Shouldn't we be expecting a hell of a lot more by now?

[kemajic]

Two turnovers accounting for 14 points in a one point loss to a tough team on the road. You are nuts.

Add in the missed tackles, the missed reads on the passing touchdowns, etc and the Griz could have held them scoreless.

Turnovers like every other thing in the game leads to the final result. To think otherwise is nuts

Spot on. Turnovers are almost always either a bad play by the O or a good play by the D. Wins are usually an accumulation of good plays while losses are usually an accumulation of bad plays. It's a joke when attempts are made to exclude turnovers to project a different outcome. It's no different than saying that had we not allowed uncontested passing TDs, we would have won.

Bottom line, we were beaten by a good, but unranked team with an unimpressive defense, but with an offense that exposed weaknesses in our D. Example - we looked like we have never seen a reverse (even after several), can be consistently beaten on the edges, and cannot defend the pass when loading the box against the run. We have work to do, and it's more than avoiding turnovers. This game gave our upcoming opposition OCs much to work with. We must be much better by the time we play EWU.

 

[NavyBlue]

Getting back to the original point of the thread. Should the Griz still be FCS, and in the Big Sky after all these years while most members of conferences that the Griz used to be in, are playing FBS ball in the Pac-12, and MWC? Discuss.

 

[PlayerRep]

Two turnovers accounting for 14 points in a one point loss to a tough team on the road. You are nuts.

Add in the missed tackles, the missed reads on the passing touchdowns, etc and the Griz could have held them scoreless.

Turnovers like every other thing in the game leads to the final result. To think otherwise is nuts

Spot on. Turnovers are almost always either a bad play by the O or a good play by the D. Wins are usually an accumulation of good plays while losses are usually an accumulation of bad plays. It's a joke when attempts are made to exclude turnovers to project a different outcome. It's no different than saying that had we not allowed uncontested passing TDs, we would have won.

Bottom line, we were beaten by a good, but unranked team with an unimpressive defense, but with an offense that exposed weaknesses in our D. Example - we looked like we have never seen a reverse (even after several), can be consistently beaten on the edges, and cannot defend the pass when loading the box against the run. We have work to do, and it's more than avoiding turnovers. This game gave our upcoming opposition OCs much to work with. We must be much better by the time we play EWU.

CP moved to spread formations after the triple option was getting them much. UM didn't always line up properly against the spread formations, and ended up out of position a few times. UM adjusted at halftime on how they were covering the edge. Safeties made some mistakes. The fumble had been checked from a run to a quick pass, but when BG looked to make the pass, the receiver was blocking. He hesitated, and the ball got knocked loose. Doesn't excuse anything, but that's what happened.

 

[SoldierGriz]

The answer to the original question in the thread title is no, not yet.

In the eyes of many fans, the Griz exceeded expectations last season.

They then turned over the roster in a nearly unprecedented manner, lost numerous key players to graduation, and changed defensive schemes.

This question is fair to ask following NEXT season...

 

[Mavman]

The original question cracks me up. Everytime there is a new hire everyone says have to give em 3 yrs to really judge how effect they are. Then towards the end of year one some people are complaining and mid way through year two for sale signs are ordered. :roll: what happened to the three year rule??????

 

[Chet_Ripley]

The original question cracks me up. Everytime there is a new hire everyone says have to give em 3 yrs to really judge how effect they are. Then towards the end of year one some people are complaining and mid way through year two for sale signs are ordered. :roll: what happened to the three year rule??????

Never understood the 3 year expectation(s)... Seems some coaches (i.e., Harbaugh, Meyer) certainly don't require 3 years. I understand the two coaches mentioned may be the exception, but there are other examples.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

I've read lots of posts on this site arguing that we shouldn't consider moving up until we're "dominant" at the FCS level.

Do you agree with that logic? I don't. If Boise State had adopted that philosophy, they'd still be playing Idaho State and Northern Colorado every season.

I think we should be planning right now, even if it's a 20-year plan.

 

[EverettGriz]

I've read lots of posts on this site arguing that we shouldn't consider moving up until we're "dominant" at the FCS level.

Do you agree with that logic? I don't. If Boise State had adopted that philosophy, they'd still be playing Idaho State and Northern Colorado every season.

