What grade would you give Weis if you were grading his performance?

[solo]

I would probably give him a B+.

I think he has done a good job but that there is room for improvement.

He immediately upgraded our offense. We started winning again. He has gotten us 2 BCS bowls. We've been consistantly ranked during his tenure. He has recruited exceptionally well. We haven't had a bunch of off the field problems. Overall, he has gotten the ship going in the right direction. Things are looking up.

On the flip side, there are some deficiences.

2 blowout losses in one season is poor.

2 near misses (UCLA, MSU) against unranked teams is not good (and that is not counting GT who is also unranked).

Zero progress defensively in 2 season is poor.

No progress offensively from last year to this year despite a seasoned offense returning.

Performance in big games has not been so good.

Not delivering yet on the "nasty" promise is also not good. We don't play with attitude and often came out flat, particlualry in the 1st quarter.

Our offensive line underachieved leaving us unable to effectively and consistantly run the ball and often unable to protect BQ.

Of course, I think that most of the problems listed above are personnel issues. And these are all players that Weis didn't recruit. So it's hard to fault him for much of this. But some of that must be attributed to the present coaching staff. hence the B+ and not an A.

Anyone else care to give their assessment?

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

B+ as well. I would have given him better, but this season had two tough losses that were not pretty. The team always came out flat too.

Seriously, flat nearly every game. That's coaching... Maybe he needs to brush up the half-time speech.

He has massively improved utilization of talent...
He is WINNING.

He is doing most things right.

I think he needs to focus in three areas:
1) have the team come out strong from the opening gun (like last year)
2) develop better backfield talent
3) defense, defense, defense...

I would also like to see a win over a team in the top15.

 

[sonomairishfan]

I give a B.

the previous points of starting slow. that kills us against top level teams. he needs to show the sense of urgency in these games. i haven't seen that withe exception of SC last year.

i think he instilled a great attitude. the team expects to win now, rather than hope to win.

the defense is not nasty. that needs to change.

would like to see him focus on all aspects of team. seems to be involved with offense 90% of time. defense could use 40% of that time.

notre dame is winning again and that is what he was brought here to do. he has shown that he is comfortable with the crazy expectations a ND and that is key. i don't think the pressure will crack him.

 

[sonomairishfan]

oh, and it would be nice not to get killed by the highly ranked teams on our schedule. that is a trend that must stop.

 

[irishranger]

Im giving an A-
I agree with most everyone who has answered to this post.
1) We play a little flat at times
2) We have shown very little defensive improvement

Whereas he has:
1) Brought the offence to life! (We score on anyone, and everyone!)
2) He is recruiting really well

But to me the difference maker between the B+ and A- is this:
1) The team, the fans, the alumni, and most of all our opponents believe we can WIN any game, anytime, anywhere. That is an intangible, and a belief that sets superior programs apart from the rest of the NCAA

 

[Katzenboyer]

B+ -- but if he had won one of the games against OSU, USC, or Michigan this year, it'd be an A.

He's recruiting phenomenal. He's coaching Willingham's guys, and they aren't from the deepest classes. He's doing a good job.

But a coach should be good for one win a year against a superior team, and Weis hasn't had that victory yet (the win against Michigan doesn't count because, frankly, they weren't that good last year).

If he pulls out the LSU game, then he's definitely doing A work. But right now, B++.

 

[goldenechoes]

I dont think he'd rehire Minter if he had to do it all over again.

He, better than anyone, knows what good coaching does to average talent. Good coaching with bad talent is vastly better than bad coaching with good talent.

 

[benneboy]

A-.

he gets the A simply because he has basically turned our entire program around in two years. For that alone I think he deserves his A-. He'll lose the minus when he starts to beat USC and he'll get the plus when he wins a championship

 

[bbrennan]

I have a hard time giving anything higher than a C, possibly a B- at best for on-field results. As Charlie has said 9-3 and 10-2 are not acceptable, not at ND. A lot is said about Willingham's poor recruiting, and I agree it was not up to ND standards. The education, tradition and exposure ND offered throughout Willingham's tenure should have resulted in our getting better talent, but CW did not come in with an empty cupboard on the offensive side of the ball.

