These two "wait for next year" arguments just dont jive

Submitted by DesHow21 on November 1st, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Argument 1 : The debacle on defense isn't the coaches fault. The talent on the field is too poor to do anything with (RR himself made this argument with Lombardigate).

Argument 2: We are returning 22/24 starters next year. We are so gonna PWN fools next year : If Lombardi himself couldn't do squat with these guys, GERG and Gibson are going to somehow magically teach them how to maintain gap, tackle soundly and not give 15 yard cushions? 

 

The RR apologists need to get together and pick one of these arguments and roll with it. Both just don't make any sense. 

 

Counter argument: But but...what if the coaches arent "turrible" and what if the players make somewhat of  a sophomore leap, couldn't we at least be decent? 

No. Average (at best) coaches aren't exactly going to achieve any soph leap from these guys. proof? proof:

Roh is same or worse this year. Ezeh flamed out. Mouton is arrrgghhh mostly same sometimes worse, Kovacs same, JT slightly better relative to last year (but sucky as hell on a b10 scale) , CC is OMG bad, Cam is bad, Banks is same/ worse. Mike Martin is better. 

You take that trend line and want me to believe that some magical "leap" is going to happen simply because these are going to be older...okay. 

Beside, given the rate of attrition that seems normal under RR, we are still going to be starting 4 Frosh's next year and you guys will still be making this argument next year:

In Cartman's voice:

" But mooooommmm...we're gonna be soooo goood next year.....".

Comments

Cbus 91Wolverine

November 1st, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^

Granted the D is Charles Barkley golf swing turrible, howeva how much better does it need to be for us to be successful?  If Penn State has their season average, or slightly better, 3rd down conversion percentage how many more opportunities do we have to score.  6 or 7?  I would love to have the D of my childhood or even my college years, Hammerstein Messner anyone, but that will take 2 more classes of great recruits.  We need to be a capable D and right now we're not.  Oregon gives up 32 to a very good Pac10 offense, but their D gets enough stops to put up more points than the other guys.  I had the empty feel ing too Saturday night, but it was more because of how close we were - 3 stops, 3 friggin stops on 3rd down - to win the game.  Todd Blackledge said it best when he said about M's D. the scheme is fine, they just need better players.

jmblue

November 1st, 2010 at 3:15 PM ^

but how would a coaching change help the problem??

By . . . coaching the players better than the current staff is doing? 

Let's be clear: anyone can coach untalented players to a terrible performance.  That takes no skill.  That is not a reason to have confidence in a coach.  A good coach gets the most out of his players.  I absolutely do not believe that is the case on the defensive side of the ball.  It is extremely difficult to believe that no coach could have done better than give up 41 points (could have been 48 if JoePa wanted to be a jerk) to a horrendous PSU offense.

BlueintheLou

November 1st, 2010 at 12:32 PM ^

Can we please just get through the season, then try and make a decision. Enough of the "Grrrr, ANGERZZ, derp, RR apologists", it's depressing enough as it is. Just let this team play out its season, and hopefully head to a bowl.

profitgoblue

November 1st, 2010 at 12:33 PM ^

Maybe we could just have one long thread for bashing the coaching and Rodriguez supporters and use new posts for pieces of new information and/or different topics?  The Board reads like a broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record . . .

los barcos

November 1st, 2010 at 12:33 PM ^

are going to say "look at denards leap" and make the same conclusion that everyone can improve as much as he did.

 

while no one is denying the progress he made, i think its naive to think all our freshmen dbs will experience the same growth.  a more apt comparison may be the modicum of improvement floyd made from last year to this year.  is that enough for this team to compete? i dont know, i guess we'll see...

dennisblundon

November 1st, 2010 at 1:04 PM ^

Most of the depth on defense is provided by 18-19 year old kids. What would be the most likely scenario is that these kids continue to grow and improve as their body grows and they become more familiar with the schemes on defense.

Or they have all peaked physically and know all there is to know about our defense schematically and will stay the same or take a step backwards. This can be attributed to our coaches not teaching them how to tackle or cover a WR.

los barcos

November 1st, 2010 at 1:30 PM ^

my post you would see i agree with you...to an extent. but i think a lot of people expect these young kids to be world beaters next year because, OMG LOOK AT DENARD.  the reality is, i think, these young dbs will be better but that does not mean they will be good.  they are still young and expecting major things from young players, even if they have a year under their belt, is not a recipe for success.

umchicago

November 1st, 2010 at 1:32 PM ^

we don't need "all" of these frosh to make a huge soph leap.  we just need a couple of them to.  and a few others to improve marginally.  plus, we have 2 solid CB recruits coming in.  i don't think it's unreasonable to think the DB will be better next year (assuming we clean house with the D coaches).

ChasingRabbits

November 1st, 2010 at 12:36 PM ^

They jive perfectly from what I see.  The "talent is poor" is mainly due to age.  The ONLY thing that is 100% sure to change betwween now and next year is that every player on the team, with not one single exception, will be one year older. So, yeah, they jive. 

GoBlueInNYC

November 1st, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^

I think it's pretty common to assume that the leap from freshman to sophomore will probably be the biggest of any player's career. Mouton, Rogers, and Ezeh are all seniors, they'd pretty much hit their peaks before this season (though I think Mouton has improved mentally more than you're giving him credit for). Cam is in his first year at a new position (and one that he's not entirely suited for), so another off season should help his play considerably. And I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure none of the freshman CBs enrolled early, so they basically made the leap from high school to elite college level of play in the span of about a month. Of course they're struggling.