I think we should be planning right now, even if it's a 20-year plan.

:clap:

 

[Ursa Major]

I've read lots of posts on this site arguing that we shouldn't consider moving up until we're "dominant" at the FCS level.

Do you agree with that logic? I don't. If Boise State had adopted that philosophy, they'd still be playing Idaho State and Northern Colorado every season.

I think we should be planning right now, even if it's a 20-year plan.

:clap:

+2 This is not a primary element at all. We would have additional scholarships and the perceived prestige of being a FBS program. We've seen this in recruiting when a kid accepts an offer from a lackluster FBS school and picks it over us.

P.S. +3 My jailer Jorge agrees completely and says that people who believe in the primacy of the competitive factor are muy loco.

 

[Chet_Ripley]

I've read lots of posts on this site arguing that we shouldn't consider moving up until we're "dominant" at the FCS level.

Do you agree with that logic? I don't. If Boise State had adopted that philosophy, they'd still be playing Idaho State and Northern Colorado every season.

I think we should be planning right now, even if it's a 20-year plan.

:clap:

I'm afraid with the recent enrollment trend, budget cuts, etc. a "move-down" plan may be warranted too...

 

[Grizbeer]

The original question cracks me up. Everytime there is a new hire everyone says have to give em 3 yrs to really judge how effect they are. Then towards the end of year one some people are complaining and mid way through year two for sale signs are ordered. :roll: what happened to the three year rule??????

Never understood the 3 year expectation(s)... Seems some coaches (i.e., Harbaugh, Meyer) certainly don't require 3 years. I understand the two coaches mentioned may be the exception, but there are other examples.

Recent UM history agrees with you that there is nothing special about giving a coach (just) 3 years:
Dennehy: Year 1 14-1, NC loss, Year 2 8-4, Year 3 8-3, Year 4 9-3, moved on
Glenn: Year 1 13-2 NC Loss, Year 2 14-1 NC, Year 3 12-2 QF Loss
Hauck: Year 1 8-4, Year 2 12-2 NC Loss, Year 3 8-4, Year 4 - Year 9 - combined 50-6 with 2 NC loss and 1 SF loss
Delaney: Year 1 5-6, Year 2 10-3, Year 3 9-5

If history is an indication this year will be as good or better than next year for Stitt.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

My jailer Jorge agrees completely and says that people who believe in the primacy of the competitive factor are muy loco.

Tell Jorge "hola" for me!

 

[Mavman]

The original question cracks me up. Everytime there is a new hire everyone says have to give em 3 yrs to really judge how effect they are. Then towards the end of year one some people are complaining and mid way through year two for sale signs are ordered. :roll: what happened to the three year rule??????

Never understood the 3 year expectation(s)... Seems some coaches (i.e., Harbaugh, Meyer) certainly don't require 3 years. I understand the two coaches mentioned may be the exception, but there are other examples.

Recent UM history agrees with you that there is nothing special about giving a coach (just) 3 years:
Dennehy: Year 1 14-1, NC loss, Year 2 8-4, Year 3 8-3, Year 4 9-3, moved on
Glenn: Year 1 13-2 NC Loss, Year 2 14-1 NC, Year 3 12-2 QF Loss
Hauck: Year 1 8-4, Year 2 12-2 NC Loss, Year 3 8-4, Year 4 - Year 9 - combined 50-6 with 2 NC loss and 1 SF loss
Delaney: Year 1 5-6, Year 2 10-3, Year 3 9-5

If history is an indication this year will be as good or better than next year for Stitt.

Not saying I think a coach needs three years I just find it funny that every hire the posters parrot the same response "give em three years" next hire lets just not give a timeline k. :thumb:

 

[UMGriz75]

Never understood the 3 year expectation(s)... Seems some coaches (i.e., Harbaugh, Meyer) certainly don't require 3 years. I understand the two coaches mentioned may be the exception, but there are other examples.

