|
next year
Nov 11, 2017 1:19:29 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by wildcatcoachesshow on Nov 11, 2017 1:19:29 GMT -6
Madoyle most definelty has a vendetta. You have to blind to not be able to see the progress this years team has made over last years.
|
|
|
Post by OscarWildeCat, Admin on Nov 11, 2017 7:28:48 GMT -6
Defense. Huge improvement over last year. Injuries appear to have caught up with us though and may hurt us in the last two games.
Offense in a nutshell: Square pegs, round holes. Coaches Dorrel and Lamberson don’t have the personel to run the offense they are attempting to use.
Better than last year? The record says no, unless there’s an epic upset in the last two games. Record aside, I see lots of changes that point to a brighter future as coaches bring in and develop the players they need to make their system work and our young, inexperienced staff adjust to the demands of coaching at the D1 level.
|
|
|
Post by acutrackfan on Nov 11, 2017 11:32:13 GMT -6
I can definitely see that Madoyle appears to have an axe to grind, but that fact should not be held against some of his opinions, which have some validity. Here is my take:
DEFENSE - the defense has passed my "observational" test as being a big improvement over last year - the defense looks TO ME to be improved and to being tackling better. However, with ACU facing 2 high-powered offenses in the next 2 weeks, with decimated personnel, by the time that the season ends, there may not be much a big improvement in the overall season stats from 2016 to 2017. How decimated is the defense? I fully expect for ACU to employ a 34 defense this week, since we are down to something like 2 interior d-linemen. We have more depth at LB and therefore, may be able to come up with 4 healthy LB more easily than 4 healthy DL. I think that the defense has improved, but when all is said and done this year, there may be little empirical evidence of that.
OFFENSE - it appears to me that the offense has taken a step backward this season. I still believe that when the pieces are put into place that the offensive coaching staff will give ACU a really good offense, but this year, that simply has not happened. It may be like Oscar stated above - that we simply do not have the personnel this year that fits the scheme that will eventually become ACU's scheme. But, with personnel that is very similar to last year's, I have not seen any improvement this year.
I don't know what I might have expected from this year's team. I think that 4-7 would have been very encouraging and that I would have been ecstatic with 5-6. I think most every one on this board had hoped to see our returnees "coached up" to a level that would show an improvement in record from last year and ironically, we will end up exactly where we finished in 2016 record-wise. For now, I will espouse the 4 year plan spelled out by Mavsman and hope that we truly have taken a successful first step, albeit a much shakier first step than I had hoped to see.
|
|
|
Post by madoyle on Nov 11, 2017 12:08:23 GMT -6
It may be like Oscar stated above - that we simply do not have the personnel this year that fits the scheme that will eventually become ACU's scheme. But, with personnel that is very similar to last year's, I have not seen any improvement this year. Not only is the improvement not there, but there is a drastic decline in production. Ten months ago, I commented on here that it was a shame that such a talented offense - one that was built and on pace to explode this year - would be ruined by a staff trying to force them into a scheme in which they weren't built to succeed. That is exactly what happened. In fact, I was mocked for claiming that the offense was "ready to roll" in 2017 in that they averaged nearly 400 yards per game and had almost everyone returning. The two biggest issues on offense last year were a receiving corps that was built on first-year guys (freshman and new JUCO transfers) that resulted in 6.2 drops per game and blown assignments and struggling in short yardage. With a year under their belts, the receiving unit could only improve. With a year of eating and weights, the third-and-short game could only improve. Even with a modest growth of 10%, which is completely reasonable considering everyone who came back, that would put the offense at about 440 yards . . . which would put them in the top 20 in the country. In other words, they would have been rolling. The offense was built to do exactly that, because that was the timetable the AD promised the staff would have to get things rolling, which not coincidentally, was the same time the stadium would open. Wildcatcoachesshow stated that I would have to be blind to not be able to see the progress this year's team has made over last year's. Well, I showed that the first claim (being more competitive with every team compared to last year) was false. The record will most likely be the same. And that doesn't take into consideration that this year's team returned a ton of experience AND had a bunch of more scholarships to give out. As I said last year, ACU, Houston Baptist, and Incarnate all entered at the same time. ACU was hamstrung compared to the other two by lack of being fully-funded in scholarships at the FCS level, yet ACU, under Collums, was better than the other two. Again, I ask . . . if the team isn't better in record, isn't better statistically, isn't better in being more competitive with the same opponents as last year . . . what exactly would make somebody blind to not be able to see? [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by wildcatter on Nov 11, 2017 12:15:57 GMT -6
We get it. Drastic decline in offensive production. Quit ignoring defensive improvement and objective findings. We can reassess statistical findings at the end of the season since we haven't played the best two teams yet and you made that point already.