Do I think the defense will be a knock out next year? Hell no. Do I think it will be the worst in the country again? Assuming some basic competence on the part of the coaching staff, no.

BlueFish

November 1st, 2010 at 4:53 PM ^

Do I think it will be the worst in the country again? Assuming some basic competence on the part of the coaching staff, no.

Meaning...you have some reason to believe that RR's good 'ol boys possess this basic level of competency?  Based on the deterioration that we're seeing from week to week?

raleighwood

November 1st, 2010 at 8:24 PM ^

"Do I think it will be the worst in the country again?"

I don't think that's really the question.  They aren't trying to move from 106 (out of 120) to 99, they need to move to a ranking a little more reasonable.  Top 50?  Top 30?

My big question is "Can this defense move up to the Top 30 in the next two years".  Based on what we've seen in the past three years, I don't think it's going to happen. 

You can ask the question another way....If the cupboard was bare when Lloyd left in 2007 (Tim Jamison, Will Johnson, Brandon Graham, Terrence Taylor, Morgan Trent, Donovan Warren...), what would you call the defensive cupboard for 2011 or 2012?  

UM2k1

November 1st, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^

Rogers hadn't played until this year for a reason.  He is a WR who didn't pan out, and wasn't really good at CB either.  Cam was a WR, seeing his first PT this year.  Kovacs is a walk-on (I know he has a scholarship now, but he is in the same boat as the PSU QB, who in another thread the OP refered to as a walk-on), with very limited ceiling.  Ezeh has only played the last 4 years because there wasn't anyone nearly competent to replace him.  So we're left with Mouton.  He is a safety playing LB, who will make 2-3 OMG plays a game, but will also FAIL about the same number.  He is the only one of this group that would even see the field if they were on the team10 yrs ago.

 

Not to pile on about your username, but that, with your statements and the Demar Dorseyish tagline... 

bouje

November 1st, 2010 at 12:39 PM ^

You're the worst type of person. RR is the best coach ever!!! RR is the devil let's git him!
<br>
<br>Churchill once said:
<br>"If you're going through hell... Keep going"
<br>
<br>Not:
<br>"if you're going through hell... Get a new coach/leader/play around in hell for a little while and hopefully eventually keep going unless you get stuck in hell"
<br>
<br>If we hire harbaugh (who is a douche and I dont even want to hire not sure if hed even get hired) he's not going to magically turn this defense around. We will be middling for another year or 2 and then what!
<br>
<br>Fire new coach!!!
<br>
<br>This is going to be painful for everyone to hear but we are ND. Neg away.

CRex

November 1st, 2010 at 12:43 PM ^

Churchill once said:

"If you're going through hell... Keep going"

Neville Chamberlain's appeasement system just clearly need more time to develop and it would have worked great. I can't believe the Brits got rid of him and replaced him with Churchill. When you're going through hell keep going!

M-Wolverine

November 1st, 2010 at 3:58 PM ^

I was scanning my brain for some General Churchill DID replace, but this was so much better. If Ohio State advances the state line into Monroe, then down river, then Saline, Bouje will have the flags of surrender ready.

Dark Blue

November 1st, 2010 at 12:43 PM ^

I often times agree with you, however this isn't one of those times.

We aren't ND, we've had 2 terrible years, and this year has started to look pretty bad, BUT we still have 4 more games to play. We could finish 9-3 or we could finish 5-7.

I'm all for giving RR one more year, but he has to deliver. MICH needs to win, before I take a leap offf of a tall building.

BlueVoix

November 1st, 2010 at 1:55 PM ^

If we hire harbaugh (who is a douche and I dont even want to hire not sure if hed even get hired) he's not going to magically turn this defense around. We will be middling for another year or 2 and then what!

If we hire a small Turkish child from a village outside of Tokat as our defensive coordinator, I'm fairly certain we'll have turn around.  We may be 90th in total defense, we may be 100th.  But there will be a turn around next year as long as Greg Robinson is no longer coordinator.

Syyk

November 1st, 2010 at 12:44 PM ^

For one claiming to uncover the seemingly paradoxical nature between those two arguments, your own argument is fairly illogical.  The problem with the defense isn't one of talent, but youth.  The freshman on defense don't need to make some sort of miraculous sophomore leap to be better next year, just the normal progress that most players make from their freshmen and sophomore years. 

Is the rate of attrition that we've been experiencing normal under RR?  I don't know the answer to that question, but my instincts say no.  I don't think you build a program into what WVU was if you have some inherent tendency to drive palyers away.  I think you have to throw out year one attrition figures as an outlier based on the coaching change.  Certainly we've had some bad attrition otherwise, but I don't think that it's a systemic problem. 

RR is certainly guilty of some neglect on the defensive front, but there are the obvious extenuating circumstances to point to which mitigate that.  I won't get into them because they have been rehashed ad nauseum. 

The defense doesn't need to be great next year for this team to improve greatly.  The offense is already one of the best in the country and will only improve.  The defense should be better with another year under the player's belts and Woolfolk back.  With even a mediocre defense, I think we definitely would've beaten PSU on Saturday, and I think we would've probably beaten MSU and Iowa (or at least taken one of those games).  The offense is that good.  It is capable of scoring everytime it gets the ball, barring turnovers.  Hell, I think we probably would've won against PSU had Martin not been out.  They couldn't run the ball up the middle with him in there and McGloin would've had a lot less time to throw.