There's not much correlation at UM. It may be a way for coaches to "buy time," but there's no distinctive pattern. Some coaches do well their first year.
Jack Sswarthout 7-3
Mick Dennehy 14-1
Joe Glenn 13-2
Bobby Hauck 9-4

Some their second year
Larry Donvan 7-3
Robin Pflugrad 6-3

Some have among their worst years at or after three years:
Hugh Davidson (4th) 1-8
Jack Swarthout (6th) 3-8
Gene Carlson (4th) 3-7
Larry Donovan (5th) 2-8
Don Read (7th) 6-5
Mick Dennehy (3rd) 8-4
Joe Glenn (3rd) 11-3
Bobby Hauck (3rd) 8-4

Far more UM coaches have had their worst years at 3 years or later than have had their best years.

Stitt came on with extraordinarily high expectations, fueled by certain unrealistic fans. His record at "Mines" for instance, was described on these forums as "phenomenal." It wasn't. You don't lose to Chadron State 9 out of 15 times and call that a "phenomenal" record. As I noted, Rob Ash had a substantially better record over nine years than Bob Stitt over 15 years, and Ash is out of a job as a result of his performance in year nine, not year three.

Quotes from certain speakers were recited about his "offensive genius" capabilities. I don't think I've ever seen a coach so over-hyped by a fan base. As I have repeatedly noted, Stitt says weird stuff at press conferences and sets himself up such as by his comment prior to the Cal Poly game "We Don't Lose in Our Own House," and his comments pre- and post-game NDSU which one national commentator noted bordered on the "delusional." But, by and large, perceptions about Stitt were fueled by vocal and aggressively obnoxious fans, not by Stitt.

As I noted last year, the facts are and remain:
1) We have a DII Offense and a DII Defense trying to adapt to DI levels of Offense and Defense.
2) We have an OC and a DC who have not coached players as athletically talented as those at UM at the level of coaching skill required.
3) Last year's record was one of the "luckiest" in the FCS.
4) Stitt has shown himself extraordinarily inflexible during game play. When he does make a radical change, such as at ISU, he abandons a successful strategy for one that nearly lost the game and properly should have.
5) He has opted to "go conservative" on enough occasions now as to suggest 1) it is his core reflex, and 2) he lacks the confidence to make radical or innovative plays.

On the optimistic side, I still do think he is a smart and talented guy, and that Semore seems sharp and that they will both improve their confidence and play-making as the season progresses. The difference between this coaching staff and others with established records is that this one can only get better with more experience in DI.

I do think we were "expecting a hell of a lot more by now." But, that was our fault.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Quotes from certain speakers were recited about his "offensive genius" capabilities. I don't think I've ever seen a coach so over-hyped by a fan base.

I don't understand this. Did Stitt's "fans" call him an "offensive genius, or are these "speakers" to whom you refer actually other coaches? Can you cite (or recite) posters on this forum who used the term "offensive genius?"

 

[argh!]

Never understood the 3 year expectation(s)... Seems some coaches (i.e., Harbaugh, Meyer) certainly don't require 3 years. I understand the two coaches mentioned may be the exception, but there are other examples.

There's not much correlation at UM. It may be a way for coaches to "buy time," but there's no distinctive pattern. Some coaches do well their first year.
Jack Sswarthout 7-3
Mick Dennehy 14-1
Joe Glenn 13-2
Bobby Hauck 9-4

Some their second year
Larry Donvan 7-3
Robin Pflugrad 6-3

Some have among their worst years at or after three years:
Hugh Davidson (4th) 1-8
Jack Swarthout (6th) 3-8
Gene Carlson (4th) 3-7
Larry Donovan (5th) 2-8
Don Read (7th) 6-5
Mick Dennehy (3rd) 8-4
Joe Glenn (3rd) 11-3
Bobby Hauck (3rd) 8-4

Far more UM coaches have had their worst years at 3 years or later than have had their best years.

Stitt came on with extraordinarily high expectations, fueled by certain unrealistic fans. His record at "Mines" for instance, was described on these forums as "phenomenal." It wasn't. You don't lose to Chadron State 9 out of 15 times and call that a "phenomenal" record. As I noted, Rob Ash had a substantially better record over nine years than Bob Stitt over 15 years, and Ash is out of a job as a result of his performance in year nine, not year three.