|
|
|
next year
Nov 11, 2017 12:52:11 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by wildcatcoachesshow on Nov 11, 2017 12:52:11 GMT -6
It may be like Oscar stated above - that we simply do not have the personnel this year that fits the scheme that will eventually become ACU's scheme. But, with personnel that is very similar to last year's, I have not seen any improvement this year. Not only is the improvement not there, but there is a drastic decline in production. Ten months ago, I commented on here that it was a shame that such a talented offense - one that was built and on pace to explode this year - would be ruined by a staff trying to force them into a scheme in which they weren't built to succeed. That is exactly what happened. In fact, I was mocked for claiming that the offense was "ready to roll" in 2017 in that they averaged nearly 400 yards per game and had almost everyone returning. The two biggest issues on offense last year were a receiving corps that was built on first-year guys (freshman and new JUCO transfers) that resulted in 6.2 drops per game and blown assignments and struggling in short yardage. With a year under their belts, the receiving unit could only improve. With a year of eating and weights, the third-and-short game could only improve. Even with a modest growth of 10%, which is completely reasonable considering everyone who came back, that would put the offense at about 440 yards . . . which would put them in the top 20 in the country. In other words, they would have been rolling. The offense was built to do exactly that, because that was the timetable the AD promised the staff would have to get things rolling, which not coincidentally, was the same time the stadium would open. Wildcatcoachesshow stated that I would have to be blind to not be able to see the progress this year's team has made over last year's. Well, I showed that the first claim (being more competitive with every team compared to last year) was false. The record will most likely be the same. And that doesn't take into consideration that this year's team returned a ton of experience AND had a bunch of more scholarships to give out. As I said last year, ACU, Houston Baptist, and Incarnate all entered at the same time. ACU was hamstrung compared to the other two by lack of being fully-funded in scholarships at the FCS level, yet ACU, under Collums, was better than the other two. Again, I ask . . . if the team isn't better in record, isn't better statistically, isn't better in being more competitive with the same opponents as last year . . . what exactly would make somebody blind to not be able to see? [/quote] If everything was so great, then why did we consistently get worse under Collums?
|
|
|
Post by boomerj4sho on Nov 11, 2017 13:02:50 GMT -6
It would've been nice to see last year's offensive scheme paired up with this year's defensive scheme.
|
|
|
next year
Nov 11, 2017 13:25:04 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by bogeyman on Nov 11, 2017 13:25:04 GMT -6
Although Maydoyle makes some good points, he overlooks a couple of key things. 1) the leading receiver from last year is not playing (Fuller) and, 2) we did not and do not have the personnel for a 3rd and short game. No big backs, injured blocking personnel (Ennis, Flowers, and company) and a poor blocking line with right side decimated by injuries.
For the past 3-4 years we have had a 5'11" QB, one who was only an adequate runner with an adequate arm (tremendous competitor) who did not have a great OL to protect him and another with a great arm and better speed who was not allowed to do what he did best (put pressure on defense with his threat to run) (by both coaching staffs). Due to their size they both had numerous passes tipped and blocked. Due to OL deficiencies, they both had to run for their lives too many times (both were accurate throwers on the run) and thus the reason we had to call so many behind the line quick screens and flanker runs. The Collums schemes would have floundered this year just like last because the primary problem that he didn't fix was a weak OL and a refusal to throw to TE's (who he used as blockers). Dorrel was hamstringed with the same weak OL and too many injuries. This defense does tackle way better than any Collums team. The inside DL has played much better. Chambers and Gibbens give hope for a strong future LB corps. This year has been disappointing but I feel there is hope. Maybe Mavsman's 4 year plan is accurate. My take is there was no hope for better days under Collums.I think D1 competition has been a shock to Dorrel but he and our staff will recover and come out fighting. It will be very intetesting to see who we recruit.
|
|
|
Post by madoyle on Nov 12, 2017 8:49:46 GMT -6
Nov 11, 2017 18:15:57 GMT wildcatter said:
I didn't ignore the defensive improvement. I was the one who mentioned it originally. When you have one of the worst defenses in the nation statistically and return a large number of starters, coupled with an increase in scholarships to go after JUCOs and grad transfers, it is reasonable to expect a fairly large jump.
What makes you say I am ignoring objective findings? I refuted an argument by using purely objective findings. What objective findings would you like to use to support your argument other than the one I noted (defense having a big improvement)?
1) The player was ineligible after the new staff had been there for two semesters. Athletes not being eligible due to grades is on the staff and academic support. That's part of being a D1 coach. Further, you fail to acknowledge that ACU didn't have their best receiver (Whitley) last year, but he returned this year. He, like the rest of the offense, isn't used correctly, but the fact remains the same- losing your top receiver while gaining a better receiver (inherited, not due to recruiting) is a wash.
