If a change is made...

[Augusta_Jacket]

Faulty reasoning. You're assuming a priori that the "transition" is responsible for the losing, and not the coach. We're in year four, and still losing.

Nope. We'd still be losing. The transition is why we are losing.

Now, the argument has been made, and I agree with it, that coaching is still severely lacking even with the transition. The lack of specific progress in key areas of the offense and the absolute regression on defense justifies the firing of CGC. We would likely still be losing no matter who the coach was, because changing over a whole offense and building depth takes time. It's the WAY we are losing that is the issue.

For the record, I have spewed no "bile" and four years in is a little late to be talking about "instant gratification".

For the record, I didn't name names and you can go back to year one of CGC and read the same posts that are being written today.

 

[Jim Prather]

I would argue, that having seen 3+ years of losing football, we should be realizing that if, anything, the transition pains are real and were going to be there no matter who was the coach. The only way to mitigate that was to continue with a 3O coach, and we would probably still be a losing team in 1-2 of those years with the same mas fanbase.

What we are is a fanbase that wants instant gratification and we spew bile at whatever coach/AD doesn't get it for us.

I generally agree with you, but in this case I have to disagree. I don’t think we HAD to have a 3O coach - only one who employed a lot of option concepts. Someone who ran a variant of Urban Meyers offense would have done much better.

 

[bobongo]

Nope. We'd still be losing. The transition is why we are losing.

Now, the argument has been made, and I agree with it, that coaching is still severely lacking even with the transition. The lack of specific progress in key areas of the offense and the absolute regression on defense justifies the firing of CGC. We would likely still be losing no matter who the coach was, because changing over a whole offense and building depth takes time. It's the WAY we are losing that is the issue.



For the record, I didn't name names and you can go back to year one of CGC and read the same posts that are being written today.

Glad you clarified that. There has been bile, but I haven't spewed it.
We'll agree to disagree as to the weight of the "transition" factor to our losing. The excuse carried some weight in year one, but by year four it's grown a good bit of moss on it. Besides that, I can just look at the manifestations of bad coaching on the field to see where the real problem lies.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I generally agree with you, but in this case I have to disagree. I don’t think we HAD to have a 3O coach - only one who employed a lot of option concepts. Someone who ran a variant of Urban Meyers offense would have done much better.

I agree somewhat. We'd be doing "better" but we'd still likely be losing. First, CGC inherited an OL that was not, for the most part, built for anything other than 3O football.

Second, we had a roster full of ABs and since he wasn't given the green light to process, we spent two seasons with limited roster availability until we started seeing those guys graduate/leave.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Glad you clarified that. There has been bile, but I haven't spewed it.
We'll agree to disagree as to the weight of the "transition" factor to our losing. The excuse carried some weight in year one, but by year four it's grown a good bit of moss on it. Besides that, I can just look at the manifestations of bad coaching on the field to see where the real problem lies.

Transitions of OL take more than a year. Any football coach can tell you that. When CPJ retired, I asked several of my friends who coach HS football here locally and they all said we'd be between 4-6 years most likely before we were back to scratch as an offense. They said our best hope was a dynamic QB and a stout defense until then. We have the possibility of the former and so far no signs of the latter.

 

[bobongo]

Transitions of OL take more than a year.

I agree with that, but we're in year four and the OL is dismal as ever. There is a transition factor, but IMO it's gone, now. The time for excuses has expired.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I agree with that, but we're in year four and the OL is dismal as ever. There is a transition factor, but IMO it's gone, now. The time for excuses has expired.

Transitions of OL take between 4-6 years. We are only at the beginning of the point where we should see results.

Again, none of this is to defend CGC. I think his firing, barring a miracle comeback by this team, is justified. But two things can be true. CGC is a bad coach and the transition pains are a real thing. They aren't mutually exclusive. If anything, CGCs poor coaching exacerbated the transition pain.

 

[bobongo]

Transitions of OL take between 4-6 years. We are only at the beginning of the point where we should see results.

I have a hard time believing it takes that long to even begin to see results, and besides, we see absolutely none. The OL is in worse shape that it was four years ago, so the excuse train has run out of track.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I have a hard time believing it takes that long to even begin to see results, and besides, we see absolutely none. The OL is in worse shape that it was four years ago, so the excuse train has run out of track.

Because you are still not admitting two things can be true at the same time. People who make their living at football told me 4-6 years. I tend to believe them over people on the internet who "have a hard time believing" it. Now, I've explained before, OL is a process of recruiting, development, and building chemistry on the line. These things take time. If CGC were a wunderkind, he might have had results in 3 years. Since he's obviously not, we would most likely see the results in years 5-6. However, since CGC has demonstrated his inability to coach other aspects of the team, we are likely to have a new coach next year. Said coach will reap the benefit of us being 4 years into OL rebuild, barring key members of the OL portaling out.

As for the OL being in worse shape, it's better than the 2019 OL, but not by much. It looks worse because we are actually trying to pass more now than we did in 2019.