Quotes from certain speakers were recited about his "offensive genius" capabilities. I don't think I've ever seen a coach so over-hyped by a fan base. As I have repeatedly noted, Stitt says weird stuff at press conferences and sets himself up such as by his comment prior to the Cal Poly game "We Don't Lose in Our Own House," and his comments pre- and post-game NDSU which one national commentator noted bordered on the "delusional." But, by and large, perceptions about Stitt were fueled by vocal and aggressively obnoxious fans, not by Stitt.

As I noted last year, the facts are and remain:
1) We have a DII Offense and a DII Defense trying to adapt to DI levels of Offense and Defense.
2) We have an OC and a DC who have not coached players as athletically talented as those at UM at the level of coaching skill required.
3) Last year's record was one of the "luckiest" in the FCS.
4) Stitt has shown himself extraordinarily inflexible during game play. When he does make a radical change, such as at ISU, he abandons a successful strategy for one that nearly lost the game and properly should have.
5) He has opted to "go conservative" on enough occasions now as to suggest 1) it is his core reflex, and 2) he lacks the confidence to make radical or innovative plays.

On the optimistic side, I still do think he is a smart and talented guy, and that Semore seems sharp and that they will both improve their confidence and play-making as the season progresses. The difference between this coaching staff and others with established records is that this one can only get better with more experience in DI.

I do think we were "expecting a hell of a lot more by now." But, that was our fault.

1) don't remember anyone saying stitt had a "phenomenal" record at mines, although a general sentiment was that he did well considering his recruiting limitations caused by their high academic admissions standards
2) the griz have 'dii' offenses and defenses? in what way? athletes? design? the offenses and defenses that beat ndsu, uni, etc? you make a lot of stupid comments on here, but that might top them all.
3) stit et al haven't coached players at the level of skill required? again, stitt's teams have beaten ndsu, uni, ewu, etc... they made the playoffs in their first year.
4) i'm not sure how you prove the "extraordinarily inflexible" during game play comment. "extraordinary" is a pretty loaded word. ndsu seems to have a similar game plan each week, and they keep at it - see their iowa win for evidence. are their coaches also 'extraordinarily inflexible'?
5) going conservative is his "core reflex"? given all the times he went for it on 4th, etc, last year, it seems like he's maybe just being.... flexible in his approach? and he 'lacks the confidence' to make radical or innovative plays?

 

[Fat Bruno]

At this early date, there's only one real way to measure what we should be expecting, and that's in recruiting which has improved considerably. The problem is that with the alarming shrinkage of the University, we can't expect that to continue indefinitely and should be making our move down plans now ... even if we have to look 20 years into the future.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

The original question cracks me up. Everytime there is a new hire everyone says have to give em 3 yrs to really judge how effect they are. Then towards the end of year one some people are complaining and mid way through year two for sale signs are ordered. :roll: what happened to the three year rule??????

Never understood the 3 year expectation(s)... Seems some coaches (i.e., Harbaugh, Meyer) certainly don't require 3 years. I understand the two coaches mentioned may be the exception, but there are other examples.

Recent UM history agrees with you that there is nothing special about giving a coach (just) 3 years:
Dennehy: Year 1 14-1, NC loss, Year 2 8-4, Year 3 8-3, Year 4 9-3, moved on
Glenn: Year 1 13-2 NC Loss, Year 2 14-1 NC, Year 3 12-2 QF Loss
Hauck: Year 1 8-4, Year 2 12-2 NC Loss, Year 3 8-4, Year 4 - Year 9 - combined 50-6 with 2 NC loss and 1 SF loss
Delaney: Year 1 5-6, Year 2 10-3, Year 3 9-5

If history is an indication this year will be as good or better than next year for Stitt.

Not saying I think a coach needs three years I just find it funny that every hire the posters parrot the same response "give em three years" next hire lets just not give a timeline k. :thumb:

I think its more that they shouldnt be fired before 3 years...as to give them time to get "their" players

I think success can be expected instantly

 

[UMGriz75]

Quotes from certain speakers were recited about his "offensive genius" capabilities. I don't think I've ever seen a coach so over-hyped by a fan base.

I don't understand this. Did Stitt's "fans" call him an "offensive genius, or are these "speakers" to whom you refer actually other coaches? Can you cite (or recite) posters on this forum who used the term "offensive genius?"