2) And that is on both staffs. The last staff had to deal with that issue. They knew their shortcomings yet had a successful offense by finding different ways to succeed. The new staff, as I mentioned ten months ago, is trying to jam the personnel into a system that doesn't fit. Coaches should adjust their schemes to fit their personnel; not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by madoyle on Nov 12, 2017 9:00:46 GMT -6
Due to OL deficiencies, they both had to run for their lives too many times (both were accurate throwers on the run) and thus the reason we had to call so many behind the line quick screens and flanker runs. That's entirely false. Qulck and bubble screens are not done due to an inadequate offensive line. They are done for a few reasons: 1) Your best playmakers are receivers. The easiest and most effective way to get them the ball in space is to throw bubbles/quick screens. They are easy pitch-and-catch balls that allow your best athletes to get the ball in their hands and make plays. 2) They spread the defense. When you have success throwing these balls, as ACU did, it helps open up both the run game and the deep passing game. Defenses are forced to widen out with an outside linebacker getting out of the box and/or play tighter with an OLB/corner/safety. Of course, this opens the deep passing game. None of this has to do with an inadequate offensive line. What are you basing your opinion on that the offensive scheme last year floundered? Last year, the ACU offense finished 47th in the country out of 125 teams. How is that, by any means, considered floundering? Keep in mind that ACU wasn't even a full-fledged FCS team last year, had a bunch of kids who were D2 recruits, were playing with almost an entire starting lineup of guys who would return, didn't have nearly as many scholarships as the teams they played, and were playing in a far better conference last year. So, being in almost the top third of the country, especially under those circumstances, is floundering? Lets be a little bit reasonable here. [/quote]
|
|
|
next year
Nov 12, 2017 9:48:05 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by wildcatter on Nov 12, 2017 9:48:05 GMT -6
Ok ok Madoyle so what is it that you want? You want a new coaching staff? You want the old coaching staff? You want to be head coach? Now I'm just curious to know what you see as being needed for this program because you clearly aren't in support as it stands.
|
|
|
Post by strobro on Nov 12, 2017 9:59:19 GMT -6
I think madoyle is expecting a lot from a more complicated circumstance than any of us realize. From what I've gathered from friends on the team, the culture change has been hard and several players did not buy in because of bad attitudes. I also disagree with the thought that academic casualties are on the staff.
|
|
|
Post by wildcat1997 on Nov 12, 2017 10:30:12 GMT -6
Nov 11, 2017 18:15:57 GMT wildcatter said: I didn't ignore the defensive improvement. I was the one who mentioned it originally. When you have one of the worst defenses in the nation statistically and return a large number of starters, coupled with an increase in scholarships to go after JUCOs and grad transfers, it is reasonable to expect a fairly large jump. What makes you say I am ignoring objective findings? I refuted an argument by using purely objective findings. What objective findings would you like to use to support your argument other than the one I noted (defense having a big improvement)? 1) The player was ineligible after the new staff had been there for two semesters. Athletes not being eligible due to grades is on the staff and academic support. That's part of being a D1 coach. Further, you fail to acknowledge that ACU didn't have their best receiver (Whitley) last year, but he returned this year. He, like the rest of the offense, isn't used correctly, but the fact remains the same- losing your top receiver while gaining a better receiver (inherited, not due to recruiting) is a wash. 2) And that is on both staffs. The last staff had to deal with that issue. They knew their shortcomings yet had a successful offense by finding different ways to succeed. The new staff, as I mentioned ten months ago, is trying to jam the personnel into a system that doesn't fit. Coaches should adjust their schemes to fit their personnel; not the other way around. It’s not just about the players, the defense has made such a big jump in large part because of the staff we’ve brought in. I guarantee you the defense would not be playing at the level it is now if the old staff was here. If the old staff was still here we still wouldn’t be able to stop a nose bleed.
|
|
|
Post by Cap'n on Nov 12, 2017 13:52:04 GMT -6
With all due respect to Madoyle and others, this discussion is moot. Everyone is right - there has been improvement and there has not been improvement. At the end of the day, it has balanced out and our wins/ losses remain the same.
So I’m calling for an end to this debate so we can focus on what we really need — recruits. Big ones. Fast ones. Smart ones. Then look for improvement “next year” which is the name of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by mavsman53 on Nov 13, 2017 10:40:22 GMT -6
Things will look different when you bring in a new coaching staff. Look at the University of Texas Football team. Last year, they couldn't stop anyone, but their offense was pretty good. They ran the spread, racehorse offense that we did. This year, their defense is much improved, but their offense has taken a step back. NO, I am not saying we are UT; not even close.
Are we better in some areas; absolutely, defense especially. Is our OLine lacking; without question. Remember, there was expected to be another transfer before the season started, but for whatever reason, he never made it in.
All I am saying is- it takes time. If we are making the same mistakes this time next year, I will BEGIN to worry.
One point I will argue- you cannot put a players grades entirely on the coaching staff and the academic support staff. Much of that is on the player. It is up to him to go to class, take notes and go to study hall. Some players seem themselves as athletes only, rather than a student-athlete.
|
|