And again, don't read this as an excuse for keeping CGC. He has just about gotten himself fired. We will still be transitioning next year though. Hopefully with a better coach, we will be able to shorten the length of it. The new coach will have more talent suited for his offense than CGC had, though.

 

[Sheboygan]

Transitions of OL take between 4-6 years. We are only at the beginning of the point where we should see results.

Again, none of this is to defend CGC. I think his firing, barring a miracle comeback by this team, is justified. But two things can be true. CGC is a bad coach and the transition pains are a real thing. They aren't mutually exclusive. If anything, CGCs poor coaching exacerbated the transition pain.

I agree, but not with the length of time for transitions. Maybe 4-6 years was true before the transfers were so prevalent, but now IMO, it's more like 2-3- if you can show definite improvment during the first 2 years. CGC's problem ( among several) was that he and his staff showed minimal to no improvement from years 1-3 to attract better transfers and build recruiting. With the collapse last year and a poor start this year, the wheels are coming off.

 

[wrmathis]

I would argue, that having seen 3+ years of losing football, we should be realizing that if, anything, the transition pains are real and were going to be there no matter who was the coach. The only way to mitigate that was to continue with a 3O coach, and we would probably still be a losing team in 1-2 of those years with the same mas fanbase.

What we are is a fanbase that wants instant gratification and we spew bile at whatever coach/AD doesn't get it for us.

and the defense shouldn't have to transition. its just been as bad or worse.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I agree, but not with the length of time for transitions. Maybe 4-6 years was true before the transfers were so prevalent, but now IMO, it's more like 2-3- if you can show definite improvment during the first 2 years. CGC's problem ( among several) was that he and his staff showed minimal to no improvement from years 1-3 to attract better transfers and build recruiting. With the collapse last year and a poor start this year, the wheels are coming off.

Chemistry on the OL is just as important. Transfers don't help that process.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

and the defense shouldn't have to transition. its just been as bad or worse.

I've already said that above...

The lack of specific progress in key areas of the offense and the absolute regression on defense justifies the firing of CGC.

 

[Sheboygan]

Because you are still not admitting two things can be true at the same time. People who make their living at football told me 4-6 years. I tend to believe them over people on the internet who "have a hard time believing" it. Now, I've explained before, OL is a process of recruiting, development, and building chemistry on the line. These things take time. If CGC were a wunderkind, he might have had results in 3 years. Since he's obviously not, we would most likely see the results in years 5-6. However, since CGC has demonstrated his inability to coach other aspects of the team, we are likely to have a new coach next year. Said coach will reap the benefit of us being 4 years into OL rebuild, barring key members of the OL portaling out.

As for the OL being in worse shape, it's better than the 2019 OL, but not by much. It looks worse because we are actually trying to pass more now than we did in 2019.

And again, don't read this as an excuse for keeping CGC. He has just about gotten himself fired. We will still be transitioning next year though. Hopefully with a better coach, we will be able to shorten the length of it. The new coach will have more talent suited for his offense than CGC had, though.

Good post , I mostly agree with, but I think there are too many examples you can cite of huge improvements in OL play before 4 years.
Also, as has been mentioned before by others, a more gradual transition from the 3O might have benefitted by not such a steep decline in the W/L record........water over the dam, I know.

 

[wrmathis]

I've already said that above...

missed that part. and also replied before u got to that post

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Good post , I mostly agree with, but I think there are too many examples you can cite of huge improvements in OL play before 4 years.

Agreed. But how many of those improvements were coming on teams NOT transitioning from the 3O? None of those teams were building an OL from scratch, like we were.

 

[Sheboygan]

I've already said that above...

Absolutely !

 

[Sheboygan]

Agreed. But how many of those improvements were coming on teams NOT transitioning from the 3O? None of those teams were building an OL from scratch, like we were.

From my post earlier......"Good post , I mostly agree with, but I think there are too many examples you can cite of huge improvements in OL play before 4 years.
Also, as has been mentioned before by others, a more gradual transition from the 3O might have benefitted by not such a steep decline in the W/L record........water over the dam, I know."

 

[Sheboygan]

From my post earlier......"Good post , I mostly agree with, but I think there are too many examples you can cite of huge improvements in OL play before 4 years.
Also, as has been mentioned before by others, a more gradual transition from the 3O might have benefitted by not such a steep decline in the W/L record........water over the dam, I know."

Augusta, I agree wholeheartedly with your post , and it's just splitting hairs on the timelines. We should have had measureable improvements by now, especially with an "upgrade" in coaching staff. If the team is 1-5 going into the bye, CGC should be fired, IMO.

 

[billga99]

Augusta, I agree wholeheartedly with your post , and it's just splitting hairs on the timelines. We should have had measureable improvements by now, especially with an "upgrade" in coaching staff. If the team is 1-5 going into the bye, CGC should be fired, IMO.

If we have the money, yes. But reality is, the payout is substantially different during the season vs. at the end of the season (or Jan. 1st). The obvious way to do that is to negotiate a settlement. The fly in the ointment on that is it would be normally be done by the AD. If he is on his way out (unknown), who negotiates the contract to buy Collins out?