In CW's first year, the O-line had some experience, BQ was a 2 year starter, DW was a returning starter, the receivers (Rhema and Stovall) were experienced, and Fasano was a very good TE. CW certainly did more with the talent then Willingham had done or could do. This year much the same on offense with a lot of the same guys. With CW's background I would not say this is exceedingly great.

On the defensive side of the ball I would say the entire team (players, coaches, etc) are average at best. We have not performed as a group better than our individual talents, which to me is what good coaching allows a team to do. While I believe Minter is a handicap, CW takes ultimate responsibility for our mediocrity on defense.

Recruiting under CW is simply what it should always be. Dont' give CW high grades in comparison to what Willingham and Davie did. The recruits CW is now getting are what ND should get. Again, our expectations should be higher than what they were before CW.

The area where I believe CW has excelled is in raising our expectations and bringing ND back into the national spotlight. CW says 9-3 is not good enough and that ND should expect to win national championships. I will not give him anything other than an average grade until this happens and even then will expect it to occur on a regular basis. WE ARE... ND!!!

 

[solo]

A-.

he gets the A simply because he has basically turned our entire program around in two years. For that alone I think he deserves his A-. He'll lose the minus when he starts to beat USC and he'll get the plus when he wins a championship

I think he's definitely got us moving in the right direction. Is that the same thing as saying he has "turned the program around"?

I do think that we are due for a rocky season next year. Probably 8 wins or so. We could be REALLY average next year. Take this years team and subtract the offense and what do you have?

So has he entirely turned things around? Maybe not quite yet. But after next year, the future looks bright.

 

[ACamp1900]

Solid A++ without a doubt... Only reason I would consider otherwise simply due to defense, but given what he inherited I can't hold that too much against him...

 

[jerseyborn1971]

I'll go with an A+. Why? People, Charlie Weis took a 6-6 team and went 19-5. Argue all you want, but that's a TREMENDOUS improvement on BOTH sides of the ball. Is the D National Champioship worthy? No, of course not. Look at his recruiting and what he as done already with 6-6 personnel and you get an A+. Anything else just seems to me like inflated expectations.

Ask yourself this honestly...after the last game of the 6-6 season, if someone told you that ND would go 19-5, go to 2 BCS games in a row, have the Maxwell Award winner and a Top 10 recruiting class 2 years in a row, would you say "Damn, that would be incredible!" or "That would be really good."

 

[njuneardave]

I'll go with an A+. Why? People, Charlie Weis took a 6-6 team and went 19-5. Argue all you want, but that's a TREMENDOUS improvement on BOTH sides of the ball. Is the D National Champioship worthy? No, of course not. Look at his recruiting and what he as done already with 6-6 personnel and you get an A+. Anything else just seems to me like inflated expectations.

Ask yourself this honestly...after the last game of the 6-6 season, if someone told you that ND would go 19-5, go to 2 BCS games in a row, have the Maxwell Award winner and a Top 10 recruiting class 2 years in a row, would you say "Damn, that would be incredible!" or "That would be really good."

2004 Results:

September 4 at Brigham Young L 20-17
September 11 No. 7 Michigan W 28-20
September 18 at Michigan State W 31-24
September 25 Washington W 38-3
October 2 No. 15 Purdue L 41-16
October 9 Stanford W 23-15
October 16 at Navy W 27-9
October 23 Boston College L 24-23
November 6 at No. 11 Tennessee W 17-13
November 13 Pittsburgh L 41-38
November 27 at No. 1 USC L 41-10
December 28 vs Oregon State L 38-21

 

[solo]

I'll go with an A+. Why? People, Charlie Weis took a 6-6 team and went 19-5. Argue all you want, but that's a TREMENDOUS improvement on BOTH sides of the ball. Is the D National Champioship worthy? No, of course not. Look at his recruiting and what he as done already with 6-6 personnel and you get an A+. Anything else just seems to me like inflated expectations.

Ask yourself this honestly...after the last game of the 6-6 season, if someone told you that ND would go 19-5, go to 2 BCS games in a row, have the Maxwell Award winner and a Top 10 recruiting class 2 years in a row, would you say "Damn, that would be incredible!" or "That would be really good."

I don't see improvement on both sides of the ball. I see:

1. Tremendous improvement offensively in Weis' first year. Zero impr0ovement offensively in Weis' 2nd year.

2. The defense has gotten worse in my opinion. Under the old regime we used to be able to stop the run, but not the pass. Now we do neither effectively.

Also, what do you think Tyrone's record would have been in the last 2 years? I bet Radio would have gone 16-8 over the same stretch. Of course this is speculation. But I think radio would have lost to Michigan last year anf lost to UCLA and Mich St this year. Other than that, he would have probably won the same games as Weis.

 

[ND Lifer]

I'd like o give him a high A++, but I can't. He has turned around the offense dramatically. However, the special teams are average at best and we all know that the defense has been well below average for two years with no trend towards improvement. Recruiting seems to be a real plus, but school is still out on his recruits. Charlie needs to become more of a "head coach" rather than a "head offensive coordinator coach". He has to do more with the defense and defensive recruiting. He also needs to address the special teams situation.

Therefore, since only 1 out of the 3 teams within the team have really shown improvement, the best I can give him is a B. The main thing is that the program seems to be going in the right direction.

By the way, I think next year ND will do much better than everyone seems to be predicting, assuming the defense shows some needed improvement.

 

[irish4life99]

My only concern is the lack of focus on the defense. I know it's an old cliche, but it's true. Defenses win Championships. Not one BCS championship defense has been ranked lower than 25th in the nation. Sometimes scoring 21 points has to be enough to win a game. I give CW a A-.

"Coming in and saying your going to change the attitude of a 100 guys is one thing, but to actually do it is another; and our coach has"
Darius Walker!

 

[jerseyborn1971]

2004 Results:

September 4 at Brigham Young L 20-17
September 11 No. 7 Michigan W 28-20
September 18 at Michigan State W 31-24
September 25 Washington W 38-3
October 2 No. 15 Purdue L 41-16
October 9 Stanford W 23-15
October 16 at Navy W 27-9
October 23 Boston College L 24-23
November 6 at No. 11 Tennessee W 17-13
November 13 Pittsburgh L 41-38
November 27 at No. 1 USC L 41-10
December 28 vs Oregon State L 38-21

Thanks Dave. I'm highjacking your info here. I'm wondering where this old regime defense is. I guess teams were just passing alot. C'mon people look at those numbers. If you can't see that the Weis defenses are better now than then, well, you're just ignoring scores and harping on your own frustrations that our D isn't national championship caliber yet. But I'm not buying that THIS 2004 defense is better than what we have now. For those actually looking at score, we had 30+ points dropped on us 4 times and 20+ dropped on us 8 times. This year we had 20+ dropped on us 5 times and 30+ dropped on us 3 times. Is that good? Not really. Is it better? Obviously. Any argument otherwise is simply subjective and unable to be proven so why bother.

 

[rontdtarchala]

C+ that is all, we must get better on the D side. Half of a team gets beat every time in big games...while CW takes blame for our d we all know where the blame lies....bottom line CW is the head coach and must be the major factor in turning it around...and he will!!! I don't believe we will be an 8 game winner next year I feel we will win 9/10 games...and I think our D will be vastly improved...if rookie mistakes can be kept to a minimum we just may be excellent....

