Jason Pham
Administrator
- Messages
- 2,608
- Reaction score
- 320
If Weis is indeed on his way out, Swarbrick and President Jenkins have much to lose if they are not prudent in their selection of our succeeding coach and the University may have much to gain if our Athletic Director decides, indeed, that his next hire will be "legacy building" as he told the New York Times in an interview earlier this week.
On another forum, a poster makes a poignant observation about the analysis of the crowd when under duress (i.e. a .500 season) and I thought it would be an interesting point of conversation and consideration.
The poster pointed out that a quiet few had predicted our eventual on-field failures and attributed these failures to poor recruiting and experience curve. The idea is that it takes five years to develop an offensive lineman and four or five to develop a defensive lineman to full potential since linemen develop by playing against their more experienced, upperclass teammates. Even given excellent coaching, under this logic, it would have taken several years to get back to the point where our lines were challenging each other and developping. Since we are only three years removed from the last recruiting class from the previous coaching staff, a class considered sparse, the play on our lines is, predictably, dismal.
Following this logic, is our reliance on the blitz on defense and the pass on offense a decidedly poor schematic plan or is it that our coaching staff was compensating for the as-predicted poor performance of the lines ? Considering how little pressure our defensive line would put on opposing quarterbacks when we did not blitz and the slow progress of the offensive line over Weis' tenure in dictating the line of scrimmage, I am inclined to think at least some of the decision-making resulted from our limited experience and development, neither of which fall entirely, if we accept the above five-year premise, on the current coaching staff.
This isn't to say that Weis definitely should or should not be fired. It should, however, put the wish-list of Notre Dame fans into perspective. If a change is to be made, and change at this point seems imminent, we must go after the maybe no more than half a dozen coaches who would be genuine improvements considering the rebuilding and recruiting situation of the Weis administration.
That in mind, the poster suggests that the going of Weis is not in itself an occasion for which to be enthusiastic. Though, personally, if we sign who we are rumored to be going after the hardest, I would be very enthusiastic.
In sum, we need to make sure that our "upgrade" truly is an "upgrade."
On another forum, a poster makes a poignant observation about the analysis of the crowd when under duress (i.e. a .500 season) and I thought it would be an interesting point of conversation and consideration.
The poster pointed out that a quiet few had predicted our eventual on-field failures and attributed these failures to poor recruiting and experience curve. The idea is that it takes five years to develop an offensive lineman and four or five to develop a defensive lineman to full potential since linemen develop by playing against their more experienced, upperclass teammates. Even given excellent coaching, under this logic, it would have taken several years to get back to the point where our lines were challenging each other and developping. Since we are only three years removed from the last recruiting class from the previous coaching staff, a class considered sparse, the play on our lines is, predictably, dismal.
Following this logic, is our reliance on the blitz on defense and the pass on offense a decidedly poor schematic plan or is it that our coaching staff was compensating for the as-predicted poor performance of the lines ? Considering how little pressure our defensive line would put on opposing quarterbacks when we did not blitz and the slow progress of the offensive line over Weis' tenure in dictating the line of scrimmage, I am inclined to think at least some of the decision-making resulted from our limited experience and development, neither of which fall entirely, if we accept the above five-year premise, on the current coaching staff.
This isn't to say that Weis definitely should or should not be fired. It should, however, put the wish-list of Notre Dame fans into perspective. If a change is to be made, and change at this point seems imminent, we must go after the maybe no more than half a dozen coaches who would be genuine improvements considering the rebuilding and recruiting situation of the Weis administration.
That in mind, the poster suggests that the going of Weis is not in itself an occasion for which to be enthusiastic. Though, personally, if we sign who we are rumored to be going after the hardest, I would be very enthusiastic.
In sum, we need to make sure that our "upgrade" truly is an "upgrade."
Last edited:
