that Year 3 isn't going well - Year 3 isn't important?
   "Look: It seems silly, at this point, to take a ground-level view of this football team. Rutgers is 4-5, and with Michigan State, Penn State and Maryland left on the schedule, it might not win again. That means Rutgers will take a step back in the all-important third year under Schiano, which will lead to plenty of inevitable and understandable handwringing.
   "But if you detach from the disappointing results right now and view this program from 30,000 feet, is the situation that much different than it was three years ago this month?"
3. Then he goes into the "but everyone wanted HC Schiano. Only HC Schiano can save Rutgers":
   "Back then, the Rutgers fan base was united around the idea that one coach was the best choice — maybe the only choice — to resurrect a talent-bereft program. And when that coach almost wasn’t hired, those fans freaked the hell outand made damn sure he was.
   Schiano was that coach then, the one person in the running who A) had proven that he could win in a place like Piscataway and B) actually was willing to take the job. If Rutgers were starting the search over right now, those two things would still be true."
   "I do know Schiano remains this program’s best hope."

The argument in favor of HC Schiano (or any other Big Name Coach) was "Well we need to immediately turn around recruiting. The team has no talent. Nobody can coach this team. We don't have time for an lower level or unknown coach. The fanbase won't wait 5 years."

Now it's "oh this was always supposed to be 5-6 years. What did you expect? You can't expect any offensive improvement for 5 years. It's a process".

So what exactly was the point of NEEDING a big name coach?
Why exactly couldn't the fanbase suffer through a multi-year build?

 

[yesrutgers01]

I was not a huge advocate of GS 2.0 until Ash's final year. When I fully realized that this entire program had just burnt to the ground. Fans, team, program

I was then willing to give the guy a shot as...we were not going to be able to get a guy that has proven it before. They just were not going to take the job. And, one thing I did know GS could do, is stabilize the program. And we needed that more than anything.

Greg has done exactly that- he has stabilized the program. We are no longer a complete joke and media and other schools are back to showing some respect.

Now, here is the part I worried about. Can Greg get us to the next level? And what did he learn from the NFL and Urben? At first, it seemed like he may have learned quite a bit- year one, more approachable and even went out and got an innovative OC and in that first year, it was obvious, Greg was letting him coach.
I also worried about recruiting. Too many people had looked at him as a great recruiter. And I am not sure why. He got some very successful 2 and 3 stars that were hidden gems. But what people hadn't realized about 2004-8, it was much easier to find and hide a local hidden gem.
He also had the issue, once he started picking up steam and getting higher ranked teams- that while he may get a good number of 4 stars, he was not filling his roster correctly. He got star happy and not player happy. He even had a year that he did NOT recruit a single OL...WTF???

OK- so how would he do now. I thought this improved and he is getting kids like Wimstatt...I thought this was a major stepping point- until, The GD NIL.

Now, that was not of Greg's making...but he better figure it out very quick. I know that Rutgers stumbles over our own feet when it comes to being smart with money. But we are now in the richest conference in the damn world. And even with the loan, the money coming in is huge.
He AND Hobbs need to figure it out.

Now, for the rebuild. It wasn't going to be year 1 and 2. Though, the team looked much better than hoped in those years. This year, a mixed bag. But, to me, I give Greg this year and next. He hitched his job and our team 100% to GW. That was the biggest mistake a HC could make. And that is not anything negative on GW's play. Even if this kid becomes an NFL QB- the fact Greg skipped a year bring in a QB...to me- unforgivable.

 

[OriginalKnight]

Considering the source, you have nothing to worry about.

At least the source isn’t a mall cop mod.

 

[Yeah Baby]

@yesrutgers01

Year 1 and 2 we had a combo of Ash’s best recruits and some really good transfers including some that Ash secured and many that Schiano brought in. We had talent but most of them were LB’s. But we also put Pops and Melton into the NFL and those guys made plays. Also while I never confused Noah with a 5 star he was a really solid QB for us considering some of the other issue we have on that side of the ball. Losing him this year hurt us but I think the plan all along was to develop our younger guys this year while trying to get to 6 W’s.

I can honestly say the last 3 years have been much, much better than the previous 3 years and I am confident the next 3 years will also be better because now we have some holes in depth compared to a complete lack of depth at almost every position.

 

[Eagleton96]

Rutgers fans, don’t give up on Greg Schiano | Politi

His third season is a disappointment, but Greg Schiano is still the right coach for Rutgers.

www.nj.com

NIL and the Portal have significantly changed the equation in a way that's not favorable for Rutgers. That's not Schiano's fault, and I think he gives us the best chance to succeed. If Schiano fails and we have to start over in this new environment, I think we are truly screwed.

 

[brgRC90]

LOL, all the GS haters love the Gleeson hire. They wanted the Big 12 offense and not GS “old school” offense.

Lol yeah how crazy to not want an "old school" offense that can't score hahaha

 

[brgRC90]

To be fair- it was never the OL until 2010... 🙂

If it's not the o-line that's to blame it's someone else--except Saint Greg. He's never to blame.