 

[jerseyborn1971]

I am amazed. The guy brings this program back from being the laughing stock of college football and you people act like it was easy and anyone could do it. The guy took a team that was losing to teams like BYU, Purdue and Pitt to a team that loses 4 out of its 5 losses in 2 years to teams ranked #4 or higher, Grooms a Maxwell Award winning quarterback who will be a top 3 NFL draft pick, puts 5 guys in the Senior Bowl who will get drafted in the 1st or 2nd round, goes to 2 BCS games, improves a terrible defense from #75 in the country to a mediocre #50 in just 1 year with virtually NONE of his own recruits and all you people can say is....

the defense is bad.

Ungrateful. How quickly we forget. It's not being a homer to appreciate the strides this guy has made. It's not ignoring the problems we have to appreciate the strides the guy has made. A guy that has done a good enough job recruiting for us to believe he gets freshman and sophomores to 9/10 wins next year gets a C+. Jesus H., what does the guy need to do to get an A.

 

[irishranger]

Ame Jerseyborn! There seem to be alot of ungrateful fairweather fans out there! Are Jersey and I the only ones who remember the lean years? Patience people

 

[irish4life99]

C+ that is all, we must get better on the D side. Half of a team gets beat every time in big games...while CW takes blame for our d we all know where the blame lies....bottom line CW is the head coach and must be the major factor in turning it around...and he will!!! I don't believe we will be an 8 game winner next year I feel we will win 9/10 games...and I think our D will be vastly improved...if rookie mistakes can be kept to a minimum we just may be excellent....

C+ Ouch, glad I never had you grading me as a teacher. I would have gotten straight F's.

 

[solo]

Thanks Dave. I'm highjacking your info here. I'm wondering where this old regime defense is. I guess teams were just passing alot. C'mon people look at those numbers. If you can't see that the Weis defenses are better now than then, well, you're just ignoring scores and harping on your own frustrations that our D isn't national championship caliber yet. But I'm not buying that THIS 2004 defense is better than what we have now. For those actually looking at score, we had 30+ points dropped on us 4 times and 20+ dropped on us 8 times. This year we had 20+ dropped on us 5 times and 30+ dropped on us 3 times. Is that good? Not really. Is it better? Obviously. Any argument otherwise is simply subjective and unable to be proven so why bother.

Holy smokes. You are saying that YOUR stance is the only stance in this debate that can be proven? Did you compare the SOS for those seasons. Did you look at the quality of the opponents. Did you compare that to what the other 118 teams were doing those seasons? Or did you just look at the scores?

 

[UNTITLEDPROJECT]

Poll it.

 

[solo]

Thanks Dave. I'm highjacking your info here. I'm wondering where this old regime defense is. I guess teams were just passing alot. C'mon people look at those numbers. If you can't see that the Weis defenses are better now than then, well, you're just ignoring scores and harping on your own frustrations that our D isn't national championship caliber yet. But I'm not buying that THIS 2004 defense is better than what we have now. For those actually looking at score, we had 30+ points dropped on us 4 times and 20+ dropped on us 8 times. This year we had 20+ dropped on us 5 times and 30+ dropped on us 3 times. Is that good? Not really. Is it better? Obviously. Any argument otherwise is simply subjective and unable to be proven so why bother.

Let's look at the SOS for each season according to SAGARIN as well as how our defense compared to the other teams those years.

2004...We played the 5th hardest schedule and ended up 46th in points allowed per game

2005...14th hardest shcedule. We ended up 52nd in ppg

2006...20th hardest schedule. We are 57th in ppg

It appears by those numbers that the schedule has gottem easier yet the defense has gotten worse. This is still subjective, but so was your original post.

 

[nshope]

I'd give the big man a "B". No pluses, no minuses. The guy is doing what he was brought in to do. Win the games he should. The only fall-off so far is not "competing" in the big games. Of all the big ones in the past 2 years, we have 1 near win against USC and 3 BIG losses to Ohio State, Michigan, and USC.