You don't understand what? Some people referred to Stitt as an "offensive genius." "People" includes fans and coaches. The comments were endlessly replayed on egriz.

http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=68899&p=1019616&hilit=offensive+genius+Stitt#p1019616

Grizz Man » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:46 pm

In reference to the thread title, an offensive genius is on our list: Bob Stitt.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

Never understood the 3 year expectation(s)... Seems some coaches (i.e., Harbaugh, Meyer) certainly don't require 3 years. I understand the two coaches mentioned may be the exception, but there are other examples.

There's not much correlation at UM. It may be a way for coaches to "buy time," but there's no distinctive pattern. Some coaches do well their first year.
Jack Sswarthout 7-3
Mick Dennehy 14-1
Joe Glenn 13-2
Bobby Hauck 9-4

Some their second year
Larry Donvan 7-3
Robin Pflugrad 6-3

Some have among their worst years at or after three years:
Hugh Davidson (4th) 1-8
Jack Swarthout (6th) 3-8
Gene Carlson (4th) 3-7
Larry Donovan (5th) 2-8
Don Read (7th) 6-5
Mick Dennehy (3rd) 8-4
Joe Glenn (3rd) 11-3
Bobby Hauck (3rd) 8-4

Far more UM coaches have had their worst years at 3 years or later than have had their best years.

Stitt came on with extraordinarily high expectations, fueled by certain unrealistic fans. His record at "Mines" for instance, was described on these forums as "phenomenal." It wasn't. You don't lose to Chadron State 9 out of 15 times and call that a "phenomenal" record. As I noted, Rob Ash had a substantially better record over nine years than Bob Stitt over 15 years, and Ash is out of a job as a result of his performance in year nine, not year three.

Quotes from certain speakers were recited about his "offensive genius" capabilities. I don't think I've ever seen a coach so over-hyped by a fan base. As I have repeatedly noted, Stitt says weird stuff at press conferences and sets himself up such as by his comment prior to the Cal Poly game "We Don't Lose in Our Own House," and his comments pre- and post-game NDSU which one national commentator noted bordered on the "delusional." But, by and large, perceptions about Stitt were fueled by vocal and aggressively obnoxious fans, not by Stitt.

As I noted last year, the facts are and remain:
1) We have a DII Offense and a DII Defense trying to adapt to DI levels of Offense and Defense.
2) We have an OC and a DC who have not coached players as athletically talented as those at UM at the level of coaching skill required.
3) Last year's record was one of the "luckiest" in the FCS.
4) Stitt has shown himself extraordinarily inflexible during game play. When he does make a radical change, such as at ISU, he abandons a successful strategy for one that nearly lost the game and properly should have.
5) He has opted to "go conservative" on enough occasions now as to suggest 1) it is his core reflex, and 2) he lacks the confidence to make radical or innovative plays.

On the optimistic side, I still do think he is a smart and talented guy, and that Semore seems sharp and that they will both improve their confidence and play-making as the season progresses. The difference between this coaching staff and others with established records is that this one can only get better with more experience in DI.

I do think we were "expecting a hell of a lot more by now." But, that was our fault.

1) don't remember anyone saying stitt had a "phenomenal" record at mines, although a general sentiment was that he did well considering his recruiting limitations caused by their high academic admissions standards
2) the griz have 'dii' offenses and defenses? in what way? athletes? design? the offenses and defenses that beat ndsu, uni, etc? you make a lot of stupid comments on here, but that might top them all.
3) stit et al haven't coached players at the level of skill required? again, stitt's teams have beaten ndsu, uni, ewu, etc... they made the playoffs in their first year.
4) i'm not sure how you prove the "extraordinarily inflexible" during game play comment. "extraordinary" is a pretty loaded word. ndsu seems to have a similar game plan each week, and they keep at it - see their iowa win for evidence. are their coaches also 'extraordinarily inflexible'?
5) going conservative is his "core reflex"? given all the times he went for it on 4th, etc, last year, it seems like he's maybe just being.... flexible in his approach? and he 'lacks the confidence' to make radical or innovative plays?

Wait stop Argh...you're being too rational....

Stitt is so "extraordinarily inflexible" that his 2nd half of games are always better than his first ....oh wait..that doesnt work for UM75 argument does it? Its like hes making good 2nd half adjustments or something.....