 

[rutgersguy1]

BTW should add with regards to these tempo offenses working in the B10. They work in the SEC too. Freeze has used it, Kiffin has used it with Lebby, Heupel has used it, Leach has used it, Kendal Briles has used it etc...Also Wilson came to IU from being the Oklahoma OC. His offense was working pretty well at IU, it's his defense that sucked and was the problem If he could have got that to just mediocre, he might have been okay. He might have had a chance when he hired Tom Allen, a decent DC, but then Wilson got fired. His offense was so bad at IU that Meyer hired him as OC and Day has also kept him on lol.

B12 country off the Leach/Briles trees are where I think you could have better odds of installing the offense successfully but in lieu of that or if NE ties are important I give names like Decker at Fordham.

 

[jtung230]

Lol yeah how crazy to not want an "old school" offense that can't score hahaha

You mean like Michigan or Illinois? I would love to see us score 45 pts per game but we don’t have the horses or play in the right conference for that.

 

[yesrutgers01]

If it's not the o-line that's to blame it's someone else--except Saint Greg. He's never to blame.

Not quite sure how your statement ties in with what I said...

"To be fair- it was never the OL until 2010... 🙂"

My quote has zero to do with 2022

 

[brgRC90]

You mean like Michigan or Illinois? I would love to see us score 45 pts per game but we don’t have the horses or play in the right conference for that.

You still think it's 1957 and the Big Ten is just ground and pound downfield.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

You still think it's 1957 and the Big Ten is just ground and pound downfield.

Exactly. We should definitely throw the ball all over the place like we did in the second half the Nebraska game.

 

[brgRC90]

Exactly. We should definitely throw the ball all over the place like we did in the second half the Nebraska game.

Um you do know there are all kinds of ways to do offense now. Maybe you should watch some college football beyond Rutgers games. It would be very educational.

 

[NickRU714]

You still think it's 1957 and the Big Ten is just ground and pound downfield.

http://www.cfbstats.com/2022/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category09/sort01.html
The notion that the Big Ten is filled with bad offenses is a little outdated.
Particularly in the Big 10 East.

Current PPG national rankings:
1. OSU - 45.8
5. Michigan - 42.2
32. Penn State - 34.4
47. Maryland - 31.4
53. Wisconsin - 30.8
54. Minnesota - 30.6
66. Purdue - 29.4
85. Nebraska - 25.6
90. Illinois - 24.8
94. Michigan State - 24.3
100. Indiana - 23.3
114(t). Rutgers - 19.8
125. Iowa - 17.2
126. Northwestern - 16.7

Note - this includes 66pts against Wagner. Without Wagner, we drop to 14.0ppg.
However, most teams have inflated PPG because of a 1-AA. Can't find a good site for just FBS stats.

Just a little bonus - while the defense has been great, turns out BC and Temple are terrible offenses.
114. Temple (tied with Rutgers) - 19.8
119. Boston College - 18.8 (@Knight Shift hmm.....that decimal point must be off. Should be closer to 188ppg with the greatest OC in the history of Rutgers.)

 

[rutgersguy1]

Exactly. We should definitely throw the ball all over the place like we did in the second half the Nebraska game.

I've said this before, that's a misconception that they only throw the ball all over the place. Briles' Baylor offenses usually was in the top 15, occasionally top 10, in rushing in the country. Heupel's offense top 20-25ish in rushing. I think they took a hit after this UGA game down to 37. Last year they were #12 in rushing. TCU is #13 in rushing currently. Arkansas with Kendal Briles #10 in rushing this year. Jeff Grimes' wide zone offense, is very physical style of offense that uses quite of misdirection and rushes the ball hard. Kiffin last year was throwing it all over with Matt Corral but this year he's had 2 good physical RBs and he's run the ball a lot more. Tempo open offense doesn't necessarily mean sling it all over all the time. Many of these coaches talk about the importance of running the ball.

 

[brgRC90]

I've said this before, that's a misconception that they only throw the ball all over the place. Briles' Baylor offenses usually was in the top 15, occasionally top 10, in rushing in the country. Heupel's offense top 20-25ish in rushing. I think they took a hit after this UGA game down to 37. Last year they were #12 in rushing. TCU is #13 in rushing currently. Arkansas with Kendal Briles #10 in rushing this year. Jeff Grimes wide zone offense, is very physical style of offense that uses quite of misdirection and rushes the ball hard. Kiffin last year was throwing it all over with Matt Corral but this year he's had 2 good physical RBs and he's run the ball a lot more. Tempo open offense doesn't necessarily mean sling it all over all the time. Many of these coaches talk about the importance of running the ball.

Plus running the ball more creatively than up the middle 90% of the time.

 

[brgRC90]

http://www.cfbstats.com/2022/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category09/sort01.html
The notion that the Big Ten is filled with bad offenses is a little outdated.
Particularly in the Big 10 East.