I do love what he's doing, but when I compare our current program (not 2007, 2008, or 2009), I've got to give him a "B" because there are other programs out there in far worse shape than we are that can win a big oner. This year, we've had comebacks against teams we should've put away and big losses to teams we should've been competing with. Heck, if friggin' Oregon State and UCLA could beat USC, we sure as heck should've as well.

I'm not being negative. I'm just telling my honest opinion. I am a HUGE supporter of Charlie Weis and the future is looking sweet, like the days of old Lou.

 

[jerseyborn1971]

Let's look at the SOS for each season according to SAGARIN as well as how our defense compared to the other teams those years.

2004...We played the 5th hardest schedule and ended up 46th in points allowed per game

2005...14th hardest shcedule. We ended up 52nd in ppg

2006...20th hardest schedule. We are 57th in ppg

It appears by those numbers that the schedule has gottem easier yet the defense has gotten worse. This is still subjective, but so was your original post.

I give up. You're right. BYU, Purdue, PItt and BC were quality teams we should have lost to and given up 20+ points. That 2004 team is JUST as good as the 2006 version. From 6-6 to 19-5 means nothing and a monkey could have done it. Charlie Weis is average.

 

[solo]

I give up. You're right. BYU, Purdue, PItt and BC were quality teams we should have lost to and given up 20+ points. That 2004 team is JUST as good as the 2006 version. From 6-6 to 19-5 means nothing and a monkey could have done it. Charlie Weis is average.

No problem if you'd like to end ourt discussion. But before you engage in one of these debates, why not do some research and use some facts in your replies? We all are here stating our opinions. But it's good if you can back them up with facts.

You asked for proof that the defense was better in 2004. When I provided it, you got all huffy and sarcastic. What's that about?

 

[johnnd05]

I give up. You're right. BYU, Purdue, PItt and BC were quality teams we should have lost to and given up 20+ points. That 2004 team is JUST as good as the 2006 version. From 6-6 to 19-5 means nothing and a monkey could have done it. Charlie Weis is average.

LOL! Good job, Jerseyborn. (BTW, where in Jersey are you from?) What certain people seem unable to recognize is the value of consistency. Willingham inherited loads of talent and pulled of quite a number of "quality wins"; he was also a dreadful coach who lost regularly to schools like those listed above.

The 2004 defense had a ton more talent than this year's and was ranked ten spots higher. Whoop de do.

 

[solo]

LOL! Good job, Jerseyborn. (BTW, where in Jersey are you from?) What certain people seem unable to recognize is the value of consistency. Willingham inherited loads of talent and pulled of quite a number of "quality wins"; he was also a dreadful coach who lost regularly to schools like those listed above.

The 2004 defense had a ton more talent than this year's and was ranked ten spots higher. Whoop de do.

Not only ranked 10 spots higher, but ranked 10 spots higher against a lot harder schedule. The whole debate started when the point was made that in 2 years, Weis has made no progress on the defense and has actually slipped.

Jersey born is trying to say that the D has improved. The thing is, it just hasn't. And I didn't hear anyone say that Ty was a better coach (or even a good coach for that matter). Merely stating that this is an area where Weis has failed thus far and needs to improve.

 

[johnnd05]

Not only ranked 10 spots higher, but ranked 10 spots higher against a lot harder schedule. The whole debate started when the point was made that in 2 years, Weis has made no progress on the defense and has actually slipped.

Jersey born is trying to say that the D has improved. The thing is, it just hasn't. And I didn't hear anyone say that Ty was a better coach (or even a good coach for that matter). Merely stating that this is an area where Weis has failed thus far and needs to improve.

Point taken. But a big part of the reason for this statistical decline in defense is that Willingham's recruiting was horrendous. So claims of "no progress" or "failure" on the defensive end are clear overstatements, or at least aren't borne out just by bringing up statistics of the sort you did.