Current PPG national rankings:
1. OSU - 45.8
5. Michigan - 42.2
32. Penn State - 34.4
47. Maryland - 31.4
53. Wisconsin - 30.8
54. Minnesota - 30.6
66. Purdue - 29.4
85. Nebraska - 25.6
90. Illinois - 24.8
94. Michigan State - 24.3
100. Indiana - 23.3
114(t). Rutgers - 19.8
125. Iowa - 17.2
126. Northwestern - 16.7

Note - this includes 66pts against Wagner. Without Wagner, we drop to 14.0ppg.
However, most teams have inflated PPG because of a 1-AA. Can't find a good site for just FBS stats.

Just a little bonus - while the defense has been great, turns out BC and Temple are terrible offenses.
114. Temple (tied with Rutgers) - 19.8
119. Boston College - 18.8 (@Knight Shift hmm.....that decimal point must be off. Should be closer to 188ppg with the greatest OC in the history of Rutgers.)

It's also outdated to say you can't be a high-powered offense in the Big Ten and score a lot of points because of the weather or some other mystical notion. 10-15 years ago the teams of the Big Ten realized they can't have teams full of big but slow guys. The SEC was running circles around them. Too many of our posters are trapped in time in their thinking.

 

[NickRU714]

Exactly. We should definitely throw the ball all over the place like we did in the second half the Nebraska game.

Do you even know the situations and outcomes of the interceptions in the 2nd half against Nebraska?
People keep repeating this tired and uninformed argument about "passing it all over".

1st and 10 Neb 38 - Brown for 3
2nd and 7 Neb 35 - Salaam for loss of 1
3nd and 8 Neb 36 - Simon interception to the Neb 31
Neb following possession: Turnover on downs at Rut 27. Zero points.
We totally should have run it on 3rd and 8. Great idea.

1st and 10 Rut 42 - Brown for 3
2nd and 7 Rut 45 - holding
2nd and 17 Rut 35 - Simon interception to Rut 27
Neb following possession: Touchdown to make it 14-13.
So we should have run it on 2nd and 17? just give up on the possession?

End of 4th - 59 seconds left
1st and 2nd incomplete
3rd and 10 - Simon interception
With less than a minute, down 1, just run out the clock? That's the gameplan?


So the 3INTs were clear passing situations or literally with the clock running out on the game.
But sure, a RB draw on 3rd and 18 or with less than a minute left makes more sense.

 

[NickRU714]

It's also outdated to say you can't be a high-powered offense in the Big Ten and score a lot of points because of the weather or some other mystical notion. 10-15 years ago the teams of the Big Ten realized they can't have teams full of big but slow guys. The SEC was running circles around them. Too many of our posters are trapped in time in their thinking.

"We need a running team because we play outside in the Northeast" is one of the oldest and dumbest arguments.
We finish the season Thanksgiving weekend.
We aren't the Giants, Jets or Packers - playing in the snow in late December.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Do you even know the situations and outcomes of the interceptions in the 2nd half against Nebraska?
People keep repeating this tired and uninformed argument about "passing it all over".

1st and 10 Neb 38 - Brown for 3
2nd and 7 Neb 35 - Salaam for loss of 1
3nd and 8 Neb 36 - Simon interception to the Neb 31
Neb following possession: Turnover on downs at Rut 27. Zero points.
We totally should have run it on 3rd and 8. Great idea.

1st and 10 Rut 42 - Brown for 3
2nd and 7 Rut 45 - holding
2nd and 17 Rut 35 - Simon interception to Rut 27
Neb following possession: Touchdown to make it 14-13.
So we should have run it on 2nd and 17? just give up on the possession?

End of 4th - 59 seconds left
1st and 2nd incomplete
3rd and 10 - Simon interception
With less than a minute, down 1, just run out the clock? That's the gameplan?


So the 3INTs were clear passing situations or literally with the clock running out on the game.
But sure, a RB draw on 3rd and 18 or with less than a minute left makes more sense.

No, you're right ... it was definitely smarter to pass and lose (especially when you have the best punter on the planet).

 

[brgRC90]

Do you even know the situations and outcomes of the interceptions in the 2nd half against Nebraska?
People keep repeating this tired and uninformed argument about "passing it all over".

1st and 10 Neb 38 - Brown for 3
2nd and 7 Neb 35 - Salaam for loss of 1
3nd and 8 Neb 36 - Simon interception to the Neb 31
Neb following possession: Turnover on downs at Rut 27. Zero points.
We totally should have run it on 3rd and 8. Great idea.

1st and 10 Rut 42 - Brown for 3
2nd and 7 Rut 45 - holding
2nd and 17 Rut 35 - Simon interception to Rut 27
Neb following possession: Touchdown to make it 14-13.
So we should have run it on 2nd and 17? just give up on the possession?

End of 4th - 59 seconds left
1st and 2nd incomplete
3rd and 10 - Simon interception
With less than a minute, down 1, just run out the clock? That's the gameplan?


So the 3INTs were clear passing situations or literally with the clock running out on the game.
But sure, a RB draw on 3rd and 18 or with less than a minute left makes more sense.

Even though a lot of the failed passing game can be blamed on running too much, up the gut, on 1st and 2nd down, we have posters who think we should run MORE. They're stuck in the 1920s, not even the 60s.